Private Detention of Criminals Still an Option, Judicial Panel Rules

Despite law-enforcement officials’ objections to private work-furlough jails, San Diego judges will continue to consider placing criminals in the facilities on a case-by-case basis, a local judicial panel has decided.

In a letter sent Tuesday to San Diego Dist. Atty. Edwin Miller Jr., Presiding Superior Court Judge Judith McConnell said that local judges will continue to use their discretion in deciding whether to place people convicted of a crime in a normal county jail or in a private work-furlough facility.

Two weeks ago, Miller had written to local judges opposing the commitment of any criminal defendants to private work-furlough facilities, which are seen by supporters as a cost-effective way of alleviating the County Jail crowding. Miller’s letter stemmed from an opinion issued in January by Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp stating that assigning a person convicted of a crime to any private jail operating without a county contract violates state penal codes.

Some local judges, however, have said they believe that Van de Kamp’s opinion leaves room for interpretation, a position apparent in McConnell’s one-page letter to Miller.

“After additional research and full discussion, we have determined the issue of placement of a person convicted of a crime in a private work-furlough facility must be decided by each judge on a case-by-case basis,” McConnell wrote.

The judges’ decision to retain private jails as a sentencing options was made by the Superior Court judges’ Executive Committee, a panel that reviews issues relating to court operations.

Advocates insist that private work-furlough facilities, which inmates can leave only to work and pay a daily fee, are suited for minor offenders, allowing the county’s scarce jail space to be taken up by the hard-core criminal population. Based on county figures showing that it costs taxpayers $40 a day to house inmates in county jails, the nearly 250 local private work-furlough beds could save the county about $4 million annually, according to operators of the private detention facilities.

But skeptics complain of inadequate supervision at some private facilities, citing past reports of drug use and of guards showing favoritism toward inmates. Some private facilities also occasionally failed to meet basic safety and sanitation standards.

Spurred by those concerns, the state Board of Corrections asked the attorney general’s office to determine whether courts have the authority to direct people convicted of crimes to a private facility that operates without a county contract. In his opinion, Van de Kamp said the courts lack such authority.

County officials have resisted awarding contracts to private work-furlough facilities on the grounds that such pacts would make the county liable for any improprieties that occur.

Although Miller had not yet seen McConnell’s letter Wednesday, district attorney’s spokesman Steve Casey said that Miller is disappointed with the judges’ decision “because he believes the attorney general’s opinion is pretty clear.”

Some judges, however, have said that, although Van de Kamp’s opinion appears to rule out sending individuals to private work-furlough centers in cases with a minimum mandatory period of custody, they believe that they can still choose to use the private jails in instances in which a judge has the discretion of either incarcerating or placing a defendant on probation.

“We don’t see it that way and will continue to oppose committing (inmates) there,” Casey said. “But, as to the disposition of each case, the judges will get to decide that. That’s why they sit up higher than we do.”