|
|
| Corrections spending puts state in a bind |
| By livingstondaily.com |
| Published: 04/11/2011 |
|
Michigan keeps prisoners behind bars longer on average than do neighboring states. We also spend more annually to keep an inmate in prison. This double whammy results in huge corrections spending, representing about one out of four dollars spent from the state's general fund. If Michigan's incarceration data were similar to neighboring states, that would free up money to be spent on public education, roads and social needs. The state started ramping up its corrections spending in the 1970s as part of a "get tough on crime" movement. The spending has been aided by unrealistic drug laws. So the state borders on financial disaster while spending ever more on lengthy prison sentences that don't appear to have a positive effect on public safety. Many think it's time for lawmakers to quit worrying about being painted as "soft on crime," and instead look at reasonable, cost-saving measures that will bring Michigan in line with neighboring states, while freeing up money for better causes. That's the gist of the following editorial, which we are reprinting from the Lansing State Journal. Michigan must start applying reason to its spending on prisoners. There is simply no other option. With a Corrections Department budget of $2 billion — some 25 percent of the state's general fund — the problem is too urgent to ignore. The Associated Press reports that 8,000 of the state's 44,000 inmates have served longer than their minimum sentence, costing the state some $280 million per year. In part, that's because Michigan keeps nonviolent offenders behind bars longer than other states. On average, Michigan prisoners serve 140 percent of their minimum sentence. Ultimately, a prisoner here with a five-year sentence is likely to serve seven years, although research shows those extra years don't impact recidivism. Adding to the problem, Michigan's prison costs are $35,000 per inmate per year, while other Great Lakes states spend thousands less. At the same time, other states have similar minimum sentences to those used here, but release inmates at their minimum sentence or sooner because credits are allowed for good behavior. Michigan, in contrast, did away with such "good time" credits years ago, choosing truth-in-sentencing policies that enforce a minimum sentence. The reality is that Michigan chooses to keep prisoners longer than necessary as a matter of politics, not because it's good public policy. It's no longer practical or sustainable to do so. Truly violent offenders do need to stay behind bars longer. But nonviolent offenders need a constructive path back into society, where they can work and contribute taxes rather than draining the state's coffers for an extra year or two because it's politically expedient to be "tough on crime." There are steps that could be taken to get off this expensive and ineffective path. http://www.livingstondaily.com/article/20110411/OPINION01/104110309/1023/Richard-K-Parsons-Sr-/Corrections-spending-puts-state-bind?odyssey=nav|headhttp://www.pressandguide.com/stories/071509/loc_20090715008.XXX"target="_new">Read More. |
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