Send fewer petty criminals to jails

A student wrote this editorial after being inspired by the story on NPR by Laura Sullivan about poor people serving long jail terms for small crimes because they couldn't raise bail. The original story is at NPR. Another part of Laura Sullivan's story is here. The NPR series concluded with this article.

I don't agree with the way that people are sent to prison for every minor misdemeanor. For instance, we read the article about a homeless person who stole a blanket from the store, and was sent to prison because he couldn't pay the $50 bail fee. The thing that people either don't look at or don't care about, is that it costs way more of the taxpayer's money to keep them in prison than the $15 blanket is worth. I understand if it is a major crime like murder, and things that they are tried for right away, but these small crimes aren't even put onto trial for up to a year after they happen. I think it is crazy how much money we pay to keep people in prison. We pay $9 billion each year on funding prisons. Personally, I would much rather pay for a $15 blanket for a homeless person. Maybe there should be $9 billion towards homelessness prevention, and it would probably even cost less than that.

There was also a situation in Lubbock, TX where a guy stole a $150 television set from Wal-Mart while high on meth and was sent to prison for 75 days. For those days, it cost taxpayers $2,850, let alone all the money for the completely full jail cells. Twenty years ago when people were convicted of a crime, they were released until their hearing and they would just come back. Instead, we built a $110 million mega jail. In my opinion, the solution to this problem is doing pretrial release, where they are sent home with an ankle bracelet, drug testing, counseling, or a social worker. This would come out to about $2 per day instead of $9 per day. If this case was made, I think a lot of people would be for it, except for the bond companies. The bond companies make a living off of all the convicted people paying bonds, so they would be opposed to the idea. However, there are a lot more taxpayers out there that could out rule the bond companies.

Reduce incarceration. It's too expensive.

Here is a student's paper on incarceration.

The amount of people incarcerated in this country truly astounds me.  In America we currently have more than 2 million people in jails and prisons.  Countless inmates are serving time for minor drug offenses.  I believe that instead of pursuing the “War on Drugs”, which has led to many of these lockups without a doubt, our country should be putting more time, effort, and focus into alternative incarceration programs.  Diversion programs for first time, non-violent offenders have been proven to work well.   

These types of programs not only cost less than jail and prison, but they also help create a job base for social workers.  I believe that if we implemented more programs like these we could alleviate the growing problem of over populated jails and prisons in the U.S., and save taxpayers money as well.  Alternative incarceration programs allow an offender to receive treatment, employment, and even education and training under the supervision of law enforcement officers.  The offender can either be successful and become a reformed member of our society, or the offender can be unsuccessful, and a judge can simply send him back into the prison system.

Just to give an example of the amount of money that could be saved by creating programs like these, I looked up some statistics.  In New York it costs about $62,595 to house an inmate yearly.  The average cost to put that same inmate through an alternative program would be about $1,400 to $13,000 according to eHow.com.  That’s a minimum savings of $49,595!  In our current economic downturn taxpayers could really use a break like this.  It’s not a dollar amount to be laughed at by most Americans.  I don’t know a person who would say "no" if asked if they wanted to save $50,000. 

Some other benefits of alternative incarceration can be seen within communities.  Because offenders are trying to be a valued part of our society, foster care, shelter, welfare, and child support costs can be managed easier.  Alternative programs also have a significant effect on felon’s illegal drug usage.  It typically falls from 80% to 42% in those participating in the programs.  This is because the social and financial burdens of rehab are now placed back onto the family and community.  [see this 2.6 MB pdf file for more information]

To lend even more support to these programs is the fact that a study conducted by the New York Criminal Justice Agency found that offenders participating in programs like these were less likely to be arrested a second time than offenders who were put in a traditional jail or prison.  This suggests that programs like these are producing results of less crime and fewer repeat offenders.       

Overall, the benefits of alternative incarceration programs can clearly be seen.  Not only do they save money, but they also help reduce crime and repeat offenders as well.  If all states could follow New York’s example, America could regain control over our maxed out capacity jails and prisons, and at the same time fight crime and greatly reduce the enormous cost of housing inmates.  

Student wants fewer Americans incarcerated.

This is a student-written editorial, and I'm sharing it on the blog without my comments.

I am writing about our prison system and the need for reform.   

Senator Jim Webb from Virginia is on a crusade to do just that.  He cites that the United States, with only 5% of the world's population, is housing 25% of the world's reported criminals.  The numbers of people incarcerated for drug related crimes have soared 1200% since 1980 when Ronald Reagan declared a war on drugs.  However, a significant number of people incarcerated for drug offenses have no history of violence or high-level drug activity.  He also goes on to state that there are four times as many mentally ill people are in prisons than in mental health hospitals.  Our prisons are overcrowded, but not with the people that should be in our penal system.  

The United States spends about 68 billion dollars a year on corrections. It would be prudent for us to consider whether that money could be better spent on treatment for substance abuse and mental illness.   Certainly the correctional facilities are not equipped to address the needs of those addicted to drugs and/or alcohol or those suffering with mental illness.  We need to move these people out of the prisons and provide them with services that would allow them the opportunity to become productive members of society.  

There was a time when we addressed substance abuse as a health issue. Now we decided these people are criminals and that they should be punished for "breaking the rules".  Then what? They are released after serving their sentence and return to society with the same issues that landed them in the penal system in the first place.    How is it that a person suffering with mental illness can find rehabilitation in the confines of a prison?  While none of us approve of those that break the rules of society, our energy and resources would be better directed at reducing the number of people incarcerated for minor substance abuse violations and non-violent crimes in order to make room for the people that we built prisons for, those that we need protection from.

Student editorial on mental illness in corrections.

A student wrote this editorial on the topic of mental illness and prisons.  I'm sharing it here without comments:

I recently caught the last half hour of a documentary on PBS (The Released, by Karen O’Connor and Miri Navasky), which followed mentally ill prison inmates after they were released back into the community. The program caught my interest especially because of our recent class discussions about Criminal Justice and Mental Health in relation to Social Work. We learned the most common institutionalized settings in which mentally ill individuals live are jails and prisons. According to NAMI, at least 16 percent of the prison population can be classified as severely mentally ill. The particular program I watched examined the high rates of recidivism among mentally ill offenders.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 81 percent of mentally ill inmates currently in state prison have prior convictions. Sixty percent of released prisoners are likely to be rearrested within 18 months, but mentally ill offenders are likely to be rearrested at even higher rates. The program I watched allowed me to realize the reasons for this are the lack of community services available to mentally ill offenders as well as the general attitude of the American public. There are individuals who don’t see this issue as a priority because they feel like mentally ill offenders are just a drain on society. Alphonse Gerhardstein, president of the Prison Reform Advocacy Center, believes we should care about what happens to these people because “As long as their heart’s beating, they have a right to life and liberty.”

It is extremely difficult for mentally ill ex-offenders to obtain public housing because most housing subsidies are only available to applicants who have federal income tax forms (the working poor). Public housing authorities and Section 8 providers are also allowed to deny housing to individuals with criminal histories. To make the situation even more troublesome, most ex-offenders who are mentally ill are released from prison with little money. Even if they do find housing, lack of support services makes it difficult for them to sustain their housing.

The Council of States Governments has created the Consensus Project in order to address the recidivism rates of mentally ill offenders. They recently (in 2002) released a report which recommends planning for post-release services from the very first day mentally ill offenders arrive in the justice system. They suggest community-based agencies need to join together to access housing funding for mentally ill offenders. The report also states treatment for substance abuse and mental illness should be integrated and individuals with mental illness should be able to access all government entitlements they are eligible for such as Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplementary Security Income. 

I think this report has valuable suggestions which community leaders need to be aware of. Especially considering our current economic situation, it is necessary for everyday citizens to weigh the costs of keep mentally ill offenders incarcerated rather than working to help them successfully re-enter the community.

Student reacts to mental illness being treated in corrections facilities

I'm sharing this student reaction paper without any comments from me. 

After reading our chapters on mental illness and crime and punishment, I was extremely disturbed to find out how many individuals with mental illness are in the prison system. It seems to me that a much better idea would be to find the individuals with mental illnesses before they commit a crime and get them treatment.

A girl I work with has a son, B____, who recently went to prison. He stole a blank check from his brother and forged his name to get money. His brother pressed charges and he was sentenced to two years. If all goes well he’ll be out in May for good time. B____ had been in and out of trouble as a teenager. He stole bikes and hung out with gangs. However, he managed to stay out of juvenile detention. In the past two years, he’s had a lot of health problems. He’s been having seizures and nosebleeds. He was usually treated at the hospital emergency room with no follow up. The emergency room doctor recommended that he see a neurologist. The neurologist couldn’t find anything wrong with him. It makes me wonder if the treatment that he received was marginal because he was on a medical card.

While in prison, B____ has been diagnosed with schizophrenia. His mom was shocked. He’s been taking medication for the illness. However, I wonder that when he gets out if he’ll continue his treatment. After three years of release 62.3% of offenders will be back in jail. In the case of individuals who have mental illness I’m sure that’s because they discontinue treatment.

Early intervention and early use of new medications lead to better medical outcomes for the individual. The earlier someone with schizophrenia is diagnosed and stabilized on treatment, the better the long-term prognosis for their illness. B____ is only 19 years old. Since schizophrenia is a disease that typically begins to show signs in early adulthood, B____ has a good chance to control his disease. It’s just sad that he had to go to jail to get a prognosis.

Student reaction paper on crime and punishment.

Here is a student paper that elicited some thinking on my part:

Last week in class we discussed California letting out 1/3 of the prison population within the next three years. I looked at some other articles online and the reasons for this idea is not only due to over population, but also because of poor health care and mental health care inside the prisons. Also, the sources I found online stated that California’s prison authority need to add more amenities to the prison for the prisoners’ well being.

I do not agree that jail should be full of special amenities that everyday people get. Jail is not supposed to be the life of luxury that they could have on the outside. They are there for a reason, and with most of them being parole violators they will most likely end up right back in jail. I do not think that letting these people go is the answer to their money problems and I think that they need to look elsewhere, such as public assistance—who has it and should they? I believe that setting these people free does not set the right example for the youth. To me it says that if you go to jail there might be a chance you get out because the state cannot afford for you to be housed in jail. I think that the federal judges should re-think their decision on letting 57,000 inmates free.

One of your arguments is that releasing prisoners will reduce the threat of jail time as a punishment, and particularly you mention that youth will have reduced fear of being sent to jail. I am not a criminologist, but I’ve had enough exposure to research on violent offending to understand that the threat of punishment is often not strongly considered by offenders. The more salient fact for offenders is the likelihood that they will in fact be caught and punished at all. That is a variable that can be influenced by good forensic police work more than sentencing practices and prison conditions. Secondly, I wonder very much whether the fear of long prison sentences is very closely related to probable length of sentencing. I mean, I doubt the probability of a four-year spell in jail is twice as scary to a potential offender as the probability of a two-year sentence. And the probability of an eight-year sentence isn’t likely to be significantly more dissuasive than a four-year sentence. I’m just guessing about that, but I wonder if shorter sentencing for some crimes would be helpful in reducing prison overcrowding, and could be accomplished without significantly reducing the fear people have of being sentenced to jail time.

I’m also curious about the possibility of house arrest and parole. As you point out, many in jail were released on parole and then were sent back to jail for parole violations. I’d very much like to read a study of why people violate parole and what happens when people do violate parole. If it is the case that offenders violate parole by blowing off meetings with their parole officers or possessing guns or selling drugs, then that deserves one sort of response, but if they violate parole by missing a meeting with their parole officer because they lack transportation, or they are tested and found to have used marijuana, or they leave the county for a day to visit a relative in a different part of the state, then those sort of parole violations seem to warrant a less strict response than the more serious parole violations, and I don’t know if parole violations are in fact treated differently with respect to the seriousness of the crimes and types of parole violations.

Another thing I wonder about is the cost of having close supervision of offenders in non-prison settings like house arrest. Could we have people sleep at home (with electronic monitoring to ensure that they remain home), and report to treatment-detention centers every day for 40-hours of rehabilitative study, work, and treatment each week as if they had jobs, and then give them furloughs on weekends? This would be a punitive system that would involve a greater emphasis on rehabilitation, and for offenders who weren’t considered a menace to society, it might be just as safe for the non-offending population. You might have jobs for therapists, social workers, teachers, coaches, and other helpers in the rehabilitation-detention centers, but you would have fewer jobs for prison guards. I’d like to see studies of alternative treatment and punitive systems, with evidence about what such things do to recidivism, how many people under alternative sentencing commit property or personal crimes (of violence), and then look at the costs of alternative sentencing relative to imprisonment.

The thing I’m getting at here is that a pragmatic view is to look at costs and results, and try to ignore our sense of outrage and anger at people who break the law. Yes, it’s human and natural to want revenge. Any social worker who helps clients plagued with addiction would like to see drug dealers removed from society forever, or even shot (I’ve fantasized about just killing all the drug dealers, but it’s just a fantasy, and I’d never actually advocate it or approve of it if this daydream were acted upon). And so, when we think of people in jail, we think of people who threaten us or threaten our property or undermine our society, and we're angry about that.

In fact, a very high percentage of persons in jail have been sentenced to relatively long jail terms for relatively minor crimes, drug possession for example. How long should a person spend in jail if they are found to be in possession of some heroine, cocaine, marijuana, or methamphetamine? How long should a person spend in jail if they steal and do property damage that costs someone $600 to repair and recover? When a person tries to steal my radio I’d like him to spend several months in jail for the audacity of trying to take my property, but if I stop and think about it, it would cost society hundreds of times the value of my radio to put the thief in jail for a year. It might be far more cost-effective to let the thief spend only a few weeks in jail, and then sentence the thief to a year of rehabilitation services that would try to change his or her life and make him or her a productive and law-abiding citizen. It wouldn’t be as punitive, but as a practical matter, I wonder about the relative costs and the chances for a better outcome for myself, my society, and the thief. Although our brains react to retribution and revenge the same way they react to satisfying thirst or hunger, why should we let such instinctive desires dictate our policies?

Your reaction doesn’t reflect on these issues. You are reacting only to the surface issue of justice, and you are thinking about the punitive aspects of incarceration. Yes, of course punishment is necessary because it does in fact have power to prevent many people from doing crimes. It is also necessary because it helps those of who are law-abiding have faith in our system of justice, that people who harm us will endure harm themselves as retribution for their transgression. But beyond the punitive aspects of the justice system we must consider other aspects of justice and social improvement, practicality, and costs. Are punishments fitting to the crime? Are punishments fair or are they cruel? What are “extras and amenities” that prisoners should be denied, and what are basic services and conditions that prisoners deserve?

There may also be pragmatic issues about what prisoners can get. Perhaps prisoners don’t deserve movies, television, video games, books, an aesthetic environment, or tasty and nutritious food; but in fact, if they do get a certain level of these things they may be more likely to behave passively and develop better self-images of themselves as dignified human beings who are too good to fall down to pattern of life where they would again commit crimes. And, if you deny those good things you may be cultivating a sense of resentment, cruelty, and malice in the prisoners, so that when they are finally released they will swiftly commit crimes if they think they can get away with them. This is a question of fact (we need research to answer what in fact will happen), that would have a bearing on pragmatic decisions about what we should do for prisoners. If research shows that it’s better (cost-effective, reduces recidivism, cheaper, yields better outcomes for everyone concerned) to give prisoners certain amenities, you then will need to decide whether you want to hold to a principle that prisoners should be kept at a level of high dissatisfaction and discomfort while incarcerated because prison is punitive, or whether you want to save money and improve outcomes by treating prisoners with levels of kindness, support, and rehabilitative services.

A good example is education. Outside of jail people must pay for college education, and people go deep into debt to fund their college studies. If we offered college education to prisoners, the prisoners would have no way to pay. But, what if it turns out that when prisoners are educated and earn college degrees the result is that they are better behaved in prison, and when they get out their recidivism is reduced by 75%, and also when they get out they tend to end up earning better incomes and becoming taxpayers rather than welfare recipients? Let’s imagine the results of providing college education to prisoners were in fact this good, then we might compare the costs of giving college educations to prisoners or not giving college educations to them and discover that providing a college education to prisoners saves taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars per each prisoner over a lifespan. Then what will we do? If such a situation were true, it would make pragmatic and economic sense to give free college educations to prisoners who had the ambition and ability to earn such an education. But, it would also be terribly unjust, because law-abiding people who never go to jail don’t usually get free college educations. The program of prison college education would create perverse incentives that would encourage people to commit crimes and go to jail so they could get free college educations (at least it would reduce the fear people would have of the punishment of incarceration).

Would the answer be to make college education free to everyone outside jail in order to make college educations for prisoners fair? But college education, although mostly a public good, is also somewhat a private good, and it make sense to ask a student to bear some of the cost of their college education, since they will reap the largest gain from their own college education. (I think it’s fair to ask college students and their families to pay between 10% and 40% of their college education expenses, and let the public make up the difference with taxes and spending since college-educated citizens generally make society a better place fore everyone). So, college outside of prison should probably not be free, and the issue of college education within prison would always be one that raises issues of pragmatism in conflict with fairness. How can we give away for free something to a person who violated the rules, while the person who obeyed the rules must pay for the same good?