Prisons Eat Up Tax Dollars

Rehabilitation Failures Lead To Repeat Crimes: Is Public Truly Better
Protected?

NEITHER SIDE HAS ANSWER

One of the most common rhetorical tactics of conservatives is to criticize
"throwing money" at various problems, such as poverty or underperforming
public schools. This is normally followed by the recommendation of some
kind of reform, usually involving reductions in spending or cutting
programs. The irony of this rhetorical trope and current debates over
Wisconsin's prisons is that conservatives (and non-conservatives) have done
just the thing they condemn: Throw money at a system that doesn't seem to
be working all that well.

More guards, more prisons, higher walls -- these seem to be the solutions
to dealing with prisoners and crime in Wisconsin. We're not alone in this
regard; it is a lot easier for politicians to pretend to be tough on crime
to attract voters than it is to make good policy. If it is the case that,
as Phil Brinkman writes in his thorough and important pieces, Wisconsin's
corrections system does not rehabilitate those incarcerated in it, and
seems to make prisoners more likely to commit new crimes, one might well
ask where all that tax payer money is going to.

Can declines in crime rates be attributed to increased expenditures on the
Department of Corrections and increased incarceration? Not really,
according to Brinkman's Jan. 24 news story. Rates of incarceration in other
states (such as New York) grew less rapidly than in Wisconsin, yet crime
dropped more rapidly. In other states (such as West Virginia) the rate of
incarceration increased more rapidly, yet crime actually increased. But
politicians maintain that "getting tough on crime" is the only solution. A
fringe benefit of getting tough on crime, in addition to being able to
sneer at those who aren't, is that it can help get you money for your
campaigns from groups that support building more prisons, and can even help
to provide jobs to one's constituents if one lives in an area (as some
legislators do) that has prisons.

Unfortunately, what is good for politicians' short-term electoral
calculations often turns out to be bad for the long-term well-being of the
people who elect them. Most prisoners will someday be released. Yet it is
unclear that the corrections system in Wisconsin is preparing those it is
entrusted to rehabilitate for reentering society. When confronted with
findings of independent task forces and commissions dealing with prisons
and crime over the last 30 years, according to Brinkman, "In almost every
case, lawmakers have opted for the vastly more expensive and arguably less
effective solution of increasing punishments." Perhaps we should start to
ask tougher questions of those entrusted with protecting us. A starter: Why
should we pour endless amounts of money into institutions that politicians
have little interest in running efficiently or effectively?

Daniel Kapust

Madison