This paper is
written to simplify the current prison crisis which has been draining the state
budget for the last ten years. It is not a politically correct nor a
politically accepted concept as it offers alternatives to incarceration via
traditional and evidence based programs but since the culture in Arizona is “tough
on crime” the feasibility of making changes depends on the leadership of the
state.
It is a common
fact that prisons have grown exponentially in the United States and Arizona. There
were major contributors to this growth including the war of drugs, veterans
being discharged after serving in war, homeless populations roaming the streets,
mentally ill persons incarcerated because of the lack of state hospitals or
treatment facilities and many more. This has been accepted as fact and is not challenged.
What should be
challenged is the fact that penal policies have shifted focusing on sentencing
and doubling their sentence of confinement. As a natural consequence of such actions,
the prison population exploded and has been growing ever since the
implementation of such policies. The reality posing the state today is the fact
this current policy is no longer affordable or sustainable with budgets facing
decreased revenues and higher expenditures not just in prison costs but in
education, healthcare, children protection needs, public safety etc.
Prosecutors are
concerned about crime rates as this is a legitimate concern for public safety. The
public is concerned about the cost of public safety and growing prison spending
and this is also a legitimate concern today. A silent and hidden factor is the
social and racial inequalities involved in the process of incarceration leaving
families, children and communities damaged and dependent on public aid funding.
However, we must focus on the social justice of incarceration and address the
alternatives to reduce costs and populations.
The reality is that
this paper only reflects the work that has already been done to reduce the
incarceration rates. It merely mimics those recommendations and provides the
reader with thought provoking ideas that break the bias of being “tough on
crime” and offer a strategic viewpoint to reduce incarceration without
impacting the crime rate and work on reducing imprisonment costs.
It is believed
the point is not “something needs to be done” but rather we need to develop a
strategy to seek reduction in prison costs through sound means and courses
designed to reflect best practices. This paper is for the policymakers who
appear to be restricted or hampered by political influences and a
misunderstanding between incarceration rates and crime rates.
Thus they are taking
the cautious approach about reducing incarceration for the fear of meddling or
contributing to an increase in the crime rate. Making assumptions the
connection between incarceration rates and the crime rates is flawed based on a
constant factor that plays into these dynamics of what is called the “iron law
of prison populations.” This principle applies two factors: the number of
people put in prison and the length of time they stay incarcerated.
Obviously there
is a link between the incarceration rate and the crime rate but it is
misunderstood and has created a “fear” level of being too soft on crime. It has
been determined you can reduce captivity rates or populations without a “substantial”
negative impact on public safety. Thus this paper proposes a set of penal
changes that would cut the population and costs respectively. If used
accordingly and abiding by the previous sets of rules before the prison
population boom, we could return the prison management element to a restored
status and focus on alternatives to prison time given by judges and recommended
by county prosecutors.
FACT: It takes a
crime to convict someone to serve time in prison. If crime rates rise so does
the imprisonment rate. We expect the crime rate to fall but we see it occurs on
a very small scale thus we have a mild correlation that can be addressed and
politically tolerated if the mindset changes to accepting alternatives to
longer sentencing.
Therefore a
consensus is built that the impact is modest compared to other factors on
crime.
FACT: When one
person is locked up another person comes along and replaces him or her
maintaining the crime rate. This is especially true for drug related crimes. This
represents the fact that a prison conviction will increase the prison
population but it does not decrease the crime rate. Another fact gathered over
the years is that the length of time does not change the risk of recidivism
thus sending to people for shorter periods would not impact their propensity to
commit crimes upon release from prison. The exception to this rule would be in
prisons were to release a disproportional number of persons from prison as it
would have an impact on crime rates.
FACT: People
released from prison are still high risk of committing new crimes however, they
commit only a small fraction of all crimes reported. Taken into consideration
prisoners are not less likely to commit crimes upon release after serving more
time in prison and given the fact the contribution is small the risk is
relatively small. Hence increasing the prison release rate would serve no
advantage to this process since it has already been determined some prisoners
will commit crimes upon release. However we can assume these prisoners would
commit a crime anyway.
FACT: When the
number of persons going to prison drops, the number of inmates released from
prison will also drop. Hence the corresponding “new” crime committed rate would
drop as well. Based on the research that the length of stay in prison has no
relationship to rate of recidivism and going to prison in the first place it
does not reduce the likelihood that the criminal offender will be a repeat
offender and make it marginally higher.
FACT: This
analysis shows that the size of the prison population and the amount of crimes
committed are related but not as strong as assumed. Since the duration of time
prisoners are released from prison is not related to their likelihood to remain
crime free it suggests prisoners can serve shorter sentences without triggering
an increase in the crime rate.
FACT:
Policymakers misunderstand how prisons grow and confuse rehabilitation with
punishment. The same goes for judges who think they are sending people for rehabilitation.
Remember the “iron law” which states two factors: how many people go to prison and
how long they stay. If either of these factors changes, the size of the prison population
will also change. The corollary to this iron law is equally important: There is
no way to change the prison population without changing either the number of people
who go to prison or how long they stay there.
FACT: There were
three deciding factors in prison growth – sentencing policies restricted the
use of probation as a sentence for felons causing an increase in the number of
people going to prison; enhanced penalties for felonies committed increased the
length of time to serve; a backlog of people serving time (overcrowding)
serving longer sentences. The result is today’s dilemma to reduce prison growth
and costs.
Despite efforts to
address alternative sentencing laws, the idea of sentencing reforms did not
impact the length of sentence but rather focused on the probation periods and
conditions. These reforms were basically sabotaged by technical violations that
resulted in persons going to prison anyway. These revocations impacted the
population and created a failed system to reform the problem. Hence the
intention to provide non-incarceration alternatives turned into incarceration
due to a lack of incentives on the community corrections side of the justice system.
Thus the laws
changed for an alternative to serve but due to revocations it was not effective
and there was not a single new law designed to address the change of length of
time or reduce restrictions on probation sentences. Far more important are the emphases
on reentry, alternatives to incarceration, and the philosophy of rehabilitation,
a problem that can be addressed only with a focus on the iron law's two elements.
Political obstacles
are in place to resist rehabilitation programs in Arizona. Because there are
misunderstandings between punishment and treatment, the debate has caused a
standstill in the process to address this issue. The focus on either penal
strategy is understood but one serves an entire different purpose than the
other.
FACT: Some judges
will say that they send people to prison for rehabilitation purposes. This is
not the accurate purpose of such sentencing. They are being sent to prison for
punishment since treatment programs are severely limited inside prisons. Best
case scenario are alcohol abuse, substance abuse and anger management programs available
at a limited scale to the population and only as mandatory conditions of
incarceration but this is not rehabilitate in nature since the prison
environment is more dominantly counter-treatment than successful treatment
outside of prisons.
FACT: To achieve
a true rehabilitation prison program for treatment the system would have to be
increased to scale of the population for everyone to attend. This is
unrealistic and very costly done. In the end, rehabilitation is the right thing
to do but it does not impact mass incarceration.
To reduce mass
incarceration we must entice the criminal justice system e.g. prosecutors,
judges to place offenders into community programs rather than incarceration
including the intensive probation programs for drug treatment diversion
programs. The same can be said for the mentally ill and other special needs
however, in todays’ political world, these programs rarely replace
incarceration thus doing nothing to drive down mass incarceration rates.
There are two
main reasons for this. First it is not politically feasible to offer
alternatives in Arizona as the politicians run on and are elected by the people
for being “tough on criminals.” this results in having higher rates of incarceration
and more “technical” revocation failure
rates. Second, this strategy promises
not to impact public safety or risk thus the system forgoes dealing with the serious
violators and deal with those lawbreakers who would not have gone to prison
anyways thus doing nothing for the incarnation rates.
In order to
reduce incarceration and prison costs we should look at evidence based:
Re-entry
programs
Sentencing
reforms
The number of
persons going into prison (including violators)
Mandatory
sentencing
Technical
violations of probation and parole
Length of
incarceration
Impact of mass
incarceration rates
Impact of the
crime rates
References:
Harvard Law &
Policy Review Summer, 2009 -Confronting the Costs on Incarceration Todd R. Clear
James Austin Copyright © 2009 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College; Todd
R. Clear, James Austin
Is there a
beauty bias out there today? Are we all so ignorant to realize that we are all beautiful
in one way or another? What is ugly to one person is beauty to another. We are
so biased today we can’t see the truth as it shows up before us in the mirror. Isn’t
beauty skin deep and aren’t we really overrating it a bit for being beautiful
is really convenient for those who have the good looks and get the compliments
from strangers and friends. 
