If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

One of the most important aspects of our job is maintaining attorney-client confidentiality and it is also an integral component of the adversarial system. We need confidentiality so clients can take us in their confidence without fear of repercussion. Clients need advice and we need the information without the filter of someone overhearing that information and using it against the client.

In the criminal justice system, where the burden of proof is squarely on the State, the confidentiality is even more important. Clients tell us all sorts of things, none of which the State needs to know.

In this era of Prison Nation, however, maintaining that confidentiality has some unique challenges. As the prison population grows, so will the challenges to maintaining confidentiality. For example, defense attorneys in San Diego were outraged when they recently discovered that their telephone conversations with clients were being recorded.

A lawyer for the Sheriff’s Department said the recordings, which defense lawyers say are privileged conversations protected by law, were made because of an inadvertent glitch in the telephone system.

But defense lawyers said the eavesdropping is a felony under state law and can carry penalties of up to $5,000 per call.

They are also concerned that prosecutors – who have access to the recording system from their desktop computers – could have been privy to conversations, too.

It’s bad enough that a “glitch” in the system led to recording highly sensitive and confidential conversations, but the thought that prosecutors had access to those conversations sitting at their desks should be enough to make anyone cringe and cross their legs. Then there’s this silly waiver argument:

However, all of the calls from the jail that were recorded have an automated message at the beginning warning that the conversation was being monitored or recorded.

“I don’t know if it’s privileged if both parties are warned they are being recorded,” Toyen, a lawyer and a special assistant to the sheriff said. “If a client in jail made a phone call to me and I heard that, I wouldn’t say anything that I wouldn’t want recorded.”

So some automated recording serves as an automatic waiver of attorney-client confidentiality? Why spew this nonsense instead of just admitting you messed up?

In Connecticut, there are two “types” of phones in prisons: counselor’s phones and pay phones. The pay phones are recorded and counselor’s phones are not (supposed to be). It is rare, but sometimes I do get clients calling from pay phones in the prison. That’s when I ask them to hang up and let them know I will call their counselor to set up a legal call. But even calls with counselors aren’t always “private”. The counselor’s office is in a cell block, with other inmates outside the door - and often counselors don’t even leave the office while the client is talking.

This problem with talking to incarcerated clients isn’t limited to the phone, though. In person visits with clients also have confidentiality problems. Holding cells in small courthouses are the least confidential of all locations and yet one has to talk to clients there. There are other inmates being held in those cells and there are marshalls milling about.

One of the largest correctional facilities in the State has the least sound-proof professional visiting rooms ever built. There might as well be no walls. Anything you say above a whisper can be heard by the people in the next room and quite probably by the correctional officers standing guard outside.

But such is the system and you learn to work with it. It’s an unwritten understanding that anything heard during these “confidential” meetings will not be used by the State against your client. It has to be - otherwise the State is looking at massive lawsuits. Imagine that they did use a statement or fact learned from such a conversation. The State could quite possibly be forced to build new courthouse facilities, new visiting rooms in prisons: it would be looking at a massive expenditure.

It’s easier to turn a deaf ear. But when the conversations are being recorded, the pretense of ignorance has been shattered.

photo credit: rekha6

This is a post that has been in the making for a long time. It is incomplete and at times will be incoherent. These are questions, however, that I think are worth exploring and attempting to answer. So bear with me on this Sunday as I ramble.

Anyone who has followed this blog for the past year will no doubt be aware of several high profile criminal justice stories in CT: the Cheshire incident, the David Pollitt incident and the more recent New Britain incident. Starting with Cheshire, reform of the criminal justice system has been on the minds of many residents of this State, mostly pushed forward by our esteemed legislature and Governor. We were once on the path to reducing our prison population and now we are growing and bursting at the seams with no relief in sight.

Prison sentences have been beefed up to unimaginable levels in the name of public safety, rehabilitation programs have been abandoned and common sense no longer prevails.

Yet there are people who do not feel this is enough. Read the comments to any Courant article on criminal justice and you will see that there are people who feel that any sentence short of life is inappropriate.

This State, fueled by the vote-seeking legislators, has become gripped in what might be the biggest “tough on crime” wave in the country.

The paradox, however, is something that I have long suspected.

It is no secret that one of the main causes of recidivism is a lack of opportunities for recently released offenders. As I’ve stated before, I’d like to see states take steps to ensure that, upon release, offenders have access to housing and jobs. If we provide them with a support system, then the need to turn to crime is greatly diminished.

So it makes me happy to see that one city is trying an innovative tactic. Philadelphia’s mayor announced today that employers would receive a $10,000 tax credit for hiring ex-cons.

Mayor Michael Nutter announced a program, being headed by an ex-offender, that gives $10,000 a year in municipal tax credits to companies that hire former prisoners and provide them tuition support or vocational training.

This is a fantastic program and one that should encourage more employers to hire ex-cons. Speak to any ex-con and you will hear stories of countless interviews, empty promises and, in the end, rejection, despair and frustration.

I can understand the point of view of employers, don’t get me wrong. People are hesitant to hire ex-convicts, because of the stigma. But that’s like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg. If ex-cons, who are willing to make a change in their lives, who want to make that change, aren’t given any opportunities, then they will get lumped in with those that have no such aspirations. They won’t get jobs, they won’t have housing or insurance or any money earned legally. Something’s gotta give and what better way to entice businesses than with money.

The scope of the ex-offender problem in Philadelphia was detailed in a report last fall that showed about 40,000 former inmates return to the city annually from federal, state and local incarceration.

At any given time, according to the study by the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Social Policy and Practice, the city of 1.4 million is home to 200,000 to 400,000 ex-cons, many in need of not only jobs but also education, health care and addiction counseling.

The study cites federal statistics showing that nearly two out of every three inmates released from state or federal prison are expected to be rearrested within three years.

This volume cannot be sustained. There has to be a way to provide opportunites for these masses and to curb recidivism. The savings in prison costs also warrant a mention. Let’s hope this program succeeds and that other states follow suit.

No state needs such an innovative program more than CT. Almost half the inmates in CT prisons are incarcerated for a violation of probation. I wouldn’t be surprised if more than half of those inmates returned to a crime for lack of legal employment.

One can hope.

Well, well. Now that the budget has tanked and we might not even have a surplus, the Governor announced that she is considering vetoing the recently passed criminal justice bill.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell said today that the state’s worsening financial condition may lead her to veto high-profile criminal-justice legislation passed in reaction to last year’s Cheshire home invasion.

Legislation on her desk would stiffen penalties for certain crimes and provide resources for new prosecutors and police and probation officers.

Rell said the tougher penalties could be salvaged by her vetoing only the monetary portions of the legislation.

It is remarkable when you remember that just a few years ago, the State had a surplus in the $700 million range (am I remembering that right?).

Can you imagine if they’d approved new prisons? Geez…

I can’t say that I’m surprised, to be honest. As prison populations rise, cost rises and the bloated budget of Corrections is, in my opinion, a direct consequence of the harsh tact taken toward drug offenses.

Take a look at that DOC budget - somewhere around $650 million last year. Then tell me there’s no harsh sentencing in CT. The truth is that CT hands out some of the harshest sentences in the country.

On top of that, there’s really no parole right now. Prisons are overflowing. Cost is up.

Her idea of a line-item veto may not be feasible. It very well might not be possible to keep the increased penalties without providing the funding for prosecutors and public defenders to man the system.

On the other hand, maybe there are enough votes in the legislature to override any such veto.

Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams, a Democrat, strongly rejected Rell’s veto threat.

“I think it’s outrageous to suggest at this late date that we would not go forward with critical investments in our criminal justice system that pretty much everyone has agreed to,” Williams said. “I think it’s irresponsible at this point to say we’re going to ignore all that, and not find the resources to make this investment. … We will find the money for this critical investment in public safety.”

We’ll see. For now, I must confess that I chuckled a bit when I read the headline.

More at CTLP and CT NewsJunkie

The question mark is because I can’t tell from this piece what the heck actually happened. Shoddy, shoddy writing.

Under pressure to respond after two deadly home invasions in the past nine months, the state Senate voted early this morning to strengthen the state’s criminal law and allocate $10 million for enhanced crime-fighting.

The bill passed by 32 to 3 at about 2:20 a.m. Thursday after the Senate Democrats withdrew a previous amendment that had prompted a sharply bitter debate with Republicans. The final version gained bipartisan support after lawmakers said the bill would authorize a judge to double the penalty following a second violent crime and triple the penalty after a third offense - up to a maximum of life in prison for a violent felon.

The debate on the three-strikes bill had the usual rhetoric from the Republicans that criminals are not being punished. The Dems responded with “bumper sticker politics”.

So what happened, exactly?

Earlier in the evening, the Republicans had verbally pummeled the original bill on the Senate floor, saying that it would actually weaken the state’s laws for violent crimes. Following that clash, Democrats — who hold the majority in the chamber — suddenly postponed the debate and called for a recess shortly before 11:30 p.m. The chamber reconvened later, and the “three strikes” debate pushed the vote past 2 a.m. Thursday.

“This is an extraordinary change in our public policy,” McDonald said, adding that criminals “will be punished in extraordinary ways.”

But Sen. John Kissel, an Enfield Republican, said the original bill was so badly written that it would not accomplish the legislature’s tough-on-crime goals and, in fact, would backfire.

“I guess I’m missing something,” Kissel said. “It actually is weaker addressing persistent dangerous felony offenders. … This amendment pushes us backward. How can this be tougher on criminals? It’s not.”

Out of 21 violent crimes mentioned in the original bill, the maximum prison sentence would actually be reduced for eight of them, Kissel said. That includes second-degree manslaughter with a firearm, among others.

Oh well, that’s interesting. Pray tell us, Courant, why these sentences would be reduced and what other crimes?

No? That’s not important to the narrative? Oh. Okay. Well, then tell us what the final version of the bill was.

Besides streamlining the law, the bill provides money for more prosecutors, public defenders and probation officers, along with expanding the state’s “cold case” unit and providing additional re-entry programs for criminals who are released from prison.

“So many people fail on probation,” said Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney, a New Haven Democrat. “So many people fail on parole.”

But McKinney said he was stunned when he read the original five-page bill. Currently, a criminal could receive 40 years in prison for compelling someone to have sex at gunpoint. The bill, crafted by Democrats, would reduce that penalty to 20 years, he said.

Wait. I’m confused. Is this the original version, the amendment that was scrapped or the final version? Don’t know? I don’t either. Good job there, Chris Keating, Capitol Bureau Chief. Now I know less than I did when I started reading your story.

Can you condense all of this into bullet points for stupid old me?

# $5,492,000 to improve supervision of sex offenders who are on probation, including upgraded lie-detector and global-positioning-system (GPS) technologies. The money also would be used for truancy prevention and helping officials serve warrants on probation violators.
# $2,147,000 to hire more parole officers and prison guards, along plus expanding the use of GPS technology to track criminals who are on parole.
# $910,000 for the state Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services to provide supportive housing and for improving the women’s jail-diversion program, among others.
# $681,000 to the Division of Criminal Justice for more prosecutors and better computers.
# $514,000 to hire more employees for the state police major crime squad.
# $252,000 to the Public Defender Service Commission for lawyers to handle more prosecutions and aide indigent criminals.

Yet nothing on penalties. Sigh.

Oh, by the way Chris Keating, Capitol Bureau Chief, the correct term would have been “indigent defendants“, not criminals. Unless, of course, this bill removed the presumption of innocence. Which I have no way of knowing whether it did or not, because I didn’t understand anything you wrote.

Anyone have a link to the actual bill that was passed?

I have long supported greater prisoner re-entry and rehabilitation programs (as you all may know), so I was happy to see that President Bush will sign the Second Chance Act today.

In a sharp change in attitudes about incarceration, many states and private groups have recently experimented with “re-entry” programs to help released prisoners fit back into their communities and avoid new crime.

The strategy will get a major boost this week. President Bush is to sign the Second Chance Act in a public ceremony on Wednesday, making rehabilitation a central goal of the federal justice system. In a sign of how far the pendulum has swung, the measure passed Congress with nearly unanimous bipartisan support.
With the new law, the federal government is to provide more money and leadership in a field where progress is likely to be difficult at best, experts agree.

The law authorizes the spending of $165 million a year for grants to promote and experiment with support services and methods to assess which offenders are more like to commit more crimes.

So will the passage of this bill have any impact in Connecticut and will Connecticut take re-entry programs and rehabilitation more seriously? It seems that there may be a chance. Mike Lawlor, judiciary committee co-chair, was “active” in the Council of State Governments and he has been pushing for a similar focus on re-entry in Connecticut and will be in attendance at the bill signing ceremony today.

While much of the criminal justice debate in Connecticut has centered around mandatory-minimums and harsh three-strikes laws, there apparently is more going on that the press has not cared to report.

But state House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk, said that behind those disagreements are wide support for re-entry programs backed by Lawlor, co-chairman of the legislature’s judiciary committee.

“We have a ton in common,” he said.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s commissioner of correction, Theresa Lantz, has repeatedly testified in legislative hearings that supervised-release programs are highly effective. Like most governors, Rell has shown little interest in an expensive prison expansion program.

Michael Thompson, director of the Justice Center at the Council of State Governments, said the new push for re-entry programs grew from a realization in the states that a multi-billion-dollar expansion of prisons alone cannot check crime.

Let us hope that this is indeed true and that the legislature will take re-entry seriously. It is foolish to think that we can prevent crime and that the only solution is to lock people up for long periods of time. The sooner we turn our focus and resources to providing released inmates the tools with which to integrate into society, the sooner we start making our communities safer.

Two news stories today that allow me to hope, just a little bit, that perhaps some sense is seeping into the Capitol. The first proclaims boldly that the suspect in the recent New Britain home invasion had “little rehab for sex offense”.

The ex-convict accused in this week’s fatal New Britain home invasion dropped out of a sex offender treatment program during a 10-year prison stint that involved seemingly little rehabilitation, according to prison and parole documents.

That’s actually inaccurate - he had to leave the program because he was transferred to another facility.

But Williams’ case is now raising questions about whether the state correctional system properly prepares an inmate for eventual release.

“Whenever we run into those situations that are so horrific, it raises the question if our correctional system is performing to the extent that it can,” said state Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, a member of the judiciary committee.

“I think we need to make a concerted effort to benchmark what that optimum program level should be in the Department of Correction, and then see how far away from that level we are,” Kissel said.

Very far, Senator, very far.

Yet there are some that still can’t tell front from down. DOC rep Brian Garnett’s statements remind me of the famed Iraqi minister of (dis)information:

In general, Garnett said, inmates, “can participate in as many programs as they want and refuse to participate in programs.”

“You can’t force an offender to take part in a program,” he said. “You can make them sit in the room, but if they’re not going to engage in participating in the program, all you’re doing is wasting a chair.”

“Can participate” here should be taken to mean “could participate if it weren’t for severe overcrowding and lack of room, facilities and spots in programs”.

Ooops. There’s no such thing as prison overcrowding. My bad.

State Rep. Michael Lawlor, D- East Haven, co-chairman of the judiciary committee, said the case points to the need for more rehabilitative services in prison, but also housing for sex offenders upon release from jail and prison because few want to take them.

“They did not let him out early,” Lawlor said. “Now he finishes his sentence and he’s on probation.”

“What should you do?” Lawlor said. “You should have a place you can force him to go while he’s on probation. No such place exists. That is the problem.”

And no one wants these places in their towns.

The second story is about Gov. Rell’s top secret meeting with law enforcement yesterday (from which Dem legislators - who control the legislature - were excluded). After that meeting, there were no calls for three-strikes laws, but rather a call to streamline the persistent offender statutes and more funding for GPS monitoring.

“The current persistent felony offender law is like the tax code,” said [Chief State's Attorney Kevin] Kane, a longtime prosecutor who stood next to Rell at the afternoon press conference. “You’ve got to be a Philadelphia lawyer to understand it. … If I have a hard time reading it — the number of times I’ve read it — imagine how a judge feels when he’s reading it pretrial.”

Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams, the highest-ranking senator, said “there’s no reason why we can’t work with the governor” on her request to increase funding for global positioning system, or GPS, monitoring to track convicted sex offenders with bracelets that could monitor their movements.

Williams also favors more money for re-entry programs for those released from prison and for more beds for sex offenders after their release.

“I would like to think we’re moving beyond the finger-pointing stage,” Williams, of Brooklyn, said. “My goal and hope is to move beyond the political rhetoric.”

Me too, Senator, me too…

To inject some lightheartedness into a serious discussion, here’s Amy Winehouse:

The killing of a 62 year old woman last week turned into a political battle over three-strikes laws with a sideshow on plea bargains. Not too long after news broke that Leslie Williams, a probationer, was arrested for one murder and one attempted murder, Gov. Rell renewed her calls for a three-strikes law.

State lawmakers called her out on this, not so subtly suggesting that the was using this tragedy to push her political agenda. They also pointed out that Williams would have had only one “strike” against him and thus, there really was no reason to use this crime to reignite the three-strikes debate.

But they just couldn’t leave it at that.

The problem is not the lack of strong enough criminal penalties, but that prosecutors plea bargain down from offenses that would put offenders away for longer periods, [Judiciary Committee co-chair Mike] Lawlor said. If the suspect had been convicted of what he was originally charged with — first-degree sexual assault — he would have received a 10-year minimum sentence instead of the eight years he received on the plea bargain.

Prosecutors are part of the executive branch, which Rell heads, Lawlor said. She should have talked to Waterbury State’s Attorney John Connelly — never accused of being soft on defendants — to find out why his office agreed to the plea bargain, Lawlor said. Connelly needs to explain that, he said.

And explain it Connelly did. I don’t have to explain the reasons behind, or the importance of, plea bargaining to those of you in the field. Apparently, these basic truths are lost on our legislators, however - or maybe they’re simply ignoring reality in an attempt to win this public battle of perception in an election year. Questioning plea bargaining practices as a whole is a dangerous game to play.

The Courant, of course, has been lapping this up, publishing numerous stories every day. Maybe other news media organizations are doing the same.

Yet, while they discuss plea bargaining, whether sex offenders should have privacy in homeless shelters, whether Rell’s position on three-strikes is inconsistent with her other positions, I have seen little to no mention of the real big problem here: society’s aversion to the reintegration of sex-offenders and the numerous obstacles placed in their path.

One can argue that no matter the resources available to Williams, he would have re-offended. I have no way of arguing for or against that. We will never know. Yet, here is a man (one among thousands) who upon release lived in two homeless shelters. He was sleeping in the victim’s car prior to the incident.

The mass hysteria surrounding sex offenders in our communities in well documented. The utter lack of rehabilitation in our correctional system is well known to those in the field. We can go on increasing punishment for crime all we want, yet that only underscores our utter ignorance (or disregard) of the causes of crime. Probably the only sensible thing I’ve read in the past few days is Rell’s acknowledgment that we will never be able to stop crime (I’m not sure whether she actually believes that); yet we act as if that is a realistic goal.

If we are not willing to fund programs that rehabilitate and make it easier for the recently released to seamlessly reintegrate into society, then we are not really tackling the problem and enhancing public safety. We might as well start handing out life sentences for all crimes.

Previous, similar thoughts here.

Not satisfied with the harsh penalties enacted by the special session of the legislature in February, we once again embark on a discussion of “true” three-strikes laws. There are four separate proposals before the Judiciary Committee to create a three-strikes and you’re out law and there are several bills dealing with prison overcrowding, inmate services and re-entry programs.

Here is a list of all the bills being considered today and here is all the submitted testimony.

What intrigues me is that there seems to be a lot of talk about funding rehabilitation and programs for first time offenders and providing re-entry services.

Prison overcrowding was also a big issue, with Commissioner Lantz being questioned for several hours. What she was still unable to give, however, was a maximum number of inmates that the correctional facilities could hold. I don’t think that’s a difficult question.  Several legislators were pressing her on that. It turns out that the maximum number of permanent beds that our system can hold is 20,095. This, as she explained, does not include adding more permanent beds and temporary beds. Why she could not estimate from there how much space is remaining and how many inmates can be fit into that remaining space is a mystery. Rather, I suspect that she did not want to. Which isn’t particularly helpful because overcrowding is a serious problem and we don’t have a max capacity number then how do we know when the facilities are overcrowded?

My views on this are well known, so I won’t repeat them.

Here is one report on today’s hearing, focusing on the Chief State’s Attorney’s opposition to the 3-strikes bill. More as it becomes available.

The hearing is actually still going on, so you can watch either on your TV (CT-N) or on the web.

Allegations of prison overcrowding and inhumane treatment of inmates abound and yet the American Idol Governor continues to turn a blind eye. Take this latest lawsuit for example. Two inmates at Cheshire Correctional filed a lawsuit claiming that they were forced to defecate and urinate in plastic bags because of the severe overcrowding problem.

In the lawsuit, the men say they were let out of the locked day room — designed as a place to read or watch television, not sleep — once per night to use the bathroom, according to their suit. In intervening hours, they have used plastic bags to urinate or defecate, they claim, and suffer from bladder problems as a result of having to hold their wastes.

The Governor’s response was more of the same:

Brian Garnett, a spokesman for the Department of Correction, said he could not comment on pending litigation, but said the state’s prisons are “orderly, humane and safe.”

DOC Commissioner Theresa Lantz has insisted that the prison system can absorb spikes in population, a position that frustrated the correction officers’ union and certain legislators last year when she refused to put a number on the prison system’s capacity.

A few weeks ago I heard about two separate assaults on correctional officers, but couldn’t find any news coverage of it.

This is a real problem, folks. It’s about time DOC did something about it.

Over the past week or so, a fight of sorts has broken out between New Haven mayor John DeStefano and Governor Rell. It started with a meeting in New Haven about prisoner re-entry, with town residents complaining that DOC “dumped” inmates into New Haven who then had nowhere to go. Then there were three murders in New Haven, prompting Mayor DeStefano emphatically called for some help.

“The probation system needs to deal with these kids,” said DeStefano in a press conference Tuesday afternoon. Two of the three shootings Monday night involved armed teenagers, violent offenders increasingly fearless of The Law, who put officers’ lives at risk.
DeStefano said the evening brought him to a boiling point of frustration with the state for dumping 25 to 30 prisoners on the city’s doorstep each week with no social services. “You cannot keep dumping people in our communities,” DeStefano charged.

The most troubling common thread, said DeStefano, was the criminal history of all parties involved. The dumping of prisoners in New Haven has already prompted the city to open a fourth homeless shelter. DeStefano railed against the state for “failing to engage” ex-offenders with case management programs, social services and “positive choices” after prison. Earlier this month, the city lobbied Hartford for $1 million for a pilot program to provide case management for people leaving prison, the mayor said. With tones of clear frustration, he said the city has been asking for one and a half years for a prison reentry system. The state needs to step up,” DeStefano said. “Do we have to, Godforbid, have an officer killed here?” He asked. “What is it going to take to solve this problem?”

Pretty strong stuff there. Yesterday, Governor Rell responded with some strong words of her own. Among them, she not-so-gently reminded DeStefano of New Haven’s cop troubles. Then she said this:

You are apparently unaware that of the number of inmates incarcerated today, a total of 12 percent report a New Haven residence. (Indeed, if I were in an ironic frame of mind, perhaps I might complain about the City of New Haven “dumping” its problems with drugs, violence, theft and other crimes on the State of Connecticut.)

You also appear to be unaware that nearly $5.5 million was spent in 2007 on residential and non-residential services for former prisoners in New Haven, or that the Office of Parole and Community Services, operated by the Department of Correction, has 23 parole officers, two substance abuse counselors and two case managers dedicated to New Haven.

That first sentence is so offensive, I don’t know where to start. So I’m not going to. Let’s take a look at the second paragraph - specifically the amount spent on re-entry.

The state spends close to $665 million on corrections a year. Isn’t that amazing? That’s not six hundred thousand…that’s 665 million. That would put corrections spending between the GDPs of Djibouti and Liberia. In the 2006 budget, out of the general fund, appropriations for corrections was $589 million. There was an appropriation for something called “community support services”, which was given $27 million. Don’t know exactly what that entails, but I’m assuming it has something to do with re-entry. Which is barely 4% of the budget.

And we wonder why cities aren’t happy and re-entry is a problem. To answer the question: It is our problem. All of us. Just as crime is and just as rehabilitation should be.

We need to spend more on getting inmates ready to re-enter society and start living amongst us again. When will we learn?

A new study released today by the Pew Center reports that 1 in 99.1 Americans is in prison. From the press release:

For the first time in history more than one in every 100 adults in America are in jail or prison—a fact that significantly impacts state budgets without delivering a clear return on public safety.  According to a new report released today by the Pew Center on the States’ Public Safety Performance Project, at the start of 2008, 2,319,258 adults were held in American prisons or jails, or one in every 99.1 men and women, according to the study.  During 2007, the prison population rose by more than 25,000 inmates.  In addition to detailing state and regional prison growth rates, Pew’s report, One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008, identifies how corrections spending compares to other state investments, why it has increased, and what some states are doing to limit growth in both prison populations and costs while maintaining public safety.

As prison populations expand, costs to states are on the rise.  Last year alone, states spent more than $49 billion on corrections, up from $11 billion 20 years before.   However, the national recidivism rate remains virtually unchanged, with about half of released inmates returning to jail or prison within three years.  And while violent criminals and other serious offenders account for some of the growth, many inmates are low-level offenders or people who have violated the terms of their probation or parole.

“For all the money spent on corrections today, there hasn’t been a clear and convincing return for public safety,” said Adam Gelb, director of the Public Safety Performance Project.  “More and more states are beginning to rethink their reliance on prisons for lower-level offenders and finding strategies that are tough on crime without being so tough on taxpayers.”

Take a look at these numbers:

1 out of every 9 black men between the ages of 20-34 is in prison

1 out of every 54 men above the age of 18 is in prison

Over the last two years, CT’s prison population has grown by 1.1%, putting it slightly below middle of the pack.

CT’s spending on corrections is 4.4% of its total budget expenditures.

CT is also one of five states that spent more on corrections than on higher education.

So what are states doing about it? From page 22 of the report - there are three options: (1) diverting low-risk offenders from prison, (2) reducing the stay of low-risk offenders and (3) a combination of the two.

This is a fantastic report and a must-read.

H/T: SL & P

The OLR has been doing some terrific work that I have been neglecting. One example is this report dated January 18, ‘08, titled essentially the same as the title of this post. Another is this report on the cost of incarceration broken down by correctional facility and the cost of a career criminal (answer: Northern CI, where it costs $100k to incarcerate one inmate for one year). All of the criminal justice reports are collected here. I’m still looking for data on racial disparities at sentencing, either in CT or elsewhere in the country.

The racial breakdown data is interesting and is reproduced after the jump.