Cutting Prison/Jail Numbers

Some parties are quite enthusiastic about reducing the numbers in jail and prison by providing various alternatives to incarceration.  (I am not.)

But it appears that there is one thing that might be helpful from the standpoint of reducing jail and prison costs-- the 287g program.  Such a program seems to have been helpful in Alamance County-- perhaps we should have it here as well.

Check out this video that describes the impact in one Tennessee county: (HT:Fred)

Comments

[Dave Ribar]

Joe:

Maybe I'm missing something, but the experience of Alamance County indicates that the ICE 287(g) program adds to incarceration numbers.

Alamance County appears to be held harmless, because the federal government reimburses the cost of 287(g) detainees. However, as you've pointed out before, that's simply a shifting of tax responsibility from the local government to the federal government.

[Joe Guarino]

Dave, I am not sure the linked articles truly indicate an increase in incarceration numbers. Maybe I am missing it. But the point is that if crime levels are driven downward via the existence of the program, then your incarceration rates will be lower.

[Dave Ribar]

Joe:

The linked article indicates that 12,894 detainees have been held in Alamance County since 2007 at an annual federal cost of $6 million.

Interestingly, this round up of 12,894 ICE suspects yielded only 2,022 undocumented aliens.

As they say, you've got to break quite a few eggs to make an omlette.

To your original point, it appears that the program is adding to incarceration numbers and costs.

Nationally, crime rates are at very low levels but incarceration rates remain sky high.

[Joe Guarino]

With respect to your last statement, Dave, I would question whether there is a causal relation between the high incarceration rates and the comparatively low crime rates. That would be a good thing.

In Sam Hieb's post, there was a statement that the program was helping the crime situation in Alamance. And in the Tennessees YouTube shown above, there seems to be some reason to believe the program over a long term period will reduce crime, and thereby reduce the need for jail space.

[Dave Ribar]

Joe:

Davidson County implemented its 287g program in 2007. In 2006, its average daily inmate population was 3,310. In 2007 (the year it implemented the program), its average inmate population increased to 3,526. In 2008, the population was 3,694, and in 2009, the population was nearly the same 3,641. There isn't a noticeable drop until 2010, when the population went down to about 3,500, which is still several hundred more than before the program started.

Crime rates in Davidson County have fallen since 2007. However, they began falling in 1997 -- a full 10 years before the ICE 287g program was initiated.

These falling crime rates have been accompanied by substantially higher citation and arrest rates. Despite lower crime, Davidson County arrested 1,800 more people in 2009 than 2007 (about a four percent increase) but cited 21,000 more people (nearly a 1/3 increase). Davidson county also increased its number of sworn officers by 6 percent from 2007 to 2009.

In addition, Davidson county is currently releasing many more inmates on bond and pre-trial release than it did before the ICE 287g program.

An additional big reason for the empty jail cells is that the Nashville metropolitan government recently negotiated an increase of 256 beds for its main facility.

Finally, although the inmate population is down this year, officials in Davidson County see this as a dip and expect the population (including the ICE population) to grow in coming years.

Stats available at http://www.nashville.gov/cjp/docs/Annual_Population_Projections.pdf .

[James]

BJ Barnes ended 287g here after discovering the costs were too high. This happened around the holidays this past year. Why are you not enthusiastic about alternatives to incarceration? Inmates cost more when they're in prison and less when they are out and contributing to economic life of the community.

[Eric]

Barnes didn't end 287g because of costs, but you're right that we already had it. Guarino, how did you miss that obvious fact?

One of the big tensions was whether federal regulations would allow Barnes' sheriffs to have tasers in the prisons.

And I want to echo James' question about reducing the number of inmates. Prisons and jails don't turn criminals into better people and when they get out (which most do) almost no rehabilitation has been done which is worse for us and them. But more importantly on the cost numbers, how can you justify this?

[Joe Guarino]

On several bases. First, imprisonment requires that the criminal make restitution to society. Second, it is a form of punishment that usually can be justified. Punishing criminals, all other things being equal, is a good thing. Third, these criminals cannot undermine public safety while they are behind bars. And fourth, we do not have an adequate system for monitoring offenders in the community in NC.

[Roch101]

"First, imprisonment requires that the criminal make restitution to society."

How so?

[Joe Guarino]

It is the old concept of repaying a debt to society by serving prison time. That is what makes crime victims feel that justice has been done. For those that receive alternative sentencing and the like, that debt to society is not being repaid.

[Roch101]

Hard to see how bestowing a financial cost on society is making restitution. I mean, you can rightly speak of justice and satisfaction for victims as a result of incarceration, but since prison actually demands additional costs from society, serving time is not making restitution.

[Joe Guarino]

I did not mean restitution in the financial sense. I meant it in the sense of exchanging something equivalent to repay an injury or loss that was caused.

[Dave Ribar]

Joe:

Imprisonment and restitution are two very different things (as evidenced by some criminals being required to serve jail time and make restitution). You're right that imprisonment can serve a constructive purpose by protecting people from further harm. However, the "punishment" aspect of imprisonment is not constructive and is not "a good thing." Punishment wouldn't be effective if it were good or pleasant.

From the small amount that I've garnered about your moral views, the protection argument probably wouldn't hold up. You don't seem to approve of having the government hinder one person's liberty (inflicting harm on one person) to benefit others. You also don't advocate for justice and fairness in lots of other circumstances, so the advocacy for "restitution" seems strained, or at least highly selective.

One way to justify punishment is to use a variant of the golden rule ("do unto others..."). A rational person who inflicts evil on others indicates by his or her actions that the infliction of evil is okay, that people should be treated this way. While you or I might see the infliction of evil as unacceptable, criminals (through their actions) have indicated that it is personally acceptable. Thus, criminals provide their own justification for punishment.

[Joe Guarino]

Dave, I don't accept the premise that rehabilitation or protecting the public are the sole justifications for imprisonment. We are talking about the rule of law. It is perfectly legitimate to use imprisonment to punish those who have committed criminal acts-- as long as we have decided legislatively those criminal acts justify it. It is perfectly legitimate to use imprisonment to require the criminal to repay their debt to society, to make "restitution" in accordance with the rule of law (again, allowing for my expanded definition of the word).

The likelihood that criminals will lose their freedom by being imprisoned is one of the deterrents we have for crime. It is enshriend in our legal tradition, even if the criminal justice system fails us at times. I suspect imprisoned criminals know they are being punished, and are repaying their debt, because they are living that reality every day.

[Dave Ribar]

Joe:

Legislation doesn't make things right in and of itself, otherwise you would accept health care reform (which was passed through legislative means) as being "perfectly legitimate."

What you are calling "restitution" is really "retribution." You can dress it up in other metaphors like "repay(ing) their debt to society," but unless they are actually paying something or contributing something back, it's not restitution. The psychic valuation/relief that a victim or society might get from seeing retribution exacted doesn't count as a payment.

Deterrence and protection are certainly reasons to support imprisonment of criminals, but they are also reasons to support imprisonment of potential criminals or doing things like taking criminals' families hostage. The central moral argument behind deterrence and protection (that we should use some people as instruments to achieve the well-being of other people) is one I expect you would find suspect.

[Roch101]

I see what you were saying, Joe.

[Roch101]

But I think Dave is right that "retribution" is more accurate.

[Ched H]

How much time did Riddleberger do for his crimes? He should still be behind bars if I follow the standards Dr Guarino and crew set for people outside their circle. Courting his now wife was a violation of his sentence. No relationships with non-family females under 21? Where is all the redemption talk for people who cross borders legally and illegally. 287g was recognized early as a tool for discrimination by congresspersons and local folks. It passed because of fearmongers and scared white people, not because it was the best solution. Quit spreading lies.

[Ched H]

And when Joe, did they make you remove your posting on the matter? There's as much truth and courage in this blog as there is in the minds of all you wingnuts combined.

[Joe Guarino]

Chet, no one from C4GC asked me or told me to remove my post. I am not going to get into a prolonged discussion about the Riddlebergers; but my understanding is that he faced accountability in the legal system according to the rule of law. You can argue about whether the sentence should have been more severe, but that is the nature of our legal system sometimes. In the case of illegal immigrants, there is scarcely any semblance of the rule of law.

[bubba]

"He should still be behind bars if I follow the standards Dr Guarino and crew set for people outside their circle."

And an example of that would be........?

[Fred Gregory]

Ribar says:

"Joe:

Legislation doesn't make things right in and of itself, otherwise you would accept health care reform (which was passed through legislative means) as being 'perfectly legitimate.'"

Does your statement square with this recent legal policy decision by the current administration ? I thought it was the SCOTUS that made those determinations.

NEW HAMPSHIRE UNION LEADER

Justice Dept. will not defend law banning gay marriages in courts

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Justice+Dept.+will+not+defend+law+banning+gay+marriages+in+courts&articleId=8af61844-ca9b-4450-87a8-f14df2cee7dc

"President Barack Obama has determined that a federal law that barred gay marriages was unconstitutional and told government lawyers to stop defending it, the U.S. Justice Department said Wednesday, a major reversal that quickly angered conservatives."

Like this commenter at the UL article:
"Since when does The Ayatollah Obama decide what is constitutional and what is not ? Is this nut related to Gadhafi ?
You fools that voted for this idiot should be real proud
- Vic, Derry"

Judge Roberts call tour office.

Well Vic this guys policies must have been developed on a Ouija Board. As for Gadhafi, between our bumbling UDOS and the WH it's impossible to figure out what they feel about Libiya . Check with Wikileaks for the answer

As for what Muammar el-Qaddafi thinks about Obama check out the first 4 minutes of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2737QUBxFY&NR=1

[Fred Gregory]

Ribar will no doubt challenge the below cited, somewhat dated, study but what was true then is today

In the summer of 1988, the News & Record published the results of a study by the National Institute of Justice, which pointed out that government at all levels could save money by building new prisons for repeat offenders. This is because, as the study demonstrated, it will cost only $25,000 to build a cell and keep up one prisoner in it for a year. Whereas the same criminal on the loose commits over 180 felonies (on average) per year. The cost of these crimes to society is 20-fold the cost of keeping this guy in the slammer.

Some folks when confronted with these compelling facts, hopefully should gain the understanding that prisons are a real bargain. Jailing vicious thugs, particularly drug dealers, for lengthy and certain periods of time is the best way to protect the community and make crime less appealing. If more prisons are needed they should be built to house US citizen criminals. The rest should be promptly deported. In the long run, it is the least expensive way to go.

[Joe Guarino]

Fred, I agree. Perhaps the problem revealed by some of Dave's data was that the person was not promptly deported. But prisons serve a very important purpose from the standpoint of public safety.