CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONS SECRETARY FAVORS PRONE POSITION WITH INMATE HOSERS

According to Secretary Beard, there is a difference between types of violent inmates, and he seems prone to give leeway to those prone to violence

By Richard Krupp, PhD

PACOVILLA Corrections blog
October 27, 2015

A couple of weeks ago Secretary of Corrections Jeffrey Beard demonstrated his comedic skills by utilizing the Abbot and Costello, “Who’s on first” routine to explain away the prison system utilization of violent inmates on fire crews.

If I understand Secretary Beard’s fire camp gag, there is an obvious distinction between violent convicts and convicts who are prone to be violent, which he bases solely on their convictions.

Considering his rhetoric, Mr. Beard sounds like he favors the prone position with inmate hosers (AKA: firefighters.)

Evidently violent criminals can change their stripes and non-violent criminals can morph as well, by Mr. Beard’s assessment.

According to Beard, quoted in a recent Sacramento Bee interview, some inmates are convicted of violence and others are prone to violence.

Inmates not ‘”classified” as violent are banned from fire camp if they act violent.

Inmates who are non-violent but have violent tendencies are banned from fire camp.

A violent inmate who changes to non-violent can go to camp.

The comedic Beard made everyone feel more comfortable when he indicated that even Corrections people haven’t understood this fluid concept. This has been going on a long time so don’t worry about it.

Here are some highlights from a Sacramento Bee article:

California prison officials try to clean up message mess

First, they had to fend off worries that they were about to unleash a wave of violence-prone criminals into low-security fire camps, with reports on Monday that Corrections was thinking about expanding the pool of candidates to inmates with violent felony convictions.

Then the Associated Press reported that roughly 40 percent of the 3,700 inmates in fire camps at the end of September had been convicted of violent crimes, despite a statement, now deleted, on the department’s website that said only non-violent offenders served fire duty.

On Thursday, Corrections Secretary Jeffrey Beard, hoping to calm fears and relieve the political pressure on his department, defended the policy and tried to reconcile the conflicting messages. “Even some of our own people haven’t understood it,” he said.

The misunderstanding, Beard said, comes down to the difference between a person convicted of a violent act and a person who is prone to act violently. Inmates with the most serious convictions – murder and rape, for example – are automatically excluded from fire duty even if they are angels behind bars. Other inmates whose crimes aren’t classified as violent are banned from fire camps duty if they act violently in prison or if circumstances surrounding their non-violent convictions indicate violent tendencies, such as stalking.

Some inmates who came in with a violent history change their behavior, however, and some of those violent offenders may get fire duty after rigorous screening, Beard said.
“The people that we’re sending to the fire camps today are the same as the people we’ve sent the last 10 to 15 years,” said Beard said. “Nothing has changed.” (for full story read http://tinyurl.com/pkddl94.)

I’m not sure how anyone can tell how or when this transition takes place since Corrections officials don’t understand it. Surely they must have some “evidence-based” study that explains everything. Then again, maybe it is more difficult than meets the eye.

Can a violent person become non-violent then change back to violent? Or vice versa? How is it possible that no one in CDCR (except the Good Secretary) knows how to figure this out?

Maybe the use of violence is a matter of choice. Inmates may try out violence to see if it is a good fit for them.

Certainly the question of violence must be on a CDCR form. Why not let the inmates self-select? Give violence a try. If it doesn’t feel right then become non-violent.

Inmates can always go back to the other side. I’m sure firefighters will find comfort in knowing the inmate crews they are working with are thoroughly scrutinized by prison officials for violent tendencies.

It sounds as though the release of thousands on “non-violent” criminals from prison has not hampered the inmate fire camp system. The use of the more fluid violent/non-violent classification has done the trick.

This must be something good that can work. After all, to quote Beard, “Even some of our own people haven’t understood it.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: “Inmates may try out violence to see if it is a good fit for them.” Would these be good examples? Inmate A attacks his cellie but gets the supreme shit kicked out of him. Inmate B assaults an officer but gets the supreme shit kicked out of him. While in the prison’s medical facility, Inmates A and B decide violence is not a good fit for them.