Among the items included in the state budget that was recently signed into law was a provision that would make all but the most violent offenders and sex offenders potentially eligible for early release, just as they were under the old system of parole, before truth-in-sentencing legislation took effect in 1999. The provision was included in the budget in response to projections Wisconsin’s prison population, which increased by fourteen percent between 2000 and 2007, will increase another twenty-five percent by 2019, costing the State of Wisconsin 2.5 billion dollars in prison construction and operating costs.
Upon hearing of the plan to allow some inmates to earn early release from prison, conservatives (and one progressive) here in Wisconsin began attacking the plan, with one calling the plan a (bad) policy decision. But is allowing some offender to earn an earlier release from prison really a bad policy decision? It’s easy to label anyone who advocates for earned release from prison for offenders as being “soft on crime,” but as a recent article in the Capital Times points out, the plan proposed by Democrats in the Senate and Assembly could actually reduce recidivism, as it has been proven to do in “soft on crime” states like Texas and Kansas (emphasis mine):
[The] proposals were recommended by the Justice Center of the Council on State Governments, a nonpartisan association based in Washington, D.C. The center has had success dealing with prison overcrowding problems in other states using an approach it calls the Justice Reinvestment Initiative.
Parisi says “those recommendations are tested, they’re evidence-based, they’ve been used in a number of other states. And definitely not soft-on-crime states. We’re talking Texas. We’re talking Kansas.”
While the Justice Center is currently working with 10 states on sentencing reform, Texas and Kansas are often cited as success stories, both because the group was able to gain the support of both Democrats and Republicans to overcome a stringent law-and-order mind-set, and because those states saw significant drops in the numbers of offenders who landed back in prison after their release into the community.
In Texas, where the prison population was projected to grow by more than 5,000 in 2007 and 2008, new inmates instead numbered only 529, and parole revocations that landed offenders in prison dropped by 25 percent. In Kansas, the parole revocation rate decreased by 48 percent and the prison population declined by 7.5 percent since 2004, when the state enacted strategies endorsed by the Justice Center to stem its prison population. At the same time, reconviction rates by parolees under supervision dropped by 35 percent.
Putting aside the financial savings associated with allowing offenders to earn early release from prison, shouldn’t one of the goals of our criminal justice system be to reduce recidivism among offenders? If so, why not take a long hard look at a set of ideas that have proven to be effective? After all, the status quo simply isn’t working here in Wisconsin, and given the budgetary constraints our state faces every biennium, it doesn’t make sense to spend money to build more prisons to house an ever-increasing population of inmates. Instead of resorting to throwing out labels like “soft on crime” to score some cheap political points, lawmakers from both parties should be looking for ways our state can cut from the corrections budget while also reducing recidivism.
If the Justice Center of the Council on State Governments has demonstrated proven results in reducing recidivism through their Justice Reinvestment Initiative, then perhaps that initiative is worth a long, hard look here in Wisconsin. Instead of throwing money hand over fist into the black hole that is our corrections budget, let’s get smarter about how we spend our corrections dollars.
I am not up to speed on ‘corrections’ goals and objectives so I will withhold comment on that portion. However, there are too many people in jail and not enough alternatives.
If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail. I think that there are plenty of people in jail who committed a crime but are not criminally-oriented. We need more approaches than incarceration in my opinion. There is a debt to society to be paid for some crimes and there is justice to be upheld in punishing criminals. Yet there is stupidity in 150 year sentences and 4 back-to-back life sentences. Locking up teenagers for decades for consensual sex is abominable. Letting genetically pre-disposed sex offenders into society is outrageous. Somewhere in this correctional nightmare there must be pragmatism. Where is it?
I think a big part of the problem is how partisan the issue of crime has become. Any time someone proposes changes that might actually reduce recidivism, some inevitably scream “soft on crime.” No one wants to be labeled soft on crime, and thus, no change ever occurs.