The Real Cost of Prisons Weblog

No one involved in the work sessions is soft on crime, nor is there any wish to protect dangerous sexual offenders from punishment or incarceration, even lifetime confinement when appropriate. Everyone is working hard to craft a bill without unintended consequences.

Last August, when Bill O'Reilly attacked our state, the Union Leader wrote an editorial reasoning that a law that works in one state is not necessarily good for any other state. The editorial stated that care should be taken, study was required and we should look to see what was needed specifically to improve New Hampshire statutes.

Therefore, we should not limit our legislators to focus on mandatory minimum sentences, especially 25 years for a first offense. No basis for pursuing the mandatory minimum is prescribed in the bill, no mention of risk assessment or classification, nor any objective data-driven tool.

A mandatory minimum 25 year sentence requires large amounts of money for the lengthy incarceration.

Valuable limited public resources will be used for every offender regardless of the risk presented to the community. Not every offender is at the same risk level or is likely to recidivate or is incurable. With proper early intervention, many juvenile offenders are amenable to treatment and can go on to live productive, crime-free lives. Among adult offenders, only through careful and frequent risk assessment can we be sure we are adequately addressing correction, prevention and reintegration. In this way we will know we are using taxpayer dollars effectively.

The board of directors of the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence has drafted a policy statement pertaining to lengthy mandatory minimum sentences. They speak to the need for consideration of the impact on the victim and the victim's family.

"Long mandatory minimum sentences can have a number of negative consequences that serve to decrease, rather than increase, public safety. For example, lengthy mandatory minimum sentences sometimes result in prosecutors not filing charges or filing charges for a lesser crime than a sex offense, as well as increased plea bargains down to a lesser crime. Similarly, judges or juries may be less inclined to convict a defendant on a sex offense because of the mandatory minimum sentence. Long mandatory minimum sentences can also keep victims who were assaulted by someone they know from reporting the crime."

In addition to the above objections, a mandatory 25-year minimum will force defendants to request jury trials more frequently. Trials will last longer and extreme pressure will be placed on the child victims. This is not child-friendly or victim-centered thinking. In the end there will be less reporting, fewer prosecutions and far fewer convictions, the very opposite of the intended result of creating safer communities.

One last question about this approach. What kind of treatment is effective for someone with a 25 year sentence? Currently the DOC offers a one-year treatment program. Nothing in this bill increases the time or resources for the program offered or alternative treatment.

Due to a long history in this field, I am aware of the many complicated emotions that individual victims experience in response to this crime. In more than 90 percent of cases the perpetrator is a family friend or relative. We don't need a simple knee-jerk reaction or slick politics. This is an opportunity to craft a well thought out legislative response, which takes into account all the available knowledge and research. And that's how representatives truly protect our children.

Linda Griebsch is the public policy director of the New Hampshire Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=37b9599b-5202-4c30-927f-60
7697600452