Modest Proposal : ‘Despair Drives Them to Crime’ : Prisoners predict the “three strikes” plan will fail because the root cause of criminal behavior is being ignored.

If Gov. Pete Wilson’s “three strikes” anti-crime plan, which the Legislature sent to the governor’s desk last week, is made law in its current form, the giant sucking sound everyone will hear is $2 billion being flushed down the proverbial drain.

As an inmate serving a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole, I find the measures in the crime plan ignorant and inadequate. This comes from one who once believed--before entering the prison system--that “prisoner rights” was an oxymoron and subscribed to much of the punitive rhetoric about penal justice and crime in general.

During six years of incarceration mostly at California State Prison-Sacramento, a maximum security facility, I’ve met a great number of men who would be considered among the most dangerous, violent felons in the state. Here is what I have found to be the thinking among felons, many serving sentences of life without parole, regarding the proposed crime package:

* For the majority, neither prison sentence nor the penalty was a factor when deciding to commit a crime. Therefore, increasing the length of prison sentences or penalties--even the death penalty--will not act as a deterrent whatsoever.

* For the minority career criminal with two strikes against him, the penalty for murder and armed robbery would be the same: life without parole. Therefore, he would be inclined to murder any witnesses to reduce the chance of being caught.

What is abundantly clear from my discussions with men at Folsom Prison is that the measures in the anti-crime proposal will not work. They will neither deter nor reduce violent crime.

So what then? In order to come up with a meaningful crime bill, the cause of most violent crimes must be addressed.

When asked why they committed their crimes, most told me that despair drove them to it--an abject despair so profound that most people could not begin to contemplate its depth. The unanimity of their responses was alarming. Each believed that when they were on the streets their immediate future held only two choices: death or prison. Therefore, they would do whatever was necessary to get whatever they could before meeting either fate.

Understanding this despair is the key to reducing violent crime. The greatest concentration of people suffering from this condition are in prisons and the nation’s inner cities. Therefore, resources should be marshaled in these two areas to make viable alternatives available.

For prisons, I suggest we:

* Change the emphasis from the warehousing of prisoners to the rehabilitation of inmates through mandatory education programs, both vocational and academic.

* Provide intensive counseling.

* Provide greater aid to parolees. The state spends up to $30,000 a year for incarceration, but offers only $200 for a parolee to start a new life.

In the inner cities, I suggest:

* Entrepreneur workshops to foster community business ownership.

* Tax breaks to businesses operating in these areas, so more jobs will be available.

* Vocational and apprenticeship programs in public schools.

Also, a research task force should be established to create a meaningful anti-crime bill and should include input from a variety of untapped sources:

* Inmate advisory committees.

* Prison teachers and chaplains.

* Appellate lawyers who have knowledge of the penal system and contact with prisoners.

* Drug-rehab counselors.

Violent crime will escalate if the crime plan becomes law. The measures needed to reduce crime belong to neither a liberal nor conservative agenda. Only bipartisan political will can make a difference.