California still practices segregation

[donsu]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/01/17/EDGSMAQBAM1.DTL


On Prison Reform
Segregation prospers in the unlikeliest of places


Today, we commemorate the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., who worked tirelessly to make this a greater nation by ending racial segregation in America. Even as we celebrate, our nation's highest court is deliberating a case originating from the California Department of Corrections, which seeks to end the practice of blanket racial segregation in housing inmates in reception centers, which is where they are housed when they first arrive at prison.

The petitioner is Garrison Johnson, a black inmate, who in his 15 years in prison has witnessed the state routinely housing inmates with members of their own race at least for an initial 90 days of incarceration. Department of Corrections officials contend this is a temporary management practice designed to quell interracial violence among inmates due to race-based prison gangs. The department has practiced such for almost three decades without ever adopting it as official department policy.

The state Department of Corrections argues that California is ground zero for race-based prison gangs. Undoubtedly, these exist. But their practice is directed not to the gang aspect of it, but to race. The notion that one can determine a violent propensity by race alone is simply irrational and contrary to existing evidence.

-snip-

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger should immediately abandon his administration's defense of the Department of Corrections' segregationist policy and move California's prisons into the era of integration begun half a century ago with Brown vs. Board of Education.
-snip-
----------------------------------

[ConservativeDemocrat]

1. What's the problem here?

Many criminals are violent?                                            Check.
Many violent criminals are racist?                                    Check.
The state can't afford to guard people 100% of the time?   Check.
Felons don't have restricted rights due to their crimes?       Check.
Whites don't get better accommodations?                        Check.
It's only for 90 days until guards see who the a-holes are?  Check.

Sorry, but this seems to me to be perfectly acceptable. In fact, if they didn't do it, and threw some poor black guy in a cell with a bunch of skinheads, I think they'd have a lawsuit on their hands.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[donsu]

2. your reality is having a cloudy day

think some more

[Kathryn7]

3. Pelican Bay Prison tries to integrate the races and it results in deaths.

So, they go back and separate. Months later, try to integrate, they have race wars and people die, so they separate them again. Things are relatively calm when they are separated. Explosive when integrated. First priority is to try to keep these guys alive.

[theboss]

4. I think in this case the state may actually have a compelling interest

I am as generally as far to the left on civil liberty issues as you can get. But in this case, I think there may be two distinct factors:

1. Prisoners do have less rights than the average citizen by the nature of their situation. I would argue that there can be an argument for restrictions that do not impact their access to the courts and a fair trial.

2. The state may in fact have a compelling interest here. If statistics can be produced on inter-racial crime in prisons - and I imagine they can - the safety of all prisoners may outweigh the interest of this individual prisoner to a segregated community.