California Prison System: Case Study
M7A1 Case Study 3:
California Prison System
AB 109 and AB 117 were introduced to ease the pressure of the federal and state budget through saving costs on the penitentiary system. In this regard, the reduction of the prison population and the transfer of a part of the prison population to county jails was one of the main provisions of AB 109 but AB 117 actually discharges provisions of AB 109. Such a paradoxical situation is the result of scarce financial resources to fund the penitentiary system at both the federal and local level. In order to reduce the pressure on the penitentiary system at the federal level, the decision to transfer the prison population to county jails or to release the prison population sentenced for minor crimes. Thus, AB 109 was introduced. AB 109 implied the transfer of a part of the prison population to county jails and release of inmates sentenced for minor crimes. To define those inmates, who could be released, the state authorities attempted to categorize inmates depending on their crimes and sentences. In such a way, they attempted to identify the least publicly dangerous group of inmates that could be released to ease the pressure on the federal and state budget.
However, the transfer of the prison population and release of a part of inmate has proved to be technically impossible because of the lack of funds to cover costs of such changes and to transfer the prison population to county jails. This is why AB 117 that discharged provisions of AB 109 was introduced because the state just could not afford the implementation of provisions introduced by 109. As a result, at the moment, the state penitentiary system still suffers from the growing prison population, on the one hand, and the lack of funding of the penitentiary system, on the other.
In such a way, the policy makers attempt to resolve the problem of the lack of funding of the penitentiary system aggravated by the growing prison
California Prison System
AB 109 and AB 117 were introduced to ease the pressure of the federal and state budget through saving costs on the penitentiary system. In this regard, the reduction of the prison population and the transfer of a part of the prison population to county jails was one of the main provisions of AB 109 but AB 117 actually discharges provisions of AB 109. Such a paradoxical situation is the result of scarce financial resources to fund the penitentiary system at both the federal and local level. In order to reduce the pressure on the penitentiary system at the federal level, the decision to transfer the prison population to county jails or to release the prison population sentenced for minor crimes. Thus, AB 109 was introduced. AB 109 implied the transfer of a part of the prison population to county jails and release of inmates sentenced for minor crimes. To define those inmates, who could be released, the state authorities attempted to categorize inmates depending on their crimes and sentences. In such a way, they attempted to identify the least publicly dangerous group of inmates that could be released to ease the pressure on the federal and state budget.
However, the transfer of the prison population and release of a part of inmate has proved to be technically impossible because of the lack of funds to cover costs of such changes and to transfer the prison population to county jails. This is why AB 117 that discharged provisions of AB 109 was introduced because the state just could not afford the implementation of provisions introduced by 109. As a result, at the moment, the state penitentiary system still suffers from the growing prison population, on the one hand, and the lack of funding of the penitentiary system, on the other.
In such a way, the policy makers attempt to resolve the problem of the lack of funding of the penitentiary system aggravated by the growing prison
References: California Corrections Chief Matthew Cate on Supreme Court 's Prison Overcrowding Order. YouTube website. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zs8e90Jt1g California Prison Plan. YouTube website. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kF1n_Px75yg&feature=related Egelko, B. (2011, May 24). California must cut prison population by 30,000. SFGate website. Retrieved from http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-05-24/news/30222635_1_prison-population-inmates-prison-director Proposed Bills AB109 and AB 117, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Retrieved from http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/About_CDCR/docs/Realignment-Fact-Sheet.pdf US Supreme Court decision in Brown, Governor of California, et al. v. Plata et al. Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf