|
|
| At what cost justice? |
| By Ronald E. Truss, Magistrate/AAPJ |
| Published: 04/16/2007 |
Municipal courts are moving into the twenty-first century. As they do, we must ask ourselves, what is the direction of such courts? Will we continue to sentence people to long sentences in difficult economic times, or will we move to develop a different set of solutions for non-violent crimes? In most cities of any size, there are municipal courts and municipal jails. They are products of the cities. In our society today, these courts and jails are not large but handle the violations of misdemeanors and city ordinances, and are not designed for long periods of incarceration. Yet, we find in many of them that the scope of the sentence is changing. One can commit several violations leading to a sentence longer than normal because of the sentence associated with each charge. As cities review the sentencing practice of their municipal courts in relation to their municipal jails, we must now address issues like the economic cost of housing defendants when jails are overcrowded; the rising cost associated with incarceration; the lack of adequate personnel; and the budget constraints that have motivated the change in attitude about incarceration. We strive for justice, but at what price? When a defendant is sentenced to jail there are associated costs for food, medical care, clothing, and treatment for other problems the defendant might experience. These costs are continuing to grow. At the same time, we have come to recognize, the type of crimes committed are many times not the most violent. This results in unavailable jail space for more serious defendants, which leads to overcrowding and also overburdening personnel and a dilatation that is difficult for a jail to control. Fewer dollars are being spent on jails and incarceration because of tight budgets, but still we ask law enforcement to be hard on crime and the courts to give adequate sentencing upon conviction. Can we find a balance to satisfy both sides of our society? If a defendant is given a maximum sentence, the care for that person becomes the city's responsibility. Many researchers have estimated that just to house that defendant can cost more than $160.00 per day, which is on the low side. If the defendant is given the minimum sentence, however, he returns to society too quick to satisfy the minds of hardliners, the same hardliners who demand cost in modern times. Let's look at the maximum sentence and assume the sentenced defendant has been incarcerated for a non-violent misdemeanor crime. Let's also assume that while confined the defendant develops heart problems requiring surgery. These costs become the responsibility of the jail's budget as part of the city. The type of surgery alone could destroy any jail's yearly budget. In fact, caring for a prisoner could use large amounts of a jail's annual funds. Since the jail is required to take care of any incarcerated defendant, the sentence might be “fair,” but the economic drain on the jail is large. The law might demand a fair, unbiased sentence, but this leads to a formula that starts with finding a defendant guilty, includes mandating proper care of that defendant, and then resulting in destroying the jail's budget. What should be the alternative? The courts must seek ways to enter a fair sentence per incarceration, yet reduce the economic drain on the jail and, indirectly, the city. Thus, alternative sentencing should be developed to hopefully satisfy critics of both courts. Courts are working to develop a balance. But, at the same time, look at the high disproportionate number of poor and homeless in court. These individuals have little money and many times are living in a shelter. Would incarceration help such a defendant? No, it would add to a pressing problem facing courts everywhere. Thus, courts have not only become the Halls of Justice, but also a place of assistance for alternative care through pre-trial service, probations, community service, work release and other programs to assist the defendant. Will such an approach solve the problem? Only time will tell. Programs such as these will assist many. However, some will not avail themselves or be able to receive the assistance of such programs. The more jails and society cry about the cost of incarceration and impact of overcrowded jails, the more courts must seek solutions to incarceration. Courts must maintain the balance between sentencing and assisting defendants. As in all cases, we want defendants to return to society and make a sound contribution. Yes, reintegration of a defendant as a working and earning part of society can cut some of the cost. Courts have been caught in the middle. Though they are not money generating as the Third Branch of government, the court system has been placed in a precarious position of creating a balance between economics and incarceration. Courts realize nothing will change unless the guidelines of the debate change about solving crime, and seriously examining the economic impacts of punishment versus incarceration. As long as parts of society, city governments, and other task forces focus on long sentences, regardless of the type of crime, we will continue to see jails fill many times with those committing minor offenses. At a time when crime is continually rising in all communities, the idea of finding alternatives to incarceration for some offenders will be a hard sell. However, we have an opportunity to prevent incarceration from becoming something that leads to jails filled with numerous non violent defendants. We can turn courts into a service that reserves jails for those committing violent crimes, and at the same time helps cut the economic cost of incarceration. Ronald E. Truss is a Magistrate for the city of Birmingham in Alabama. |
MARKETPLACE search vendors | advanced search
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
|
Comments:
No comments have been posted for this article.
Login to let us know what you think