Pubdate: Thu, 21 Jul 2005
Source: Roslindale-West Roxbury Transcript (MA)
Copyright: 2005 Community Newspaper Company
Contact:  http://www2.townonline.com/roslindale/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3773
Author:  Rick Holmes
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/rehab.htm (Treatment)

GOING IN CIRCLES

Our assumptions about crime and punishment are as old as the Old
Testament and as modern as mandatory minimum sentences. The assumption
runs like this: If people do things we don't like, we make it against
the law. If we catch them, we lock them up. Prison is unpleasant
enough to convince them not to do those bad things again.

All assumptions should be tested from time to time, even the most
ancient ones, so answer this: If prison punishment is supposed to
stop people from committing crimes, why do two-thirds of prisoners
released from America's prisons end up back behind bars within three
years? The answer begins with a realistic look at what makes people
commit crimes and what makes them stop. Those who have looked at
crime and punishment most closely, from inside and outside the system,
are beginning to acknowledge something the "tough on crime"
politicians rarely admit: Our prisons are overflowing with people who
are mentally ill and addicted to alcohol or drugs. After serving
their sentences, they return to crime - and eventually to prison -
because no one has bothered to treat their illness or addiction.

Consider some numbers from the report of a task force on substance 
abuse led by Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey:

81 percent of those in Massachusetts prisons have substance abuse 
disorder. So do 72 percent of those in the juvenile court system.

83 percent of people arrested were using alcohol or other drugs at 
the time of their offense.

Of the 25,000 men and women held in the state's prisons and county
jails, more than 40 percent are held on a drug offense or larceny
related to drug use. 70 to 90 percent of prisoners have extensive
histories of alcohol or drug abuse. The cost of addiction goes far
beyond crime and prisons. Health problems, poverty, homelessness and
child abuse also come with substance abuse. Alcohol was responsible
for 45 percent of all fatal automobile accidents in 2003. The state
Department of Mental Health reported recently that narcotics caused
574 deaths that year.

We all end up paying for untreated mental illness and substance abuse
- - a distinction of limited value, since drug and alcohol abuse is so
often a case of "self-medicating" for depression or some other mental
illness. And there is a lot of untreated mental illness. Healey's
report estimates that out of 570,343 individuals who need substance
abuse treatment, just 82,196 are receiving it.

But we pay  most when we put sick people in prison. It costs
Massachusetts taxpayers $43,000 a year to keep an addict behind bars.
You could give them a year at Harvard for that much - and they'd
probably have a better shot of leaving in better shape than when they
arrived.

Most Massachusetts prisoners don't get drug treatment in jail. Most
serve their sentences and receive no post-release supervision. They
are dumped back on the streets with no money, no home and no job. We
shouldn't be surprised when they  return to their old neighborhoods,
their old friends, their old habits and their old destructive behavior.

It's not that crime shouldn't be punished. Society has a legitimate
beef against many of these drug addicts. They steal our tape decks,
mess up our downtowns, tax public  resources and neglect their kids.
But society needs to do more than punish these people. It needs to
get them to stop. Throwing more people into jail for longer sentences
has helped a bunch of politicians get elected, but in terms of
keeping people from breaking more laws, it's a failure.

Consider  DUI. Every couple of weeks we read about someone arrested
multiple times for drunken driving, often someone who has already
served time for the offense. Didn't he get the message that society
takes drunk driving seriously? Of course. What he didn't get during
his time in the can was effective treatment for the disease of
alcohol addiction.

Across the country, officials are starting to figure out that locking
addicts up isn't enough. Illinois has opened a new prison designed
specifically for repeat  offenders with substance abusers. The average
prisoner there, The New York Times reports, has been arrested 16
times and sent to prison three times. About half of them hadn't
finished high school, and half didn't have a job at the time of  their
arrest.

At the Sheridan prison, therapy and job training begin the day the
inmate arrives and continue for months after he is released. Prison
and probation employees follow the released prisoner, helping him
find a home, a job and the support system he  needs to stay clean and
sober.

Similar efforts could pay huge dividends in Massachusetts, where half
of all released  prisoners are back behind bars within three years.
Reducing the recidivism rate  by 1 percent would save the taxpayers $1
million, Healey says. She points to a  pilot program of post-release
support for women prisoners that brought the  recidivism rate all the
way down to 5 percent. The money saved by keeping ex-prisoners from
returning can be put to far more effective  use. Detoxing an addict
can cost as little as $1,000 for a five-day treatment. Longer-term
outpatient treatment can cost $4,970 a year. Residential rehab costs
$55 a day, or $6,600 for a 120-day treatment. Now remember the
$43,000 we spend keeping each addict locked up without effective
treatment. For that money, we could provide residential treatment for
seven addicts.

Healey's task force examined the full spectrum of responses to
substance abuse, from middle school classrooms to detox centers and
hospital wards. Among the contributors was the Framingham Police
Department, which has its own program for separating dangerous
criminals from the mentally ill. The 2-year-old Framingham Jail
Diversion Program puts clinical social workers in police cruisers
called to incidents involving people who may be mentally ill. If it's
a nonviolent public disturbance caused by someone who clearly needs
mental health services that aren't found in a jail cell, the officer
and social worker  divert the person away from the criminal justice
system and into a more appropriate program.

Healey's task force calls for similar collaborative efforts on
substance abuse prevention, enforcement and treatment. It recognizes
as one of its guiding principles that substance abuse is neither a
character flaw nor a voluntary choice. The report's first "principle
for success" is that "Addiction is recognized and dealt with as a
chronic disease."

Healey is well-positioned to educate the public about that
distinction, which is the consensus view of experts and front-line
workers. She's an expert herself, having spent 10 years studying
criminal justice and public safety programs. She's written four books
on the criminal justice system. She's also a Republican, which by
itself may immunize her from having to constantly prove she's tough
on crime. And with Mitt Romney eyeing a presidential run, Healey's
positioning herself to become his successor. Though Healey's plan
isn't as ambitious in scope as it is thoughtful in concept, it's
light years ahead of Romney's pet crime proposal: a "foolproof" death
penalty  bill.

Asked why Romney is playing hot-button politics instead of
championing her comprehensive  approach to substance abuse issues,
Healey said, "He's got his style, and I've  got mine." She promised
that her quiet consensus-building will produce something more lasting
than another Beacon Hill shouting match. Let's hope  so, but it won't
happen unless Beacon Hill Democrats also find the political courage
to look past the old assumptions about crime and punishment.
- ---