BCT Editorial – 6/19/05

This page was last updated on June 19, 2005.

Money matters; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 19, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The state is finding out that locking them up and throwing away the key is an expensive and foolhardy proposition.

“In the tough-on-crime mania that has dominated the nation and the state for the last three decades, and which is still a potent force in politics, elected officials have been more than willing to throw the book at those who have been convicted of crimes.

“We have no problem with punishing criminals nor are we excusing what they did. People should pay for their crimes.

“But the tough-on-crime crowd went off the deep end, in many cases - via legislative fiat - making the punishment not fit the crime (instituting mandatory sentencing and three-strikes laws, making parole almost unachievable, etc.). They also gutted education and drug-and-alcohol rehabilitation programs that could have cut down on the rate of recidivism.”

[RWC] Notice the editorial said “could have cut down on the rate of recidivism.” If these programs were productive, why didn’t the author cite the appropriate statistics?

“The bills are coming due for this shortsightedness.

“Last week, the Advisory Committee on Geriatric and Seriously Ill Inmates, a 46-member panel made up of prosecutors, judges, victim advocates, health-care experts and other criminal justice experts, delivered a thumping (but divided) 256-page report to the Legislature.

“The Associated Press reports releasing older inmates, including lifers, could help save the prison system on health-care costs and make prisons easier to manage.

“The advisory panel did not reach a consensus on the release of lifers but rather presented all its findings as a set of options the General Assembly could consider, some in the form of draft bills. They included giving judges and juries more sentencing options and creating a new category of ‘medical release’ for seriously or terminally ill patients.

“This is a case where money matters. The AP reports the average inmate costs the Department of Corrections about $30,000 a year while geriatric inmates can cost as much as $64,000 per year. The number of inmates age 50 and older in the state prison system has increased from 370 in 1980 to 5,082 in 2004.

“The odds of many of the panel’s recommendations being implemented aren’t very good simply because lawmakers fear being tagged as being soft on crime. It’s easier for them to strip funds from other state programs to increase the budget for the Department of Corrections than it is to vote for a measure that could be used against them at election time.

“But there’s another angle to this that cannot and must not be overlooked.

“Many older inmates have known nothing but prison life for decades. As a result of education and rehabilitation programs being weakened and with them having little incentive to rehabilitate themselves, these elderly inmates have few, if any, social skills that would allow them to re-enter the mainstream. Whether they were or were not when they entered prison, they are now hardened, albeit physically weakened, inmates. They have paid for their mistakes, and we are about to start paying more for ours.”

[RWC] The editorial threw a lot of numbers around, but did you notice the missing statistics? The editorial never mentioned the effect of “get tough” policies on the crime rate. If laws like “three strikes and you’re out” had no effect, I would expect the author to trumpet these figures to lend credibility to his position.