Tough on crime: At what cost?
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
As the two Cheshire suspects make their first appearance in Part A today and as calls for tougher penalties and stricter parole regulations make the rounds, it is important to remind ourselves of the cost that comes with being “tough on crime”. For those who have been around long enough, this smacks of the measures taken by the state in the 80s. The Waterbury Republican-American has this detailed story on the costs involved and the consequences on the state’s budget:
While people still mourn the dead and seethe over crime, there has been little discussion of the costs and consequences of getting tougher on crime and criminals.
Yet, the price tag and the implications are considerable.
“To be sure, every citizen must understand that major changes, whether in longer sentences or more monitoring, comes with a price tag. A big one. Potentially hundreds of millions of tax dollars,” House Speaker James A. Amann, D-Milford, said.
In the early 80’s, Connecticut eliminated parole and changed the state’s sentencing structure, going from indeterminate sentences to definite sentences. This led to significant overcrowding and a massive expansion of prisons in Connecticut.
The state legislature adopted new sentencing laws and abolished parole in 1981. By the decade’s end, the prison population had doubled, staffing levels had tripled and the Department of Correction’s budget had quadrupled.
The last major prison expansion in the late 1980s and early 1990s cost $1 billion, and taxpayers are still paying off the state bonds that financed the construction projects.
In the 1990s, the legislature re-instituted parole and embarked on a prison expansion program. Lawmakers also toughened criminal laws. If prison sentences are now made longer, and more inmates serve more time in prison, they have to be housed somewhere. The state now has 19,000 prison beds. “We may have to build more prisons. There is no question about that,” said Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven, co-chairman of the legislature’s Judiciary Committee.
New and expanded prisons will need more staff. The Department of Correction has a workforce of nearly 7,000 and a payroll of more than $400 million today. Prison staffing is also an issue. Overtime cost the department an estimated $10 million more than budgeted for the 2007 fiscal year that ended June 30. Overtime was $61 million for 2006.
The state is spending more than $1.5 billion on prisons this year. This represents 8.7 percent of the $17.5 billion budget for the current fiscal year. “We already spend more money on prisons than we do on colleges in this state,” Lawlor said.
That’s not all. You have to add the costs associated with the death penalty as well:
It costs $66,000 a year to maintain an inmate on death row, according to the legislature’s budget office. The Public Defender Commission spends about $2 million a year to defend death penalty cases, including $800,000 for special public defenders and expert witnesses.
Of course, there’s the cost of the legal system itself: judges, prosecutors, public defenders, courthouses, staff and incarceration.
Today, the average cost of incarceration is $41,600 a year, according to the legislature’s budget office. This figure includes fringe benefits for Department of Correction employees.
Both parties in the legislature are talking about expanding mandatory sentencing and imposing harsher sentences for burglars, repeat offenders and violent criminals. Accused criminals must be prosecuted, defended and judged. Then, there are appeals and habeas corpus petitions.
If sentencing and parole changes are made, additional prosecutors, public defenders and judges may be needed, as well as more clerks, bail commissioners, investigators, victim advocates and so on. The Public Defender Commission employs close to 200 attorneys. There are more than 250 state’s attorneys prosecuting cases in Connecticut courtrooms today, said Mark Dupuis, spokesman for Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane.
Starting salary for public defenders and state’s attorneys is approx. $51k. Superior Court judges make $147k. The state just spent $69million to build a new courthouse.
Shouldn’t we learn from the past and from other states? Connecticut seems to have gotten into a time machine and is preparing to go back 20 years.
Sphere: Related Content
Loading ...
Some points:
1) There are costs to letting criminals off with lenient sentences, and not just in blood, the increase in crime causes increased medical costs, depressed economic activity etc. etc. Going on the presumption that many criminals do what they do multiple times (e.g., a guy who knocks over an old lady probably mugs on numerous occasions), locking up a mugger or a burglar for a long stretch prevents a ton of crime, and crimes have costs too.
2) I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that prison beds and other types of programs dealing with criminals are scarce resources. This reality pops up with the one size fits all approach to sex offenders. The more resources expended on dealing with low-level threats (and I include such persons’ decreased earning potential etc. as an expense), the less that will be focused on truly dangerous offenders.
3) Twenty years ago, I don’t think we were all that bright when it came to punishing criminals. Revolving door justice brought a ton of misery onto society. And that was unacceptable. Repeated and violent offenders need to be locked away for good. For good.
So Gideon, I’ll ask a hypo, point blank:
Let’s say a guy has the following record: a couple of convictions for forcible robbery (armed with a knife), a couple of convictions of burglary, and a couple of drug possession convictions, and then he graduates to forcible stranger rape and robbery (so there’s no issue about consent). What, in an ideal world would his total sentence be? And then of that, when would he be eligible for parole? And if you’re going to say it depends on criminal, then what would be the minimum total time and the earliest time eligible for parole?
Mine is life, parole eligible by 30.
And while we’re on the subject of learning, let’s learn from the preventable tragedies described in this article. Once again, and a story that has been played out thousands of times, a criminal murders, gets out, and murders again. And people say the death penalty is barbaric.
Link to story
Ed. Note: Edited for style
[quote comment="3669"]Some points:
1) There are costs to letting criminals off with lenient sentences, and not just in blood, the increase in crime causes increased medical costs, depressed economic activity etc. etc. Going on the presumption that many criminals do what they do multiple times (e.g., a guy who knocks over an old lady probably mugs on numerous occasions), locking up a mugger or a burglar for a long stretch prevents a ton of crime, and crimes have costs too.
2) I wholeheartedly agree with the idea that prison beds and other types of programs dealing with criminals are scarce resources. This reality pops up with the one size fits all approach to sex offenders. The more resources expended on dealing with low-level threats (and I include such persons’ decreased earning potential etc. as an expense), the less that will be focused on truly dangerous offenders.
3) Twenty years ago, I don’t think we were all that bright when it came to punishing criminals. Revolving door justice brought a ton of misery onto society. And that was unacceptable. Repeated and violent offenders need to be locked away for good. For good.
So Gideon, I’ll ask a hypo, point blank:
Let’s say a guy has the following record: a couple of convictions for forcible robbery (armed with a knife), a couple of convictions of burglary, and a couple of drug possession convictions, and then he graduates to forcible stranger rape and robbery (so there’s no issue about consent). What, in an ideal world would his total sentence be? And then of that, when would he be eligible for parole? And if you’re going to say it depends on criminal, then what would be the minimum total time and the earliest time eligible for parole?
Mine is life, parole eligible by 30.[/quote]
In your hypo, given his record, assuming no drug dependency, I’d say 25, execution suspended after 20, parole eligibility after 17 years (roughly 85%), 5 years probation (assuming this is a plea).
“We will post criminal conviction information online, taking care, however, to post the information in a form that will reduce the risk of identity theft.”
http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/news/press210.htm
Sorry, I can’t get past it. Connecticut PDs *start* at 51K a year?! Are you guys hiring? What states do you have reciprocity with?
I suspect the only reason we get that is that we’re required to have parity with the prosecutors, per statute.
Looks like they may have gotten the killer of those young adults in Newark:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/09/schoolyard.killings/index.html
Seems like the suspect has a record. Quelle surprise.
Gideon, I was just surprised because I started at half that and currently make about 2/3 that. Yes, I’m a public defender, and proud of it! I’m not just spamming your site…
[quote comment="3851"]Gideon, I was just surprised because I started at half that and currently make about 2/3 that. Yes, I’m a public defender, and proud of it! I’m not just spamming your site…[/quote]
Ruth, I was surprised too, when I started at the PD’s office. I’m not complaining, but I had heard the horror stories too. Maybe you should move to CT!
I figured you were a pd and not just a spammer who liked pds