k, but would be allowed to work.
Deukmejian made strong appeals to the population with his implication that the initiative would allow him to reduce the prison budget substantially. Opponents, which included organized labor, insisted that the reductions would not justify the competition with free labor, and that there were other ways to achieve penal goals.
The result, however, favored Deukmejian and his supporters. The initiative passed on November 6, 1990 and resulted in several changes to the state Constitution and the California legislative code. These are detailed in West's California Legislative Code. Vol. 11, 1990. p. A-179. The major consequences of passage include the amendment of the state Constitution to allow for convict labor in private enterprise, and the major change in the legislative code mirrored that. In addition, changes in the legislative code allowed for convict labor to be paid at rates less than the minimum wage.
There are a number of arguments which favored passage of the initiative. They are summarized as follows:
There was very little available for crime victim restitution. The most appropriate people to make restitution to crime victims are those who committed the crimes. Allowing prisoners to work would provide them with an income from which they could make restitution.
The prison system currently is a tremendous drain on state coffers. Providing for employment for prisoners, which would allow them to pay room and board at a minimum, would reduce the amount that taxpayers currently spend in housing prisoners. In addition, prison laborers might be able to produce things such as furniture and clothing which would also go directly to reducing the drain on private citizens.
The contention of most supporters of Initiative 139 was that rehabilitative programs have been generally unsuccessful in reducing recidivism and returning inmates to the general population. Although not directly d...