California has a new program to let some non-violent offenders serve some time living at home, wearing an ankle monitor. Yay California!1
The program is for prisoners who were the primary caretakers of their parents before they entered prison. That seems good to me; you have to start somewhere, and that’s a good population to start with. Hopefully, if the program is successful, it can be extended to other non-violent prisoners.
But here’s the problem: Only female prisoners are able to use the “Alternative Custody Program.”
Spokeswoman Dana Toyama said the bill that made the program possible, SB 1266, was written with women in mind, because they tend to be the primary caregivers.
Toyama said constitutionally CDCR cannot bar men from applying to participate in the program, but she said they do not have the necessary programs currently in place to approve their participation.
“Right now, we are not offering it to them, but they can’t be statutorily excluded. We just don’t have the resources to offer it to male inmates,” Toyama said. She also said they do not have a date set to start extending the program to men.
It should be noted that although an earlier version of SB 1266 was written for mothers, the language was specifically rewritten to include both mothers and fathers (thanks to some praiseworthy lobbying by Fathers and Families, which is run by men’s rights activist Glenn Sacks). As I understand it, the law that was passed was gender-neutral, and included fathers. So what the prison system is doing is ignoring the legislature’s intent.
This is sexism, plain and simple. I don’t doubt that it would cost a little bit more to extend the program to fathers — but keep in mind, every prisoner switched to the “Alternative Custody Program” saves the state money. I strongly suspect that’s what really lacking isn’t resources, but will.
I hope that some imprisoned father sues the California prison system, and soon.
- Unfortunately, the program may not last long, since it only applies to people in prisons, and soon California will start putting low-level offenders in jail instead of prison.
3 Comments
That’s an important distinction.
Compare: Is it discriminatory to establish homes for battered women but not men? May the state engage in this kind of discrimination?
I’d say that it is discriminatory, but perhaps not unduly discriminatory. If women are the predominant population to be served, if these women are (predictably) averse to being in proximity to men, and if the state can’t afford multiple facilities in a given region, then I could envision a court upholding the practice of having women-only shelters. Maybe.
If the Alternative Custody Program actually pays for itself, however, then one leg of the stool upholding a discriminatory policy is pulled away. Hard to justify the discrimination now.
Courts have upheld the practice, actually. But many shelters — virtually all of them in the area I live in — will either provide male victims with support services and an alternative place to stay (usually a hotel), or refer them to an area shelter that does. Men aren’t staying at the shelter itself, but neither are they being ignored and left without any support services.
California is expecting to save a Steve Austin (six million dollars) with the ACP.
My guess is that it’s cheaper, per client, to only help women, because the density of non-violent prisoners who were primary caretakers is much higher in women’s prisons than men’s. But for all prisoners, home detention is less expensive than prison.
I’d most certainly agree that its sexist.
I think if nothing else there should be some sort of record of the male inmates that try to go for this program if for no other reason than to show that there are men who are in that position and could really use the help of the program. Because if they just turn a blind eye to male inmates until it comes time to consider the idea of expanding the program to them I am a bit concerned there will be a quick, “Oh look none are looking to get in on it so it must not be worth it.”
Post a Comment