Shortsighted Prison ‘Reforms’

California’s 33 prisons are not country clubs for felons; for the most part, life inside them is austere and restrictive, as it is supposed to be. But in many, overcrowding has made conditions much worse. In some facilities, for instance, prison gym areas have been turned into vast dormitory rooms for prisoners.

No question, California needs more prisons. Overcrowding loomed before passage of the tough “three strikes and you’re out” sentencing law. With that law in effect for nearly four years now, more repeat felons are serving life sentences. With 156,000 inmates in the system already and the prison population growing by at least 10,000 each year, California could run out of prison space by 2000. Gov. Pete Wilson knows that and wants to build four new prisons. But even prison bonds can be a tough sell to budget-conscious lawmakers. So partly in an effort to demonstrate its cost-consciousness, the Department of Corrections, with the governor’s support, has imposed a number of restrictions on prisoners’ rights and privileges and plans to do much more.

Some of these changes are sensible efforts to gain better control of prisons. Random drug tests and a ban on packages mailed directly to prisoners are a good start on cutting drug use. Dressing prisoners in white jumpsuits instead of bluejeans and cropping their hair short should make it harder for escapees to blend in on the streets. But other proposals strike us as wrongheaded or shortsighted. One is the removal of many lawbooks from prison libraries. Some have argued that prisoners clog the courts with frivolous appeals and the cost of maintaining these libraries is high. But courts in recent years have limited prisoner appeals. And for many inmates, these libraries offer an avenue to self-education that well serves them--and society--upon their release.

Proposals to remove all weightlifting equipment may also be shortsighted. Officials understandably want to prevent inmates from growing so muscular they are a threat inside prison or upon their release. But unless other forms of regular exercise are provided, corrections officers can expect more trouble managing a large, volatile inmate population.

Wilson’s spokesman defends these changes, noting that prisoners are incarcerated “to be punished . . . not . . . to be entertained and catered to.” True enough. But the yardstick should be whether the changes improve safety and reduce costs, not whether they enhance the get-tough credentials of state officials.