News (Media Awareness Project) - US VA: Editorial: Cut Prison Costs Without Jeopardizing Public |
| Title: | US VA: Editorial: Cut Prison Costs Without Jeopardizing Public |
| Published On: | 2003-01-23 |
| Source: | Roanoke Times (VA) |
| Fetched On: | 2008-01-21 13:40:28 |
CUT PRISON COSTS WITHOUT JEOPARDIZING PUBLIC SAFETY
Judges should have guidelines to divert nonviolent probation violators from
prison to less costly alternative programs.
IN A "get tough on crime" state such as Virginia, the price of justice runs
steep.
Ex-offenders returned to prison for "technical" violations such as failing
a drug test cost taxpayers a hefty $21,000 a year. Consider that the
average return stay is 22 months, and the price tag nearly doubles.
As the number of technical violators mounts in Virginia - from 400 in 1997
to about 3,000 today - the consequences of their imprisonment have rudely
confronted state leaders grappling with financial constraints.
Facing a severely tight budget year, Gov. Mark Warner has proposed an idea
with merit: Create sentencing guidelines that would allow judges to divert
technical violators into punishment and treatment programs that are much
less expensive than prison. Currently, judges follow no standards, and
sentencing of such violators is random.
The overriding concern, however, should be maintaining public safety, which
under no circumstances should be sacrificed to save dollars.
Technical violations are not the result of a new criminal conviction.
According to the Department of Corrections, typical reasons for technical
violations are substance abuse, failure to attend required treatment
programs, hiding from the law and failure to follow conditions of release.
Such violators, who have no history of violence, seemingly would be better
off in one of the state's detention or diversion centers rather than a
maximum security prison.
Sentencing an inmate to from four to six months in a detention facility
would cost taxpayers about one-third the tab for prison lockup. State
officials contend that some judges may get upset with violators who may not
be dangerous but have not used their freedom to straighten out their lives,
so they throw them back in prison. Warner's proposal to provide jurists
with guidelines offering more productive alternatives deserves consideration.
Judges should have guidelines to divert nonviolent probation violators from
prison to less costly alternative programs.
IN A "get tough on crime" state such as Virginia, the price of justice runs
steep.
Ex-offenders returned to prison for "technical" violations such as failing
a drug test cost taxpayers a hefty $21,000 a year. Consider that the
average return stay is 22 months, and the price tag nearly doubles.
As the number of technical violators mounts in Virginia - from 400 in 1997
to about 3,000 today - the consequences of their imprisonment have rudely
confronted state leaders grappling with financial constraints.
Facing a severely tight budget year, Gov. Mark Warner has proposed an idea
with merit: Create sentencing guidelines that would allow judges to divert
technical violators into punishment and treatment programs that are much
less expensive than prison. Currently, judges follow no standards, and
sentencing of such violators is random.
The overriding concern, however, should be maintaining public safety, which
under no circumstances should be sacrificed to save dollars.
Technical violations are not the result of a new criminal conviction.
According to the Department of Corrections, typical reasons for technical
violations are substance abuse, failure to attend required treatment
programs, hiding from the law and failure to follow conditions of release.
Such violators, who have no history of violence, seemingly would be better
off in one of the state's detention or diversion centers rather than a
maximum security prison.
Sentencing an inmate to from four to six months in a detention facility
would cost taxpayers about one-third the tab for prison lockup. State
officials contend that some judges may get upset with violators who may not
be dangerous but have not used their freedom to straighten out their lives,
so they throw them back in prison. Warner's proposal to provide jurists
with guidelines offering more productive alternatives deserves consideration.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...
