How We Do Love Spending Money for Incarceration

You know from so many sources, including my blogs, that the United States, with only 5% of the world’s population, incarcerates a quarter of the earth’s convicts. 2.9% of the entire American adult population is under some form of criminal judicial supervision (incarceration, on probation or parole). Half of those in the criminal justice system are there for drug related crimes (and half again of those for dealing or possession). But imprisoning folks is not cheap. It costs California an average of $47,102/year to incarcerate one prisoner (according to the State’s Legislative Analyst). The federal system spends a lot less - $21K/year for minimum security prisoners, and $33K/year for maximum security. Most states are somewhere in between.

But our prisons are overflowing, often creating inhumane conditions based on overcrowding. California is under federal judicial supervision to reduce overcrowding, but there is a whole lot more demand for prison capacity than currently exists… almost everywhere in the country. The federal system is severely overtaxed as well, but “In Nebraska, for example, prisons were at 155 percent of capacity at the end of March. And in California, courts have ordered the state to reduce the inmate population to 137.5 percent of designed capacity, or 112,164 inmates in the 34 facilities, by February 2016.” AOL.com, April 24^th.

There is no parole in the federal system, and other than time off for good behavior (which can knock 15% off the total time served), sentences are simply carried out. “Tough on crime” and “three strikes” laws have generated more people with more jail time than at any other time in our nation’s history. The problem is that we cannot afford it anymore, so something has to give. In addition to revisiting sentencing laws, the Department of Justice is also addressing how to reduce the existing federal prison population through a modification in clemency standards.

“On [April 23^rd], the Justice Department unveiled a revamped clemency process directed at low-level felons imprisoned for at least 10 years who have clean records while in custody. The effort is part of a broader administration push to scale back the use of harsh penalties in some drug prosecutions and to address sentencing disparities arising from the 1980s crack cocaine epidemic that yielded disproportionately tough punishment for black drug offenders.

“‘These older, stringent punishments that are out of line with sentences imposed under today's laws erode people's confidence in our criminal justice system,’ Deputy Attorney General James Cole said, laying out new criteria that will be used to evaluate clemency petitions for possible recommendation for the president's approval…

“‘These defendants were properly held accountable for their criminal conduct. However, some of them, simply because of the operation of sentencing laws on the books at the time, received substantial sentences that are disproportionate to what they would receive today,’ Cole said.

“Officials say they don't know how many of the tens of thousands of drug-related convicts would be eligible for early release, but an ideal candidate would meet six criteria - including no history of violence, no ties to criminal organizations or gangs and a clean prison record. He must also have already served 10 years or more of his sentence and be likely to have received a substantially shorter offense if convicted of the same offense today.” AOL.com. Before we picture hordes of prisoners getting released, realize that the above criteria are pretty narrow and just will not apply to the vast majority of federal prisoners. It’s a baby step in the right direction. What are states doing to release “safe” prisoners… where they do have the benefit of parole?

The variances between states is amazing. West Virginia releases 48% of inmates who are up for parole. Ohio? That’s a whole ‘nuther ball game. Recently, less than 1%. When Ohio’s parole board released a prisoner who then went on to murder a 13-year-old girl, well, a local lawyer noted that from then on, the odds of getting paroled in Ohio was only slightly more likely than winning the lotto. But states cannot afford keeping prisoners in bulk either. Is there a solution, someone or some system to take the blame?

Yup, by reason of a set of competing analytics and software programs, like ORAS, COMPAS, LSIU-R and LS/CMI, have been applied to reduce parolee recidivism by 15%, a truly significant statistic. What’s more, they can point out areas where a prisoner might need additional focus to qualify based on those statistics.

This “risk assessment” software is based on relevant data like “the prisoner’s age at first arrest, education, his behaviour in prison, his friends’ criminal records, the results of psychometric tests and even the sobriety of his mother while he was in the womb. The software estimates the probability an inmate will relapse by comparing his profile with many others.” The Economist, April 19^th (page 29). Whatever the system, we really need to be finding ways to undo our wasteful and profligate incarceration spending excesses.

I’m Peter Dekom, and Americans are great at waging wars, getting tough on crimes and then moaning about federal deficits.