Reducing Prison Overcrowding

Reducing Prison Overcrowding
Name:
Institution:
Abstract
This project focus is on formulating a policy that addresses how the problem of prisons overcrowding in the State of California can be tackled. Relevant statistics, facts, resources, and public opinions will be used to develop the policy. An introduction will be provided about the formulation of this policy followed by an analysis and evaluation of the benefits of implementing this policy as well recommendations that can be done on it. The report will conclude by looking at the impact that the policy can bring about.
Introduction
California is the 2nd most overcrowded state prison systems in US after Alabama. In 1994 factors such as political influence that suggested that the state was soft on law led to introduction of "the three strike law." What followed was a decrease in crime but an increase in prison population (Marion & Oliver, 2006 p. 112). This explains why it highly overcrowded and also explains why California has more inmates in overall than any other state apart from Texas. According to California Department of Rehabilitation California had 155,045 inmates as opposed to the intended capacity based on facilities of 81,157 inmates. Laws such as "the three strike" will continue to cause prison overcrowding unless such a law is reviewed.
Objectives
This project aims to demonstrate how this policy can be effective in helping the California Department of Justice solve the issue of overcrowding and meet the population cap ordered by the Supreme Court for its prisons to reduce the inmate population to no less than 137.5 % by 2016.
Scope
This project will provide a brief history of the California justice system. The role of the proposed policy on inmate population reduction will be discussed.
Methodology
The basis of this report is on exploratory research where literature research has been done of the American Prison Systems specifically in California to understand the state’s approach to de-congesting prisons. The financial aspect of holding inmates has also been considered. Evaluations of the policy formulation was then done and the implementation of the process.
Background
There has been a steady increase in prison population in the State of California from the 1980s to date. Although there was an increase in crimes from 1960 to 1990s, research show that this increase was mainly due to drug offences (Golaszewski, et al. 2011, p. 20). In 1994 factors such as political influence that suggested that the state was soft on law led to introduction of "the three strike law". What followed was a decrease in crime but an increase in prison population. In 2003, the US Supreme Court found that the overcrowding of this prisons is causing suffering conditions, abuse to human rights and death. However, the remedial efforts ordered by the court had not be implemented by the state 12 years later. According to the report by a special master team appointed to oversee the remedial efforts, the situation had rather deteriorated due to the increased overcrowding.
In its 2011 ruling, the supreme according to what it referred as below the standard of decency, ordered the prisons in California to reduce the population of its inmates by 137.5 %. With the June 2014 deadline approaching, the prison’s officials asked for more time and which was extended to 2016 (CDCR, 2012 p. 8). The prison’s officials are using the policy known as re-alignment to shift the state prisoners from state prisons to smaller county facilities. However, this policy is not effective as the county prisons are not designed to house prisoners for long.
Rationale
The first justification is that implementation of the proposed policy would reduce overcrowding and therefore have a positive impact on contemporary criminal justices issues and globalization issues facing prisoners. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS, 2012 p. 5), in 2006, the prison system in California was crowded by 202% from its intended capacity. The 33 prisons in California are currently 145% crowded of capacity, with over 100,000 inmates in prisons designed to hold a capacity of 79,000 (BJS, 2012 p. 5).
Another impact is the reduction in the high economical costs that comes from the mass incarceration of inmates in the United States. According to the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, average cost of incarceration in Federal prisons in Fiscal 2010 per inmate was $28,284 per year. The cost reduces at the Federal Community Corrections Centers where the annual cost was $25,835 in 2010. The total cost to the taxpayers is $39 billion according to a research that was conducted by researchers from Vera Institute of Justice Center (CDCR, 2012 p. 12).
In California in the Fiscal year 2010, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) the prison expenditures was $7 billion. However, the state had about $969.7 million in other prison-related costs which were outside the CDCR budget. The total cost of incarcerate based on average daily population of 167,276 inmates amounted to $7.9 billion, with 12.2 % being costs outside the department’s budget. Historically, statistics shows that California criminal justice spending than total state spending as reflected in the graph 2 below.
Sources: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR, 2012).
Source: (CJSC, 2012 p. 16).
Policy Formulation Process
The formulation of this policy will follow the five steps of policy formulation in the United States as discussed below.
1 The definition of the problems affecting the prisons system
2 Identification of the causes of these problems
3 Identification of alternative ways of solving the problem
4 Selection of the most appropriate and satisfactory solution
5 Operationalization of the selected solution in terms of a particular policy or policies.
Policy Evaluation
* Non-custodial Sentence
The Criminal Justice should implement a policy that enforces non-custodial sentence to less serious crimes and replace it with the short term custodial sentence. Although, the Criminal Justice Act of 2003 has this legislation in place, the three strike law makes its enforcement difficult. This policy proposal is therefore of the opinion that the three strike rule be ruled out except for the very serious crimes. The policy also proposes a reduction of sentencing to less offences (Dunn, 2008 p. 96). There ...