|
Study Alternatives for Non-violent Offenders
Op-ed by Sen. Robert J. Thompson (R-Chester)
Like most states, Pennsylvania has traditionally
used incarceration as its answer to the problems associated with crime and
illegal drugs.
Having added 13 new prisons since 1992, Pennsylvania
now spends five cents out of every state dollar on the Department of Corrections
-- more than the spending for every other state program and service except basic
education and medical assistance. But these brick and mortar programs
haven’t resolved the problem. In fact, some claim that all they’ve done is
create a demand for more bricks and mortar.
I firmly believe in the penal system. Violent
people need to be put behind bars and kept there for a long time, both to
protect society and to send the message that we will not tolerate that kind of
behavior. To that end, Pennsylvania’s prison population has exploded from
8,000 in 1980 to a projected 42,000 by year’s end and violent offenders here
serve the second longest prison sentences in the country.
However, our prisons have also become a dumping
ground for people having problems that could be handled better and cheaper
through other methods. Seven years ago, serious violent and property
offenders made up 58 percent of our prison population. That figure has
since dropped to 50 percent with increasing numbers of non-violent offenders and
parole rule violators -- often suffering from addiction and mental illness --
accounting for the difference.
Incarceration in a $28,000-a-year taxpayer-funded
cell is not necessarily the best answer in the way we handle those people who
have committed less-serious, non-violent crimes. Mandatory sentencing
provisions and other measures have limited some of the discretion that judges
have in handling low-risk offenders. Legislation pending in the General
Assembly would open up more alternatives to judges when sentencing low-risk
offenders.
Another area that could be addressed involves
reducing the recidivism rate by better preparing inmates for lives as productive
citizens when they return home. About 13,000 inmates will be released from
our prisons this year. The more that can be done to get them ready to come
back into society, the better off we’re all going to be. The research is
clear: somebody who’s clean and dry and employed has much less chance of getting
in trouble than somebody who has an alcohol or drug problem and doesn’t have a
job or a place to live.
Without much public notice, Pennsylvania and other
states have started taking steps to cut the recidivism rate. The
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections has increased its emphasis on
rehabilitation by teaching inmates construction skills, offering parenting and
citizenship programs and even helping inmates keep ties with their families
through video teleconferences.
In Erie, a broad alliance of state and local
agencies is using a federal grant to hire special caseworkers who coordinate and
facilitate a wide range of services for inmates. These services start
before they leave prison, then following them through a pre-release center and
ultimately home, making sure they have the tools they need to succeed outside
the walls. The annual cost of this program is much less than the bill for
a year in prison.
A lot more is happening and the new focus on
prisoner re-entry is symbolic of an emerging and remarkable bipartisan consensus
on crime and punishment. Legislators and citizens are beginning to look at
the criminal justice system in a different light than they did a few years ago.
The clash between competing philosophies of
punishment and treatment is giving way to a policy and political middle ground
that seeks both goals -- and in the process -- strikes a better balance between
public safety and public spending. A new piece of federal prisoner reentry
legislation reflects that balance. So does an upcoming report by the
Council of State Governments’ Re-Entry Policy Council. The group of 100
corrections and social services leaders from across the country agreed on
hundreds of pages of action steps necessary to ensure a smooth transition from
prison to the community.
Being tough means being willing to take a hard look
at history and learn its lessons. Currently 44 percent of our inmates
return to prison within three years of release, and we can’t expect to change
that recidivism rate unless we adopt new ideas and strategies. Neglecting
inmate re-entry and alternative sentencing has wasted lives, created more crime,
and contributed heavily to our budget crisis. A new direction can both
save us money and make us safer.
# # #
|
