Population explosion: Will we ever get beyond the quick-fix?
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
The Danbury News-Times (and apparently the Conn Post too) has this fantastic piece about the state of Connecticut’s prisons (you know, it’s really strange to be reading these stories about CT, when just six months ago, I used to read similar pieces with frequency about other states.)
From 1985 to Feb. 15, 2008, Connecticut’s prison population has soared from 5,422 to 19,690.
“It’s crazy,” concedes state Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven. “We are spending more money to run our prisons than run our colleges.”
“Think about it,” said [lawyer Frederic] Ury, a former president of the Connecticut Bar Association. “In just a 20-year period, we have quadrupled the number of people in our prisons and no one seems to be concerned about it.”
So what is the reason for this staggering increase in the population? Certainly the war on drugs and reports over the years seem to show that it really hasn’t had much of an actual impact on the drug problem. But there’s also a trend towards longer sentences and inmates serving longer periods of their sentences, especially since the elimination of good time (not that there’s an actual statue repealing good time, but that’s a story for another day).
“That’s a big difference,” said Bridgeport State’s Attorney Jonathan Benedict. “I don’t think this office is seeking greater sentences for the same crime than we did when I started 30 years ago. But inmates are serving more time on their sentences than they were 30 years ago.”
Now with the three-strikes law back in the judiciary committee, the potential for a further increase in the population is even greater. So what is to be done about it? The only realistic option at this point is building another prison. I’m pretty sure the legislature isn’t the mood to look at actual reform, given their passage of the criminal justice bill that had less reform and more punishment.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell is also pushing a “three strikes” law that would impose life terms on those convicted of three serious felonies.
But Tracy, the convicted felon, believes that’s the most dangerous law the legislature could impose.
“You tell someone they’re going away for life if they get caught — well, they’re not going down easy,” he said. “They’re going to bring danger to themselves, the people around them, and the people who come to get them. That’s a high price to pay.”
With the state’s prisons bursting beyond their 18,000-plus capacity, Lawlor sees only three options. The most obvious, he said, is to build more prisons.
Finally, Lawlor said, “We can do nothing and face being sued in federal court. Then we’ll get a federal judge running our prisons.”
As I’ve said before on this blog, these are quick fixes and won’t serve the long-term problem. One of the smartest things I heard was on Colin McEnroe’s radio show a few months ago. He was interviewing someone from Minnesota (I think; correct me if I’m wrong) Corrections, who said that we have to change expectations. Politicking is geared toward eliminating crime. That’s completely unrealistic and foolish to have as a goal, because it will never happen. Rather, we must work to reducing crime.
The way to do that is to look at what actually leads people to a life of crime. But there’s always very little interest in that. Not good politics and certainly not as surefire a way to retain your seat as locking people up is.
Stephen Cox, chairman of Central Connecticut State University’s criminology department, believes the best approach is to attack the reasons for crime.
“No one wants to hear about the factors that cause people to commit crimes — substance abuse, joblessness, homelessness,” [former CCDLA president Michael] Fitzpatrick said. “They just want them locked up and out of sight.”
“We can start by making bigger investments in our inner cities,” added Cox.
“We need politicians who will stop playing the sound-bite game,” said [Henry] Schissler, [a professor]. “We know the pieces that need to be fixed — better education, substance-abuse treatment programs, jobs with living wages — so why are we choosing not to fix them?”
Because it doesn’t sound as good and doesn’t get as many votes.
Sphere: Related Content
Loading ...
spending more on prisons than on colleges…
what else is there to say? I guess when there is no one left to serve their meals or cut their lawns they might finally “get it”. *shrug*
One of the biggest problems is that alternatives to prison are not considered trustworthy despite the reams of research showing that you get a much better payoff public safety-wise from them for most offenders most of the time compared to prisons. The research is ignored primarily because the “more prisons” advocates have better rhetorical weapons and have essentially trumped the better evidence of alternatives’ proponents. We don’t counter “three strikes and you’re out” or “do the crime, do the time” with “three strikes? NO strikes, stop the crime the first time” or “do the crime, do the time, do more crime.” We throw “be smart on crime” at a fearful public and hope they will choose Woody Allen over John Wayne. The war of words has been lost despite all the research and efforts to report it so those who advocate alternatives which lead to greater public safety have always had to rely on fiscal downturns for any traction at all, which of course goes back to the usual when the downturn is over, or other vital areas of public service get cut instead. That’s why the development of “technocorrections,” surveillance, pharmaceuticals, and bioengineering, sold at far less cost than prison beds but with the same sense of “this is something law-abiders would see as punishment,” will increasingly be the alternative in the near future. The research is growing enormously into drugs to deter behavior, such as substance abuse or violent and sexual offenses, and specifically designed for certain genetic types and even individuals. To the extent that biochemicals and processes that affect behavior are mediated by gene production, bioengineering can substitute directly for the drug regime. Disseminated through specialty courts like drug courts, mental health courts, etc., these options actually may empty prison beds and reduce the demands for the always costly and too often crimogenic choice of incarceration. The use of GPS and imbedded computer chips turn us toward even scarier terrain, but that scariness is what will allow vendors to sell technocorrections to a public not impressed with alternative sanctions that appear to leave offenders free and happy, despite the reality of most offender supervision. The really scary part is that countries like Great Britain are already starting on the path, will develop findings to support the use of this (as early technology use always focuses on the benefits), and our leaders will adopt without the adequate safeguards and oversight that might prevent the very well-known possibilities for abuse to develop. But the alternative to that is the path described in the article you cite. That’s better? Maybe we should talk about it.
Thanks for the great link. Keep up the always excellent work.
Since you’re talking about the big picture, I might as well post my pro-forma plea to end the War on Drugs. It’s expensive, it’s destructive, it does more harm than good, and it is profoundly disrespectful of the vast number of responsible Americans who use recreational drugs without serious harm to themselves or anyone else.
End the prohibition, empty the prisons, and put police back to work fighting real crimes.
I wonder how many innocent people were not victimized as a result of the increased incarceration . . . .
I wonder how many people are irrevocably hurt by incarceration…..
But as between crime victims and criminals, who should bear that burden?
I wonder if we should just start imprisoning people before they commit any crimes at all, a la “Minority Report”…. (I wasn’t keen on Tom Cruise’s acting in the flick, but the point still remains.)
That would solve ALL the problems, wouldn’t it?
PS. Ditto on ending the War on Drugs.
SPO, If you are keeping up with the score card, there are over 200 ppl exonerated on death row. They were convicted on circumstantial evidence and false testimony. The ONLY reason we know they are innocent is because of DNA evidence.
So now you really have to wonder how many ppl are in jail who are actually innocent? Ya think it’s more than 200? I’m sure it is.
That aside, what do we do with people who go to prison? Teach them a trade, teach them how to cope better in society? Nope, we throw them behind concrete and allow them to organize into gangs and essentially let them run the institutions.
I can’t put my finger on it, but there seems to be a major problem with “corrections” in the US.
Michael: Thanks for the comment and well said. It seems that corrections is one of those things - like defense for the federal government - that too many people are far too invested in to make any real changes. Preventive methods that have just as much of a shot as incarceration aren’t given a chance, because it doesn’t “sound” good. A shame, really.
200 people exonerated on death row. Uh, even abolitionists think that the number is only 126. In any event, some of the “exonerated” are merely murderers who got away with it.
I think that you guys want to risk public safety with so-called “prevention” measures. Billions upon billions of dollars have been spent, with some really bright people thinking about how best to reduce crime. Look at what Rudy Giuliani accomplished in NYC. Go after the criminals. That’s how you make people safer, and when you do that, fewer people will start off on a life of crime.
I’ll gracefully bow out since I thought we were going to have a quasi-intellectual debate.
gl will all that
You cite a bogus stat and then bow out. Cute.
I think he might have meant 200 DNA exonerations overall.
He probably did. But still, it’s pretty weak to get called out like that and imply that I’m the idiot.
SPO I’ve been around long enough to know that when someone makes the kinds of comments you did there is no point in further debate. If it seemed I was being flippant, well, I was. Unless you are on a dial up, you have the same access to information that I do. If you choose not to use Google or at the very least make an argument using your critical thinking skills, then what am I supposed to do?
Most point is that we’ve see what the “root causes” solutions have done–billions of dollars and not a lot of good. Look, I am all for giving people who make mistakes a break. But serious or violent crimes, NFW.
SPO Says:
Look at what Rudy Giuliani accomplished in NYC
You mean the turning the police force into a militia that will pump 50 bullets into people at the slightest provocation?
Perhaps the start of a police state with mass searches without warrant, and arrest and lengthy detention, zero tolerance for even the most minor of offenses, deployment of swarms of officers…
I used to go to NYC on weekends as a kid to have fun, jumping turnstiles, drinking beer between the subway cars, X-rated fun on the West Side, tagging the back of trucks with grafitti, all college-type tomfoolery. Jeez… nowadays I’d be an uber-criminal.
But I guess others differ. They’d rather sacrifice their freedom for a little bit of security. SPO, in my mind, you’d be the first to have a chip implanted or submit to a search if authority said it would prevent crime. In your quest to seek help for victims, you’ve become one. A victim of fear.
You know, Mark, if you look at the rate of police shootings pre- and post- Giuliani, they actually went down after Giuliani.
As for all the other ones, I’ll thank you for beating fares on NYC subways, subways that I used to use and for which I paid my fare. And I’m sure people loved having their property “tagged” by inconsiderate louts.
I lived in NYC. It was bad, and Giuliani turned things around for a lot of people. Maybe if you spent some time living in the ‘hood, as I have, you would understand.
SPO - Just out of curiosity, which part of NYC are you calling the “hood”? Or did you mean to say the entire city?
Laurelton, Queens–lived there in 80s as a teenager. Very near corner of Merrick and Springfield. Zoned for Andrew Jackson High School. Took the Q5 or Q77, usually Q5, every day to school (Not AJ)–walked home when I lost my bus pass down Merrick Ave. from Jamaica Ave. Dealt with Five Percenters. ‘Hood enough for you, Miranda?