My Dream Law Is For The State Of California

Inmates, while incarcerated, receive better medical care than most citizens in the United States. According to a 2008-2009 report done by the Legislature Analyst Office, it costs California over twelve thousand four -hundred and forty-two dollars per inmate for health care each year, which includes medical care, psychiatric services, pharmaceuticals, and dental care (page 2). Prisoner F received a lifesaving surgery that cost over two-hundred fifty thousand dollars. The only prison affiliated contact prisoner F had while in the hospital was the fact that he had a chained ankle bracelet which had him handcuffed to the hospital bed. Just as they receive the best medical care in the United States, they are also known to have many luxuries which hard

There have been twenty-three prisoners build that was in the state of California in 1984 and it cost the state between “$280-$350 million apiece”. In 1984 and 2000 more prisons was built for the state penal system to have housing for the prisoners.

according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (2001) was $22,632 per inmate per year or

While it’s cheap to put someone on probation or parole, it is expensive to incarcerate a person for a year. It costs $45,000 to house and feed an inmate for one year. “There are approximately 1,325 state prisons and 84 federal prisons in operation across the country today”. (Schmalleger pg 390) If you have 2000 inmates in one prison then that will cost roughly $90,000,000 to support those prisoners for just one year and that is only for one prison. From 1991 to 2007, there was a 37% decrease in the national crime rate and a 62% increase in the rate of imprisonment. The Public Safety Performance Project released a report that predicts the nation’s prison population will rise to more than

The U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged the growing distress, deeming California’s state prisons unconstitutionally crowded. In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled out that California’s 33 state prisons have become too overcrowded to the point where there are no sufficient medical and mental health care available (Realignment AB 109, 2013). The U.S. Supreme Court determined that the 33 state prisons are violating constitutional exclusions, under the Eighth Amendment, against unfamiliar punishment and brutality, says the American Legislative Exchange Council, an American organization producing model policies for state legislators (ALEC, 2010).

Before 1998, California’s state prisons were designed to house 66,000 inmates, that meant one inmate per prison cell. Around the time of September of 1998, there were 120,000 inmates resulting in an overcrowding level of 182 %. Construction plans after 1998 were for new prisons to hold 80,000 inmates (“Accommodating”, 1995). Referring back to the 137.5% reduction that needed to be met by three-judge panel, that would mean that it would

Since 1984, the California Penal System has been forced to undergo drastic changes resulting from increased legislation aimed at increasing the severity of retribution to offenders leading to an exponentially increasing prison population. In the 132 years between 1852 and 1984, the state of California built twelve prisons, but has since supplemented the prison system with 21 new facilities. In 1977, the California Department of Corrections was responsible for 19,600 inmates. California’s inmate population now stands at 160,655, an increase of close to 800%.

The second major key cost driver is payment for the officers who patrol cellblocks; especially to those who work overtime. Overtime costs in California “topped half a billion dollars in 2006, with 15 percent of the corrections workforce earning at least $25,000 in overtime that year” (Pew Center). Based on the same article there were six employees who earned more than the $212,179 annual salary set aside for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. To help the state from struggling to keep its 33 prisons staffed, Gov. Arnold proposed releasing more than 22,100 inmates before their terms are up. His proposal would save the state $1.1 billion.

The costs of incarceration continue to rise. In 2013, a three-year prison sentence cost over $37,000 according to the New York Times, while a probation sentence would have cost only $6,770 (Sowell). In other words, incarceration costs taxpayers thirty-three dollars and seventy-nine cents a day for each offender. However, for fiscal year 2014-2015, incarceration costs were seventy-three dollars and thirty-four cents a day for each of the more than 21,000 inmates in Tennessee prisons (Frequently Asked Questions). Incarceration costs include more than just the obvious expenses for food, clothing, shelter, and guard salaries. The Tennessee Department of Correction is also responsible for the medical, dental, vision, and mental health needs of each inmate. If one half of the 21,000 Tennessee inmates were

The average cost of housing an inmate is approximately $20,000 to $30,000 per year. This price tag comes at the direct expense of public money that could be spent on public education, medical care and public assistance. And it is one reason why so many states face fiscal crises today. The state of California spends 2.5 times more money housing and feeding its inmates than it does educating students.The current unemployment rate in the US is high. And if we factored in all the people who are not looking for work because they are behind bars, it would be higher especially among young black Americans and people without a high school

Religious Freedom in prison cannot be taken away to any inmate as under Federal Law it states everyone can exercise his or her religion. Congress has passed two statutes that increase the protection of inmates’ First Amendment rights. These are the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. Both statutes provide that government officials cannot execute a considerable problem on inmates’ religious rights unless they show their rule serves a compelling government interest in the least preventive way. Inmates have enjoyed the success of religion dietary practice where an inmate has the right to diet in accordance to their religious beliefs. Also, prisoners can avoid foods that are not allowed to be eaten per such belief. So, for some inmates who practice different believes, the court has ordered that certain diets be made available to inmates. This way they are not forced what they are not allowed to eat in their countries.

In a year that comes out to $3,650,000, just to feed the inmates. That’s not all the prison is responsible for. They also have to provide adequate living arrangements and medical care for the

(Jacoby, 1997, P. 2) However; in the year 2012, CBS NEWS reported ” In states like Connecticut, Washington state, New York, it's anywhere from $50,000 to $60,000." (CBS NEWS, 2012) Over the past 25 years the cost to keep just one inmate has more than doubled.

For those who are simply interested in the costs, it may be fairly surprising. It is a common and misconceived ideal that incarceration is a cheap and easy way to contain criminals, in this case juveniles. However, due to the fact that the incarceration itself has not in any way hindered criminal activity rates or decreased juvenile recidivism, taxpayers are simply investing more money into these detention facilities and court proceedings than what is realized. Let’s look at a specific detention facility for example. The Cook

We leave it up to our politicians in Congress to come up with and pass bills that become new laws for the United States. However, when it comes to making them up, could it be in some situations that laws are made with the politician’s personal beliefs and feelings in mind rather than what he is supposed to represent? For laws that already exist, is it the same case? We observe situations like Willie Horton, Benghazi, and Trump University that get thrown around to stir up emotion. For example, with Trump University, we see Donald Trump fussing over the lawsuits and how they were handled because of his belief that it all had something to do with Judge Curiel’s ethnicity, heritage and his “bias” against Trumps plan for the wall. Trump stated that Curiel has “An inherent conflict of interest.” There is no evidence supporting Curiel’s bias, but if he was, Curiel would have been using subjective measures instead of objective measures for the case.