It was interesting, I was out of the country when they passed the first "Three Strikes" laws...deployed overseas. I remember reading about the crime wave that was surrounding what the media was calling the "crack epidemic". Legislators just could not wait to get their 2-cents in to make the criminals go away forever...chest-beatin' tuff on crime they were. At the time, knowing little about the issue, and knowing it did not affect me 7,000 miles away, I gave it only one thought..."damn, they're gonna have to come up with some serious cash-ola to pay for that shit". Wow, was I ignorant...and right.
In the past year, about 25 states have passed laws eliminating some of the lengthy mandatory minimum sentences so popular in the 1980's and 1990's, restoring early release for parole and offering treatment instead of incarceration for some drug offenders. In the process, politicians across the political spectrum say they are discovering a new motto. Instead of being tough on crime, it is more effective to be smart on crime.
...
The new laws will save Washington a projected $45 million a year. But equally important, Mr. Satterberg said, the new drug policy "is a recognition that you can't incarcerate your way out of this problem."
"There has to be treatment as well as incarceration," he said.
...
"Even those people who favor being tough on crime don't want to find the money to build more prisons and go back on their pledge of no new taxes," Mr. Vratil said. "So they are choosing between the lesser of two evils." Will this new approach last when the economy recovers? Mr. Vratil thinks it will
It's interesting that the folks who seem to see this as a way to save money are looking at drug offenders first. No one in their right mind supports the early release of a violent felon back to the community...but maybe by beginning to work and treat non-violent offenders for reasonable financial outlays, the money to offer true rehab to even the most violent offenders will be possible. I'm not saying "let them go", but rather if their rehabilitation can be accomplished with more resources so that when (or if) they do win release they are less of a threat to the rest of us, then we have all won. And there's nothing wrong with that.
posted by Jo Fish on 11.09.03 at 11:29 PM
Comments:
The first and most lasting effect of Three Strikes has been the release of violent and theiving criminals to make room for "drug offenders". This continues because they release the people they can, and most of the increased sentences have been directed at drug users (invisible ink: black people).
The treatment option opens a new can of corruption. How do you "treat" someone for the (non-existent) "addiction" to marijuana? The answer, it turns out, is "forever". This is the industry with no objective standards for practice or results.
Treatment is a civil rights black hole. When you're "sick" society grants you immunity from normal civic obligations, and expects in return that you will do what you're told. There is no due process in medicine.
In Washington State this process has gone to the limit with the Sexual Offenders "treatment" program. If sentenced to this program there is no limit to your incarceration- you will only be released when "treatment" is successful. Catch-22: prisoners held for years with no provision of treatment. Following a court action about this a "treatment program" was established which has yet to "cure" a single person. It's the judicial equivalent of being HIV+.
Of course, for most prisoners it would be cheaper to buy them a condo and send them to law school, but then you just end up with corporate lawyers, who might cost us even more in the long run. What to do, what to do....
posted by: serial catowner on 11.10.03 at 09:02 AM [permalink]
