WHAT PRICE WILL WE PAY FOR MORE PRISONS?

Are there better ways to use our money to fight crime than building more
and more prisons?

As we enter an election year,we are going to hear a lot from politicians on
the issue of crime. Once again they will be stirring our emotions to
retaliate in more punishing ways against criminal acts. The emotions of
retaliation are easy for a politician to play with - whether by nurture or
nature, we in the United States seem to love retaliation. The thing we
have to make sure of, though, is whether our retaliatory responses are
actually better or worse for society.

How we punish people for criminal acts is our decision. How we spend our
resources to battle crime is our decision. Recent speeches by Attorney
General Dan Lungren, a candidate for governor, indicate that we may hear a
lot about the costs of crime and the cost-effectiveness of building
prisons. This is a good sign. It demonstrates a level of discussion where
we can put logic and reason into play rather than just our emotions.

Unfortunately, however, the numbers and theories are complicated and based
on speculative judgments, and as Lungren has demonstrated in discussing the
Three-Strikes law, can be easily manipulated.

If we approach crime in a cost-effective manner, we need guidelines to help
us through the distortions the politicians will try to use on us. The
following are some questions I think we need to ask when politicians are
asking for more money to build prisons:

1. WHAT ARE THE COSTS TO SOCIETY FOR THE CRIMES THAT ARE TARGETED AND HOW
DO THEY RELATE TO OTHER COSTS IN SOCIETY?

Lungren has already made a determination of the costs of the average
murdered life, a rape, a kidnapping, a burglary, a drug possession and
other crimes. But does the state of California really value a murdered life
at $2,940,000, as Lungren says? Can we put any price on life? Or should we
look at what the state of California could spend in other areas to save a
life but has decided not to? For instance, studies demonstrate that for
every $156,000 the government could spend on women aged 35 to 55 to receive
mammograms, a life would be saved. Why is the value of a life lost by
murder different from that lost to diseases? If we are really concerned
with saving lives, is our money best spent elsewhere?

2. ARE THE COSTS TO SOCIETY FOR THE SPECIFIC CRIMES COMMITTED PROPORTIONAL
TO THE SENTENCE?

Lungren is an avid cheerleader for California's Three-Stikes law. And yet
his own cost analysis does not make much sense. On the one hand, he values
the average murdered life at $2,940,000 and the average burglary at only
$1,400. By his own estimates, there is more than a 2,000 to 1 difference in
the costs to society committed by these acts, but he wants to treat them
the same. Is it really cost effective to spend millions of dollars filling
prison cells for nonviolent and non-serious offenders? Should someone who
commits two burglaries and a drug possession receive a greater sentence
than a murderer?

3. WHAT ARE THE COLLATERAL COSTS OF INCREASING PUNISHMENTS?

It is easy to take a narrow view and look only at the costs of prison and
the costs of the criminal acts, but there are many other collateral costs
to consider, including the increased medical costs as prisoners get older,
the increased costs to the court system as more people go to trial rather
than take plea bargains, the costs of increased violence to police officers
and victims as offenders try to fight back and flee rather then suffer a
severe costs to the families and communities of putting people away who
were contributing to the welfare of others.

A more controversial question is whether we should consider the pain and
suffering of the people in prison as a cost to society. If we dehumanize
and give their pain and suffering a zero value, what kind of society are
we?

4. WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF THE INCREASED PUNISHMENT?

Lungren attributes most of the decrease in crime in California since 1994
to the Three-Strikes law. This is a radical view. Many criminologists do
not give any credit to the decrease in crime to the Three-Strikes law and
those who give the law some credit give it a very minor role. Age
demographics, the waning use of crack, the economy, community policing,
gang truces, the stabilization of the drug market and other reasons are
believed to explain why crime is decreasing everywhere in the nation.

5. WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES TO BUILDING PRISONS?

Building prisons appears to help satisfy our emotions of retaliation, but
is it the best way to decrease crime? There is growing evidence that
rehabilitation programs and preventative programs decrease crime at higher
rate than simply building prisons. In a sense, if we really want to be
tough on crime, we are better off turning criminals into non-criminals and
preventing people from being criminals in the first place. When politicians
speak about increased sentencing and more punishment, we need to ask them
whether it is the best use of our money.

Today many people do not appear to bea concerned with the people who fill
our prisons. This is too bad. It is a sad commentary about the beliefs held
by our society and demonstrates how we are becoming more and more
indifferent about the concerns for others. But even if this is the reality,
we should at least be concerned with our tax money and whether we are
getting the best bang for our buck. We can let the politicians push our
emotional buttons, or we can ask the questions that will bring crime into a
more logical and reasoned perspective. The choice is ours.