Prioritizing prison outcomes requires wisdom of Solomon (published 3-20-97, Reading Eagle)
By Jeffrey K. Sprecher
Justice has always been
rich in symbolism. We see the scales of justice and know that facts are weighed
carefully, one against the other, until the right course emerges. We read the
biblical account of King Solomon and learn the importance of seeing beyond
superficial motivations.
In
fairness, it takes the wisdom of Solomon to understand some of the logic of our
current criminal justice system. Consider the contradictions inherent in these
statistics: Despite the addition of 10,000 beds in recent years, our state
prisons currently are operating at 154 percent capacity.
Two
out of three state inmates are classified as nonviolent, yet they are housed,
at great cost to the taxpayers who have already been victimized by their
criminal conduct, behind thick concrete walls and steel bars.
Sentencing
policies aimed at punishing drug kingpins have resulted in a torrent of users
and low-level operatives filling limited state prison cells while drug sales
continue to flourish in both urban and rural areas.
Last
summer, the state Senate Judiciary Committee completed a study on prison
overcrowding and alternative sentencing. In reporting its recommendations, the
committee noted that prison overcrowding rarely evokes a sympathetic public
response, but with state spending nearing the $1 billion-a-year mark, the issue
needs to be addressed.
Criminal
justice issues are especially difficult for elected officials. By taking the
sensible approach to policies that enhance public safety – instead of vengeance
– these lawmakers run the risk of being branded soft on crime. So, it was a
bold and courageous move for the committee to recommend items such as expanded
use of alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders, drug treatment
as a sanctioning tool for abusers, and restoration of judicial discretion in
sentencing offenders who currently warrant mandatory minimum terms.
These
are all steps in the right direction. Overwhelmingly, it seems past policies
were shrouded in myths: Put more people in prison and the crime rate will come
down; make sentences longer and criminals will be deterred; build more prisons
and the public will feel safer. Taxpayers have paid dearly to implement these
policies and have seen none of the promised results.
The
violent crime rate in Pennsylvania has been relatively constant for the past 50
years, virtually unaffected by the tripling of the prison population over the
last 15 years. And, still, opinion research tells us that the public feels
unsafe – a perception that seems to stand apart from the statistics.
We,
as citizens, need to take the time to examine the trade-offs in this issue. We
probably all want the system to punish, deter, rehabilitate, incapacitate,
restore both victims and communities, save money and more. We need to prioritize
those outcomes because every one of them comes at the expense of another.
Then
we can be in a position to appreciate the wisdom of committee chairman Sen.
Stewart Greenleaf, who concluded, “If we take the initiative to set up a
systematic program of review and supervision through alternative sentencing
programs for nonviolent state-level offenders, we will have the assurance of
control and, ultimately, public safety.
“Expensive
prison space must be held for those who are truly violent and career criminals.
This problem has transcended party lines and social ideologies; it is a matter
of practicality and fiscal responsibility.”
The
weight of this logic clearly tips the scales toward Solomonesque reforms that
are at once tough and smart. I implore the careful study of this timely issue.
Jeffrey K. Sprecher is a Judge of the Berks
County Court of Common Pleas. (3-20-97)
Dr. David McFarland, president of Kutztown University, put it simply when he asked: why are we spending more money on prisons than college education? It is apparent that the issues of the past 17 years have not disappeared, but have actually become worse today. For instance, state spending of $1 million for the annual prison budget that I referenced in the article has climbed to a staggering $2 billion being spent per year today.
What a dilemma. The symposium was held because even
elected officials acknowledge that the justice system was in need of repair. After
all, the United States incarcerates more people at a higher rate than any other
country on earth! We must continue to identify the causes of the problem and
offer solutions; however, law makers must no longer be afraid to implement the
needed changes – disbanding the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing and
repealing the mandatory minimum sentencing laws – because their opponents will
accuse them of being soft on crime. The problem has been identified and its
solution suggested, but they refuse to implement the reforms that will truly
make a difference. The monster continues to grow uncontrollably; new prisons
are built to house the influx of inmates who have increasingly longer sentences
to serve. Ten thousand new beds were added and the system still operated at
154% capacity, noted the state senate judiciary committee’s study. Which was
published less than a year before our symposium in 1997. The monster remains on
the loose.
So what did our symposium accomplish? It shed light on
the fact that all futile attempts have not worked. Disbanding the sentencing
commission and repealing mandatory minimum sentencing stand as the two logical
solutions to slaying the monster, but legislators are afraid to vote for this
reform. In other words, their “buck passing” efforts to find another approach
at reform have put taxpayers and citizens in a worse position today than 17
years ago!
What is keeping legislators from embracing real change?
Next week in Part II, a reminder of the effectiveness of
the symposium.
No comments:
Post a Comment