COMMENTARY ON MEASURE J : The Jail Initiative: Urgently Needed or a Costly Boondoggle? : Against: Passage of Measure J would waste enormous sums of money; let’s try the governor’s game, prevention

Voters in Orange County will soon be asked to decide whether they should pay a half-cent sales tax to support new criminal justice facilities, including a 6,700-bed jail planned for Gypsum Canyon and as-of-yet undisclosed improvements in courts and juvenile detention facilities.

There is no question that criminal justice systems are expensive public bureaucracies and require adequate funds to operate, as well as periodic improvements and planning. Unfortunately, the history of county events leading to Measure J would indicate a greater degree of political bumbling and opportunism, as well as community splintering and backlash, than it would any serious planning efforts.

The same county government that now asks us to pay a billion dollars to construct a massive jail, and another billion dollars every six to seven years to operate it, needed to be cited for contempt by a judge just to make any movement toward a solution at all.

When a recent Times poll showed that Orange County residents responded favorably to being taxed for building new jail facilities, early release programs that had been quietly in effect for years suddenly were used to stir fear that “serious criminals” were being sent back into the community. More cells is the obvious answer, and the more we build the safer we will be. Reactive, rather than proactive, policy-making had won out again.

Are the massive jail and thus far unplanned juvenile and court facilities the answer? Probably not. Despite official proclamations to the contrary, there are major practical problems in realizing the goals of punishment, whether they be deterrence, incapacitation, retribution or rehabilitation.

This has less to do with the purposes themselves and more with our inability and unwillingness to focus on the social problems that play the greatest role in producing the crime and corresponding workloads in criminal justice systems.

It may sound like “bleeding-heart liberalism” or being “soft on crime,” but please don’t tell that to our new governor, a staunch Republican and fiscal conservative, who in his inaugural speech highlighted his commitment to “preventive” strategies in addressing the state’s underlying social problems.

Unlike his predecessor, he is neither willing nor financially able to continue dealing with crime through incarceration. More than a decade of “get-tough” legislation and unprecedented prison construction has not only witnessed a rise in crime but has brought increased strain (and costly litigation) to the criminal justice system and brought state and county budgets to the brink of disaster.

Orange County, like half the jurisdictions in the state, has recently been under court orders related to conditions of confinement in jails. The experience of Contra Costa County provides a good lesson for Orange County and the state. It too was under court orders to alleviate overcrowding but was able to resolve its problems more effectively and in a mere 18 months.

Contra Costa’s relative success regarding its jail situation was based primarily on the following: It had an effective network of communication among agency heads fostered by a cooperative, problem-solving attitude displayed by those involved; it carefully planned for and built a new jail (before the court orders) to replace its old outmoded facility, and it has been proactive in using alternatives to incarceration, even before the court orders.

Unlike prisons, which exclusively house more serious convicted offenders, jail populations are generally split equally between pretrial detainees and those convicted of lesser offenses, usually misdemeanors. Available 1990 data show that Orange County does not deviate much from this pattern.

On the felony side, drugs (possession and use) account for about a quarter of those awaiting trial and about a fifth of those sentenced. Probation and parole violators account for about another quarter of the sentenced population, and many, if not most, are back because of drugs. On the misdemeanor side, drunk-driving accounts for almost half of those awaiting trial and of those sentenced.

Thus, it seems clear that drug- and alcohol-related crimes are most responsible for jamming our jails. It is already well-documented that many inmates in our nation’s jails and prisons are suffering from forms of mental illness that are not being treated through their incarceration. Many offenders confined for substance abuse would fall into this category. Spending enormous sums of money on imprisonment has never been shown to solve the problems inherent in our justice system or to reduce crime. In fact, as our criminal justice system has grown, so has the crime problem.

If we really want to tax ourselves and give government that much in discretionary funds (not something Orange County has been noted for), let’s try playing the new governor’s game: prevention.

If Measure J passes, we could be wasting enormous sums of money given the county’s past record in pursuing effective criminal justice policies. Given that billions of dollars are at stake, a comprehensive and detailed crime prevention and criminal justice plan built on interagency coordination and cooperation would provide a much better choice for taxpayers.