RETRIBUTION VS. RESTITUTION

Three Strikes And You're Broke

After two decades of being "tough on crime" by "locking them up and
throwing away the key" the bill has come due. Many states have become
incapable or unwilling to pay the cost of housing record numbers of
inmates. Twenty-five states have passed laws easing or eliminating the
minimum sentencing requirements that were politically popular in the 1980s
and '90s. They are also considering early parole for nonviolent,
non-dangerous offenders to ease overcrowding and the cost of warehousing so
many convicts.

The people behind liberalizing the tough laws are not all advocates of a
liberal philosophy. Indeed, I am one of them.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the U.S. prison and jail
population exceeded 2 million for the first time in June, 2002. By the end
of last year, 33,000 more inmates had been added to the total. That means
one out of every 142 residents is incarcerated in this country. The average
cost to states per inmate per day is $57.92, according to the 2000
Corrections Yearbook.

What are taxpayers getting for their money? They get a false sense of
security, as if putting current criminals behind bars insures there won't
be future criminals. If locking up everyone now committing crimes would
eliminate crime, I'd be all for it, but new criminals are born, or made,
every day. Something is wrong with the system.

Violent and dangerous offenders should be locked up and, in capital cases,
executed. But violent offenders are just 49 percent of the prison
population. Again, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the rest
of the prisoners are behind bars for property crimes (19 percent), drug
crimes (20 percent) and crimes affecting the "public order" (11 percent).
This half of the prison population ought to be doing something else besides
sitting in prison and costing the law-abiding money.

We do retribution well. We should be focusing on restitution.

If I steal your TV set, putting me in prison won't get it back. Making me
pay a fine to the government (whose TV set was not stolen) won't restore
your set, unless you have a very low deductible on your homeowner's
insurance, which will undoubtedly go up if you file a claim. It would be
better if the law required me to work to earn the money to buy you a new TV
set and to pay you, not the government, a fine for your inconvenience and
trouble. I should also be forced to pay court costs.

Such an approach would have a number of benefits.

First: You would get your TV back. The victim should always be the law's
primary concern.

Second: Forcing me to acknowledge that I have wronged a person and not the
state (which is a non-person) can help change my view of other people's
property.

Third: It would save taxpayers the cost of incarcerating me.

Fourth: Making me pay the person I have wronged is a far better and more
proven method for changing my life and behavior than putting me in prison
where statistics show I am more likely to become a better criminal than a
better citizen.

If the objective of criminal laws is to reduce crime, the laws on the books
are not achieving it. The corporate monsters who rob stockholders and
employees of their jobs and careers shouldn't go to jail. They should be
forced to work to pay off as much as they possibly can to those they have
wronged. That is redemptive for them, and it is restorative to the victims
who lost their retirement and their paychecks to greed.

Republicans, who were behind many of these "tough on crime" laws, have an
opportunity to fight crime in ways that will actually work and save the
taxpayers lots of money. That is supposed to be the Republican way. It is
certainly the only way that will succeed.