Two recent developments regarding California’s overcrowded prisons could have a tremendous effect on the north state and need to be carefully considered together.
The first is a plan proposed by the Governor to release non-violent, low-risk prisoners early to deal with overcrowding and save the state some money.
The second development has to do with the proposal to construct a “transitional housing” facility in the Redding area for people nearing the ends of their sentences to state prison. The idea behind the transitional facility is, as I understand it, to help these people learn how to get along in society so they can do well after they are no longer incarcerated. That, as a concept, is something that we all should applaud. After all, it is in everybody’s interest to see anyone released from state prison do well, walk the straight and narrow and stay out of trouble.
The people eligible for the early release program will be those who have a relatively short time left on their sentences. The same is true of those eligible to go into the “transitional” facility. They also will have a relatively short time left to serve.
So, ask yourself this, if the non-violent and low-risk offenders are to be released early, who will be in the “transitional” prison in our back yard?
There is a defined population of prisoners who would qualify for these programs. The common denominator among them is that they have only a short time to go before their sentences are up. So if the low-risk and non-violent short-timers are to be simply let go, what kind of short-timers are left to go into the “transitional” facilities?
Violent and high-risk short-timers are what are left: People who do not qualify for the early-release program because they are either too violent or too high-risk (or both) to simply be released.
By the way, in this context, high-risk means likely to commit another crime.
The whole point of a facility that helps prisoners transition back into society is that the program includes a certain level of contact between the prisoners and the community in which they live. How could a program designed to help prisoners learn to operate lawfully in society do that without having them operate in society? We have to assume that some of them will have families who will move here to be close to them in their new home. We have to assume that some of the felons or their families will see the same wonderful reasons we see to live here and decide to stay.
As you think about this proposal, remember several things. Remember that the prisoners who make it through the program will be released after intermingling with the community for about a year.
Remember that every released prisoner will be replaced by a new prisoner who could not qualify for straight up early release.
Remember that this proposal is for a 500-prisoner facility. I am sure that there are lots of arguments for this facility, but I keep coming back to the idea that it will be bringing 500 violent and/or high-risk felons into Redding every year. Some are bound to be gang members, maybe even gang leaders. Some of them will stay here or come back here. And many of them will offend again, either during their transitional period, or after it.
Frankly, I was not in love with this plan before I heard about early release for the only people who belong in such an arrangement: low-risk, non-violent prisoners. They are the only group with a real chance of success in this program and the ones who do not cause an unacceptable risk for the community. However, the plan is that they will be let go, leaving the hard-core ones for us to deal with.
I am not usually a NIMBY, but in this case I say: Not in My Back Yard.
And if a bunch of us do not start saying it loud and clear, we are going to find out what a violent and/or high-risk felon revolving door looks like.
Right here in River City.
Dugan Barr started practicing law in Redding in 1967 as an insurance defense lawyer working for William W. Coshow
In 1973, he formed his own firm doing plaintiff and defense work, primarily in the areas of personal injury and wrongful death. Since that time he has tried more than 200 civil jury cases to verdict. These cases cover a broad spectrum of the law,including personal injury, wrongful death, products liability, airplane crashes, boating accidents, dangerous condition of public property, legal malpractice, medical malpractice, realtor malpractice, accountant malpractice, insurance bad faith, lender liability and securities fraud.
He is married and has five children.
The offices of Barr & Mudford, LLP, are located at 1824 Court St. in Redding and can be reached at 243-8008.
