Mercy That Makes Sense

Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg’s bill to let terminally ill prisoners die at home makes as much sense for taxpayers as it does for desperately sick men and women behind bars.

Compassionate release has been an option in California since 1997. But prison wardens, who must approve requests to send prisoners home or to a hospice, have feared releasing inmates with terminal cancer or an end-stage cirrhosis lest they be tarred as coddling criminals, even dying ones. What would happen, heaven forbid, if the former prisoner didn’t die within six months, the limit set by current law?

The Sacramento Democrat’s bill, AB 1946, eases this illogic by slightly expanding the population of eligible prisoners beyond those a physician certifies to have six months or less to live. Also eligible would be those who are medically incapacitated -- prisoners permanently on a ventilator or those who can no longer feed or clothe themselves. These men and women are well enough imprisoned in their own bodies.

Steinberg’s bill would also clarify the procedure for release. Once a doctor determines that a prisoner is sick enough to qualify, the warden must tell that inmate and his or her family of the compassionate release option. In recent years, prisoners often didn’t know this option existed, so they never petitioned for it. Many family members didn’t even know a relative was ill until after he or she died. Under AB 1946, wardens could still block a prisoner’s release. But if a warden OKd release, a court too would have to agree, giving the warden some extra support.

In 2003, just 10 dying inmates were released, down from 31 in 1996. If Steinberg’s bill passes, that number might rise to 70, still a tiny percentage of the 162,000 men and women behind bars in California. Their release could save taxpayers as much as $4 million annually, money better spent on rehabilitating young prisoners.

AB 1946 has passed the Assembly and is awaiting a floor vote in the Senate. Neither the state Corrections Department nor the prison guards union opposes the bill, and even victims’ rights groups don’t have a problem with it.

Does this story have a distant, familiar ring?

Lawmakers approved a similar bill three years ago, but then-Gov. Gray Davis vetoed the measure, afraid it would nick the tough-on-crime image he cultivated by vowing never to parole a murderer. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger should have no such fears.