Fall 1983 – Issue 30 - Stanford Lawyer - Stanford University

PRISON LABOR continuedworking Californians on the outside?There are, I believe, at least twofloodcontrol work and prison construction- that the legislatureshould now move forward on. Bothkinds of work, while highly beneficialto the state's citizenry, would beprohibitively costly without prisonlabor. Restrictions on a third kind ofwork-manufacture of products forgovernmental agencies - should alsobe eased.Some observors have cautionedthat an expansion of prison laborprograms could eventually lead to a 'Soviet-style Gulag system of laborcamps. This is a legitimate concern,and it must be admitted that prisonlabor does entail some element ofcoercion. The difference, however,is that the Soviet system of prisonerexploitation is carried on in secrecyby a regime possessing unbridledadministrative discretion. Americanprisons, by contrast, are subjected toheavy and regular doses of outsidescrutiny from the press, the legislature,relatives of inmates, andacademics. Moreover, our prisonoperations are governed by detailedwritten rules emanating from allthree branches of government, withappeal rights built into each step ofthe incarceration process.But to those who feel that workprograms are detrimental to the prisonersor detract from the rehabilitativeprocess, I can only ask that theyconsider the alternative. Idleness ona scale encompassed in the currentCalifornia prison system presents afrightening spectre. An idle institutionis much more difficult to manageand secure than a productive one.The attitude and environment ofboth staffand inmate depends uponthe amount and nature of productivework being done. The alternative towork is a "lock down" of more andmore inmates in 40-square-foot cellsfor twenty or more hours a day- in-mates who have nothing but time ontheir hands.The eminent penologist, MaxGrunhut, said, "Throughout history,the rise and fall of prison systemscoincided with the changing conditionsof prison work." California'sprison system has been declining inquality for two decades, and the rateof decline escalates with each passingyear. Threatened by an expandinginmate population and a shrinkingpurse, our prison system is beingchallenged as never before.In order to meet that challenge, wemust change the character of Californiacorrections by making productivelabor the object, and notmerely the adjunct, of incarceration.To do otherwise is to accept the continuingdecline and escalating cost ofa prison system of which no one canbe proud.•Professor Sher, a member ofthe StanfordLaw faculty since 1957, is nowseving his second term in the CaliforniaState Assembly, where he chairsthe Committee on Criminal Law andPublic Safety.Credits:Photography: cover, John Sheretz;p. 2, Jane Reed; 10, Bank ofAmerica; 12, Sears; 19, Universityof Hawaii; 28-46, John Sheretz; 47(Schmidt), Artie Streiber, StanfordDaily; 47-9 (faculty photos),Stanford News and Publications; 50(moot court), John Sheretz; 50(Zotts) and 51 (Steyer), MicheleFoyer; 51 (Merryman), Henry Ely­Aix; 52 (both), 53, and 56 (both),Stanford News and Publications; 55and 57, John Sheretz; 58, InstructionalMedia, Stanford; 59,Stanford Law School; 69, StanfordUniversity Archives; and 90(Chicago), Kee Chang.Drawings: pp. 4-8, BarbaraMendelsohn; 22-27, Steve Rouett;57, Honore Daumier, "Scene from aMoliere Play," Glasgow Museumand Art Gallery; and 86 (map),Nancy Singer.Fall 1983 Stanford Lawyer67