As the second year of the current legislative session gets rolling, capitol denizens are keenly aware that this is an election year. Among other things this means that about 100 members of the legislature are making sure they have a "good" legislative record in case crime becomes an issue in their campaigns.

Over the last two decades, state and national legislators in both parties have exploited public fears of crime by seeking to impose ever-longer prison sentences. Standing for stiff penalties carried a "tough on crime" aura that fit with the conventional wisdom that violent crime is a profitable 'hot button' item that played well in TV news bites. Now, however, the newly-installed beneficiaries of term limits are stuck with the fact that, despite the biggest prison building boom in history, the institutions are more crowded than ever. And it is clear that many of the inmates are minor offenders, guilty of low-level property and drug offenses, whose short terms might be better served in local facilities.

As a diversion from such realities, and as a Christmas present to a Democrat-controlled legislature, the Republican Governor joined with lobbying organizations representing district attorneys, police officials, and sheriffs to propose a lengthy list of amendments to the Penal Code. He promised to submit the entire list as a ballot initiative for the November election. Democrats noted that many items on the list were similar to bills that members of their caucus had previously introduced. However, they recalled that when the measures were heard before the Public Safety committees of both houses it became apparent that most of the proposals would do more harm than good and were shelved. Five of the failed measures on the Governor's list are named in the accompanying box.

SB 711 (Richard Mountjoy, R., Arcadia) limiting the number of juvenile proceedings held in confidence. FCL opposed the measure, arguing that there is already adequate publicity of juvenile proceedings involving serious offenses. We maintain that the public benefits when juveniles are able to become productive citizens without the stigma of a criminal record. The bill died in committee.

SB 1079 (Charles Calderon, D., Montebello) imposing the death penalty for gang-related murder. FCL opposed the bill which died in committee. (See piece on expanding the death penalty, this issue.)

SB 1293 (Adam Schiff, D., Pasadena) curtailing the juvenile court's discretion to hear cases of minors charged with murder or rape. In opposing the bill FCL argued that it is important to maintain judicial freedom when cases and circumstances are vastly different from one another. We also contended that there is no evidence that adult trials of such matters improve public safety. The bill was dropped by its author.

SB 1211 (James Brulte, R., Ranch Cucamonga) expanding the categories of 'serious' and 'violent' felony offenses, thereby vastly increasing the number of individuals receiving "life" sentences. The bill died in committee when it became clear that it would apply equally to relatively minor infractions like purse-snatching and theft of a pizza as well as to more serious offenses.

AB 5 (Debra Bowen, D., Torrance) prohibiting a court from placing wards in group homes housing six or fewer residents if the minor had committed a residential burglary or other serious crime. FCL opposed the bill, once again noting that all cases are different and judicial discretion in this area is most likely to enhance public safety. The bill died in committee.

(Box ends here)

Next the Legislators discovered that Congress had devised its own holiday greeting with a message similar to the Governor's. The federal appropriations bill for the Department of Justice ties grants for juvenile detention facilities, pretrial services, drug courts, and other programs to modifications of state juvenile court law. Among other things, in order to receive their money, states must consider expanding adult prosecution of minors charged with serious offenses, and restrict the confidentiality of juvenile records.

It seems that the Congress caved in to ill-founded contentions that the teen crime rate is at higher levels than in the past; the data indicate a 28% lower juvenile felony arrest rate in California in 1995 over 1980. National political leaders seem to have little confidence that local communities can keep their crime rates down as the teen population grows in the next few years. California, as a bellwether state, is in a position to show them the error of their ways.

In the harsh give and take of politics, it is important for citizens and elected officials to know that neighborhood crime rates are falling -- often because the community is looking after itself. In the next few months, grass roots organizers will have opportunities to make it politically attractive for candidates to spend significant time campaigning with people who are shoring up the underpinnings of the community, strengthening the ties that hold it together, and working to build character in their children. Community organizing can be more potent as a political force than the mere endorsement of a candidate by a sheriff, chief of police, or public official. It can influence those endorsements, and it can be the key to winning a close race. And when election year hearings serve as a platform for the campaign to come, we can recognize that the extra effort reasoned discussion demands often pays off handsomely.

Steve Birdlebough

The Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy (Little Hoover Commission) has just completed a review of the crisis in prison overcrowding. The billions of dollars spent on new prison construction has not solved the problem and no solution is in sight.

The Commission found compelling evidence that the apalling overcrowding of prisoners is not just the outgrowth of tougher sentences for violent crimes. It is compounded by inappropriate incarceration of low-level property offenders, by choosing to lock up substance abusers instead of treating them, and by an excessive and distressing incidence of parole failures. The accompanying charts derived from CDC data bear out these findings dramatically.

(charts are inserted here)

The Commission recommended a two-pronged approach to this crisis. First, they urge greater emphasis on "intermediate sanctions", a tactic that could result the flow of new commitments to prison. Second, they advocate several measures to assure that once released, a prisoner will not re-offend and be returned to custody. Strategies here include enlargement of drug treatment programs, provision of more educational programs to equip inmates for return to society, and more assistance to parolees.

The Wilson Administration's initial response to the report was hostile. Representatives of the Governor and the California Department of Corrections (CDC) contended that jails and prisons provide , on balance, more protections than dangers for society and emphasized a view that the purpose of prison is to house inmates, not to treat them.

We hope that sober reflection on the situation will cause the administration to recognize that incarceration without realistic effort directed toward improving prisoners can be brutalizing both for the inmates and for the custodial staff. There are better alternatives than making the "warehousing" of prisoners a primary goal. It has been demonstrated that programs for inmates can develop social skills, provide training, extend education, and instill attitudes that can lead more individuals to become productive, tax-paying citizens when they are released to the community.

The Commission gives special recognition to a very successful drug rehabilitation programs at the Richard J.Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego. It is widely acknowledged that drug and alcohol related offenses -- substance abuse -- make up more than 80% of commitments to jail and prison. Clearly the CDC needs to intensify its efforts to deal with addictions and dependencies of inmates. The report also notes that drug courts in many counties appear to have had considerable success in redirecting drug-dependent lives. Greater reliance on such courts could minimize the need to send substance abusers to prison.

The Commission's report provides useful information and could prove to be a blueprint for rational response to an impending crisis. It should not be left to gather dust on the bookshelf of the Department of Corrections.

The full report can be obtained from the Little Hoover Commission, 660 J Street, Ste. 260, Sacramento, CA 95814; phone: (916)322-7709, e-mail: little.hoover@lhc.ca.gov

Reviewed briefly below are two recent publications that bear on and are likely to influence the ongoing debate over criminal justice issues.

Teens and Crime

A recent RAND Corporation briefing curiously entitled The Coming Wave of Violence in California questions the assertion that seems to underlie Federal legislation that California should be expecting a marked increase in juvenile violence as a result of the increasing numbers of teens in our inner cities. The RAND research suggests that the behavior patterns of young people will have a far greater impact on levels of crime than will the mere effects of population growth. The proportion in the general population of the most violent-prone individuals, the 15-24 year-old group, will increas slightly in the next decade. However, this is not a signal that violent behavior will change accordingly.