Medical parole for a select few could serve as key compromise in California prison reform debate

image
Published: 30 Mar, 2010
Updated: 21 Nov, 2022
2 min read

As noted in CAIVN's Public Safety and Prison Reform forum, "the per-prisoner cost of California prisons is in the range of $50,000 per year, significantly higher than in other states," and the main reasons are, "Extraordinarily high medical costs driven by an aging inmate population, the remote locations of most facilities, and the relatively high cost of health care in California."

One potential solution offered by prison reform advocates is medical parole, the early release of prisoners suffering from medical conditions that require their frequent and costly transportation- under armed escort- between California's usually remote, rural prison facilities and its well-equipped urban hospitals. While this solution cuts fiscal expenses, critics ask "at what human cost?"

Medical parole advocates must face down a skeptical public, still reeling from high profile cases of criminals on parole committing violent crimes. Take John Gardner, a California sex offender whose prison sentence of six years (he was released on parole after five) for attacking a 13 year old girl seemed outrageously low to many Californians. Despite seven parole violations, Gardner managed to stay out on the streets of San Diego to rape and murder 17 year old Chelsea King this February, shocking the entire country.

How then can we contain growing prison costs- especially those related to health care- while still keeping Californians safe?

J. Clark Kelso, the federal court-appointed prison health receiver has a solution that he believes would do both.  He says that California could save millions a year by granting medical parole to only a very few, hand-selected inmates who are comatose or otherwise severely incapacitated.

The Sacramento Bee reports: "An aide in Kelso's office said that, conservatively, the prison system could save $213 million over five years by paroling just 32 inmates identified as severely incapacitated." This would cut costs, Kelso argues, while keeping Californians safe, because it restricts medical parole to prisoners who do not pose any danger to the public because they are physically incapable of committing another crime.

By restricting medical parole to only severely incapacitated inmates, the state would ensure that any health-related early release policy would not produce another John Gardner-type outrage.

So, what do you think?

Is it wasteful for California to spend millions guarding inmates in a vegetative state as they lie in a hospital?

IVP Donate

Or is leaving them unguarded too risky a gamble for our safety?

Latest articles

Trump Trush Social Post on Colbert
Will Politics Kill Late Night TV?
Stephen Colbert’s Late Show is ending after nearly a decade at the top of the ratings. CBS insists t...
18 Jul, 2025
-
3 min read
Ronald Reagan
Just Say No: The Political Hit Job That Killed Cannabis
As cannabis use became more common in the late 1970s, the backlash grew even stronger. A political and religious conservative resurgence was underway after years of liberal ascendancy. That wave would soon bring former California Governor Ronald Reagan to the White House....
18 Jul, 2025
-
8 min read
Political cartoon of a person representing partisanship, unions, the Democratic Party, and Special Interests taking a bite out of New York.
Mamdani, Lander, and Other Partisan Extremists Just Took a Bite Out of NYC’s Democracy
The partisans, unions, and party bosses have won again. Independents, veterans, working people, young people and democracy have lost again. ...
18 Jul, 2025
-
2 min read