The Real Cost of Prisons Weblog

Consider:

* The ³lock them up, build more jails² solution to crime has failed andrun its course. Reason: We can¹t possibly catch and lock up all the bad people, and even if we could, we can no longer afford it. When some states pay more for incarceration than education, something¹s wrong.

* A new principle is evolving: If we fear them, then we must lock them upto protect ourselves, not to change them ‹ we have more than enough prisons to house the dangerous. If offenders simply make us angry, and they will return to live among us, then we must find other ways to deal with them and to change their faulty belief systems and/or addictions that keep getting them in trouble with the law.

* We¹ve known for years that locking up offenders for rehabilitative
purpose fails, in fact it often makes them worse. The National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Dept. of Justice concluded in 2000 that not a single study of official punishment found any consistent evidence of reduced recidivism. They found punishment increased criminal behavior by 0.07 percent.

* 25 percent of incarcerated prisoners in the world are Americans, yet weare only 5 percent of the world population. American judges imprison more people per capita for longer periods of time than any judges in the world. The ³lenient² judge is a myth.

* The Supreme Court of Minnesota released a task force report in Februarycalling for ³problem-solving courts² using more required treatment and ³less jail² for addicted and mentally ill offenders. The report said 90 percent of Minnesota¹s prison inmates are plagued by drug and alcohol problems. That 95 percent of addicted inmates return to drugs within three years, and 68 percent are re-arrested within that time.

* The same report calls for cooperation between judges, prosecutors,public defenders and corrections to shift from punitive to problem-solving. ³The strategy could even allow many cash-strapped counties to scale back plans to expand their jails.²

* As of April 2006, there were 1,557 drug courts operating in the U.S.,and 394 more in the planning phases.

Drug courts operate on successful rehabilitation treatment procedures, where the judge assumes the addicted offender will probably make two steps forward and one step back ‹ fail means jail (shock-lock, get their attention) back on the program with intensive monitoring and testing. Thus jails must adapt to a treatment philosophy, short jail terms, not useless long-term ³doing time.²

* There is another myth subscribed to by many jail advocates known asretribution. ³You hurt us, we¹ll hurt you back.² If we can overlook the problem of being low on any major religion¹s morality scale, it doesn¹t work in the practical world. Criminals don¹t settle their disputes in courtrooms, they settle them in the back alleys with violence. Retribution is part of their everyday world, not part of the law-abiding world we want them to join. It may give some victims momentary satisfaction, but it¹s counterproductive and reinforces the wrong-headed thinking of chronic offenders.

* DUI laws are now being challenged as failures. DUI laws are justified,but the way they are being implemented fails. DUI laws over-punish the social drinker (majority of Americans) and fail on the alcoholic high-risk multi-offender. The same National Institute of Corrections study found ³those under the influence of chemical substances² to be resistant to punishment. Yet our Minnesota laws require long-term mandatory jail sentences for repeat offenders, who are most likely alcoholics; needlessly filling our county jails. There is a reason many states are diverting repeat DUI cases to drug courts.

A Wisconsin study by its Department of Transportation (2004) found a third of the people convicted of DUI were repeat offenders; that those convicted of DUI drive 200 times for every time they get caught. They estimate 21,000 cars a day in Wisconsin are being driven by someone over the 0.08 BAC limit. That equates to about 18,000 a day for Minnesota. An impossible task for law enforcement.

In the past two years, I¹ve served as a retired substitute judge in 10 of the 11 counties in southeastern Minnesota (The third judicial district). I¹ve been on the faculty of the National Judicial College for 28 years teaching sentencing and the criminal mind. I¹ve been invited to speak to judges¹ education programs in 42 of 50 states. I feel I have some insight locally and nationally. My observations and opinions for what they¹re worth:
* Courts of the future must change from what hasn¹t worked to what hasshown to be more effective. Trials will remain the same, but upon conviction the prosecutor, defense attorney, correction staff and the judge will be obligated to find a ³problem-solving solution² to the offender¹s problem ‹ unless the offender poses a danger to society, then prison must be considered.

* County jails will hold only people for trial and those considereddangerous or a flight risk. Jails will be used for short ³shock² time to enforce accountability. No longer will county jails be considered rehabilitative, thus freeing up cell space.

* Correction agents will assume a new role. They must aid the court intheir problem-solving capacity and monitor drug court sentences. Treatment and cognitive programs (changing how criminals view their world) will dominate their time. They will be active participants rather than computer-bound paper shufflers.

Some local counties have already become ³problem-solving courts² as envisioned by the Minnesota Supreme Court Task Force. Dodge County
(Mantorville) leads the way ‹ they have no jail, it was condemned years ago, followed by Wabasha County¹s shift to a drug court. These counties have collaboration among the participants of their justice system. The counties, in my opinion, with the least cooperation: Olmsted by far, closely followed by Winona.

Guest views are opinions of the author and don¹t necessarily reflect the views of the Winona Daily News. They are published to stimulate thought and to provide an expanded forum on issues of local interest.

http://www.winonadailynews.com/articles/2006/06/25/opinion/zguestview0625.tx
t