California Pays the Price for Shortsighted Prison Policy
Another problem is that California prison guards are very well paid. The San Diego Union-Tribune pointed out in 2006 that about one-tenth of California’s prison guards make more than $100,000 a year, because of good pay and overtime. Being a prison guard is a rough job; you have to deal with the scum of society, and a very common form of assault is having prisoners throw various bodily fluids at you. It is an ugly job -- but then again, prison guards in many other states do not get paid anywhere near that well. My state, for example, hires prison guards at $13.14 per hour, which is about $27,000 per year. Part of the reason for California’s remarkable pay (even for an expensive cost of living state like California) is that the guards have a very powerful union, and Californians, in spite of their liberalism, don’t want criminals released from prison.
The ACLU wants California to stop the overcrowding of its prisons, yet it appears that they also want those prisons to be very expensive: bingo boards? Basketball courts? Yoga rooms? If you read the ACLU’s press release on the subject, you can see that this is just a method of achieving their actual goal: decriminalization of personal quantities of drugs (not just marijuana, which won’t get you prison time in California), and reducing “non-violent property offenses” from felonies to misdemeanors.
This carrot and stick approach is not new for the ACLU. Back in the 1960s, the ACLU decided that they were going to largely eliminate involuntary commitment of the mentally ill, and they used a similar strategy. In Wyatt v. Stickney (M.D.Ala. 1972), the ACLU sued Alabama for the inhumane state of its mental hospitals -- and indeed, the director of the Alabama mental hospital system invited the suit. The circumstances were deplorable and conditions were indeed shocking, much as California’s prison system is. Some of what the judge imposed as “Minimum Constitutional Standards for Adequate Treatment of the Mentally Ill” did have some Constitutional basis: for example, “an unrestricted right to send sealed mail” and to receive mail from attorneys, courts, and government officials.
Other parts of the decision, however, included a very detailed list of exactly how many employees in different job classifications the state mental hospital had to have for each of the 250 patients -- right down to the number of Clerk Stenographer II positions (three), the number of Clerk Typist II positions (three), cooks, vehicle drivers, and similar support positions. This level of detail seems more like a judge substituting his judgment for that of the legislature, rather than deciding points of law. We now know that the ACLU’s goal was not humane mental hospital treatment, but to force the states to either spend astonishing amounts of money, or to empty out the mental hospitals and make it difficult to hospitalize those who were in need of help. The consequences are visible in every major city today.
The dissents by Justice Scalia and Justice Alito both raise important points about the dangers of federal judges overriding what are primarily legislative decisions -- substituting their judgment for that of the people. Nonetheless, as much as we want to be angry at the opinion of the Court, there is clearly something terribly wrong with California's government.
They refuse to take steps to discourage illegal immigration. This is a non-trivial part of their prison population. They refuse to take steps to discourage the culture of criminality that now dominates inner cities. They do have time to debate whether to require history classes to study “roles and contributions” of “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans.” I fear that if California voters do not start providing some adult supervision to their state government, we are going to end up with a judicially imposed mess equivalent to the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill.