Schwarzenegger’s proposal aims to achieve two primary goals: to make a dent in the prisoner population in California of around 173,000, among the nation’s highest, and to decrease spending costs to ease their $19.9 billion deficit.

In the grand scheme of things, I absolutely admire what Schwarzenegger is attempting to alleviate. His intentions include facing California’s biggest issues head on in a fittingly, larger- than-life persona that has oft inspired the term “Governator.” However, the construction of prisons in Mexico is an ill-thought, quick-fix to a problem in inmate population that has plagued California since the 1980s.

The majority of growth in the incarcerated population in California can be attributed to the time between 1987 and 1998. During this time, Democrats created and enforced stringent laws that saw an increase in the average time an inmate spent behind bars while decreasing the amount of rehabilitation services available that allowed prisoners to work their way back into society. This trend still remains and is chief among my concerns for what has snowballed into an unnecessary proposition by Schwarzenegger.

Ultimately, there are just too many prisoners despite the 20,000 of them who are illegal immigrants. Plus, the state of California hosts one of the most underfunded prison systems and poorest living conditions for inmates. California has the nation’s highest recidivism level, meaning that prisoners are more likely to return to prison after their release; Schwarzenegger is well aware of the importance of rehabilitation services and the positive results they produced in California’s past. More emphasis must be placed in the emergence of rehabilitation centers and services. Only then can there be renewed hope for inmates to realistically adjust themselves back to civilian–life while contributing to ours and their ailing economy, truly a win-win situation.

Beyond poor living conditions in the prisons, a concern that has not been properly addressed, Schwarzenegger must not assume that Mexico has any incentive to adhere to his proposition. In terms of financial stability, they contain an enormous gap between their urban and rural population, and to claim that building prisons would increase employment is illegitimate in lieu of the true problem. Expecting Mexico to “take back” their natives is premature amidst the high rate of crime they face even without the issue of illegal immigration.

Decreasing California’s inmate population in the way Schwarzenegger proposes is an idea that strives for a positive outcome. Conversely, if we are to measure the results in terms of short-term productivity, the proposal is certainly reliable. However, in a global society that is experiencing unprecedented population growth, a quick-fix to this problem or any problem that involves high volumes of real people is not a rational way to handle the situation. We need valid methods and solutions to handle the crux of Schwarzenegger’s concern: how to prevent crime from happening in the first place.

While details to valid methods remain unclear for the time being, it is clear that building prisons will not stop crime. Perhaps it is time that a portion of the $8 billion of taxpayer’s money that is going to the state and federal prisons in California should be used to increase awareness on this important issue that has affected millions of people nationwide, criminal and civilian alike.