Prison overcrowding works against prison reform

Watch NAACP Report Calls Shift in Funding Toward Prisons 'Alarming' on PBS. See more from PBS 

 NEWSHOUR.

A switch in policies and spending

In the 1970’s and 1980’s California was known for its exceptional higher leaning provided by the state, with 3% of state budgets being spent on corrections and 11% spent on college funding. However today, the perception of state colleges in California has declined as there has been a rise to 10% spending on correctional systems and an equal drop to 7% of the state budget on college funding.

So what can be done to alleviate the number of prisoners in the system?

The United States Department of Justice found that in 2005, federal prisons operated at an average of 134 percent capacity and state prisons operated at an average of 107 percent above capacity. American Legislative Exchange Council found that Conditional Post-Convictional Release be the best way to combine offenders serving out their sentences, moving them out of the system, and keeping recidivism rates low.  Conditional Post-Conviction Early Release would rely on performance bonds and security or indemnity agreements to keep participants from committing new crimes and assure their prompt return to custody should they misbehave. 

The Conditional Post-Conviction Release would work as follows:

• Legislatively defined participants would be chosen
  by parole officials at the penitentiary level and
  judges at the trial level (hereafter referred to as
  releasing authorities).
  
  
  
  
• Participants would be released from confinement
  under the terms and conditions of a performance
  bond. The bond would require a surety, (financial
  guarantor) by a qualified insurance company. The
  terms and conditions of the performance bond
  would have to be fully met at all times in order for
  the participant to remain in society.
  
  
   
  
  
• Failure of the releasee to meet numerous
  requirements such as house arrest, regular drug
  testing, recovery program involvement, mandatory
  check-in requirements, non-interference with
  witnesses or victims, maintenance of gainful
  employment, payment of restitution, and no
  subsequent arrests or any additional requirements
  would obligate the surety to promptly return
  the releasee to custody thus safeguarding the 
  community. Failure to so perform would subject the
  surety to full financial penalty under the bond.
  
  
  • Persons in the participant’s release environment,
  such as parents and guardians, would voluntarily
  sign “agreements of indemnity” whereby they,
  along with the individual would have a monetary
  incentive, as indemnitors to the surety, to encourage
  compliance by the participant. If there is a violation
  of the bond, the family as well as the offender
  would be drawn into the circle of responsibility.
  
  
  • Upon the breach of any single condition of release,
  the bond could be revoked by the court, a warrant
  would be issued and the participant re-incarcerated, and the
  surety required to pay a financial penalty to the state
  in the alternative.