REPEAT OFFENDERS

Inmate Releases Result In More Crime

Too many people in prison? Perhaps too few.

Conventional wisdom and the liberal line have it that the U.S. and Oklahoma
incarcerate too many people, too many of them for the "wrong" reason. But
U.S. Justice Department figures suggest that releasing inmates is a ticket
to a higher crime rate.

Two-thirds of former inmates released from prison in 1994 were arrested
again within three years, according to the department's Bureau of Justice
Statistics. Car thieves and burglars were more likely to be re- arrested
than other offenders.

Contrary to the constant complaining about incarcerating too many
nonviolent drug offenders, the statistics show that more than half of the
increase in the prison population since 1990 is due to an increase in
prisoners convicted of violent offenses.

The U.S. incarceration rate has more than tripled since 1980, reflecting a
reaction to a spiraling crime rate. The number of prisoners on death row
has also been increasing, but that doesn't mean the number of executions
has gone up. In fact, there were 19 percent fewer executions in 2001 than
there were in 2000.

Crime control is expensive but necessary to ensure the security of the
population. The Oklahoma Corrections Department routinely runs out of money
and must ask the Legislature for supplemental appropriations.

The blame often goes to a no-tolerance-for-crime attitude that outstrips
the ability of taxpayers to fund the prison system. But society must also
factor in the cost of releasing inmates early or not incarcerating them in
the first place. The statistics show that the recidivism rate jumped from
62 percent in 1983 to 67 percent in 1994.

For the no-tolerance population, this is reason enough to support the
stricter sentencing guidelines that have been blamed for escalating
incarceration rates and skyrocketing correctional system expenses. For
others, the numbers suggest that prisons are doing a poor job of
rehabilitating inmates, leaving many released convicts in a position to
re-offend within a matter of months.

The figures come from a three-year study of inmates released in 15 states
(not including Oklahoma) and show that within three years of release, 52
percent of prisoners were re- arrested and back in prison. Those most
likely to be re- arrested are convicts with multiple prior arrests. This
class of "hardened" criminals offers society little option but to keep them
locked up.

The debate over the proper rate of incarceration will continue, but the
pressure to relax sentencing guidelines and waive imprisonment for many
nonviolent offenders is mounting. Even no-tolerance conservatives concede
that there's a limit to how many people we can keep behind bars. With each
turn in this debate, there's a trade-off: Keep more people in prison longer
and the cost of corrections will strain a state's budget; let more go and
the crime rate will soar.

Finding the right balance is a political decision that must be forged with
input from both the liberal and conservative sides. Deciding strictly on
the basis of cost is foolhardy -- an increased crime rate is also expensive
and chips away at the already fragile sense of security Americans now have.

Taxpayers foot the bill for corrections and for the cost of private
insurance and other expenses associated with victimhood. The ultimate
trade-offs in this debate should take taxpayers into account ahead of
advocacy groups pushing for less tolerance and those pushing for more leniency.