Too Many Jails/Not Enough Imagination

So here we are, as the Associated Press (AP) reports, with more people incarcerted per capita than ever before (one in 99), and we are still somehow talking about building more jails. Looked at in the microcosm of Santa Barbara County, it might make some sense to build a modest facility in North County (the place generating more felony arrests), to deal with a long-standing concern (mostly among law enforcement officials) that there is an over-crowding problem. But where does this ultimately lead us? You guessed it: further down the path toward a bankruptcy of money and good ideas. Sheriff Bill Brown is trying to raise at least $90 million dollars to build a new jail facility. I wonder if he, or anyone else, has asked what the impact of that money would be (or even half of it) were we to devote it to some of the neglected social services that don't have nearly the political power of a Sheriff. What about County Mental Health Services or, for that matter, the County Probation Department? Ask the Chief Probation Officer what could be done in terms of added personnel and community supervision if they had an additional $10 million in their budget. There are any number of agencies, departments and non-profits which are already doing well to combat the core problems leading to crime that can be combatted. The big three are: Mental Illness, Poverty and Substance Abuse. Why don't we support them in their effective and laudable efforts in crime prevention; and, more fundamentally, giving disadvantaged and wayward people a chance to succeed without resorting to crime?

The Pew report, cited in the AP article, was compiled by the Center on the State's Public Safety Performance Project, which is working directly with 13 states on developing programs to divert offenders from prison without jeopardizing public safety.

"For all the money spent on corrections today, there hasn't been a clear and convincing return for public safety," said the project's director, Adam Gelb.

I think the same might be true here in Santa Barbara. I encourage Sheriff Brown, and others in charge of our money, to put more thought into jail alternatives. Maybe we can do our part to show others that more people incarcerated is not the answer to the problem, but rather is the problem itself.

If You Build It...

I need to go on record about something. I used to work in a county that had recently built a new jail facility. What I noticed was that people were doing real jail time for a variety of the least serious crimes (the most noteworthy being "Driving on a Suspended Licensed"). People with priors were being thrown by red-faced judges into jail for lengthy stints in actual jail. Also, the equivalent of the most common jail alternative, the Sheriff's Work Alternative Program (SWAP), which was called "Work Release", had a couple of special rules that prevented many defendants from entering the program. For example, if the defendant had ever been arrested for resisting arrest (not necessarily convicted, just arrested), then into jail they went; no jail alternatives. Also, if the defendant was serving a sentence for any act of domestic violence, no work program; just jail. I predict the same will happen in Santa Barbara. Yes, there is a jail over crowding program, but the severity of it is debatable. Moreover, if the prevention programs that are supposed to tied to the program are effective, then that too should lessen the inmate population.

Now I don't doubt the sincerity of Sheriff Bill Brown, in his quest for a new jail facility, for a minute. But asking a sheriff whether jails are a good thing is kind of like asking a queen bee whether hives are a good thing. As Max Weber pointed out, bureaucracies must grow; that is what they do. They don't necessarily intend to grow, but growing brings so many collateral benefits to the individual actors, that they do so naturally and instinctively. They draw more funding, more employees, and sooner or later they are bigger of a big shot, and are making a bigger salary with a better retirement.

I have another prediction. The so-called anti-recidivism and other prevention programming that are NOW tied to the new jail proposal are going to fall by the wayside in the name of fiscal responsibility. The true purpose of the money now being sought from the County, directly from the taxpayers, and the State, is to build a new jail facility, not to trump years of budget cuts of social welfare. It sounds great, of course, to increase spending on mental health programs, homeless shelters, drug rehabilitation, etc. However, it will be easy to dump these as "pie in the sky", and generally unsatisfying expenditures that we just can't afford. The success of these programs is hard measure. The success of a jail, however, is easy to measure. If it's full of inmates; it must be working!

More reason than ever to Not Drink and Drive

I am mourning for the people who don't get it yet. Maybe you are one of them. You might be one of the many people who still lives in a blissful state of ignorance about just how bad of an idea it is to go out somewhere to drink 2 or more drinks and then drive home. No, I'm not talking about the fact that it would suck if you got pulled over and arrested for DUI. And it would. It's a big hassle, of course. You might go to jail (at least for a number of hours), you might have to hire a lawyer, you might have to pay a big fine, take a class, pay higher insurance rates into the foreseeable future etc. etc. No, that's not what I'm mourning. A simple DUI can function as a wake-up call to some; even the arrest can be enough to make many swear they will never take that chance again. A minority will say they're done with alcohol altogether. Nevertheless, that isn't what I'm really sad about. I'm sad for the people - the hard-working, good, honest, morally and mentally together people, with jobs, families, the works - who just don't get it (yet). They don't get something that criminal lawyers get. They don't get something that d.a.'s, cops, probation officers, parole agents, judges, and state prisoners (and their families) get. What is this big thing to be gotten you ask? It is the thin line between an ordinary everyday existence as a productive member of our society and a lifetime of hell on earth; the hell on earth that one undoubtedly experiences when one is sentenced to spend the rest of their life in prison for MURDER. Yes, I said, MURDER.

How could that happen to me or anyone I call a friend or a family member? Murderers are the people you see on TV with the jumpsuits on. Those aren't really people, right? And if they are, they are weird, strange people, not like me, right? I would never end up there. After all, I've never gotten a speeding ticket. I pay my bills on time. I wear my seatbelt. I don't smoke. I don't talk with my mouth full. I am a considerate person. I go to church. I volunteer. My best friend is a police officer. I'm married to one. Etc. Etc. I'll never be one of those "murderers" in a jumpsuit on TV. I'm just not that kind of person. Think again. Unfortunately, there is nothing about you that says that you will never be driving a vehicle that is involved in an accident where another human being dies, is there? Okay, so let's just pray and hope that when that happens, it doesn't happen after you have put down 2 or more drinks. If it does, you are that person. What many don't understand is the law that says you can't drive with greater than .08 % of alcohol in your blood doesn't amount to permission to drive between .01 and .07%. If you are driving after those 2 plus drinks, you are arguably "impaired" by alcohol. Yes, you could be as low as .04, but that won't make you immune to a murder charge, especially not now.

Gov. Schwarzenegger just signed into law what is now known as the "Ambriz Act" in memoriam to Steve Ambriz who was the chief of staff for the Act's sponsor, Assemblyman Todd Spitzer. Ambriz was tragically killed in a traffic accident involving a woman who had both alcohol and methamphetamine in her system. Prior to this law becoming effective (January 1, 2008), you have to be a repeat offender to meet the fate of being charged with murder for a negligent act of killing someone with your vehicle while "under the influence" of alcohol. This law has just, in a sense, rendered all of us repeat offenders come New Years Day. We won't be treated any different than the guy last month who was sent to prison for life because he supposedly knew better. Now, as people licensed to drive in California, we will have to acknowledge in writing (when we apply for a license or renewal) that driving a motor vehicle is a dangerous activity and, that if someone is killed as the result of our DUI, we can be charged with murder.

I hope this law saves a life. If you think about it, though, it serves to make nearly every single-fatality DUI accident an event where two lives are lost. At least two families will lose a loved one forever for every fatal accident caused by an act of DUI; this is what the law really says. It dramatically compounds the human tragedy in the hope that doing so will influence people's future behavior. There are some that believe that whenever the law gets tough, people take notice and change their ways for the better so that they will not end up in its clutches. I sincerely hope so. However, I, unfortunately, cannot accept this premise. The laws are already very tough. No, we don't impose the death penalty on DUI defendants yet, but we have steadily moved in that direction for decades. In spite of the many laws that have been enacted in recent times to increase the jail time and the fines, to worsen the drivers license consequences, and make it easier to convict someone accused of DUI, DUI still presents an unacceptable risk to human life. The number lives lost each year due to DUI each year are still counted in the 10's of thousands. Laws can help, but they can't completely solve the problem. I challenge law makers to address the problem holistically. Public transportation and education are two very effective and under-utilized deterrents to the behavior.

Unfortunately, California law makers only seem to address the problem by upping the punishments by enacting new "get tougher" laws each legislative session. Supposing they succeed one day in enacting a law which makes DUI an act punishable by the death penalty; what are we then going to do when DUI caused fatalities keep occurring in spite of this law? Let's start now to address the problem from different directions. The potential of the criminal justice system to reduce the numbers of traffic fatalities may very well be tapped at this point. It's time, at least, to start thinking about that. Getting tough makes perfect sense when it is someone you don't know who is in the jumpsuit. I promise you that you will feel very differently about this law when it is you or a loved one in the jumpsuit. Also, it is wrong to suppose that every family member of someone tragically killed in a DUI accident is clamoring for the offender to go to prison at all, let alone prison for life.

I know I'll be talking to you someday. You'll be in jail, in a jumpsuit, and I'll be telling you (through the glass on one of those phones) that I wish that you read this post before it was too late for you and the person(s) that you killed. Consider this your early wake up call.

Is Being Drunk a Crime?

Well, that depends. You can be drunk in places that are not open to the public (such as your apartment, your friend's condo, your grandmother's house, etc.) Now, I didn't say that you would be encouraged to do anything of the sort. In fact, getting drunk is a highly over-rated activity. As far as those high-minded achievers that set out to get drunk...well, the best you can say about them is that they will, most likely, accomplish their mission. That's because it takes a pretty weak stomach, and a complete lack of imagination (as in none) to have any difficulty getting there. And, as they probably know, they're going to regret it; at least temporarily. Yes, I'm talking about the hangover. It's nature's way of punishing them for what is essentially a bad all-around idea. The depressing truth is that the euphoria associated with drinking a large quantity of alcohol lasts for only a short while compared to what will follow. In many cases, blackouts, belligerence, sexually aggressive/inappropriate behavior, vomit, passing out, and hang-overs will be the heavy price you will pay for that initial feeling of artificial contentment with life, your surroundings, and your company. But I digress...back to Grandma's house... Whether it is a crime to be drunk outside of your grandmother's house in California is largely up to the police officer. And, no, I'm not saying that "it's his word against yours". Not this time. What I am saying is that the police officer who believes someone is so intoxicated (in public) that they cannot care for themselves may arrest them criminally (647(f) PC)) or civilly (647(g) PC)). Penal Code section 647(g) reads as follows:

(g) When a person has violated subdivision (f), a peace officer, if he or she is reasonably able to do so, shall place the person, or cause him or her to be placed, in civil protective custody. The person shall be taken to a facility, designated pursuant to Section 5170 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, for the 72-hour treatment and evaluation of inebriates. A peace officer may place a person in civil protective custody with that kind and degree of force which would be lawful were he or she effecting an arrest for a misdemeanor without a warrant. No person who has been placed in civil protective custody shall thereafter be subject to any criminal prosecution or juvenile court proceeding based on the facts giving rise to this placement. This subdivision shall not apply to the following persons:
(1) Any person who is under the influence of any drug, or under the combined influence of intoxicating liquor and any drug.
(2) Any person who a peace officer has probable cause to believe has committed any felony, or who has committed any misdemeanor inaddition to subdivision (f).
(3) Any person who a peace officer in good faith believes will attempt escape or will be unreasonably difficult for medical personnel to control.

So, you ask, if you fit within the above criteria, why did you get taken to jail and why are you now charged with crime? Well, one question to ask is whether there is a "sobering center" facility in the immediate area with a contract with that municipality to offer a safe (alcohol free) environment for you to hang out while you inch toward sobriety; and, no, it doesn't usually take 72 hours before they will decide to let you go. Four to six hours is more ordinary. In the City of Santa Barbara, there is such a facility. In other parts of South Santa Barbara County there is not. Accordingly, if you are arrested in Isla Vista for Public Intoxication (a nightly occurrence), you are going to jail. There is talk of installing a sobering center in Isla Vista, but until that happens, being drunk in public in Isla Vista (and other parts of Santa Barbara County) is a crime.