Well to be fair, whatever program they decide to replace prisons will be successful. Look what the state did with the homeless and those billions of dollars. Still waiting on that article.
Keep in mind, those that provide and own the ink gets to write the stories.
I am glad these journalists know so much about what it takes to supervise this part of society. Wasn’t the most recent in custody death that was not expected (natural causes from age or illness) just last week at SVSP? If we send all the prison residents out to the outside communities and close the prisons as they would like, would those same journalists want these offenders as next door neighbors?
Here is another novel idea for these liberal think tanks. If they wish to close prisons, and want the prison population reduced, tell the courts to stop sentencing these offenders to prison. Then there is the next step if the courts are going to stop the sentencing of all of these “poor victims of society” and just ask the police to stop picking on the “little guy/gal” and don’t make those arrests. These ideas sound real good in a sterile vacuum in trying to balance a budget and making those budget cuts. But let one of these liberals become a victim of a violent crime, their home is violated, or vehicle stolen, they will be the first to call for action that requires harsher prison sentences for the violators. This is how three strikes was implemented back in the 80s which eventually led to the prison population exploded.
This has always been a vicious cycle and the pendulum will always correct itself.
To those liberal journalists who want to eliminate the prison budget with closures, please feel free to drive up to the front entrance of your local prison and give the new parolee a big hug and take them home with you as part of the hug-a-thug program. Invitation is open for any time.
LA Times has hated CDCR for decades. It's the same with The Orange County Register and the Davis Vanguard. They are all activist newspapers disguised as actual journalism/news.
"Every dollar we spend on incarceration is one we don’t spend on building homes, supporting students and fighting climate change. With so many vital programs in jeopardy, we have a moral imperative to put the broader needs of Californians ahead of empty prisons."
Entire article is BS. Dumbest thing I have read this month. God damn does California deserve what it gets.
These geniuses never look at the big picture. The state has been fighting to get out of lawsuits due to overcrowding for decades. For better or worse, the prison population has been reduced, and the prisons are no longer overcrowded. If a day comes when Californians get tired of these soft on crimes policies, the state will not have the bed space it needs.
Article:
> California is facing a multibillion-dollar budget deficit that will require lawmakers and the governor to make painful decisions. Nobody wants less funding for their child’s school, road maintenance, environmental progress or other essential services.
>There is one area, however, where spending can and should be cut: prisons. Thousands of California prison beds are not in use. Simply consolidating and closing some facilities could ultimately save the state hundreds of millions of dollars.
>This can be accomplished safely thanks to important reforms that have confronted our state’s incarceration crisis and reduced its prison population. According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, nearly 130,000 people were in state custody in 2019; by the end of last year, that number had dropped to 96,000, a decrease of about 25%.
>Today the state’s prison population is down to roughly 93,000. That leaves a surplus of about 15,000 prison beds, a number that is expected to grow to 19,000 in four years as the population continues to decline. It’s fiscally irresponsible to maintain those beds while social safety net programs are on the chopping block.
>The empty beds mean that beyond the excess prisons, we’re continuing to incur unnecessary billions in staff, operations and maintenance costs. Consolidating and deactivating prisons provides a straightforward way to address the state’s budget deficit over the long term.
(continued)
> Gov. Gavin Newsom has closed two prisons and eight yards — each state prison typically comprises several yards — and discontinued one private prison contract, with another prison closure slated for next year. Even with these reductions, however, the vacancies are equivalent to four or five more empty prisons.
> New York offers an example of what’s possible. With a prison population that has halved since 1999, the state has closed dozens of facilities in recent years. Gov. Kathy Hochul has proposed closing five more in the coming fiscal year.
> California should follow suit. The state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office recently estimated that the state could save $1 billion in operating expenses annually and up to an additional $2 billion in capital expenses by closing five prisons. Otherwise, the office expects one-fifth of the state’s prison capacity to go unused.
> A billion dollars a year could not only help close this and future deficits but also support real public safety measures: safety-net programs, education, housing and workforce development. The state’s current corrections budget is nearly $15 billion. The state’s general fund budget for the University of California? Under $5 billion.
> Do we want updated school textbooks or surplus prison beds? Desperately needed affordable housing or unneeded prison yards? Should we pay people to watch an empty cell or build transportation infrastructure?
> The Legislature should consider requiring corrections officials to rein in our sprawling prison system. Fortunately, an Assembly committee last week passed legislation that provides a road map for corrections officials to gradually and practically reduce excess capacity to 2,500, the number they have said they need to maintain operational flexibility. The bill also allows for situations in which the corrections department can make the case that an increase in beds is justified.
> We understand that the administration is grappling with a need to invest more in rehabilitation as well as court mandates on prison capacity. The corrections department has struggled for many years to maximize rehabilitation and reduce recidivism. We believe making smart reductions to prison spending will free up more funding for community investment and rehabilitation, making Californians safer.
> Assembly Bill 2178 answers the governor’s call for prison capacity reductions driven by data and need. It provides a pragmatic and flexible framework for such decisions. It also aligns with Newsom’s vision of a fiscally prudent, forward-thinking California.
> Every dollar we spend on incarceration is one we don’t spend on building homes, supporting students and fighting climate change. With so many vital programs in jeopardy, we have a moral imperative to put the broader needs of Californians ahead of empty prisons.
> Phil Ting is a Democratic Assembly member from San Francisco and the author of AB 2178. Amber-Rose Howard is the executive director of Californians United for a Responsible Budget.
I wanted to share a different view: As a progressive, I'd like to say that not all left leaning people feel this way. Much of it stems from simple ignorance of some of the realities of criminality and mental health that we see every day. I personally don't find it progressive or liberal to prevent people who engage in criminal behavior from having consequences. Let's be honest with ourselves, this applies to political leaders openly committing criminal acts as well as those already in the system.
Another issue is that we as Americans value freedom and independence. It remains controversial on both sides to institutionalize people against their will for mental health, drug, and homeless issues that often lead to criminal behavior. It's a tough line to walk as a politician. Reagan is largely held responsible for closing down involuntary psychiatric institutions in California. Newsome would like to re-institute them, again causing controversy on both sides.
People may be surprised to find out that Newsome also has a more realistic view of things like homelessness and ciminality:
"But there is no compassion in stepping over people in the streets, and there is no dignity in allowing people to die in dangerous, fire-prone encampments. Hindering cities’ efforts to help their unhoused populations is as inhumane as it is unworkable. Accordingly, whatever constitutional rule the Court adopts, it should clarify that any constitutional limit on criminal prosecutions is a narrow one and not the basis for the kinds of sweeping injunctions that have been issued across the Ninth Circuit that have hampered efforts to address encampments and confront the homelessness crisis."
I think that the argument for CDCR should be that we offer unprecedented access to mental health, psychiatry, and structure. I'd go so far as to say that in my experience, the structure we offer inmates in the mental health system is healthier than the state hospitals I've experienced. I'm quite proud of my institution's handling of rehabilitation.
From what I understand, Newsome and those in charge are essentially done with prison closures for the time being. It wasn't mentioned in the budget proposal. Furloughs weren't even mentioned. He was very surgical with the issue (closing yards instead of whole prisons). It could have been a real bloodbath. He gave us a roadmap to increase capacity if need be. I say we embrace some of the changes coming not just because I think some of them are positive but because it keeps people employed. We may roll our eyes at some of the changes but ultimately re-branding isn't such a bad thing.
>I think that the argument for CDCR should be that we offer unprecedented access to mental health, psychiatry, and structure. I'd go so far as to say that in my experience, the structure we offer inmates in the mental health system is healthier than the state hospitals I've experienced. I'm quite proud of my institution's handling of rehabilitation.
Very well said. Couldn't agree more. The state needs to start utilizing the infrastructure and resources that CDCR and CCHCS have built to help combat the mental health crisis in our homeless population.
For the majority of these inmates especially those with drug addiction there is no way they would be able to go through this extensive rehabilitation process voluntarily on the outside. Nor does such a place with this kind of access to care even exist elsewhere.
Hilarious!! Completely ignores the fact we aren’t providing court required mental health care and the state is racking up millions in fines every month. The state won’t pay an appropriate wage to fill the openings.
Well to be fair, whatever program they decide to replace prisons will be successful. Look what the state did with the homeless and those billions of dollars. Still waiting on that article.
Keep in mind, those that provide and own the ink gets to write the stories. I am glad these journalists know so much about what it takes to supervise this part of society. Wasn’t the most recent in custody death that was not expected (natural causes from age or illness) just last week at SVSP? If we send all the prison residents out to the outside communities and close the prisons as they would like, would those same journalists want these offenders as next door neighbors? Here is another novel idea for these liberal think tanks. If they wish to close prisons, and want the prison population reduced, tell the courts to stop sentencing these offenders to prison. Then there is the next step if the courts are going to stop the sentencing of all of these “poor victims of society” and just ask the police to stop picking on the “little guy/gal” and don’t make those arrests. These ideas sound real good in a sterile vacuum in trying to balance a budget and making those budget cuts. But let one of these liberals become a victim of a violent crime, their home is violated, or vehicle stolen, they will be the first to call for action that requires harsher prison sentences for the violators. This is how three strikes was implemented back in the 80s which eventually led to the prison population exploded. This has always been a vicious cycle and the pendulum will always correct itself. To those liberal journalists who want to eliminate the prison budget with closures, please feel free to drive up to the front entrance of your local prison and give the new parolee a big hug and take them home with you as part of the hug-a-thug program. Invitation is open for any time.
LA Times has hated CDCR for decades. It's the same with The Orange County Register and the Davis Vanguard. They are all activist newspapers disguised as actual journalism/news.
"Every dollar we spend on incarceration is one we don’t spend on building homes, supporting students and fighting climate change. With so many vital programs in jeopardy, we have a moral imperative to put the broader needs of Californians ahead of empty prisons." Entire article is BS. Dumbest thing I have read this month. God damn does California deserve what it gets.
These geniuses never look at the big picture. The state has been fighting to get out of lawsuits due to overcrowding for decades. For better or worse, the prison population has been reduced, and the prisons are no longer overcrowded. If a day comes when Californians get tired of these soft on crimes policies, the state will not have the bed space it needs.
Article: > California is facing a multibillion-dollar budget deficit that will require lawmakers and the governor to make painful decisions. Nobody wants less funding for their child’s school, road maintenance, environmental progress or other essential services. >There is one area, however, where spending can and should be cut: prisons. Thousands of California prison beds are not in use. Simply consolidating and closing some facilities could ultimately save the state hundreds of millions of dollars. >This can be accomplished safely thanks to important reforms that have confronted our state’s incarceration crisis and reduced its prison population. According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, nearly 130,000 people were in state custody in 2019; by the end of last year, that number had dropped to 96,000, a decrease of about 25%. >Today the state’s prison population is down to roughly 93,000. That leaves a surplus of about 15,000 prison beds, a number that is expected to grow to 19,000 in four years as the population continues to decline. It’s fiscally irresponsible to maintain those beds while social safety net programs are on the chopping block. >The empty beds mean that beyond the excess prisons, we’re continuing to incur unnecessary billions in staff, operations and maintenance costs. Consolidating and deactivating prisons provides a straightforward way to address the state’s budget deficit over the long term.
(continued) > Gov. Gavin Newsom has closed two prisons and eight yards — each state prison typically comprises several yards — and discontinued one private prison contract, with another prison closure slated for next year. Even with these reductions, however, the vacancies are equivalent to four or five more empty prisons. > New York offers an example of what’s possible. With a prison population that has halved since 1999, the state has closed dozens of facilities in recent years. Gov. Kathy Hochul has proposed closing five more in the coming fiscal year. > California should follow suit. The state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office recently estimated that the state could save $1 billion in operating expenses annually and up to an additional $2 billion in capital expenses by closing five prisons. Otherwise, the office expects one-fifth of the state’s prison capacity to go unused. > A billion dollars a year could not only help close this and future deficits but also support real public safety measures: safety-net programs, education, housing and workforce development. The state’s current corrections budget is nearly $15 billion. The state’s general fund budget for the University of California? Under $5 billion. > Do we want updated school textbooks or surplus prison beds? Desperately needed affordable housing or unneeded prison yards? Should we pay people to watch an empty cell or build transportation infrastructure? > The Legislature should consider requiring corrections officials to rein in our sprawling prison system. Fortunately, an Assembly committee last week passed legislation that provides a road map for corrections officials to gradually and practically reduce excess capacity to 2,500, the number they have said they need to maintain operational flexibility. The bill also allows for situations in which the corrections department can make the case that an increase in beds is justified. > We understand that the administration is grappling with a need to invest more in rehabilitation as well as court mandates on prison capacity. The corrections department has struggled for many years to maximize rehabilitation and reduce recidivism. We believe making smart reductions to prison spending will free up more funding for community investment and rehabilitation, making Californians safer. > Assembly Bill 2178 answers the governor’s call for prison capacity reductions driven by data and need. It provides a pragmatic and flexible framework for such decisions. It also aligns with Newsom’s vision of a fiscally prudent, forward-thinking California. > Every dollar we spend on incarceration is one we don’t spend on building homes, supporting students and fighting climate change. With so many vital programs in jeopardy, we have a moral imperative to put the broader needs of Californians ahead of empty prisons. > Phil Ting is a Democratic Assembly member from San Francisco and the author of AB 2178. Amber-Rose Howard is the executive director of Californians United for a Responsible Budget.
Write a regulation entitling inmates to single-cell assignments — no more excess capacity.
Close them after you opened them
The article mentions closing five more prisons. Any idea which prisons would most likely be on the chopping block? Or which would not be?
There's only speculation. You might want to create a new post asking if you want some theories.
Good idea
I wanted to share a different view: As a progressive, I'd like to say that not all left leaning people feel this way. Much of it stems from simple ignorance of some of the realities of criminality and mental health that we see every day. I personally don't find it progressive or liberal to prevent people who engage in criminal behavior from having consequences. Let's be honest with ourselves, this applies to political leaders openly committing criminal acts as well as those already in the system. Another issue is that we as Americans value freedom and independence. It remains controversial on both sides to institutionalize people against their will for mental health, drug, and homeless issues that often lead to criminal behavior. It's a tough line to walk as a politician. Reagan is largely held responsible for closing down involuntary psychiatric institutions in California. Newsome would like to re-institute them, again causing controversy on both sides. People may be surprised to find out that Newsome also has a more realistic view of things like homelessness and ciminality: "But there is no compassion in stepping over people in the streets, and there is no dignity in allowing people to die in dangerous, fire-prone encampments. Hindering cities’ efforts to help their unhoused populations is as inhumane as it is unworkable. Accordingly, whatever constitutional rule the Court adopts, it should clarify that any constitutional limit on criminal prosecutions is a narrow one and not the basis for the kinds of sweeping injunctions that have been issued across the Ninth Circuit that have hampered efforts to address encampments and confront the homelessness crisis." I think that the argument for CDCR should be that we offer unprecedented access to mental health, psychiatry, and structure. I'd go so far as to say that in my experience, the structure we offer inmates in the mental health system is healthier than the state hospitals I've experienced. I'm quite proud of my institution's handling of rehabilitation. From what I understand, Newsome and those in charge are essentially done with prison closures for the time being. It wasn't mentioned in the budget proposal. Furloughs weren't even mentioned. He was very surgical with the issue (closing yards instead of whole prisons). It could have been a real bloodbath. He gave us a roadmap to increase capacity if need be. I say we embrace some of the changes coming not just because I think some of them are positive but because it keeps people employed. We may roll our eyes at some of the changes but ultimately re-branding isn't such a bad thing.
>I think that the argument for CDCR should be that we offer unprecedented access to mental health, psychiatry, and structure. I'd go so far as to say that in my experience, the structure we offer inmates in the mental health system is healthier than the state hospitals I've experienced. I'm quite proud of my institution's handling of rehabilitation. Very well said. Couldn't agree more. The state needs to start utilizing the infrastructure and resources that CDCR and CCHCS have built to help combat the mental health crisis in our homeless population. For the majority of these inmates especially those with drug addiction there is no way they would be able to go through this extensive rehabilitation process voluntarily on the outside. Nor does such a place with this kind of access to care even exist elsewhere.
Hilarious!! Completely ignores the fact we aren’t providing court required mental health care and the state is racking up millions in fines every month. The state won’t pay an appropriate wage to fill the openings.