Crime Pays
According to the Detroit News, The Citizens Alliance on Prisons & Public Spending says that Michigan ought to be paroling more prisoners than it does.

Among the facts noted in the story:

• 5 percent of the state's budget is spent on prisons


• They employ one out of every three Michigan state employees


• Of 50,000 prisoners, 17,000 are eligible for parole


• Over 3,600 prisoners are there because they violated a technical rule concerning their parole, which may be something as simple as missing an appointment.


• Prior to get-tough reforms enacted in 1992, 68 percent of prisoners were paroled at the earliest possible date. That number is now 48 percent.


• Parole for violent criminals has decreased from 1990 to 2000 (61 to 35 percent), while the percentage of sex offenders paroled dropped from 46 percent to 10 percent.

The story points out a need for matching judicial expectations with parole board practices. It points to an anonymous survey of circuit court judges, and found that "Of the 95 judges who anonymously responded, two-thirds said the prospect of parole for deserving defendants was a factor in their imposing life sentences. A majority said they thought the defendants would be released in 10, 12 or 15 years."

So much "life" sentences. Granted, some lifers may not deserve life, but in that case, their stated sentences ought to reflect that fact.

In the abstract, spending money on prisons is a good use of taxpayer money: criminal justice goes to the core of the state's function. Once we wander into the details, though, things get murkier: should drug use result in prison time? Should parole never be an option? When should a prisoner be paroled? Should taxpayers hold criminals in prison decades after their crime, when they are old and fragile, unlikely to commit crime, but likely to impose huge costs for health care? Are we spending too much, or too little on prisons? Money isn't free, and the costs and benefits must be carefully weighed--if they can be measured.

Compounding the problem of knowing when to release a prisoner is the fact that "rehabilitation" seldom works, if prompted by the outside. The most certain route to change is through a religious commitment--hardly the thing that government should, or even can bring about.

I will close with another excerpt from the article:
"They [members of the parole board] are ducking their responsibility and not making judgments at all, and just not releasing people," said Frank Eaman, a Harper Woods lawyer who has successfully challenged the board's actions in court to gain the release of a client. "It's just easier to pass on people. Inevitably, somebody is going to get out of prison and commit a crime, and the parole board doesn't want to be blamed for anything. The easiest way is to never let anyone out." (permalink)