Reuniting Inmates and their Children–Early Release Program: Men and Women have an equal shot
By Richard Krupp, PhD
PACOVILLA Corrections blog
September 11, 2015
A federal judge has expanded a early prison release program while slamming the Department of Corrections for its gender discrimination ways.
The Alternative Custody Program was designed to reunite inmate mothers with their children in order to reduce recidivism and prison overcrowding.
Evidently this program will now be able to reunite inmate fathers and their children.
What a “gender-neutral” idea.
Here are highlights from a Sacramento Bee article:
Federal judge says California early-release program can’t exclude male inmates
A Sacramento federal judge ruled Wednesday that an early-release program for female inmates in California’s prisons is unconstitutional and must be expanded to include male inmates.
“When the state draws a line between two classes of persons, and denies one of those classes a right as fundamental as physical freedom, that action survives equal protection review only if the state has a sufficient justification for the classification. Here, the state does not,” U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. declared in a 35-page order.
The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation “shall immediately cease denying admission to the (Alternative Custody Program) on the basis that an applicant is male,” the judge ordered. Since the program launched in 2011, 530 inmates have participated.
The Alternative Custody Program is offered to nonviolent female offenders who have 24 months or less left to serve in state prison. The idea is to reunite women with their dependent children or other family members. The inmate is allowed to serve out her sentence in a residential home, transitional care facility, or residential drug treatment program.
I hope they get to work on reform and welcome men into the program,” she said. “It will save money, help with overcrowding and benefit men’s families.”
In defending its position against the lawsuit challenging the program, the state relied heavily on the expert opinion of Dr. Nena Messina, a criminal justice researcher at UCLA.
“Reuniting with children has been shown to reduce the risk of recidivism for women, but not for men,” according to a report authored by Messina as well as her deposition testimony given in connection with the suit. She testified that there is a “very low likelihood that men will be primary caregivers of children and reunify with their children when they leave prison.”
England said he did not rely on Messina’s opinion but, instead, was guided by the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution (for full story read http://tinyurl.com/onhkzgr.)
I recall several female inmate drug treatment programs that were active when I worked in corrections. The highlight, of course, was the program in San Diego for female drug addicts.
They were able to live in a community facility with one of their children. As I recall there were incidents that included children with broken arms, children accidentally dropped on the sidewalk and a couple of kids that died in the program.
Research has shown what? “Reuniting with children has been shown to reduce the risk of recidivism for women.”
In other words, reuniting inmate mothers and children does not actually reduce recidivism, only the risk of recidivism. What does that really mean? Sounds like academic nonsense to me.
I could never understand the reasoning that inmate mothers—who didn’t care enough about their kids to keep out of prison—would suddenly decide to stay out of prison, if released early, once they were reunited with their kids.
I heard that the mothers were provided mother training while in the community program. Why would you need to teach a mother that it is not a good idea to drop your infant child on the sidewalk?
At any rate, inmate fathers will now be able to take advantage of the reunification program. There may be not many men who will meet the criteria for the program, but there will be some. Any excuse to get more inmates out of prison can only be a good thing, right?
Are these programs developed out of a rational need or merely a well-intentioned desire for parental reunification? There are people selling these programs, but I for one am not buying them.
I guess the prison system will buy into any early release notion in the name of relieving prison overcrowding.
EDITOR’S NOTE: It is my understanding that separation from their children has a dramatic effect on many women prisoners and that reuniting them with their children motivates these women to change their anti-social ways.
Some European prison systems allow women inmates to keep their children with them while they are infants and toddlers. Prison authorities in those countries say the presence of little children has a positive effect on all of the women inmates.
The judge’s ruling in this case may conform with the Constitution’s anti-discriminatory laws, but it transcends common sense.
No comments:
Post a Comment