Patterico's Pontifications

4/23/2006

L.A. Times Runs Flawed Op-Ed on Parole Policy

Filed under: Crime,Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 8:34 pm



The L.A. Times runs an op-ed today about parole policy. It is by a visiting professor of law at Stanford, and another Stanford law prof who runs the University’s Criminal Justice Center.

You’d think that, if such distinguished academics were going to pontificate on the topic of, say, how long robbers must be imprisoned in California, they could get such a basic point correct. Alas, you’d be wrong:

Judges in California used to decide which sentences to impose on defendants, and the parole board had near-absolute discretion to decide when inmates were released. This system pleased neither liberals (it was too capricious) nor conservatives (it wasn’t tough enough).

So, in the 1970s, the Legislature adopted determinate sentencing. Judges handed out prison terms according to a fixed formula tied to the crime. For example, a robbery conviction translates into two, three or four years in prison. Inmates no longer have to earn their release because they are automatically freed once their set time is up. Even if a prison offers rehabilitation programs, inmates lack any incentive to enter them because they know when they’re getting out.

There are at least three things wrong in that passage.

First, a standard second-degree robbery conviction (virtually all robberies are second-degree robberies) results in a prison sentence of two, three, or five years — not four. It’s in California Penal Code section 213(a)(2). There is no robbery statute in California that is punishable by two, three, or four years in state prison. (If any of you want the satisfaction of forcing the L.A. Times to issue a correction, just write Jamie Gold at Readers.Rep@latimes.com and tell her this fact. I’m not going to bother, but you’re welcome to do it. Let me know in comments if you do, and we’ll watch for the correction and give you a virtual pat on the back when it appears.)

Second, in most cases, the stated sentence is not the actual sentence served, as the piece seems to imply — because prisoners can earn worktime credits against their sentence. When the authors say that robbery is punishable by two, three, or four (actually five) years in prison, they really mean it’s punishable by that amount minus any credits earned by the inmate. For violent crimes like robbery, their sentences are reduced by a maximum of only fifteen percent — so that, for example, a five-year sentence is actually about four years and three months. But for most crimes, prisoners can earn fifty percent credits while in prison, meaning their actual time served is about half of their stated sentence. This is true for almost any prison commitment for a non-violent offense where the convict has no prior convictions for serious or violent felonies. Your typical drug dealer or car thief serves only half of his sentence.

Third, it is misleading for the authors to say:

Inmates no longer have to earn their release because they are automatically freed once their set time is up. Even if a prison offers rehabilitation programs, inmates lack any incentive to enter them because they know when they’re getting out.

Wrong. Prisoners have a strong incentive to enter such programs. Worktime credits have to be earned — and rehabilitation programs count. California Penal Code section 2933 provides:

It is the intent of the Legislature that persons convicted of a crime and sentenced to the state prison under Section 1170 serve the entire sentence imposed by the court, except for a reduction in the time served in the custody of the Director of Corrections for performance in work, training or education programs established by the Director of Corrections. Worktime credits shall apply for performance in work assignments and performance in elementary, high school, or vocational education programs.

While it’s true that a guy serving four years for dealing crack knows that he will get out in four years even if he does squat, he also knows that he’ll get out in two if he goes with the program. Most people would prefer to get out of prison sooner, so most do what’s necessary to earn their credits. If they want to earn those credits by bettering themselves through work or training programs, the opportunity is there.

I’m not saying the program is perfect. Far from it! The authors are right that our recidivism rate is terrible — basically because people do bad things once on parole, and end up returning to prison again and again, one year at a time. (Parole violations generally result in a maximum incarceration of only one extra year — something else the profs forget to mention.) What can we do to fix this? I’m not sure. Maybe the profs’ prescriptions are right. But they make so many misstatements of fact that I’m a little leery of taking their pronouncements at face value.

UPDATE: Commenter JRM, who is in the same business, writes to say that he thinks prisoners can sit on their rear ends, avoid committing infractions, and earn their credits.

I haven’t worked in the prisons or dealt much with prison officials. My experience with this comes from 1) reading the statute, which seems to require participation, and 2) speaking with the Deputy District Attorney who worked on the habeas petition filed by Rafael Perez, seeking his full worktime credits. It’s a long story. I know from the story that, to earn credits, you have to be in state prison to earn your prison credits — you can’t earn prison credits sitting in County Jail.

But perhaps JRM is right that, in reality and contrary to the express terms of the statute, you can thumb your nose at prison officials, refuse to participate in programs, and still earn your credits. If that is true, then I apologize to the profs on that point. I still wish they knew that robbery was a 2-3-5 offense, but hey? who knows everything? Not them, and not me.

Any prison officials reading this blog who can answer this question?

3 Responses to “L.A. Times Runs Flawed Op-Ed on Parole Policy”

  1. I have arrived at the conclusion that fulltime law school instructors generally have no idea what they are doing. Especially post-FAIR. They teach (as opposed to practice) for a reason.

    After my first year in law school, I worked uniquely with practitioners for this reason. I had to actively unlearn during my first summer out trash passed off as legal training, and I in no way appreciated it. I am regularly astonished by assertions made by law school faculty that bear no relation to legal reality. The schools are off in their own little worlds.

    Federal Dog (49ba76)

  2. Little errors leak thru every day. Today’s Washington Post has a piece by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. that puts Eisenhower on the wrong continent during WW I.

    David Mastio (6ad4b5)

  3. If you think legal details are poorly done, try medical stories.

    Mike K (f89cb3)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0731 secs.