Pubdate: Thu, 13 Nov 2003
Source: Sun Herald (MS)
Copyright: 2003, The Sun Herald
Contact:  http://www.sunherald.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/432
Author: Cal Thomas

RETRIBUTION VS. RESTITUTION

Three Strikes And You're Broke

After two decades of being "tough on crime" by "locking them up and 
throwing away the key" the bill has come due. Many states have become 
incapable or unwilling to pay the cost of housing record numbers of 
inmates. Twenty-five states have passed laws easing or eliminating the 
minimum sentencing requirements that were politically popular in the 1980s 
and '90s. They are also considering early parole for nonviolent, 
non-dangerous offenders to ease overcrowding and the cost of warehousing so 
many convicts.

The people behind liberalizing the tough laws are not all advocates of a 
liberal philosophy. Indeed, I am one of them.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the U.S. prison and jail 
population exceeded 2 million for the first time in June, 2002. By the end 
of last year, 33,000 more inmates had been added to the total. That means 
one out of every 142 residents is incarcerated in this country. The average 
cost to states per inmate per day is $57.92, according to the 2000 
Corrections Yearbook.

What are taxpayers getting for their money? They get a false sense of 
security, as if putting current criminals behind bars insures there won't 
be future criminals. If locking up everyone now committing crimes would 
eliminate crime, I'd be all for it, but new criminals are born, or made, 
every day. Something is wrong with the system.

Violent and dangerous offenders should be locked up and, in capital cases, 
executed. But violent offenders are just 49 percent of the prison 
population. Again, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the rest 
of the prisoners are behind bars for property crimes (19 percent), drug 
crimes (20 percent) and crimes affecting the "public order" (11 percent). 
This half of the prison population ought to be doing something else besides 
sitting in prison and costing the law-abiding money.

We do retribution well. We should be focusing on restitution.

If I steal your TV set, putting me in prison won't get it back. Making me 
pay a fine to the government (whose TV set was not stolen) won't restore 
your set, unless you have a very low deductible on your homeowner's 
insurance, which will undoubtedly go up if you file a claim. It would be 
better if the law required me to work to earn the money to buy you a new TV 
set and to pay you, not the government, a fine for your inconvenience and 
trouble. I should also be forced to pay court costs.

Such an approach would have a number of benefits.

First: You would get your TV back. The victim should always be the law's 
primary concern.

Second: Forcing me to acknowledge that I have wronged a person and not the 
state (which is a non-person) can help change my view of other people's 
property.

Third: It would save taxpayers the cost of incarcerating me.

Fourth: Making me pay the person I have wronged is a far better and more 
proven method for changing my life and behavior than putting me in prison 
where statistics show I am more likely to become a better criminal than a 
better citizen.

If the objective of criminal laws is to reduce crime, the laws on the books 
are not achieving it. The corporate monsters who rob stockholders and 
employees of their jobs and careers shouldn't go to jail. They should be 
forced to work to pay off as much as they possibly can to those they have 
wronged. That is redemptive for them, and it is restorative to the victims 
who lost their retirement and their paychecks to greed.

Republicans, who were behind many of these "tough on crime" laws, have an 
opportunity to fight crime in ways that will actually work and save the 
taxpayers lots of money. That is supposed to be the Republican way. It is 
certainly the only way that will succeed.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens