Nevada Assembly Bill 510 is not good for the public, the state or the inmates. It is being pushed on the advice that Nevada prison populations are going to mushroom in the future and the facilities cannot deal with it. The bill does not really increase spaces or address prevention measure. It only changes how offenders will be treated. Sentencing will be relaxed and judgers given more leeway. Offenders are offered more bonus “forgiven” prison and parole time than previously and required only to show effort, not results in job seeking, community service and restitution.
More offenders will be placed in house arrest or week-end programs. The requirements that offenders who benefit from reduced time or housing in minimum security not have any violent crimes on their record within 5 years has been reduced top 1 year, potentially putting the inmates of minimum security facilities, guards and the public at risk. Parole violators will also not be automatically returned to prison. This measure is a band-aid and a dangerous one at that. What is needed is more support for prevention measures and social programs to help people get by without resorting to crime and real rehabilitation programs..
Nevada has a long history of virtually ignoring social welfare issues unless they can be used to support some other political aim. It is a “Right to Work” state and things like social assistance are minimal, at best. Therefore, Nevada residents take a jaundiced eye when any money is appropriated for social programs. We know that, historically, Nevada legislators underestimate the money needed for social programs and, particularly, underestimate the population growth in prisons. Nevada wants to project an image of safety and family entertainment in Las Vegas, an image rather too unrealistic. There is, indeed, plenty of family entertainment, but safety only exists inside the casinos, and then only in the large ones.
Whether appropriating more money for prisons or for programs to prevent the need, Nevada is intrinsically stingy with money for social programs. Legislators are generally very conservative with public funds for social programs, though quite generous with spending on themselves and their supporters. Now, when they are trying to catch up on past under-estimates of prison populations, they have introduces Assembly Bill 510 in an attempt to deal with the situation. (ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 510, 2008) proposes measures to reduce the population of prisons with more early releases of prisoners. It is planned to do this by increasing the “good time” bonuses for prisoners and loosening the requirements for release.
The changes in sentencing rules will actually cost the state more money than housing the prisoners with whom they will now have to deal on appeals. The law is not clear and leaves too much unsaid. It is poorly written and will cause no end of grief with the Nevada Supreme Court in the future. This is certainly not cost effective. (Jonell 2008)
This bill was, apparently, promoted by a local religious coalition which wants to see these prisoners in rehabilitation programs: Religious Alliance of Nevada (RAIN). However, the rule to require that the parolee:
- “Demonstrated willingness and ability to establish employment in the community;
- Demonstrated willingness and ability to enroll in a program of education or rehabilitation; or
- Demonstrated ability to pay for all or part or the costs of confinement and meet any existing obligation for restitution to the victim”. (Skolnik, Howard 2008) has been relaxed to “Demonstrate willingness”. In other words, no employment must be attained, nor enrollment made in and educational or rehabilitation program nor any restitution made. The parolee only has to say they will do so.
So an inmate to be released on parole no longer has to comply with. The extra credits which are provided for prisoners in this bill are not actually a benefit, since they are tied to a minimum of a 20 day work month, when many prisoners cannot get this many days of work per month, even though they are only paid $1 per hour and their services are contracted for at a very low rate. (Goose 2008) The Nevada Prison System is rife with abuse of prisoners, so there is no question that prisoners want out. This particular “benefit” only increases problems for many prisoners.
Neither Nevada, nor the country at large, would be having to pass legislation like AB 510, he contends, were it not for the public’s mania for mandatory sentencing, filling up prisons with low-level offenders. David Mckee says the bill is a band-aid on a major wound. “This bill is trying in its own part to say, ‘We’ll cut some of these guys loose because we have to.’ But the ripple effect is in every direction. We’re [simultaneously] struggling for spots for people who haven’t committed crimes, in the workforce and in education. I mean, how are they going to interface?” (McKee, David 2008)
The one issue that nobody seems to be talking about is the reduction of the time within which an offender can have committed a violent crime or committed a crime where violence was threatened from 5 years to 1 year to qualify for any early release to housing in minimum security or under house arrest. This seems to be just plain stupid. If any offender has committed any such crimes within five years would be a repeat offender. Why do we want to put these people back into the general population any sooner? Why would we want them in minimum security or in transition home situations? The odds of rehabilitation are really statistically miniscule. Releasing them early would simply compound the problems as they will be back in the system before very long and someone else may be hurt. Henderson Assemblyman Bob Beers voted against it for this reason. (McKee, David 2008)
Taken together, the changes made by AB 510 go too far in some ways, reducing time for violent criminals who have not committed any violence with one year of sentencing, allowing bonuses based upon willingness instead of proof, such as jobs, enrollment in education or rehabilitation and restitution, and not far enough in cases like the good behavior bonuses which cannot be collected and funding for prevention and rehabilitation.
This bill is also such a legislative mish-mash and so poorly written that implementation will be a major investment in time and study and many prisoners will start an endless string of appeals, which will cost more than the measures save. If the idea is to save state money and reduce prison populations, then maybe better prevention programs should be funded and other social programs, which are notoriously stingy in Navada, should be augmented. Turning 1200 prisoners loose all at once is not realistic, as there are no provisions for housing or employment. They will be back in prson before we can blink.
References
ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 510, 2008, SELECT COMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS, PAROLE, AND PROBATION, Web.
Goose, 2008, Web.
Jonell, 2008, Harmful Error, AB-510, Web.
McKee, David 2008, Ripple Effect, CityLife, Web.
Skolnik, Howard, 2008, Web.