September 2, 2014
"Rethink sentencing and parole to solve aging, costly prison population"
The title of this post is the headline of this new editorial from a local South Carolina paper. Yet, even though focused on some Palmetto State particulars, many of the points and themes in the editorial have broad applicability in many US jurisdictions. Here are excerpts:
The term "life in prison" is easy enough to understand when it is handed down as a sentence in a courtroom. But after the courtroom drama subsides, Corrections Department officials must face the realities of feeding, housing and caring for criminals who will spend decades in prison.
For many, the sentences are a just and fair punishment. Often, they are also necessary to keep the public safe. But some who will spend their lives behind bars must do so because of overly severe mandatory sentencing laws.
Regardless, any prisoner costs the state and its taxpayers a lot of money. Prisons should serve to deter would-be criminals and separate society from its most dangerous members. Problems — and extra costs — arise when they must also serve as mental health facilities and nursing homes.
According to a recent report by The State newspaper, the number of South Carolina inmates over the age of 55 has more than doubled over the last 10 years. And that number is expected to increase without reforms to the way the state handles its sentencing and parole laws.
Many aging prisoners were sentenced long before a 2010 legislative reform reduced sentences for some non-violent crimes while strengthening punishments for violent offenders. That bill was so effective that it has reduced the prison population in the state by more than 10 percent overall and slashed the number of incarcerated non-violent offenders in the years since its passage.
South Carolina has also implemented programs, including a "smart probation" system, that have helped cut the rate of recidivism dramatically, as The Post and Courier reported on Sunday. Even so, the state's cost per inmate continues to rise, and part of that increase is due to the expense of caring for aging prisoners with additional medical needs and accompanying logistical concerns....
The South Carolina Sentencing Reform Commission prepares an annual review of the state corrections system with a particular focus on the impact of the 2010 legislation. That data show that sentencing reform has, by and large, been a success story. But more work remains. South Carolina should continue its reform of sentencing laws while focusing on rehabilitation for offenders who pose a minimal threat if given probation rather than prison.
The Legislature should also consider expanding parole options for aging inmates who have served substantial portions of their sentences, have serious chronic medical conditions or are unlikely to pose a threat should they be released under supervision. Every prisoner who can safely be released on parole represents thousands of dollars of savings for taxpayers....
Any decision must consider both what is cost effective and acceptable for public safety. If some older prisoners who have effectively paid their debt to society can be allowed to re-enter society safely and at a savings to taxpayers, then there is little reason to keep them locked away.
September 2, 2014 at 11:37 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Rethink sentencing and parole to solve aging, costly prison population":
When a child says, Grandpa touched me in my weewee, where do you think Grandpa will have come from? A church? No from prison.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Sep 2, 2014 5:47:50 PM
"The Legislature should also consider expanding parole options for aging inmates who have served substantial portions of their sentences, have serious chronic medical conditions or are unlikely to pose a threat should they be released under supervision. Every prisoner who can safely be released on parole represents thousands of dollars of savings for taxpayers...."
When these aging former prisoners with chronic medical conditions are released back into the population after serving "substantial portions" of their (likely long) sentences, how does the public save money? Are the former inmates able to find jobs with a livable wage, i.e. enough to shoulder the cost of medical expenses?
I am not suggesting they should remain in prison. However, unless an argument can be substantiated that their condition: housing, medical needs, etc. can be provided for less money outside the prison system than inside, there is no savings to have. Point being: the public, perhaps with some subsidy from NPOs, will still have to foot the bill.
A more feasible option (other than sentencing reform) might be to pool resources to achieve economies of scale on a facility designed specifically to house these old, sick, inmates. Certainly our current facilities were not intended to provide these types of services but a mega-nursing-home-detention-center in the middle of nowhere that is not any more appealing than state or federal penitentiary would do the job better, for less money, and not require releasing prisoners "early" because they pose too great of an economic burden.
Posted by: Interested Student | Sep 4, 2014 7:50:05 PM