Get Out of Jail Free

Facing budgetary pressures, states are looking to save money by letting some folks out of jail early. One can only have mixed feelings about this sort of development. We do over-imprison people in the United States, so from a humanitarian point of view this is nice to see. On the other hand, it's also true that the crime rate in the United States remains at what I'd consider an unacceptably high level and there are some indications that it's on the rise again.

Much better than simply letting people out of jail to save money would be a more focused effort to switch our anti-crime priorities away from such a heavy reliance on incarceration and toward more cost-effective methods. Drug treatment programs that work are great, but not just anything called a drug treatment program actually works. Coerced abstinence (PDF) seems promising, as does simply hiring more police officers. It also wouldn't hurt to see more states and localities trying harder to identify and implement "best practices" from elsewhere on the policing front since some jurisdictions have much more success than others at successfully preventing crime. One could imagine a valuable federal role here beyond the money provided by something like a revived COPS program.

Comments

Oregon is going in the opposite direction. A ballot measure in November would require mandatory prison for first time offenders for such non-violent crimes as ID Theft. But wait, you think, ID Theft is a horrible scourge, people should be sent to prison, even without even the chance of being successful on probation.

But ID Theft law is not what you think. The statutory requires using the identity of a real or imaginary person, and it doesn't require defrauding. Mere deception (or more specifically, the intent to deceive) is good enough.

The good news: a built in defense to ID Theft is the use of someone else's ID to get into a bar when the defendant is underage.

In Oregon, it's harder to go to prison for embezzlement than using grandma's credit card without permission at the mall.

Posted by Ryan S | May 5, 2008 2:49 PM

On the other hand, it's also true that the crime rate in the United States remains at what I'd consider an unacceptably high level and there are some indications that it's on the rise again.

Surely this is a nonsequitur.

You could release every single nonviolent drug offender in the country and have zero effect whatsoever on the 'crime rate' (as defined in any meaningful way) and still save a tremendous amount of money.

Posted by moron | May 5, 2008 2:58 PM

What was that thing that put a bunch of people in jail over nothing? O ya, the drug war...

Posted by le biel | May 5, 2008 3:10 PM

Or maybe is posession of marijuana were decriminalized, there would be fewer incarcerations and less prisoners and no overcrowding in jails problem, and less burden on tax payers etc.

Posted by freddiemac | May 5, 2008 3:12 PM

The American theory of penology, as the late former Michigan State Supreme Court Justice John Voelker once said is based on the mad dog theory. Lock 'em up like a mad dog and keep 'em locked up!

Posted by SLC | May 5, 2008 3:14 PM

If we simply stopped locking people up for things that should not be crimes, we would have PLENTY of room in prison.

Some of the people who were incarcerated for victimless crimes have doubtless been toughened on the inside, and would now be violent offenders. Most, however, would probably pose little or no threat to society.

Posted by dj moonbat | May 5, 2008 3:20 PM

Meanwhile that fuckstain Scooter Libby is still on the loose.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | May 5, 2008 3:27 PM

Wait, I thought our host here was against the Drug War. How could you possibly justify "coerced abstinence," except to say that's better than throwing drug users in jail?

Posted by too many steves | May 5, 2008 3:47 PM

Matt,
It's ridiculous to talk about prison policy without tying it rehabilitation and re-entry. We've essentially abandoned anything resembling rehabilition in our prisons -- education, job training, counseling and drug treatment. And then we release 600,000 people per year (even before upping the number to save dollars) without even trying to help them succeed on the outside. Any chance you could write a serious post on these issues? This one seems more like a hit and run.

Posted by Dick M | May 5, 2008 3:50 PM

I thought I saw it posted on this site, but I suppose it must have been elsewhere. In any event, in New York, the incarceration rate for Marijuana possession has increased 1000% this past decade over the previous two. These proposals call for the release of non-violent offenders with good track records in prison. What's so wrong with that? What we really need are rehabilitation programs so that people can get back to functioning in normal society and not have to return to criminal activity just to make a living. These days it's near impossible to get a job with even a small white-collar misdemeanor on your record.

Posted by TheSteve | May 5, 2008 4:07 PM

Have you forgotten 1 out of a hundred Americans are behind bars? That though the EU has a 100 million more people than we have, we have more people in jail for *drug offenses alone* than they have incarcerated for all reasons put together? # Not to mention "Since 1994, violent crime rates have declined, reaching the lowest level ever in 2005." *

What sort of crime rate are you looking for? Sure, we should be doing more treatment programs and what not, but more importantly, we should let some people out of prison!

# http://corporatism.tripod.com/world.htm#west
* http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Posted by sherrold | May 5, 2008 4:26 PM

Have you forgotten 1 out of a hundred Americans are behind bars? That though the EU has a 100 million more people than we have, we have more people in jail for *drug offenses alone* than they have incarcerated for all reasons put together? # We have 5% of the world's population and 25% of the people incarcerated. Not to mention "Since 1994, violent crime rates have declined, reaching the lowest level ever in 2005." *

What sort of crime rate are you looking for? Sure, we should be doing more treatment programs and what not, but more importantly, we should let some people out of prison!

# http://corporatism.tripod.com/world.htm#west
* http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm

Posted by sherrold | May 5, 2008 4:30 PM

"Any chance you could write a serious post on these issues? This one seems more like a hit and run."

That's what Matt DOES, guy. He doesn't know enough about any issue except sports and politics to do anything else.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 5, 2008 5:33 PM

Re Richard Steven Hack

We certainly say that Mr. Hack is an expert on the federal prison system, based on his experiences on being incarcerated for 9 years for armed bank robbery.

Posted by SLC | May 5, 2008 6:29 PM

Mr. Hack is an expert on the federal prison system, based on his experiences on being incarcerated for 9 years for armed bank robbery.

What evidence do you have for such a charge? Do you just automatically assume that anyone who is against the US system of mass incarceration must be a criminal?

Posted by moron | May 5, 2008 6:59 PM

And even if true, I don't see how it makes RSH's point any less valid. If anything, it strengthens his argument -- unlike Matt (or me for that matter), it means RSH actually has some first-hand understanding of the US penal system.

That probably makes his opinion worth listening to, if you believe in the reality-based approach to social change.

Posted by moron | May 5, 2008 7:03 PM

Damn Matt,

starting to sound like a libertarian

we should let people out on both moral and utilitarian grounds. Let the druggies and deadbeat dads out first, then check kiters, etc. Make them pay fines. Even some of the older violent criminals ought to be a safe bet if closely supervised (intensively)

Think of the fines Wesley Snipes could pay rather than be locked up for 2-3 years, think of the taxes he could pay if he worked rather than was in jail

Posted by Jozef | May 5, 2008 7:05 PM

On the other hand, I don't see why RSH has to be so vitriolic against Matt Y. Matt is a young fellow with a lot of logic and intelligence and articulacy.

Since he doesn't have a lot of real-world experience yet, he is more susceptible than he should be to being duped by people like the liberal hawks and the drug-war incarcerators.

But Matt Y. is clearly evolving with time, and there's nothing wrong with that, since he's evolving in the right direction.

It's a lot easier to start out as a smart person and then gain real-world experience, than vice-versa.

Posted by moron | May 5, 2008 7:11 PM

Re moron

For the information of Mr. moron, Mr. Hack has admitted on this blog that he held up a bank at gunpoint, was caught and sentenced to 9 years in the federal birdcage in Leavenworth, Ka. Apparently, Mr. moron has never had a gun stuck in his face with the holder demanding that he empty the cash drawer. I suspect that if he had been subject to such a predicament, he wouldn't be so solicitous of Mr. Hack. By the way, I explicitly stated that Mr. Hack was well informed on the subject of federal penology, based on his personal experience therein.

Posted by SLC | May 5, 2008 7:55 PM

Don't you feel just a little bit creepy about endorsing something called coerced abstinence? If implemented right I'm sure its fairly effective at reducing drug use, but your still using force to control someone else behavior. That should be the last resort in a liberal democracy, not the first.

Posted by Travis | May 5, 2008 8:13 PM

Thank you, SLC, for clarifying the situation while I was out. You may now STFU.

Moron - and may I say, that is probably a handle best left to be adopted by, say, SLC - I criticize Matt because he's trying to be a "pundit" to whom other people look for wisdom - or at least the facts about situations in the real world.

Being ignorant in that position is no excuse, despite the fact that most pundits are.

He needs considerably more humility about what he doesn't know - which as I said is considerable, based on his posts here.

I mean, I've sent him tons of stuff via email about the situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, etc. - and then he posts stuff that demonstrates he's completely clueless about what's going on in these places and what the issues are.

I consider myself a reasonably well informed layperson on the topics I comment on here. I try to avoid making comments on blogs about topics of which I know nothing.

Matt doesn't.

Matt has a degree in philosophy. Having such a degree is like waving a sign saying, "I know nothing about anything - and I'm proud of it." If he even had a degree in a nebulous system like economics or the social sciences, I'd pay more attention to him. A degree in philosophy says you know fifty ways to argue about the nothing you know about.

It's pathetic.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 6, 2008 2:42 AM

Anyone interested in this issue should check out Dale Carson (a criminal defense attorney and former FBI agent) new book Arrest-Proof Yourself. Here's a good review-- http://www.altwriters.com/?q=node/7

Posted by beowulf | May 7, 2008 2:55 AM