by Jeff Davis

The Sacramento Bee reports: “In what may be the largest early release of inmates in U.S. history, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration is proposing to open the prison gates next year for some 22,000 low-risk offenders. According to details of a budget proposal made available to The Bee, the administration will ask the Legislature to authorize the release of certain non-serious, nonviolent, non-sex offenders who are in the final 20 months of their terms. The proposal would cut the prison population by 22,159 inmates and save the cash-strapped state an estimated $256 million in the fiscal year that begins July 1 and more than $780 million through June 30, 2010. The proposal also calls for a reduction of more than 4,000 prison jobs, most of them involving correctional officers.”

Many people were hoping Arnold Schwarzenegger would bring conservative policies and sanity to the state of California after Governor Gray Davis ran up a 38 billion dollar state deficit. In his first year, Schwarzenegger introduced four bold propositions that would have cut off union funds for Democrats and accomplished other key objectives that would have helped conservatism in the state. Unfortunately, the Union hacks screeched relentlessly running non-stop political ads attacking the governor and the new propositions, which went down to defeat as a gullible public fell for various liberal lies.

Add to this, the fact that California now has a majority non-White population. Latinos, Blacks and Asians now make up a majority of the population and tend to vote against common sense conservative policies in favor of liberal, big government, socialist policies.

Schwarzenegger at this point apparently decided “If you can’t beat them, join them.” Ever since then, he has presented little resistance to the Democrats and proposed some things which are just as liberal. Arnold is about to terminate the careers of 4,000 correctional officers. In view of the fact that the burgeoning California prisons are dangerously understaffed as things are, I doubt even the release of 22,000 inmates will help. That means that for every five inmates set free, roughly one prison guard will also be laid off and possibly find themselves competing in the civilian job market with the men they were guarding a short time ago.

The Bee continues: “Under summary parole, offenders would remain on supervised release and would still be subject to searches by local law enforcement at any time, but they would not be returned to prison on technical violations. It would take a new crime prosecuted by local law enforcement officials to return an offender to prison.”

So if these guys are caught with a couple of joints or miss an AA meeting they probably won’t face a quick trip back to jail. Prosecuting a new criminal offense takes an immense amount of time, especially in the groaning, overloaded California courts, and many DAs aren’t going to want to waste time with petty stuff like small amounts of drugs or minor thefts. These druggies will be a lot less motivated to keep their noses clean.

The concept of a “low risk” drug offender is a bit misleading. California has practically decriminalized marijuana use. A medical marijuana certificate supplied by a sympathetic doctor allows many hippies to keep a stash legally. Many potheads grow their own plants in their basements and as long as they stay under a certain quantity, they’re safe from felony prosecution. People who use stronger drugs such as crack almost always engage in other criminal activity if only to steal more money to get their next fix. When releasing 22,000 low-risk offenders, it seems unavoidable that a few rapists, muggers and murderers will be hiding in that crowd.

Many people in prison are made worse by that experience. If they aren’t dangerous criminals when they go in, they damned sure are when they come out. Also, past experience has shown that some bureaucrat under pressure to slash a budget so the rich can get another tax break is usually not a very good judge of what constitutes a “low risk offender.” It’s true that on paper, many of these people are inside because of what appears to be a petty drug offense and minor thefts. But keep in mind the plea bargain system in operation in the courts these days. It is highly likely that the one count of whatever some crook pleaded guilty to and got five years for was only the tip of a huge iceberg of felonies he actually committed.

We need to send a message to criminals that they will serve the full sentences for their crimes. If the liberals get to do a mass-release of drug offenders, then what’s next? Surely, they will want to get rid of California’s “Three Strikes and You’re Out Law.” A responsible society always builds enough prisons to take care of all the criminals.

In some parts of this country, there has been a significant drop in crime. This drop is due to longer prison sentences and “Three Strikes You’re Out” laws. Now budgets everywhere are under immense strain due to Bush spending much of our taxes in pointless overseas wars. The result is going to be a gradual breakdown typified by such things as this California prison release. This time it’s 22,000 “low risk” inmates who will be sprung. How many will it be the next time the numbers just don’t add up in the budget?