Pubdate: Sun, 16 Nov 2003
Source: Times Daily (Florence, AL)
Copyright: 2003 Times Daily
Contact:  http://www.timesdaily.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1641
Author: Cal Thomas
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing)

IT'S 3 STRIKES, YOU'RE BROKE

After two decades of being "tough on crime" by "locking them up and 
throwing away the key" - to recall two of the effective political slogans 
of the past - 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 already passed laws easing or eliminating the minimum 
sentencing requirements that were politically popular in the 1980s and 
1990s. They are also considering early parole for nonviolent, nondangerous 
offenders to ease overcrowding and the cost of warehousing so many convicts.

Joseph Lehman, secretary of the state of Washington Department of 
Corrections, told The New York Times that the people behind liberalizing 
the tough laws "are not all advocates of a liberal philosophy." Indeed, 
they are not. 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. In Georgia, where about 35,000 citizens are behind 
bars, it costs taxpayers more than $20,000 per year per inmate and each 
jail cell costs $60,000 to build.

What are taxpayers getting for their money? They get a false sense of 
security, as if putting current criminals behind bars ensures 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 BJS, 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 nonperson) can help change my view of other people's property. 
Third, it would save taxpayers the cost of incarcerating me. And, 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 currently on 
the books are clearly 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.

Cal Thomas is a columnist for Tribune Media Services.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom