PDA

View Full Version : States may free inmates to save millions


Rmf3175
April 6th, 2008, 08:57 AM
PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Lawmakers from California to Kentucky are trying to save money with a drastic and potentially dangerous budget-cutting proposal: releasing tens of thousands of convicts from prison, including drug addicts, thieves and even violent criminals.


Officials acknowledge that the idea carries risks, but they say they have no choice because of huge budget gaps brought on by the slumping economy.

"If we don't find a way to better manage the population at the state prison, we will be forced to spend money to expand the state's prison system — money we don't have," said Jeff Neal, a spokesman for Rhode Island Gov. Don Carcieri.

At least eight states are considering freeing inmates or sending some convicts to rehabilitation programs instead of prison, according to an Associated Press analysis of legislative proposals. If adopted, the early release programs could save an estimated $450 million in California and Kentucky alone.

A Rhode Island proposal would allow inmates to deduct up to 12 days from their sentence for every month they follow rules and work in prison. Even some violent offenders would be eligible but not those serving life sentences.

A plan in Mississippi would offer early parole for people convicted of selling marijuana or prescription drugs. New Jersey, South Carolina and Vermont are considering funneling drug-addicted offenders into treatment, which is cheaper than prison.

The prospect of financial savings offers little comfort to Tori-Lynn Heaton, a police officer in a suburb of Providence whose ex-husband went to prison for beating her. He has already finished his prison term, but would have been eligible for early release under the current proposal.

"You're talking about victim safety. You're talking about community member safety," she said. "You can't balance the budget on the backs of victims of crimes."

But prisons "are one of the most expensive parts of the criminal-justice system," said Alison Lawrence, who studies corrections policy for the National Conference of State Legislatures. "That's where they look to first to cut down some of those costs."

Rhode Island Corrections Director A.T. Wall was not sure how many prisoners could be freed early. The payoff for doing so may be relatively small: less than $1 million for the first fiscal year, although that figure would increase over time.

In California, where lawmakers have taken steps to cut a $16 billion budget deficit in half by summer, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed saving $400 million by releasing more than 22,000 inmates who had less than 20 months remaining on their sentences. Violent and sex offenders would not be eligible.

Laying off prison guards and making it more difficult to send parole violators back to state prison would account for part of the savings.

Law enforcement officials and Republican lawmakers immediately criticized Schwarzenegger's proposal, which would apply to car thieves, forgers, drunken drivers and some drug dealers. Some would never serve prison time because the standard sentence for those crimes is 20 months or less.

"To open the prison door and release prisoners back into communities is merely placing a state burden onto local governments and will ultimately jeopardize safety in communities," said Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer, who could see 1,800 inmates released in his area.

In Kentucky, which faces a $1.3 billion deficit, lawmakers approved legislation Wednesday to grant early release to some prisoners. Initial estimates were that the plan could affect as many as 2,000 inmates and save nearly $50 million.

If the governor signs the bill, the exact number of prisoners would be determined by prison officials. Violent convicts and sexual offenders would be exempt.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080403/ap_on_re_us/prisoners_early_release

:twitch

Bernardd
April 6th, 2008, 11:40 AM
I think there are a lot of criminals in prison who aren't a threat to society (White Collar Criminals). Many of these people would probably be better served by actually repaying their debts to society instead of existing in a prison at the tax payer's expense.

Granted, prisons indeed serve a valuable purpose, but I can't help but think there are other means of "imprisonment" that would benefit everyone and be much more cost efficient. Of course, we should probably start by removing cable TV, exercise rooms, lounges, etc. from the prisons.

goinghome
April 6th, 2008, 12:18 PM
There are probably lots of prisoners we could microchip/gps track rather than having them be the taxpayer's burden. The problem is that nobody wants to hire them and that leads them right back to crime. We would absolutely have to do some rehabilitation, train them for jobs, and give them jobs in order for this to work.

Bernardd
April 6th, 2008, 01:15 PM
There are probably lots of prisoners we could microchip/gps track rather than having them be the taxpayer's burden. The problem is that nobody wants to hire them and that leads them right back to crime. We would absolutely have to do some rehabilitation, train them for jobs, and give them jobs in order for this to work.

Perhaps some would need to be trained, but we can't mix white-collar crime with violent crime. Those who commit white-collar crimes are more than likely pretty intelligent to begin with (since they were able to find loopholes and place themselves in a position to take money that didn't belong to them). Surely they could be "forced" to use their talents to repay what they stole and then some.

As for violent criminals, I think more death penalties or hard labor would fit the bill. Forget going to prison and reaping the benefits of 3 free meals each day, internet service, cable tv, and all the other amentities they get. They must earn everything they want, including a meal. If they're hungry enough, make 'em earn a meal. I imagine if they were worked hard enough 6 days each week, they'd be too tired to attack and molest each other. Thus the guards would be safer and the security measures might not need to be to strict.

whamo
April 6th, 2008, 02:41 PM
I remember reading a while back about a college professor that was a bona fide pothead. He grew his own marijuana and got caught. Because he had such a large quantity, he received a mandatory 25 year sentence, as if he were a major distributor. According to the article he only grew it for his own use and didn't sell it. I DO NOT condone drug use, but locking that guy up for 25 years is a massive waste of taxpayer money as well as a waste of a life.

Bernardd
April 6th, 2008, 09:13 PM
I remember reading a while back about a college professor that was a bona fide pothead. He grew his own marijuana and got caught. Because he had such a large quantity, he received a mandatory 25 year sentence, as if he were a major distributor. According to the article he only grew it for his own use and didn't sell it. I DO NOT condone drug use, but locking that guy up for 25 years is a massive waste of taxpayer money as well as a waste of a life.

Great point! I meant to address that. Even if they are dealers, I find it hard to consider them as big a threat to society as I would a violent criminal. Of course, someone who is simply addicted to drugs (like the professor) poses little if any risk unless he's operating machinery of some sort.

While I do understand the law (and agree with it in spirit), it really is a large financial burden on the taxpayers to lock these people up for years and years. Certainly we have the ability to incarcerate these people without having to lock them away with violent criminals.