U.S. PRISON POPULATIONS, COSTS UNNECESSARILY HIGH

New survey data shows 1 of every 100 Americans is in the prison
system which highlights flaw in government's priorities.

Is this country getting emptier, or is it just me? A study released
last week might help explain this trend.

The land of the free has a long history of being No. 1--especially
when it comes to incarcerating its citizens. For quite a few years we
have ranked first in this arena, but now we are taking this record to
even greater heights.

According to state-by-state data collected by the Pew Center during
2007, more than two million Americans were serving time in
correctional institutions at the beginning of 2008. That number makes
us first in the world--in both total number and per capita. China,
for example, a nation of over a billion people, has only 1.5 million
incarcerated prisoners.

The United States currently accounts for 25 percent of the world's
total prison population, and, as of this year, one in every 100
Americans is serving time in jail.

In the last 20 years, the amount of federal funds necessary to house
our nation's prison population has swollen from under $11 billion to
over $49 billion. That is quite an increase--a six times greater
increase than funding for higher education. And while our bridges and
other infrastructures may be falling apart, the prison-industrial
complex is riding high.

More importantly, are we getting what we pay for? The homicide rate
has remained stable over the last few decades, but is still nearly
four times higher than that of Western European nations. In the last
two decades, the number of U.S. prisoners has tripled, yet there has
been only a slight drop in national crime rates.

The growing number of prisoners is not caused by increased crime in
the United States, but rather due to increased sentences and harsher
punishments. While being "tough on crime" has made good fodder for
political speeches, in reality the
lock-them-up-and-throw-away-the-key approach is not justifiable under
the law, cost effective or even effective at reducing crime.

Don't worry, I'm not suggesting we throw the prison doors open and
let violent criminals stream out into your neighborhoods. There are
always going to be some individuals who must be
incarcerated--murders, rapists, etc.

Even so, there are over a million non-violent criminals for whom an
alternative to incarceration is a viable option. This number includes
countless scores of non-violent inmates serving time for drug possession.

First of all, we should stop sending people to prison for marijuana
offenses. In the last 15 years, we have moved from a president who
admitted to smoking marijuana, but never inhaling, to a viable
candidate who admits to having "inhaled frequently," adding, "that
was the point."

Perhaps it is time for our laws to reflect the general consensus in
this country that while marijuana may be harmful, it is at least no
more so than tobacco or alcohol. Relaxed punishments of marijuana and
other "soft drugs" in the Netherlands has resulted in lower rates of
both drug abuse and imprisonment.

Regardless of how you feel about drug policy in the United States,
perhaps we could all agree these individuals would benefit more from
being treated as addicts rather than as criminals. Currently, among
those serving time for drug related offenses, there is a 60 percent
recidivism rate. Treatment outside of prison could be a far more
effective and less costly alternative to incarceration.

Right now, we spend around $20,000 a year per inmate. This funding
ensures inmates are not only fed, but also have access to free
healthcare, vocational training, higher education and therapy. That's
right, only the 2.3 million incarcerated Americans have access to
universal health care.

Perhaps it is even more ironic these same individuals are the only
ones with access to free vocational training and the possibility for
free higher education. These measures are in place because it is
widely believed that mentally and physically healthy
individuals--with applicable job training, education and vocational
skills--are far less likely to be repeat offenders when released back
into society. Statistics show that these measures are generally
successful, and I wholeheartedly agree with the programs. However,
this begs the greater question: Why don't we extend the same
privileges to our citizens who aren't incarcerated?

It seems that giving citizens on the outside access to these
privileges might be a better solution than the current stop-gap
system which waits for them to commit a crime before making these
opportunities available.

Instead of spending $49 billion a year to keep people in prison,
perhaps that money could go to education and health care for people
who abide by the law. Regardless, at this rate, with 47 million
Americans lacking adequate health care and facing the general lack of
access to higher education, it seems more than likely that before too
long, the non-incarcerated American population may have neither the
health nor the necessary funds to continue supporting the prison
system in its current manifestation.

Perhaps there is a silver lining to this situation. Wisconsin is one
of only 14 states which actually decreased its prison population in 2007.

Even though prison population dropped by almost 4 percent, the state
nonetheless still spends nearly 7 percent of its general fund dollars
on the prison system.

In the following years we should expect to see many states beginning
to follow suit by redirecting non-violent prisoners into
rehabilitation and community service programs. In light of thinning
budgets, many states are finally noticing that the anachronistic
system of being tough on crime is, in reality, ineffective and much
tougher on tax payers.