With incarceration costs growing and public funds being squeezed, criminologists say it is time to expand prison industries and let inmates defray the cost of their keep. So-called prison industries can help control costs, reduce recidivism rates and restore public faith in the justice system. Where they now exist, inmate work programs have developed an encouraging and positive track record, according to experts.
Aside from the public economies involved, prisoners who have learned new skills are less likely to return to crime after release.
At the Lockhart Correctional Facility in Texas:
About 40 percent of a typical working inmate's incarceration costs are recovered from wages.
The state of Washington's prison industry program -- one of the most advanced in the nation -- is voluntary and popular with inmates, who often must be put on waiting lists. Although only 3 percent of prisoners now participate, officials estimate that half could be employed if the regulatory restrictions were lifted.
The reason these programs remain a minor part of most prison operations can be traced to two 1930s federal laws which drastically limit interstate commerce in prison-made products.
However, polls show that a majority of business leaders, who might be expected to object to prison industries as unfair competition, actually favor such programs.
Source: Former Attorney General Edwin Meese III (Heritage Foundation) and Knut A. Rostad (Enterprise Prison Institute), "Let Prison Inmates Earn Their Keep," Wall Street Journal, May 1, 1996.
The costs of the 49 million crimes and attempted crimes against Americans each year are staggering.
A recent report from the National Institute of Justice advances some eye-popping figures.
The figures do not include the cost of running the criminal justice system or private actions taken to cut crime -- such as hiring guards or buying security systems.
Criminologists are fast coming to the conclusion that incarceration is cheaper than letting repeat offenders back onto the streets. With the typical arson costing an average of $54,000 per victim and an assault costing $31,000, it is cheaper to keep the criminal in jail at an average annual cost of $25,000 to $30,000.
Research shows that those who are jailed for violent or property crimes tend to be repeat offenders. So locking them up tends to reduce their crime rate.
Experience in Texas serves as an illustration:
Some criminologists -- even those who don't necessarily believe in decriminalizing drugs -- believe nonviolent, first-time drug offenders should get reduced sentences -- including a mix of fines and house confinement -- so as to direct resources toward violent criminals and those who commit property crimes.
Source: Perspective, "Crime's Cost," Investor's Business Daily, May 9, 1996.
Crime rates may have fallen somewhat in recent years, but they are still near all-time highs. And there is worse to come, according to criminologists.
Criminal experts see no easy answer to the approaching crime wave. These up and coming criminals are unreachable by appeals to human empathy or threats of future punishment. The results are predictable.
Experts say that society must put its hopes and resources into more prisons and more police to avoid a predicted future crime bloodbath.
Source: Paul Akers (Scripps Howard News Service), "Tracking the Crime Curve Into the Future," Washington Times, May 13, 1996.
More evidence refuting claims that state prisons are filled with nonviolent, first-time drug offenders comes from a study of Wisconsin's urban prison population by penal experts John DiIulio and George Mitchell. They found that typical prisoners are violent criminals with long records who pose a threat to public safety.
The researchers analyzed a representative sample of Department of Corrections inmate files, including information on juvenile criminal activity, to create a profile of criminal activity for prison inmates in Milwaukee County. They found that:
The study found that drug and property offenders showed a pattern of recidivism, probation or parole violations and prior violent crime.
The majority of inmates had a documented juvenile crime record, and among first offenders, 87.5 percent were imprisoned for a violent crime.
The median sentence for male inmates in the sample was 10 years, and historical data suggests they will serve about half their sentences before being paroled. Which won't be long from now, since 82 percent will be eligible for at least discretionary parole -- and more than half will be eligible for mandatory parole -- by 2000.
Source: John J. DiIulio Jr. and George A. Mitchell, "Who Really Goes to Prison in Wisconsin? A Profile of Urban Inmates in Wisconsin Prisons," Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Report, Vol. 9, No. 4, April 1996, Wisconsin Public Policy Institute, 3107 North Shepard Avenue, Milwaukee, WI 53211, (414) 963-0600.
Juveniles are a relatively small share of the population today; but by 2005 the number of teenagers will increase by almost 25 percent. If the 40 million children under age 10 grow up to commit crimes at the rate of today's teens, violent crime will reach horrific levels.
Justice Department reports point to an alarming rise in juvenile crime.
Many believe that it's time to treat juvenile offenders like adults by subjecting them to adult justice. At present, we send only a few juveniles to adult courts. Most of those charged -- even repeat offenders -- land in more lenient juvenile courts. And only 60 percent even get to juvenile courts: the rest are either warned, their parents are notified or they are referred to social service programs.
Felony and misdemeanor citations vanish from a minor's criminal record when he turns 18 in most states. So many apparent first-time offenders in adult courts have already committed many serious crimes.
Those who advocate getting tough on juvenile crime say court records on violent juveniles should be opened so that the data may be used in investigations, trials and sentencing. Open records would also help prosecutors target the worst threats to society.
And trying them as adults would result in longer sentences in state prisons, rather than juvenile detention centers.
As for costs, New York spends more than twice as much ($85,000 a year) to keep a teen offender locked up as it does an adult prisoner.
Crime's cost to society, analysts note, is the same regardless of the criminal's age. why should repeat juvenile offenders receive lighter sentences than adults?
Source: Robert L. Sexton (Pepperdine University), "The Economics of Juvenile Crime," Investor's Business Daily, May 21, 1996.
Note: For related information, the Daily Policy Digest link to NCPA's Crime page is http://www.public-policy.org/~ncpa/p:/crime./crime.html