"Law and Order" is Expensive

There is a good reason fiscal conservatives with hearts of stone should oppose the current overcriminalization crisis: Keeping people in prison in expensive.

If you put a person in prison, you're putting him on welfare, since we have to pay for his care and feeding while he's in prison.  What's worse is that many people sentenced to prison have jobs.  (Which is one reason judges take a defendant's work history into consideration when sentencing - or not - a person to prison, and which is a good reason for judicial discretion at sentencing.)

Let's say a person is convicted of a non-violent offense and will likely not re-offend.  It's almost certain that he will be male, and it's likely he will be the sole provider for his family.  If we put in him prison, not only are we paying money to incarcerate him, we're also going to support his family.  Because, without dad around, mom and the kids will likely be on welfare.  Plus, we lose the tax revenue since the family won't be spending as much money, and thus won't be paying sales tax.

I realize that, for many people, using prison as a form of punishment feels goods.  It's fun to imagine some shady character being raped in prison.  After all, humans are vengeful creatures, and have a need to inflict harm.  But, for the love of God, consider the fiscal impact.  Is scratching the revenge itch really worth tens-of-thousands of dollars a year?

Comments

[Lear's Fool]

Hmm, you make a really good case for removing - or at least reducing - prison sentences.

On the other hand, you make a really good case for

- making prisoners work for their room and board,
- letting them fuel the economy by purchasing their necessaries from productive American citizens,
- letting them send money back home to care for the families for whom they are responsible,
- and reducing our subsidization of their families.

In short, you make a good case for letting the criminals pay for their crimes. And all that without compromising the principles of nor the natural desire for justice. Sounds to me like you've got a good plan, conservative or not.

[mythago]

Sounds like you're proposing a one-bite rule, Mike.

[Mike]

Lear's Fool: Where are prisoners going to find in-prison jobs that will give them enough money to send home, especially if they're working for they're room and board?

Mythago: For certain types of crimes, a qualified yes.

[Lear's Fool]

Oh, I'm sure we can find something for these criminals to do, Mike.

- There are scads of public works projects that need doing, for instance. Such projects would benefit the community (as opposed to, say, digging holes and filling them back in) and thereby constitute a fair exchange of labor for wages. And not only that, but the honest labor and accomplishment (as in movies such as Cadence and Cool Hand Luke) would give prisoners the sense of worth and pride men need in order to function responsibly in society.

- And if the goal is to save money, we can start but cutting out every luxury (save education) we're currently buying for them.

- Next, we can remove from these "welfare rolls" altogether those guilty of capital crimes.

- And once the message gets out that wives and children may become utterly destitute and dependant on their neighbors for subsistence if their men turn to crime, women might start demanding better husbands for themselves and fathers for their children. Social pressure will drive many a man to behave responsibly.

Instead of increasing the costs of imprisonment to such an extreme that even conservatives cave in and go soft on crime, let's decrease the costs and rehabilitate our rehabilitation methods.

[Aaron]

If it were cheap and easy to put prisoners to productive labor, we would already do it. Further, private enterprise doesn't like to compete with prison enterprise for customers. (A prison laundry can "outcompete" a private commercial laundry, in part by paying prisoners a pittance for their labor, but for some reason private laundries don't appreciate being put out of business.) Within that subsidized marketplace, have you ever heard somebody in the federal civil service speak about the lengths their offices often go through to avoid buying furniture from Federal Prison Industries?

I find the notion that we should impose penury upon women and children who fail to stop their husbands or fathers from committing crimes to be ridiculous.

Cutting down on luxuries in prison... Have you ever actually seen the inside of a prison? I mean, aside from the Army Stockade of a 16-year-old Charlie Sheen film, or the rural prison of a 1960's-era Paul Newman film? Not that I want to drag you kicking and screaming back into reality.

[Lear's Fool]

Aaron, I'm afraid I wasn't very clear. I wasn't saying we can find out how luxurious prisons are from Hollywood depictions. What I meant to say is that the honest labor and accomplishment (as in movies such as Cadence and Cool Hand Luke) would give prisoners the sense of worth and pride men need in order to function responsibly in society. Oh wait, that's what I did say. Perhaps rereading it will help you grasp the point?

"I find the notion that we should impose penury upon women and children who fail to stop their husbands or fathers from committing crimes to be ridiculous."

Indeed. Fortunately, no one is proposing any such nonsense. But it's noble and courageous of you to challenge and defeat for us those intimidating straw men which threaten to terrorize any serious discussion of reform. My applause and thanks to you.

[Aaron]

I read what you posted. The difference being that I have some sense of what prisons are like from visiting prisoners, whereas you think you know what they are like (and what prisoners are like) based upon a Charlie Sheen movie.

I appreciate your agreement that your suggestions about social pressure on wives and children were nonsensical.

[Deoxy]

Aaron,

LF wasn't saying prisons look like prisons in the movies. He was saying the WORK part of what is depicted in movies might be doable and useful.

LF,

"Fortunately, no one is proposing any such nonsense." Well no one except you, in your earlier post, as quoted:
"And once the message gets out that wives and children may become utterly destitute and dependant on their neighbors for subsistence if their men turn to crime..."

Back on topic, I'd like to point something out:

A professional thief could quite easily steal his entire year's worth of expenses in prison... every month. A single murder has all the costs of taking someone out of the community for prison... only longer-lasting. Etc.

We pay the cost of prison for those crimes because the financial costs of not punishing them are even greater, and that's WITHOUT touching on the non-financial costs, such as feeling secure in one's home, etc.

Prison isn't just punishment (though that's a nice point, too). It's also 1) isolation for those prone to commit again (hence longer sentences for re-offenders) and 2) an attempt at prevention by threat. Point 1 is particularly relevant for certain crimes; the cost of keeping someone in prison is less than the cost of a murder or two, again, probably without even considering the non-financial costs. Point 2 is often poo-pooed by academics, but I think England is providing a text-book example that is hard to ignore right now: self-defense rights are nearly non-existant, penalties and prosecution of burglary is down, and, shocker, burglary rates have gone through the roof. It's not that it prevents ALL crime, it's that it prevents a quite a bit of crime.

In short, yes, prison costs money, but not using prison costs MORE money (well, unless we just go to execution... but I don't recommend it).

[Mike]

In short, yes, prison costs money, but not using prison costs MORE money (well, unless we just go to execution... but I don't recommend it).

Did you even read my post? Did I say no one should go to prison? Exactly.

[Lear's Fool]

Deoxy,

I supposed Aaron's misrepresentations of me were obvious, but thanks for pointing out one of them just the same.

You join with him in another, however. For clarity's sake, let me place my words alongside his misrepresentation, and I think his foolishness will become plain to see.

I said:
"once the message gets out that wives and children may become utterly destitute and dependant on their neighbors for subsistence if their men turn to crime, women might start demanding better husbands for themselves and fathers for their children."

Aaron accused me of saying:
"we should impose penury upon women and children who fail to stop their husbands or fathers from committing crimes"

There's quite a difference between allowing and causing, wouldn't you say?

Too often, in our rush to relieve suffering, we relieve people of responsibility. We want to play Mommy, helping those who just can't seem to control their criminal inclinations. In our benevolence, we become enablers.

These are not rambunctious little boys who need guidance, supervision, someone to give them a spanking and then clean up the mess they've made. No, they're renegades, grown men who have reneged their responsibilities, and who now want to deny responsibility for their destructive and antisocial behavior. And we continue cleaning up the messes they make rather than making them do it.

How much longer before we abandon this failed give-them-a-hug-and-clean-up-their-mess mommyism? The underlying philosophy may have, at one time, sounded reasonable enough to give it a try. But the experiment has proven a failure. Whoever would yet cling to this enabling philosophy is a fool.

[Mike]

How much longer before we abandon this failed give-them-a-hug-and-clean-up-their-mess mommyism?

If you had actually read what I said, you would not be making that statement.

[Vincent Suro]

Prisons should be for people that commit:
1. murder
2. rape
3. theft

All drug related crimes should be ablished.
We should not create illegal markets, legalize everything and tax it. Prohibition does not work, even the second, third, or fourth time around.

[Aaron]

Deoxy, you present a distinction without a difference. More to the point, I specifically addressed the types of labor which can be performed by prisoners - you must have neglected to read that post?

If it makes you and Mr. Fool feel better, whatever.... You are both entitled to watch Charlie Sheen movies (set in, of all places, a fictitious military stockade) and pretend that they depict the reality of prison life. Those of us who know better? We will remain unimpressed with your arguments.

Mr. Fool, you proposed a policy with a specific end-goal in mind. Pretending you merely wish to "allow" the outcome you acknowledge will result does not change the fact that it will be caused by the policy you propose. Semantic games are fun, but so far it appears that you're not very good at them.

[Duffy]

The problem with Judicial Discretion is the fact that it violates Equal Protection under the law. You cannot have Judges deciding that this child molester needs supervised parole while this
car thief needs to do Jail Time. Inequity in sentencing is the greatest reason most of us non-Lawyers view lawyers as suspect. They say ignorance of the Law is no excuse, but when 3 different Judges give 3 different sentences for similar sentence, and 6 different lawyers give 6 different opinions as to why the sentences were fair or unfair, then the law needs to be specific about what will happen if you are found guilty for this offense. Otherwise, it is a joke, not a justice system. If ignorance of the Law is no excuse, then we must blame the lack of Logic displyed by those who practice it.