home

Smart on Crime

By TChris, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:21:25 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

David White Jr., in a Boston Globe op-ed, asks "what is it about our priorities that has us spending more on incarceration than higher education?"

Incarceration rates increased dramatically when the "War on Drugs" was launched in the 1980s. In Massachusetts and elsewhere, strict mandatory minimum sentences were enacted for drug dealing. One of those sentences, for selling any type or quantity of drug within 1,000 feet of a school, annually sends more than 300 people to jail for a mandatory minimum of two years.

What a waste. So is the "zero tolerance" attitude that makes a big deal out of petty crimes.

At the front end of the trial process, the courts are cluttered with the smallest of crimes, such as disturbing the peace or passing a bad check. Because these crimes carry the threat of incarceration, if the defendant is indigent the court must appoint a lawyer at taxpayer expense. If treated instead as civil infractions, with only the risk of fines, the dockets could be cleared, and the legal help could be reserved for more serious matters.

White proposes additional sensible solutions to the mess our criminal justice system has become: (more...)

Eliminate mandatory minimums for drug crimes to allow for parole eligibility.

Ensure meaningful post-incarceration supervision through parole or probation.

Resist calls for new mandatory minimum sentences that tie the hands of prosecutors, judges, and corrections officials.

Support policies that provide and promote drug treatment instead of incarceration.

Fully fund prison programs for treatment of mental illness, substance abuse, and training.

In other words, let's stop posturing about being "tough on crime" and start being smart on crime.

(H/t to this post at Sentencing Law and Policy.)

< Prisoner Success Stories, From Colorado to Newark, NJ | Obama Donor Received $50,000 State Grant >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Smart on Crime | 15 comments (15 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    When our educational system fails one of the (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by JSN on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:16:25 PM EST
    likely consequences is the drop-out will be admitted to prison. If
    they are lucky they might leave prison with a GED and if not the chances are odds a large that they will return to prison. The chances they will leave prison with a marketable job skill are small.

    Education and work force development cost far less than incarceration. The critical years are in junior high and the freshman year of high school because that is when most of them drop out.

    In New York State (none / 0) (#1)
    by The Maven on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:45:44 PM EST
    we're almost coming up to the 25th "anniversary" of the infamous Rockefeller drug laws, which were part of the vanguard for our national culture of incarceration as opposed to rehabilitation.  And for more than half of the laws' existence, people have been trying hard to seriously reform or eliminate the mandatory prison sentences associated with them.

    Indeed, just since one reform measure that took effect a bit over three years ago (reducing many sentences for possession crimes), the number of upstate prisons that are severely underpopulated has increased dramatically.  But in a warped fashion, because of the economic impact these prisons bring to otherwise depressed regions -- not only because of the jobs the prisons provide, but also due to the increased benefits the areas get from census apportionments that count the prisoners as residents of these upstate communities -- there is a reluctance among many local legislators to change the laws further since many of the prisons would be shuttered.

    So we're caught in a vicious cycle where doing what virtually everyone agrees is the right thing would result in an external harm that needs to be accounted for.  In an era of strapped state budgets, however, economic incentive packages tend to get squeezed out.   Add in the obvious reluctance among legislators to be tagged as "soft on crime", and one has a recipe for preserving the status quo, all to the detriment of our greater society.

    There are two thoughts (none / 0) (#2)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 01:48:25 PM EST
    I have about this.

    1.  Addicts do not belong in prison nor do people with mental illness.  

    but

    2.  Prison is frequently a motivator for getting help for addiction.

    As for mental illness, we have very few options with the health care system the way it is. People cannot afford drugs (some 400 to 600+ monthly), little long term or short term care, few options for hospitalization when needed and neglect and ostracized from communities.

    Shame

     

    Psych Hospitals (none / 0) (#7)
    by AnninCA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:58:50 PM EST
    are nearly defunct in my state.  The only mental health is in the prison psych units.

    Parent
    Big picture (none / 0) (#4)
    by nellre on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:01:31 PM EST
    We are a risk adverse, discompassionate society and have been for decades.
    These policies reflect our culture exactly.
    Rehab is risky whereas prison is not.  Prison dehumanizes these folks, so we don't need to feel anything about what we're doing to them.

    Before we see real progress in the way we treat people who find themselves on the wrong side of the law, I fear we'll need to see real reform in our culture.

    Worried in Mpls (none / 0) (#6)
    by moi61537 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:56:31 PM EST
    I live in Mpls.  For the last two years, we've had a lot of violence on the North Side. According to the police, the folks who were incarcerated in the late 90s for gang and drug related violence are getting out on parole and coming back to the North Side finding their old spheres of control taken over by new gangs or just younger folks.  

    Some of the crime seems to be second generations of crime oriented families.  Its hard to track the parentage or relationships, but from time to time, the names match up with parents who had done time for crimes.

    Some of the folks going to prison now for shootings and murder were in pretty bad shape as grade school kids (school social worker).  Their moms had used cocaine while pregnant. The dads were absent and the male and female adults were abusive.  The kids were beyond control and had to be put in special programs for violent grade schoolers.  You could see where it was going when some of these kids were in 2nd or 3rd grade.  What is the answer for situations like these?

    So, as someone that lives near the violence on the North Side, I would just as soon have the folks stay in jail longer.  I don't know what the real answer is. The communities they have lived in have tried to help through special education, drug intervention, special school education programs, summer youth programs and so on.  All for naught.  

    Is this true? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:01:40 PM EST

    "what is it about our priorities that has us spending more on incarceration than higher education?"

    Who is "us" and what is "higher education?"  Is higher education all education after high school, or a subset?

    Yes it's true (none / 0) (#9)
    by Leisa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 01:14:13 PM EST
    "us" = taxpayers and really, it is education period...  we spend more money to incarcerate than educate.

    We have to take better care of our children and their families.  Many of the problems with crime are due to poverty, drug addiction and mental illness.  

    Many children raised in these high crime environments suffer from post traumatic stress syndrome which creates learning and social problems.  These compound to create and perpetuate the plight of violence in that segment of society.  

    I worked as a special education teacher with "emotionally disturbed" children.  70% of the cases were from troubled impoverished homes, others had autism or other handicapping conditions that required intense behavior modification.

    I think the best investment we can make is in helping impoverished families.  Our educational system needs to reach out to these families and develop systems that will increase literacy and job seeking and retention skills.  There are so many families that just do not know how to budget, manage their time or care properly for their children by developing healthy routines.

    So, while it may not solve the problems we have today, I think spending more public money on these children and their families education could be a solution for a better future for everyone.

    Parent

    Apples and Oranges (none / 0) (#11)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:37:42 PM EST
    "us" = taxpayers

    Well incarceration is paid for 100% by tax payers, but education is funded by both the taxpayer and private parties.  

    By only counting what the taxpayer spends on higher ed, you are significantly understating the total,

    Parent

    You are correct about private (none / 0) (#12)
    by Leisa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:46:43 PM EST
    education.  If you do not want your child in public school, you pay for a private school or home school.

    Then again, very few children that have the privilege of involved parents end up incarcerated.  Yes, some do, but not many.

    Anyway, thanks for pointing out the obvious point I did, indeed, miss.

    Did it somehow make my point irrelevant?

    Parent

    To some extent (none / 0) (#13)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:28:55 AM EST

    As a nation (including both public and private), we spent huge sums on post K-12 education.  That includes colleges, trade schools, continuing education for professionals, etc.  As to K-12 is there as much as a single state where that is not the largest public expenditure?

    Parent
    I do not (none / 0) (#14)
    by Leisa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:06:02 PM EST
    have exact figures, but as far as expenditures per person, we spend at least twice as much money to incarcerate someone than to educate them.  

    For example, my school district spends about $10,000 a year educating each child.  It cost our county jail is around $20,000 a year to provide for an inmate.

    Parent

    So? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:54:27 PM EST

    The number in the slammer is tiny compared to those in K-12, college, trade school, etc.  

    Parent
    Ok, you win (none / 0) (#16)
    by Leisa on Sat May 03, 2008 at 11:32:36 PM EST
    I can't argue with a person that can not see per capita values.

    If you think that money is better spent incarcerating a human being rather than educating him, well, let me see this argument as our criminal justice system continues on this path and we must increase our current capacities and expenditures...

    We can do so much more for our people than what we do with the resources we have.

    Parent

    Prohibition doesn't stop drugs (none / 0) (#10)
    by splashy on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:50:55 PM EST
    It just fosters violence and other crime.

    To be smart, stop prohibition.

    As on a show I saw the other night, when it comes to drugs there are three things you can do.

    You can give control over to the private enterprises, or you can give it to the government, or you can hand it to the criminals. We have handed it to the criminals. That's why it's such a mess now.

    Legalize and regulate drug use, and much of the violence will dissipate.

    Smart on Crime | 15 comments (15 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment