Gov. Schwarzenegger’s proposed prisoner release has angered Bakersfield city officials, and, indeed, the move gives rise to concern for our community. Much has already been said by the Board of Supervisors and by our District Attorney against the Governor’s plan to the extent that Kern County supervisor Michael Rubio even suggested busing the some 1,280 released prisoners from Kern County off to Beverly Hills.
We recognize the impact that this plan may have socially, and we recognize that the crime rate may rise.
However, more importantly, it is likely that the county and taxpayers will end up footing the bill when the prisoners become repeat offenders, if they aren’t already. How much money will really be saved if even 50 percent of the 22,000 California prisoners are released and then arrested again? They will still be housed in county and city jails. They will have new trials, with new juries, same judges and prosecutors, all so they end up right back where they are now and costing the state the same amount per head. However, we have to pay for the process.
This is not a new plan. Former Maryland Gov. Michael Dukakis took heavy criticism when he endorsed a prisoner furlough program that resulted in convicted murderer William Horton being released, who then raped a woman and assaulted her husband. This fact did irreparable harm to Dukakis when he ran for president against George Bush Sr. in the 1988 presidential election.
Although Schwarzenegger’s plan doesn’t include the release of criminals charged with violent crimes, we can’t help but be apprehensive.
One issue is rehabilitation. If prisoners are just suddenly let loose, it is very likely they will revert back to their old ways. For some prisoners, the only way of life that they know of is the criminal life. For other criminals who may want to change, they won’t have much of an opportunity if assistance isn’t available. Everyone has the ability to change; anyone who wants to change just needs the incentive.
Another issue, as Kern County District Attorney Ed Jagels has pointed out, is that this action is paramount to the “de-criminalization of most property and narcotics crimes,” an aspect that is not wholly unappealing but could have an adverse impact on our community as well.
Overall, the plan appears to be an aggressive approach in closing the gap in the state deficit with very little chance of success, unless you define success by saving the state money and giving counties and cities the shaft. In the governor’s defense, no matter what they do, they are damned. They will have to either raise taxes or cut spending somewhere in order to reduce the California deficit. In other words, there is no right answer, but we believe that this is definitely the wrong one.