• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Every society must exercise a corrective mechanism to punish those who break the law, and to ensure such lawbreaking does not continue to occur.

In the United States, some hope to accomplish this through stricter incarceration laws. Others see rehabilitation and education as a means of improving both inmates’ lives and society as a whole.

But as the need for budget cuts tempts our governor to slash funding for juvenile probation camps, which aim to educate and rehabilitate less serious offenders, judges will be forced either to send youth offenders home or sentence them to longer terms in the much harsher California Youth Authority detention facilities. Such a move is shortsighted and will be harmful for the future of our state.

As always, the reason for these cuts is a raw financial consideration. Eighty-two million dollars would be trimmed from Los Angeles County’s probation department, and even more money would be lost with the shift of property taxes away from counties. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s budget plan will slash $134 million specifically earmarked toward crime prevention and treatment.

Cutting the juvenile probation camps will likely result in considerable savings for every county, which will go a long way towards cutting and balancing the budget. Inmates would either be sent home or sent to the far more serious CYA detention facilities.

But all of this could be avoided with a small tax hike on the very wealthiest citizens of our state.

The California Youth Authority’s strictest detention facilities strike fear in the hearts of many juvenile offenders. These centers are known among inmates as “gladiator schools,” a term brought to attention in former Crips gang member Sanyika Shakur’s autobiography, “Monster: The Autobiography of an L.A. Gang Member.” CYA prisoner facilities are designed to house more serious offenders, some incarcerated for violent crimes like rape and murder.

Some of these offenders are a real threat to society; many of them are serving in juvenile prisons only because a prosecutor chooses not to try them as adults. Inmates in these facilities also vary considerably in age, with some as old as 25.

Inmates in these stricter facilities have been subject to abuse and mismanagement that serve only to continue to harden individuals instead of helping them. In one instance, inmates were forced to kneel on a gym floor, handcuffed, for hours on end. These practices have led to lawsuits and largely can be blamed on understaffing and a lack of money. Studies have shown that youths incarcerated in more serious facilities are less likely to change their behavior and improve their lives.

In contrast, probation camps house less serious offenders who may have personal or educational difficulties but generally are more amenable to change. Inmates receive educational assistance and, when possible, mentorship. Youths also are allowed to engage in normal adolescent activities such as sports, and the general atmosphere of the probation camps is far less harsh that those of the CYA’s most strict facilities.

There is also a difference in the severity of the crimes committed by those in probation camps – most are not serving time for violent crimes. Furthermore, the focus on education and reform is highly effective: In Los Angeles County, 74 percent of these inmates do not return to the justice system again.

Clearly, it would be wise to invest money where it would be most effective in bringing about a change. Some youths demonstrate a sincere desire to reform and are not much of a threat to society.

There is a real chance for these youths to help improve society and themselves by leading productive lives. They deserve the opportunity to effect change in their lives. Thus, whenever possible, youth camps – which emphasize education and rehabilitation – are a much better option for our state as a whole.

Like many public policies, youth incarceration is not an issue that is flashy or popular for discussion, but it still merits very serious attention. The actions taken now concerning these children shape the future of our society. We can choose to build a more just, rational and, yes, productive society by investing in youth now.

Having tutored incarcerated youth in probation camps, I can say many of these adolescents have the potential and desire to improve but simply need some support. They are in a crucial time in their lives, and how much a society invests in them will determine how much they can give back to their communities – and ultimately themselves.

A little bit of money from the most privileged residents of our state will go a long way in making a difference. Will we give our youth the support they need, or will we turn our backs in callous indifference?

Bhaskar is a third-year political science student. E-mail him at sbhaskar@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.