COST SHOULD BE A FACTOR IN PRISON SENTENCES

At $31,000 a Year, Is It Worth It to Lock Up a Drug Abuser?

Most public spending decisions involve some measure of oversight. The
criminal justice system is an exception. The cost of incarcerating one
person in prison for a single year in California is nearly $31,000.
Yet, in sentencing offenders to prison, judges are not expected to --
indeed, they are not statutorily permitted to -- consider cost.

Why should this be? After all, politicians are routinely grilled on
how they intend to pay for proposals to expand healthcare, education
or other social programs. In most spheres of government, it is
understood that benefits have to be weighed against costs. But when it
comes to criminal justice, safety and peace of mind are precious
commodities, and the assumption is that they justify the expenditure
not just of substantial sums but of whatever it takes.

The result is the $5.7-billion-a-year Department of Corrections, the
largest state agency in California.

Granted, murderers, rapists and child molesters should be locked away
at any cost. But should we really do the same in cases involving
nonviolent crimes such as drug possession and theft?

Given the significant costs of incarceration and the demands of
mandatory sentencing schemes such as three strikes, isn't it
appropriate to give thought to introducing cost into the sentencing
equation?

Simple possession of a controlled substance provides an apt starting
point. When punished with imprisonment, the crime carries a sentence
of 16 months, two years or three years. A two-year sentence, or the
"mid-term" as it is referred to in the parlance of criminal practice,
translates to a cost of nearly $62,000.

The price jumps significantly if the offender has prior convictions; a
three-strikes sentence -- which requires a minimum of 25 years in
prison -- costs more than $750,000, before adjustment for inflation.

Even when parole and the moderating effect of Proposition 36, the
initiative that provides an opportunity for drug treatment, are
factored in, the fiscal effect remains enormous. Eight and a half
percent of the prison population (or more than 13,000 people) are
serving prison sentences for simple possession of drugs. Is this a
reasonable expenditure? Is it worth the cost to society to keep drug
users off the streets (especially when the cost of incarcerating drug
offenders outstrips all but the most exclusive private rehabilitation
clinics)?

Or consider another common criminal offense: petty theft -- a theft of
less than $400 -- with a prior. A person convicted of misdemeanor
shoplifting who is sentenced to serve any time in jail may be charged
with a felony if caught stealing again and punished with up to three
years in state prison. Roughly 5,500 people are serving prison
sentences in California for this crime, including more than 100
serving a minimum of 25 years for the offense as a third strike.

Their sentences reflect the judgment that shoplifters and thieves
should be punished, and if they don't learn their lesson the first
time, a harsher punishment is warranted. The underlying reasoning is
self-evident, but the solution appears to have been calculated without
regard to economics.

Incarcerating shoplifters at an annual cost of nearly $31,000 each is
probably applauded as good public policy by merchandising executives,
but taxpayers might secure greater value from other uses of the same
funds. For example, a teacher in California earns an average of a
little more than $54,000 a year.

Of course, legislation targeting reductions in prison commitments will
invariably be assailed as being soft on crime. Meaningful change is
unlikely to occur until the electorate more viscerally connects
criminal penalties to taxpayer costs. Until then, we might at least
consider permitting judges to take account of the resources they are
being asked to commit on our behalf.