PRISONS ALONE ARE NO LOCKBOX FOR CRIME

Last Wednesday's editorial, "The purpose of prisons," committed the
statistical sin of confusing correlation with causation. Commenting on a
Justice Department report that a record 6.47 million Americans, one out of
every 32 adults, are under correctional supervision (serving time behind
bars or on probation or parole), the Herald credited the rise in prison
populations for bringing about the recent sharp decline in crime.

The reality is, however, that most of the 1990s crime drop, in Boston and
elsewhere, was associated with a dissolving crack market, a booming
economy, the shift to community-oriented policing, investments in
prevention programs, community mobilization and an aging population.

Prison populations had been expanding long before the crime rate started
its 1990s nose dive. From 1985 to 1991, the count of U.S. prisoners
increased 63 percent while the crime rate rose 13 percent, including a 36
percent jump in violent crime.

I do not dispute that expanding prisons had some positive impact on the
crime rate. In fact, Professor William Spelman of the University of Texas
has shown through a statistical analysis that about one-quarter of the drop
in crime of the 1990s can be linked to correctional incapacitation -- that
is, more prisoners and longer sentences.

Those who take a get-tough posture also tend to support the "three strikes"
movement to repeat offenders that swept across America from Washington
state where it began in 1993 to Washington, D.C., where our congressmen see
themselves as the Pedro Martinezes of politics. They are eager to show
their constituencies that they can strike out the side against crime.

Just last week, however, the Washington-based Sentencing Project reported
that California's three-strikes law, one of the toughest in the land, had
had no impact on the state's crime rate. While it is certainly logical that
incarcerating felons for long periods of time (even life) curtails their
criminal activity, the bottom-line question is whether "three strikes"
works any better than other sentencing strategies.

Allowing judges discretion is far more rational and effective than using a
number like three to dictate sentences. It is the nature of offenders, not
the number of offenses, that should guide sentencing decisions. There are,
for example, first- and second-time felons who are more dangerous than many
three-time losers. More important, keeping felons incarcerated well past
their prime criminal years is not the wisest use of correctional resources.
Three-strikes laws have resulted in a growing number of aging prisoners and
longer sentences for non-violent offenders.

At present, 49 percent of U.S. prisoners are locked up for non-violent
crimes, drug offenses, property crimes and offenses against public order
(for example, drunken driving and weapons violations). We need to be far
more selective in sentencing practices, saving prison cells for dangerous
felons and using other measures (for example, electronic monitoring) for
the rest.

Unfortunately, the great 1990s crime drop may have ended with the close of
the 1990s. Since then, many cities, including Boston, have seen crime
levels inch upward. Part of this resurgence may be the result of our failed
"lock 'em up" strategy. With a four-fold increase in prisoners over the
past two decades, we had to expect that eventually the number of
ex-offenders released from prison would increase as well.

More ex-cons are now returning to their old neighborhoods, and sometimes to
their old ways, with bad attitudes and inadequate training. Many have no
marketable skills with which to compete for jobs; some remain functionally
illiterate.

As we crammed more and more prisoners into our correctional facilities, we
also shifted the emphasis away from treatment and rehabilitation, once
believed to be as important a purpose of prison as incapacitation, and more
toward pure punishment.

Victim advocate Marc Klass, whose 12-year-old daughter Polly was kidnapped
and murdered in 1993 by a repeat offender, was initially the lead voice
behind the three-strikes movement. He has since changed his tune. "Trying
to cure the diseases of crime and violence just by building more prisons is
like trying to cure cancer by building more cemeteries," said Klass.

We all can agree that prisons, unfortunately, are necessary institutions in
today's society. Still, when it comes to prison populations, bigger does
not always mean better.