 |
EMIL
FRANZI |
Incarceration, one of the basicsGovernments should find ways to cut money other than prisons
April 9, 2008
|
State
governments are all finally
looking for ways to reduce
spending. One place is to cut
prison terms. We are told
“alternative methods” are
available that will “save us
money.”
We also see repeated attacks on the American criminal justice system based on statistics claiming we have an inordinate number of people incarcerated compared to the rest of the world. The pressure to handle many offenders differently is mounting, particularly when critics play the race card and claim blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately jailed. What those alternatives really mean is further erosion of the “justice” portion of the system. Assuming rational sentencing guidelines, a big assumption, this attacks the problem from the wrong end. If the criminal code is in fact reasonably just in what it prescribes as sentences for violators, then reducing them for the reason of cost is an admission that justice is a lower priority to lawmakers and bureaucrats than a host of other things, given tax money from baseball stadiums to arts councils. Moral relativism trumps either tax increases or lower spending elsewhere. Our high incarceration level compared to other nations is a reflection not of a “police state” but of two factors seldom factored. The first is obvious. There are some places where “criminals” are handled without jailing by more rudimentary punishments such as mutilation, etc. While we concern ourselves with “no-knock” laws and the admissibility of evidence at trials, other places often operate with no trials at all. The other factor is almost equally obvious. Many crimes still happen, from murder to robbery, giving ample evidence that however high our incarceration rate, there are still more people who deserve incarceration. While some currently jailed may not need to be there, clearly others should replace them. While other nations may have a lower percentage of their populations in jail, many have them there far longer or for different crimes. First-time DUIs are hammered harder in much of Europe, and the UK has become so weapons-phobic that simple possession of a knife calls for a couple of years hard time. The real method to reduce the high cost of incarceration is not to continually forgive lawbreakers by cutting their sentences when money runs short, but to determine if some crimes need to be on the books in the first place. Conservatives are big on accountability and asking for the cost of programs favored by liberals and others. The same should be applied to all criminal penalties and all acts considered crimes. I suspect after debate and analysis, most criminal acts would be retained, although some penalties could be lightened. That crack cocaine users, mostly black, get heavier charges than powdered cocaine users, mostly white, comes to mind. Many see fiscal relief from decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana, something I once fully supported. I now have doubts. Those currently in jail for marijuana offenses often pleaded to that crime as a choice to avoid conviction for greater ones. Eliminating that charge would still leave others. While I once professed the libertarian view that government should be neutral on the subject, experience in other areas indicates that government is now viewed by few as neutral and what it allows to occur has become de facto endorsement. Legislatures, governors, and bureaucrats need to drop their constant search for new items that consume even more tax money and concentrate on basics. If we can’t afford to keep those we define as criminals in jail, we are approaching the type of dysfunctional collapse into lawlessness many societies with lower incarceration rates than ours have achieved.
|
BUT WATCH WHAT YOU SAY! |
|
|
|||
