Leaving San Quentin

On January 29, California’s prison agency announced a pilot program to move some death row inmates out of San Quentin to one of five other prisons. The press has only picked up on it in the last few days. A lot of the reaction has been to statements in the press reports. The actual regulation was not easy to find, but after finding it I conclude that it is mostly implementing the initiative the people approved and I had a hand in writing.

During California’s dueling-initiative death penalty battle in 2016, the other side tried to convince the people of California that the state could not afford the death penalty, even though the cost is a comparative drop in the massive bucket of government spending. One of the arguments was that housing the inmates at San Quentin was too expensive, and we could save big bucks by reducing the sentences to life in prison so they could be housed elsewhere.

The obvious answer was to repeal the law that said they had to be housed at San Quentin. The law had previously allowed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to house them elsewhere. The Legislature required housing in San Quentin for the convenience death penalty appellate lawyers who prefer to live in the Bay Area. To this extent, Proposition 66 merely restored prior law.

This cost saving aspect was useful in the political debate over the initiatives. The Legislative Analyst’s Office agreed it would reduce costs.

The opposing initiative’s proponents also touted its feature that former death row inmates could be made to work after their sentences were commuted, and part of the wages could be attached to pay restitution to victims’ families. Honestly, I don’t think the trivial amount of restitution that can be raised that way concerns victims’ families. The ones I know want justice, not a handful of quarters. Even so, to defuse that argument the committee that drafted what because Proposition 66 included a work requirement.

Did these relatively minor provisions of a much larger initiative matter? We will never know, but given how close the vote was, the possibility cannot be dismissed.

The regulation sets up a pilot program. Consistent with the initiative, inmates can be transferred to other prisons. As to work, it says the program “is designed to provide enhanced job opportunities for condemned inmates ….” That’s an odd way to phrase it. Work in this context is a requirement, not an opportunity, and 70% of the wages go to restitution.

The regulation does not expressly say that the inmates are eligible for rehabilitation programs other than the rehabilitative value of work. A statement in a news article to that effect has drawn a lot of flak. Indeed, there is no point spending taxpayer money to rehabilitate someone who will never be released.

One thing that is wrong is that this pilot program is voluntary on the part of the inmate. These worst-of-the-worst murderers should have no say in where they are housed. If this is thought to be needed for the pilot program, it should not be a feature of the permanent program that follows it.

The regulation says that the relocated death row inmates will be allowed to mingle with other inmates. I do not see why, and this is certainly not implementing Proposition 66. Death row inmates do not presently mingle with San Quentin’s large non-death-row population.

Aside from these two missteps, though, the regulation really is implementing Proposition 66. The real problem remains the governor’s abuse of power in granting an indefinite, blanket reprieve. Blocking enforcement of laws passed by the people that the governor disagrees with is not the purpose of the reprieve power.