The United States has now become the world leader in its rate of incarceration, locking up its citizens at 5-8 times the rate of other industrialized nations. So begins Marc Mauer's excellent post on TomPaine.com entitled "America has become incarceration nation". Some of the alarming statistics he reports:

There are now a record 2.2 million Americans incarcerated in the nation’s prisons and jails according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Since 1972 there has been a 500 percent increase in the number of people in prison.

Sixty percent of the prison population is African American and Latino, and if current trends continue, one of every three black males and one of every six Latino males born today can expect to go to prison at some point in his lifetime. The overall rates for women are lower, but the racial and ethnic disparities are similar and the growth rate of women’s incarceration is nearly double that of men over the past two decades.

The US corrections budget now totals $60 billion annually.

Drug policies have been responsible for a disproportionate share of the rise in the inmate population, with the 40,000 drug offenders in prison or jail in 1980 increasing to a half million today. A substantial body of research has documented that these laws have had virtually no effect on the drug trade, as measured by price or availability of drugs. Most of the drug offenders in prison are not the “kingpins” of the drug trade. Indeed, the low-level sellers who are incarcerated are rapidly replaced on the streets by others seeking economic gain.

And there's little evidence that our race to incarcerate has any substantial impact on crime rates:

While crime rates have been declining nationally for a decade, research to date demonstrates that expanded incarceration has, at best, been responsible for only a quarter of this decline. Other factors that played a key role include a strong economy in the 1990s that provided employment opportunities for low-skill workers, a marked decline in crack cocaine use and its associated violence by the early 1990s, and strategic community policing. New York City, which experienced a two-thirds reduction in homicides from 1990 to 2002, did so despite a one-third decline in its jail population during that period. And conversely, while Idaho led the nation with an astonishing 174 percent rise in its prison population, it nevertheless experienced a 14 percent rise in crime.

According to the author, areas that should be high on the reform agenda:

Crack cocaine sentencing reform—During the last 20 years, the federal sentencing laws for crack cocaine offenses have subjected thousands of low-level defendants to mandatory five- and 10-year prison terms, while exacerbating the racial dynamics of incarceration. More than 80 percent of the persons charged with these offenses are African Americans, who receive much stiffer terms than those meted out to powder cocaine defendants.

Mandatory sentencing reform—Congressional mandates to impose harsh sentences with no judicial input have created unfair and overly harsh penalties, and have been decried by the American Bar Association and Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, (Sacramento's own!) among many others.

Racial impact statements—Just as fiscal impact statements aid lawmakers in assessing the financial implications of sentencing policies, the preparation of racial impact assessments could provide similar benefits to policymakers. Had such assessments existed in 1986, we could have had a debate on the racial dynamics of the crack cocaine laws prior to their enactment, not 20 years later.

Felon disenfranchisement reform—Five million Americans could not participate in the November election due to a current or previous felony conviction. Laws that govern these practices are enacted by the states, but Congress has the authority to require uniform voting rules in federal elections. Legislation proposed by John Conyers in the House would require states to permit voting by any non-incarcerated person in federal elections, even if barred from participating in state elections.

And then, the author concludes citing several alternatives (dear to my heart) to our nation's shameful practices:

Both public safety and community health would be better served through investments in policies that promote job creation, high school graduation and substance abuse treatment.

Let's hope our governor incorporates plans for incarceration alternatives in the $11B prison reform program he announced yesterday. His previous program was voted down last fall. This time he calls for $4.4B to be spent on 78,000 new beds. Currently California is housing 174,000 in facilities that were built to hold 100,000. 17,000 of the overflow are living in gymnasium and classroom housing - so much for exercise of the body and the brain. Thankfully, he has asked for $1B for new beds to house 100,000 sick and mentally ill prisoners. Since President Reagan closed the mental hospitals in California in the 70's and nationwide in the 80's and never replaced them, as he promised, with community mental health facilities, many of the mentally ill are lingering in jail with little or no adequate treatment. Schwarzenegger has also proposed a review of sentencing laws in California. Currently, we have a mandatory 3-year parole period, no matter the crime, the longest of any state in the nation. His argument is that by reducing this period for less serious crimes, parole staff could spend more time tracking higher risk parolees. There is some money allocated for juveniles although there are no specifics.

What a waste we are making of our young people and minorities. We must offer them alternatives, motivation, role models, jobs, education, mental health and/or drug treatment. A life in prison is rarely the answer.

Gillian Parrillo
The Sacramento Executive