Posted on 09/21/2010 9:57:00 AM PDT by jazusamo
For more than 200 years, the political left has been coming up with reasons why criminals should not be punished as much, or at all. The latest gambit in Missouri is providing judges with the costs of incarcerating the criminals they sentence.
According to the New York Times, "a three-year prison sentence would run more than $37,000 while probation would cost $6,770." For a more serious crime, where a 5-year imprisonment would cost more than $50,000, it would cost less than $9,000 for what is described as "five years of intensive probation."
This is only the latest in a long line of "alternatives to incarceration" schemes that are constantly being pushed by all sorts of clever people, not only in Missouri but across the United States and across the Atlantic, especially in Britain.
The most obvious question that is being resolutely ignored in these scientific-sounding calculations is: What is the cost of turning criminals loose? Phrases like "intensive probation" may create the illusion that criminals at large are somehow under control of the authorities but illusions are especially dangerous when it comes to crime.
Another question that ought to be obvious is: Why are we counting only the cost to the government of putting a criminal behind bars, but not the cost to the public of turning him loose?
Some may say that it is not possible to quantify the costs of the dangers and anxieties of the public when more criminals are walking the streets. That is certainly true, if you mean the full costs. But we can quantify the money costs— and just the money costs to the public vastly exceed the costs to the government of locking up criminals.
In Britain, where the "alternatives to incarceration" vogue has led to only 7 percent of convicted criminals being put behind bars, the annual cost of the prison system has been estimated at just under two billion pounds sterling. Meanwhile, the annual financial cost alone of crimes committed against the public has been an estimated sixty billion pounds sterling.
In the United States, the cost of incarcerating a criminal has been estimated as being $10,000 a year less than the cost of turning him loose.
In all these calculations we are leaving out the costs of violence, intimidation and the fears that people have for the safety of themselves and their children, not to mention the sense of helplessness and outrage when the society refuses to pay as much attention to innocent victims as they lavish on the criminals who victimize them.
These are all important costs. But it is unnecessary to take them into account, when just the money costs of turning criminals loose is enough to show what reckless nonsense is being preached to us by arrogant elites in the media, in academia and elsewhere.
Deception of the public by advocates of leniency to criminals has been institutionalized in legal practices that create the illusion of far more punishment being meted out than is actually the case. "Concurrent sentences" are one of the most blatant of these frauds.
When a criminal has been convicted of multiple crimes, having him serve his sentences for these crimes "concurrently" means that he actually serves no more time for five crimes than he would serve for whichever of those crimes has the longest sentence. In other words, the other four crimes are "on the house."
Sentences in general overstate how long the criminal will actually spend behind bars. Probation, furloughs, parole and time off for good behavior lead the list of reasons for turning a criminal loose before he serves the sentence that was announced to the public when he was convicted.
Even "life imprisonment without the possibility of parole"— often offered as a substitute for execution for first degree murder— can be misleading. There is no such thing as life imprisonment without the possibility of a liberal governor being elected, and then commuting or pardoning the murderer later on. And, of course, the murderer can commit murder again behind bars.
With all the things that liberals are willing to spend vast sums of money on, it is a little much to have them become penny-wise when it comes to keeping criminals off the streets.
Hell, why don’t we just pay people not to commit crimes...sarc/off
sadly, the guys that seem to be held longest and most often are the ones who have otherwise productive lives, and will spend money in the system...
DUI and child support 'offenders' are held and strung along with high bonds, while those who would normally serve the flop, [guys for whom the system is constantly rewarding true victim related crimes] are released to commit crimes against real victims again...
follow the $$$...
Tell this to Chelsea King, who was raped & killed by a parolee who they let out.
If the officials insist on using cost as a factor- then I will insist on using any weapon I have to stop such persons permanently.
Come on down to Virginia, Dr. Sowell, where ‘ten years’ means ‘ten years’, because we have NO PAROLE.
Are you suggesting turning prisoners into petfood? I'm not necessarily opposed, I just want to get it clear.
It’s a shame the other 49 states don’t follow VA lead.
49? I thought it was 56. Now I’m confused.
Left unsaid is the cost to society of the predators roaming free.
LOL! 56 crossed my mind when I posted.
Read up on AZ-Maricopa CO.
I have had 3 A/C units stolen at my rental properties. The thieves likely got a few dollars each for the copper coils. It cost me $5000 each to replace the units. Criminals are VERY inefficient for society! They frequently turn thousand dollar assets into tens of dollar assets.
What is the cost of a hanging after one permitted appeal?
Unnecessary, und unlikely. But across the country a significant percentage of prisioners are illegals. We could easily send them back to their home country to be imprisoned. We could pay the country a fraction of what it costs us to house them here. That country would get some additional jobs and hard currency. We save a bundle.
I would think very little and that's exactly how to handle it.
Nice comment - I agree - money to keep a kid from becoming a career criminal is money well spent - - even if the odds aren't that great...
Follow the money in deed. When you hear about criminals who have been arrested dozens of times but are still walking the streets, it makes you wonder what is going on. I have wondered whether the defense lawyers are not working out a deal with the judges so that the criminal gets little or no jail time. This way the defense attorneys gets more money from the criminal since a criminal that is let go on the streets will go on to commit more crimes which means that he will have to use the lawyers services again and again. Whereas, if he was jailed for a long time, he would be off the street and the lawyer would make no money off him for a long time. Do defense lawyers give some judges kickbacks for not jailing their clients?
Another possibility—we know that the trial lawyers association is one of the biggest contributors to the Democratic party. What if the trial lawyers work behind the scene in the placement of liberal judges to the bench, knowing that this would mean more income for them since the criminals would be out on the street committing crimes and contributing to the lawyers income.
As far as the cost of crime to society— letting criminals off to roam the streets creates a culture of criminality. The criminals begin to rule the streets and start setting the rules for society. The criminals start to become the heroes to young kids as we have seen with the great rise of youth gangs. Decent citizens live in fear and the criminals become the dictators in their communities. Several decades of judicial liberalism has contributed to the spread of crime on a vast scale.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.