|
|
| Can We Be Tough on Crime Without Being Tough on Taxpayers? |
| By |
| Published: 08/21/2012 |
|
On August 1, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing to look at rising federal prison spending and its impact on the overall criminal justice budget. The hearing followed the release of a letter by Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer to the U.S. Sentencing Commission arguing that federal corrections spending is forcing reductions in federal assistance to states for police, prosecutors, and prevention programs. Prompting both events, of course, is the government’s miserable financial condition, marked by record federal deficits and ballooning national debt that have forced the President and Congress to look throughout the federal budget for places to cut spending. “In an era of governmental austerity, maximizing public safety can only be achieved by finding a proper balance of outlays that allows, on the one hand, for sufficient numbers of police, investigative agents, prosecutors and judicial personnel to investigate, apprehend, prosecute and adjudicate those who commit federal crimes,” Breuer said in the letter. “And on the other hand, a sentencing policy that achieves public safety correctional goals and justice for victims, the community, and the offender.” Calling current increases in the federal corrections budget “unsustainable,” Breuer wrotes that current overcrowding in federal prisons “puts correctional officers and inmates alike at greater risk of harm and makes recidivism reduction far more difficult.” That’s a pretty damning indictment, given that reducing the risk of re-offending should be a top priority of the criminal justice system. Justice Department leaders deserve credit for identifying how the current budget climate could negatively affect public safety unless criminal justice resources are allocated wisely. And Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy is right to bring congressional attention to this critical issue. Indeed, we hope the hearing prompts all stakeholders in the criminal justice system to explore ways for us to be tough on crime without being tough on taxpayers. FAMM has long advocated applying the same cost-benefit analysis applied to so many other policies and regulations to the criminal justice system. When we talk of cost-benefit analysis, we do not mean that society should tolerate more crime to save money. The cost of many crimes—measured in lost property and money, in personal injury, and, tragically, in lost lives—far exceeds the cost of incarceration. Read More. |
Comments:
Login to let us know what you think
MARKETPLACE search vendors | advanced search
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
|
Have you been hurt in an accident in Waco Temple or Killeen? Our personal injury lawyers will review your claim to examine if there is enough evidence to support a lawsuit. You may be eligible to file a personal injury claim if you were involved in an accident that was caused by the negligence of someone else. Our burn injury lawyer work with personal injury experts to understand how the accident has changed your life and what money you need to go forward.
He has blue eyes. Cold like steel. His legs are wide. Like tree trunks. And he has a shock of red hair, red, like the fires of hell. His antics were known from town to town as he was a droll card and often known as a droll farceur. Hamilton Lindley with his madcap pantaloon is a zany adventurer and a cavorter with a motley troupe of buffoons.