Rehabilitation Instead of Incarceration
Originally posted on Monday, February 5, 2007
Pendulums are supposed to swing back and forth, and on the issue of rehabilitating non-violent drug offenders instead of locking them up, that swing sometimes is a political one. In the past, Conservatives have been heavier on law enforcement and punishment while Liberals have offered a lot of sympathy and supported treatment. The problem is that each one swings a little too far in their direction, and to solve the dilemma it would have to rest somewhere in between, with just a little room for movement depending on the situation.
In the year 2000 the United States surged ahead to have the highest incarceration rate in the world. With more than two million persons incarcerated, the United States has about 25% of the world's prisoners, despite making up only 5% of the global population.
Aside from the humanity factor of just locking someone up, it costs taxpayers a ton of money to keep building prisons to house more and more inmates. The average price tag per prisoner is estimated to be somewhere around $20,000 per year, depending on the state and type of facility. Six years ago it cost us almost $26 billion to keep 1.3 million non-violent offenders behind bars. That was almost $10 billion more than we spent on social services programs for about 8.5 million people.
Sixty percent of the growth in the federal prison population over the last twenty years has been due to drug offenders. The actual number of crimes that arose from the use of drugs or alcohol and land individuals in behind bars are more in the range of 80%, which is a staggering number.
Yes, people need to be held accountable for their actions. No, it is not an excusable offense to plead "but I'm an addict" and be forgiven for crimes. However, punishment should fit the crime, and it would behoove most Americans to have more rehabilitation programs for non-violent drug offenders, either diverted to treatment centers or to have services provided in the jails and prisons, than to continue paying through the nose to have good, salvagable people locked up and giving lucrative contracts to private prison builders.
There is a catch though, the programs need to prove that they work in order to get any funding, and those receiving services can't continue to commit crimes. Let's turn them into productive, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. We happen to know a lot of people who once had problems with substance abuse and now are very valuable members of society who pull more than their own weight.
So, which way do you think the pendulum should swing?
Article by Eric Mitchell
Pendulums are supposed to swing back and forth, and on the issue of rehabilitating non-violent drug offenders instead of locking them up, that swing sometimes is a political one. In the past, Conservatives have been heavier on law enforcement and punishment while Liberals have offered a lot of sympathy and supported treatment. The problem is that each one swings a little too far in their direction, and to solve the dilemma it would have to rest somewhere in between, with just a little room for movement depending on the situation.
In the year 2000 the United States surged ahead to have the highest incarceration rate in the world. With more than two million persons incarcerated, the United States has about 25% of the world's prisoners, despite making up only 5% of the global population.
Aside from the humanity factor of just locking someone up, it costs taxpayers a ton of money to keep building prisons to house more and more inmates. The average price tag per prisoner is estimated to be somewhere around $20,000 per year, depending on the state and type of facility. Six years ago it cost us almost $26 billion to keep 1.3 million non-violent offenders behind bars. That was almost $10 billion more than we spent on social services programs for about 8.5 million people.
Sixty percent of the growth in the federal prison population over the last twenty years has been due to drug offenders. The actual number of crimes that arose from the use of drugs or alcohol and land individuals in behind bars are more in the range of 80%, which is a staggering number.
Yes, people need to be held accountable for their actions. No, it is not an excusable offense to plead "but I'm an addict" and be forgiven for crimes. However, punishment should fit the crime, and it would behoove most Americans to have more rehabilitation programs for non-violent drug offenders, either diverted to treatment centers or to have services provided in the jails and prisons, than to continue paying through the nose to have good, salvagable people locked up and giving lucrative contracts to private prison builders.
There is a catch though, the programs need to prove that they work in order to get any funding, and those receiving services can't continue to commit crimes. Let's turn them into productive, law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. We happen to know a lot of people who once had problems with substance abuse and now are very valuable members of society who pull more than their own weight.
So, which way do you think the pendulum should swing?
Article by Eric Mitchell
Labels: political
AHS Views Feed
