As early as 1996, there were already about 5.5 million adult residents of the U.S. in prison, jail, parole, or probation. That’s about 2.8 persons for every 100 adult residents in the U.S. It’s still going up.
We now imprison at least six to ten times as many, per 100,000 population as most civilized countries. While we incarcerate 668 persons per 100,000, England France, Germany, Switzerland, Netherlands, Norway and Japan all incarcerate only between 37 and 100 persons per 100,000.
Since 1990, the U.S. custody population rose by about 1,500 per week. And the length of our sentences are two to three times those in England.
Connecticut imprisoned about 17,000 persons in 1998, up from about 7,000 in 1988, up by a factor of 2.4 in ten years.
New York imprisons about 70,000 in 1998, up from 12,500 in 1973, up by a factor of 5.6 since ‘73.
New York has big problems in New York City, and most of its state prisoners come from there. However, it’s also interesting that Connecticut’s state-prison incarceration rate, at 363 per 100,000, is nearly the same as New York’s at 384 per 100,000. So the two states have a lot in common.
Host: Do you have any idea what all that costs?
Guest: Well, from 1980 to 1996, the cost of building and operating prisons and local jails in the U.S. soared 443 percent, from $7 billion per year to $38 billion per year, up by a factor of 5.4 in 26 years.
The annual operating budget for New York’s prisons, for example, has increased from about $450 million in fiscal year 1982-83 to $1.7 billion today.
Prison construction costs are on top of that. Across the country there’s been a prison building boom as a way to create jobs for some.
Again using New York as an example, from1981 through 1996, New York added beds to its prison system, at a cost of nearly $4 billion dollars, not counting debt service which could triple that figure. At the end of 1997 the New York legislators approved another $300 million to build more prisons. And in his 1999-2000 budget, Governor Patacki proposed to spend another $360 million to build still more prisons.
Meanwhile, to fund all that prison growth, a lot of education, health services, and infrastructure all suffer, because the money is taken from them.
For the first time in history, states spend more on corrections than on higher education.
Florida spends more on 56,000 prisoners than on 203,000 university students.
New York’s prison budget increased by $761 million while the state and New York City university systems declined by $615 million.
Host: What’s driving so many into our prisons?
Guest: Drugs and irrational drug laws are a big factor. For example, there are over 22,300 drug offenders locked up in New York State prisons. It cost that state over $2 billion to construct the prisons to house those people. And the operating expense for confining them comes to over $715 million each year.
Host: You said "irrational drug laws." What do you mean?
Guest: There are overly severe federal and state mandatory minimum laws. For instance, in states like New York, they mandate a judge to impose a prison term of no less than 15 years to life for possessing 4 ounces or selling 2 ounces of a narcotic.
Today’s mandatory minimum laws tie the judge’s hands, and prevent him from taking into account the circumstances and context of the crime, the individual’s character and background, and the relative position of the offender in the drug traffic hierarchy.
Today many minor offenders, who may possess a small amount or sell a small amount to feed their addiction, get huge sentences, as much as many murderers.
Of the 22,407 drug offenders under New York custody as of September 1, 1998, 25% were convicted of simple drug possession.
Host: Well, the king-pins of the drug trade deserve big time, don’t they?
Guest: That was the intent of these laws. However, it didn’t work out that way. In NY, for example, 60% of all the drug offenders in prison as of September 1, 1998, and 89% of repeat drug offenders convicted in 1997, were convicted of only the three lowest felonies - Class C, D, and E - which involve only minute drug amounts.
What we don’t hear is that the much maligned "repeat drug offenders" are often sick addicts who must regularly sell small amounts to simply feed their expensive habit.
Host: I hear a lot about Blacks and Hispanics in prison. What’s the story on that?
Guest: It’s disgraceful. By FBI studies, whites consume most of the drugs, and more than half of the dealers are white. Yet, 90% of the people in NY prisons are African American or Hispanic.
Much of the white drug activity is behind closed doors. But much of the drug trade in low-income minority neighborhoods is done in the streets. There, it’s much easier to sweep them up.
In New York, African Americans make up about 51% of the prison population, though they represent only 12.4% of the state’s population. That’s 4 times the proportional rate.
Latinos make up 32.1% of NY’s prison population, though they represent only 10.8% of the overall population. That’s 3 times the proportional rate.
In 1998, in the New York City jail, holding over 18,000 prisoners,
· 91.5% were Afro Americans or Hispanics
· 90% did not have a high school or equivalency diploma
In 1998, in the New York State prisons, holding over 70,000 prisoners
,
· 83% were Afro American or Hispanics
· 75% lacked a high school diploma
Host: And, what’s happening to the families of those incarcerated?
Guest: We’re destroying minority families at a great rate. And the children of incarcerated parents suffer the most. They often get shuffled among relatives or foster care families. They’ll be the next generation in prison.
· 70% of youths in state institutions are from fatherless homes.
· 71% of high school dropouts are from fatherless homes.
· 75% of adolescent patients in substance abuse centers are from fatherless homes.
· 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes.
· 90% of all homeless and runaway youths are from fatherless homes.
Host: But, the drug war is being won, isn’t it? Look at how we’ve been enjoying a big drop in crime for years.
Guest: The drug war has been ineffective. After spending over $300 billion on it, drugs are as plentiful and as cheap as ever.
Regarding the crime drop, that all depends on what you look at.
See: Murder and Robbery Rates as a function of Time
Note the cyclic patterns. We’re at the end of another cycle.
Now see: Murder Rates as a Function of Age
Then see: The Peak of Homicides by Handguns
And see: Rise of the Murder-Rate-Peak with Age
And see: Decease in Murder-Rate-Peak after Age 18
Homicide rates per 100,000 population peak in the ages between 18 and 24. Those rates were flat from 1970 to 1985. But homicide rates for 18 year olds more than doubled between 1985 and 1993, and then dropped for the next three years.
You see, there was an extraordinary peak from 1985 to the present. It was the combination of youth moving into the lucrative crack market and a flood of guns into their hands. The crime drop being advertised is only the ending of a very extraordinary peak.
Host: But the drop has been impressive. What caused the decline?
Guest: Lots of things in combination, like:
· A growing economy with more jobs for young people.
· Demographics: fewer 17-25 year olds.
· Community policing.
· Getting guns out of the neighborhood.
· Drug courts and alternatives to incarceration
· Gang interventions.
· Neighborhood/community actions.
· More incarceration?
It’s argued that incarceration has little effect on drug activity because of the "replacement" phenomena. For every dealer locked up, there are many others ready to move in and reap the big rewards.
Host: Well, anyway, people say we’re getting violent offenders off the streets.
Guest: Yes and no. In 1996, 1997 and 1998, over 60% of the NY commitments to prison were then non-violent offenders.
Of the 10,047 sentenced to prison for drug offenses in 1997, 80% were never convicted of any violent felony in all their lives.
Host: What do the experts say?
Guest: More and more now agree that the drug laws must change. Recently even General Mc Caffrey, the U.S. Drug Czar said:
"Mandatory sentencing ties the hands of judges too tightly and prevents them from exercising discretion and good judgment."
Host: Are there Alternatives?
Guest: Yes, of course there are. A New York State Unified Court System Committee, including seven distinguished judges, reported,
"It is apparent that each year thousands of persons who present no, or a minimal threat to public safety are being committed to state prison. And this is being done despite the exorbitant costs involved and despite the fact that community-based programs may well be as effective, or appreciably more effective in rehabilitating these offenders."
Host: You mean drug treatment programs?
Guest: Drugs are a big part of it. The National Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University reports that 80% of our prisoners have alcohol or drug problems. There is more violence from alcohol than from drugs. And the scandal is that less than 20% of those prisoners needing treatment get any treatment at all, and much of that is inadequate.
As our prison population grows, our in prison alcohol and drug treatment programs have not kept pace. The following chart shows the need.
Host: But does drug treatment work?
Guest: Like so many things, it’s got to be done well to have good results.
A RAND study found that drug treatment reduces serious crime 15 times more than mandatory minimum laws, and 10 times more that conventional sentences.
Ohio’s cost-effectiveness study found marked decease (down to one-third) in criminal arrests after treatment. Look at this chart:
Other arrests (moving vehicle, DUIs, and auto accidents arrests were also reduced.
And, Arizona now mandates all drug addicts to treatment rather than prison and claims a 75% success rate after one year.
It pays to give addiction treatment and education/training to prisoners. CASA, the Columbia University group, estimates that if we successfully treat and train only 10% of the 1.2 million inmates who need it, the nation would benefit more that $8 billion for each year those released inmates remain employed and drug-and-crime free.
One study showed that by paying for some education/training as well as addiction treatment, New York could save about 50 million dollars per year from:
· Reduced crime costs
· Reduced arrest and prosecution costs
· Reduced incarceration costs
· Reduced substance abuse costs
· Earnings benefits as these people are put to work.
Host: I read that the New York State Catholic bishops took a strong stand in favor of changes to the drug laws.
Guest: Yes, their statement also calls for return of discretion to judges, less incarceration, and more emphasis on non-prison drug treatment. The chorus for change is loud and clear.
Host: Awhile ago, you used the term "restorative justice". What’s that all about?
Guest: It’s about addressing the hurts and needs of the victims, and the hurts and needs of the offender, in such a way that they and the community may be healed.
The offender becomes accountable to the victim and the community, not the state. Accountability means taking action to repair the harm caused to the victim and the community.
It includes attention to needs in two dimensions:
· needs resulting from the crime, such as restitution or reparations and the repair of injuries, relationships, and other damage.
· Needs related to the underlying causes of the crime - such as addictions, lack of employment skills, lack of a moral or ethical base, and others.
Host: Is that for real? Where is it done?
Guest: These concepts are not new. They’ve been the way of indigenous peoples for many centuries, particularly in some Native American tribes, some Eskimo villages, and the Maori people in New Zealand. Now there are thriving programs of restorative justice within our own criminal justice systems in many states, particularly Minnesota, Florida, and Pennsylvania.
Host: You’ve spoken quite a bit about alternatives to incarceration. What is that, and what success have we had?
Guest: Generally, it’s a holistic, community-based approach to offender problems. The problem may, for example, be a combination of some addiction, lack of education or job training, and bad attitudes.
In Connecticut, for example, there’s been a successful Alternative to Incarceration Program (AIP). Connecticut compared arrest rates for graduates of their AIP program with the rates of comparable offenders sent to prison in the state’s Department of Corrections (DOC).
The alternatives were 2-5 times more successful than prisons in reducing crime of drug offenders.
And AIPs were far less expensive, too.
It’s been estimated (in 1998) that Connecticut’s Alternative Sanctions Programs saved $619 million in capital and operating costs. (NCJ 172870)
Host: I notice that you said "treatment and training." What did you mean by that?
Guest: Education and job-training, that enables a person to hold a job paying a livable wage are obviously prerequisites to a stable, non-criminal life.
Yet, a majority of prisoners have no high school diploma. An estimated 40% of them can’t read.
But do we have data that education reduces recidivism, returning to crime and prison?
Yes, there’s data indicating that education alone, ranging from literacy, adult basic education, GED (high school equivalency), vocational, and post-secondary have consistently reduced recidivism between 16% and 62%.
In Arizona, probationers who received a GED education had a re-arrest rate of 24% compared to a control group’s rate of 46%.
In Texas, the recidivism rate for those without college degrees was 60%. The rate for degree holders was: Associate 13.7%; Bachelors 5.6 %; and Masters 0%.
Host: You’ve got to admit that education and training cost a lot of money.
Guest: Not that much, because it’s a good investment. It more than pays for itself in the long run.
In a related example, a RAND study indicated that for ordinary high school students, the cost effectiveness of monetary incentives to graduate high school, was calculated to be five times better than that of the 3-strikes program. The incentives are relatively cheap; and arrests in participating students were only 3/10 that of a comparable group of students.
Another calculation, based on current data, indicates that even a 5% participation in post-secondary courses by the nation’s prisoners could possibly save half a billion dollars annually in less recidivism.
There’s little doubt that prisoner education pays.
Host: So what happens now when a prisoner does come out today?
Guest: After years of sub-human treatment, with no practice of socialization and decision-making, still addicted, and without job skills, a returning inmate is lost. Without help he is likely to despair and end back in prison.
Addiction treatment and education/job training are pre-requisites.
Then, more millions could be saved by a sensible re-integration program. Transition to residential intermediate sanctions, with continued treatment and training, and then to release with further out-patient aftercare could save lives, reduce recidivism and reduce costs.
Host: So, what are people like you recommending?
Guest: Change our whole approach to the drug and crime problems.
· Return judicial discretion to judges.
· Reduce the excessive lengths of sentences.
· Make the new laws somewhat retroactive.
· Make drug treatment available to all who need it.
· Handle substance abuse primarily as health and education issues.
· Emphasize education and training.
· Make alternatives to incarceration and restorative justice the norm.
· Create a sensible re-integration policy.
The New York bill introduced by Assemblyman Aubry achieves many of these objectives. And a proposal by a conservative group headed by former senator John Dunne is less broad but still supports much of the above.
Host: So, what’s holding us back? What does it take to reduce costs, reduce recidivism, and get this situation under control?
Guest:
1. The legislators in many states have to stop trying to get votes by pandering to voter’s fears that are enlarged by media crime hype.
2. They have to reform the draconian mandatory minimum laws.
3. They have to shift resources, to restoration instead of pursuing its single-minded solution of only punishment and more and more prisons.
4. They have to substantially expand the funding for alcohol and drug treatment and the alternatives to incarceration, which are less expensive and more effective.
5. And they have to expand and raise the quality of correctional education and vocational training for a holistic approach and a maximum payoff.
For our country’s sake, let’s move forward.
* * * * * *
Let your voice be heard. See the Action Page
To return to the CURE-NY home page, Click: