California State Government is projected to have a $14.5 billion deficit for fiscal year 2008-09. This is a chronic and persistent problem. Virtually everyone who has examined California’s fiscal circumstances readily acknowledges that this problem will not be solved unless the State makes structural reforms that lead to a significant reduction in annual expenditures.
As part of his plan to reduce this deficit, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed the early release of about 22,000 nonviolent offenders from state prisons. Predictably, there is a hue and cry that the governor’s proposal will “endanger our communities” by exposing them to the “criminal element.” If horse manure were music, that charge would be a symphony. First, these are nonviolent offenders; and, second, they are set to be released anyway. The governor’s plan would only provide for earlier release than scheduled.
If the federal government did not have the authority to essentially print its own money and to operate with multi-trillion dollar deficits, the federal fiscal crisis would make CaliforniaState government’s fiscal condition seem like “chump change.”
As I have stated in another column, our federal and state criminal justice system is badly broken and needs precisely the kind of reform being proposed by Schwarzenegger. Not only is the current system costly; it is often foolish and contributes to a number of social problems that are worse than the so-called “punishment” that is being inflicted on the inmates.
I dislike writing about anything of which I know little. Thus, I have used the opportunity to visit a correctional institution – federal in this case – to gain a first-hand profile of those who inhabit such a facility and to determine the conditions that exist. I am sure that this column is as close as many Americans would choose to get to a prison anyway. The specific facility shall remain nameless so that I don’t subject the individuals responsible for my visit to any possible retaliation for the things that I am about to disclose.
At the outset, it is important for me to stress that this was a low security “working camp” for women. As such, it should be obvious that those housed in this facility are not typical of the prisoners that would be found in a higher security institution.
When I approached the gate, the sign proclaimed that it was a “Federal Correctional Institution.” This implied that the guards were involved in a project to “correct” the behavior of the inmates and to return them to society in a corrected form. I was about to learn how wrong that assumption is.
The feds should be charged with fraud for calling this a “correctional” institution. An institution…yes! But, there is little about the facility that can be even remotely described as “correctional.” The physical facility itself is decrepit, with dry rot, mold and probably asbestos. Most of the guards, it seems, have been instructed not to smile, either to inmates or visitors. And, their level of arrogance is astounding. This is not true of all the guards; in fact, I met several who conducted themselves professionally and with decency. But, those who evidence any hint of humanity are the exception rather than the rule.
On the day of the visit that formed the basis of this column, the temperature was about 42 degrees. Standing in such weather for nearly 20 minutes waiting to be admitted inside was a challenge even for a healthy “seasoned” citizen, let alone for elderly women and little children who were behind and in front of me. I guess the thought never occurs to anyone to let visitors come inside to form a waiting line rather than to stand outside.
My initial and recurring question was why are these people here? Inmates are not dragged into the gates of this place and thrown in a cell with locked doors. These women “self-surrender.” The campus is completely open, with no gates. Any inmate can essentially walk out anytime she wishes – and some have. It is basically an honor system. All of this confirms that this is, indeed, a “low security” operation – as it should be. At night, there is generally only one unarmed guard monitoring nearly 300 inmates. The question that screams out, again, is: Why are these women here when they could be home with their families “correcting” themselves in less costly, more effective programs and making restitution for the “crimes” for which they have been convicted? Instead, they are being confined at a cost to the taxpayers of $40,000 to $60,000 annually for each inmate – a total waste of public funds.
It is unfortunate that federal camps don’t have “open houses” now and then. If they did, the public could get some sense of how their tax dollars are being spent at these facilities.
Because most citizens have never set foot on the campuses of these institutions, they lack any knowledge about what goes on. As I soon learned, tax dollars are not the only thing being violated at this specific facility – and others like it, I am certain. The abject loss of human capital is also wasted.
The next column will discuss some of the correctional rules that exist at “CampFed.”