> The cost to the taxpayers of keeping one person in a prison cell has
> been estimated to vary around the amount of $30,000 per year -- with
> the US recently passing the threshold of 1,500,000 persons behind bars,
> the cost to taxpayers just for incarceration amounts to $45,000,000,000
> -- and that does not include police enforcement, community corrections,
> the court system, legal costs, the costs of government studies, and the >
cost of building new prisons!
Sorry for the error: and by the way, these are rough calculations -- not
intended to represent actual statistical figures. Actual costs of keeping
prisoners run anywhere from $20,000 to $40,000 per year, depending upon
services provided or necessary. The figure of 1,500,000 people behind bars
is a conservative estimate; it includes well over 1,000,000 in actual
prisons (this threshold was passed two years ago or more), and at least
5,000,000 in other incarcerational settings.
In a way, I'm glad I made the error -- it gives me a chance to stress the
incredible cost factor by repeating the reference to it!
>
>By implication, and considered along with recent research findings by the
>prominent Rand Corporation (a well-known conservative 'think-tank' or
>policy studies institution) and British researcher Eric Longley, the new
>Harvard results essentially 'seal the case' for a moral condemnation of
>latter-day 'criminal' justice and corrections policies in the United States
>of America.
>
>Mandatory minimum sentences take discretion out of the courts' hands and
>require sentences of determinate length for certain types of offenses.
>They violate the long-standing US tradition of an independent judiciary,
>and impose a structure upon US justice systems that, while it is designed
>in part to balance the application of justice, tends instead to constrain
>judges and others in their exercise of their responsibilities, causing them
>to be unable to consider mitigating factors and equity in sentencing. One
>important point to observe in considering 'mandatory minimums' is that
>while the idea of standardizing society's responses to transgressions seems
>on its surface to be a just and democratic one, the fact is that most of
>these schemes are concocted by politicians who are running for office on
>fear-mongering 'tough-on-crime' platforms. The resulting legislation
>inevitably calls for much longer prison terms than were the practice before
>the legislation was enacted.
>
>In its design, the Rand Corporation study takes this difference fully into
>account, finding that old-order sentencing of shorter term lengths is two
>to three times more effective in preventing recidivism (re-offending after
>release) than the new 'mandatory minimums'. Conversely, while it is not
>explicitly stated in the Rand study, current practices may resultingly be
>judged to be deeply destructive in their effect -- by implication, the
>essential Rand finding is that as currently carried forward, the policies
>of the so-called 'criminal' justice system are unjust and actually cause
>more crime. In economic terms alone, this is good for the people who build
>and operate prisons and rely on the system for their livelihoods, but it is
>very bad for the average taxpayer and for low-to-middle class people, who
>bear the brunt of the additional crimes committed as a result of the
>policies. The direct monetary cost to US citizens of these additional
>crimes cannot possibly be accurately estimated.
>
>A major controversy has also arisen in the Federal sentencing laws' blatant
>discrimination between 'crack' (crystallized) cocaine and the powdered form
>of the drug. The crux of this controversy is that a disproportionate
>number of members of minority racial and ethnic groups are arrested for
>using 'crack', resulting in greater public visibility of this problematic
>usage. In the barrios and slums where lower-income people in the US are
>forced by their economic circumstances to reside and work, 'crack' cocaine
>has been described as an 'epidemic'. However. there is no direct evidence
>that substance abuse generally is encountered more frequently among
>lower-income groups than at other times in recent history. Instead, the
>idea of a societal 'epidemic' is reinforced by the violent gang warfare
>carried out for control of the lucrative drug markets. This gang-warfare
>phenomenon is very similar to that encountered in the 'Prohibition Era' of
>the nineteen twenties, when the US government outlawed the production and
>use of the drug alcohol in all its forms; beer, wine, liquor, etc. It
>would seem that the US government is reluctant to learn the lessons of
>history: that these laws are unfair, essentially unenforceable, and result
>in far greater problems than the ones they were intended to address in the
>first place. In the face of all this evidence that these policies are
>injuring its citizenry, the US government add insult to injury by
>continuing to mandate sentence lengths for crack cocaine that are many
>times those of sentences for powder.
>
>The three recent (all announced in 1997) research studies are as follows:
>
>1. Rand Corporation -- Finds that in cases involving substance abuse
>(specifically cocaine) and where addiction is presumably a factor, the use
>of rehabilitation and treatment outside of prison is approximately seven
>times more effective than extended ('mandatory minimum') sentences, and two
>to three times more effective than 'traditional' shorter prison sentences.
>It also contrasts the two types of sentences, finding that 'traditional'
>sentence lengths are less destructive than 'mandatory minimums'. This
>study measured the variable of recidivism or re-offending -- the
>implication is that current policies and practices make society more unsafe;
>
>2. As part of a larger study. independent British researcher and
>consultant Eric Longley releases findings indicating that rehabilitation
>programs are significantly more effective when administered in a community
>setting than when administered in the prison setting;
>
>3. Harvard researcher William N. Brownsberger releases research findings
>indicating that 'mandatory minimums' are overly costly to society, are very
>uneven in their application between different ethnic groups, and, in what
>has become known as the 'revolving door' effect, tend to force hardened
>offenders out of the prisons to make room for others convicted of less
>harmful and non-violent crimes. The study, conducted in Massachusetts,
>finds that only half of Massachusetts prisoners convicted of drug-related
>offenses have previously been charged with any violent offense, and only
>one-third of them have ever been convicted of such an offense.
>Furthermore, more than 60 percent of those incarcerated for drug offenses
>have moderate, light, or no previous criminal records at all. Another key
>finding of the study is that African-Americans and Hispanics are far more
>likely to be imprisoned for drug-related offenses than Caucasians.
>According to the Associate Press, the study found that the rate of
>imprisonment was found to be 39 percent higher for African-Americans and an
>incredible 81 times higher for Hispanics! The study did not explain the
>differences, except to say that they were so large that they could not be
>accounted for solely by differences in poverty rates among the groups.
>
>CERJ Board Member Rudy Cypser of New York CURE also recently announced new
>economic studies which indicate that changes to policies -- including a
>changeover to more Restorative Justice methods -- would reduce recidivism
>so greatly that they would save US taxpayers many billions of dollars per
>year in measurable public-sector (governmental) costs. The question now
>is, can the various smaller one-issue justice reform organizations unite
>their voices and create a reCERJence of real justice in the United States?
>
>Among other measures to be considered, the Harvard study recommended more
>community-based responses to crime and other transgressions, treatment for
>addicts, and special drug courts.
>
>Often cited in response to arguments for justice reform is the fact of a
>decline in the crime rate as measured by the gathered statistics on known
>crimes. These statistics do not take into account the huge amount of crime
>that goes unreported, and ignore demographic factors like the graying of
>the baby-boom generation. They also fail to acknowledge that in the past
>twenty years, there has been a rapidly-growing proliferation of new
>programs along the Restorative Justice model in the USA. With this concept
>also currently coming into wider popular and professional acceptance, there
>has been an accelerated experimentation with -- and adoption of --
>community-based correctional methods, to the point where even state
>governments are trying to find ways to bring them into existence on a
>statewide basis. So who is more properly to take the credit for the
>reduction in crime, if anybody?
>People who use methods that are proven to work, or people stubbornly using
>methods that plainly don't?
>
>Only a year-and-a-had old, the CERJ coalition-building movement for justice
>reform has already played a meaningful part in the recent popularization of
>the concept and methods of Restorative Justice methods -- the research is
>in -- these are methods that really work!
>
>If you would like to be added to the CERJ international email distribution
>list, send me a message at <jvw@together.net>. I'll also need your home
>state, province, or country because the list is segmented for organizing
>purposes. You'll get anywhere from 2-6 email messages per week while on
>the list. If you ever wish to be removed, simply write to me again -- the
>CERJ list is managed with a human touch!
>
>Please also visit the CERJ web site (address below). It is still being
>developed at this time, and will hopefully shortly include additional links
>to some of the studies mentioned above. Dr. Rudy Cypser, the author of the
>New York CURE studies, may be reached through the ERJ-Links section of the
>web site.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>John Wilmerding, Gen'l Secretary | EMail <jvw@together.net>
>==============================================================
> International Secretariat | WWW: http://www.cerj.org
>---------------------------------+============================
>Campaign | 111 High Street | For | A
>for | Brattleboro, VT | Justice | AR
>Equity- | 05301-3018 USA | that | ART
>Restorative | Telephone & FAX | Restores | EAR
>Justice | [802] 254-2826 | Equity | HEAR
>================================================= HEART
>Work together to reinvent justice using methods | EARTH
>that are fair; which conserve, restore and even | HEARTH
>create harmony, equity and good will in society | [CERJ]
>==============================================================
>We are the prisoners of the prisoners we have taken - J. Clegg
>
>From: jvw@together.net
>To: "Restorative Justice List" <JCentre@pfi.org>
>Subject: CERJ: Other Research Study Results
>Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 00:59:19
>Errors-to: <mhollinger@pfi.org>
>Reply-to: JCentre@pfi.org
>Sender: Maiser@pfi.org
>X-listname: <JCentre@pfi.org>
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.1 (16) (via Mercury MTS (Bindery)
v1.31)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>Also from New York CURE's Dr. Rudy Cypser: please consider reproducing and
>distributing the following other information on research studies:
>
>
>Dr. James A. Inciardi, "A Corrections-Based Continuum of Effective Drug
>Abuse Treatment," National Institute of Justice Research Preview, June 1996
>.
>The findings indicate that 18 months after release drug offenders who
>received 12-15 months of treatment in prison followed by an additional 6
>months of drug treatment and job training were more than twice as likely to
>be drug free than offenders who received prison-based treatment alone.
>Furthermore, offenders who received both forms of treatment were much more
>likely than offenders who received only prison-based treatment to be arrest
>free 18 months after release (71% compared with 48 %). Only 30% of a
>comparison group was arrest free after 18 months.
>
>
>Douglas S. Lipton, "The Effectiveness of Treatment for Drug Abusers Under
>Criminal Justice Supervision," National Inst. of Justice Research Report,
>November 1995.
>An evaluation of the New York prison-based Therapeutic Community (TC) (known
>as Stay'n Out) conducted in 1984 showed that male participants had arrest
>rates of only 26% compared to 40.9% for those having no treatment, and 39.8%
>for those having only counseling. Programs like Stay'n Out cost about $3,000
>-$4,000 more than standard correctional costs per year.
>
>An evaluation of Oregon's TC (known as Cornerstone) showed that 71% of its
>graduates stayed out of prison for 3 years, while only 26% of the dropouts
>from the program did so.
>
>The most serious drug users are responsible for a high volume of predatory
>crime. Without intervention, this group will return to crime and drug use 9
>times out of 10 after release, and most will be back in custody within 3
>years. With appropriate intervention provided for a sufficient duration,
>more than 3 out of 4 will succeed; that is, reenter the community and
>subsequently lead a socially acceptable life.
>
>
>C. J. Hynes and S. A. Powers, "Drug Treatment Alternative To Prison of the
>Kings County District Attorney, Fifth Annual Report of Operations, Oct. 1994
>to Oct. 1995."
>The Brooklyn, NY Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP) program,
>diverts prison-bound felony drug offenders to residential drug treatment for
>15 to 24 months. The 19% recidivism rate for DTAP's graduates, in contrast
>to a 46% rate for similar defendants who did not participate in the program,
>is the most recent evidence of DTAP's success.
>
>
>Rydell and Everinham, "Controlling Cocaine supply vs. Demand Programs," RAND
>1994
>A RAND study concluded that drug treatment programs are seven times more
>cost-effective in reducing cocaine consumption than other programs that aim
>at controlling the supply of drugs. The study further concluded that drug
>treatment could reduce cocaine consumption by a third if extended to all
>heavy users.
>
>
>Report of the Unified Court Systems Committee on Alternative sanctions,
>December 1996.
>The Brooklyn Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC) program places
>second felony drug offenders into residential drug treatment, usually for 18
>to24 months. After 3 years, the re-arrest rates for offenders who completed
>the program in 1991 and 1992 was 6.7 % and 8.2%.
>
>
>"Longitudinal Study finds Lower Re-arrest Rates in AIP," State of
>Connecticut Judicial Branch Sanctions Update, May 1996 Special Edition.
>This study measured how offenders from each sample get arrested relative to
>the days they are actually in the community. In this way, the number of days
>offenders in each sample have the opportunity to be arrested for new crimes
>is kept the same. The rates for AIP and DOC are then compared to one another
>to produce a ratio.
>
>
>Drug offenders under 21: AIP graduates had 3 arrests for every 10 arrests in
>the DOC sample.
>
>Drug offenders with conviction histories: AIP graduates had 3 arrests for
>every 8 arrests in the DOC sample. These AIP clients had less than one
>arrest for felonies for every two felony arrests of offenders in the DOC
>comparison group.
>
>
>"Preventing Crime. What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising," A Report To
>The U.S. Congress, University of Maryland, for the U.S. Dept. of Justice,
>Office of Justice Programs.
>" Substantial scientific evidence shows that drug treatment is an effective
>method of reducing both drug use and crime by these offenders. Furthermore,
>the criminal justice system can coerce offenders to remain in treatment
>longer. The longer they stay in treatment the better they do later, and
>those who are coerced do as well as comparisons who volunteer for treatment.
>One advantage of Drug Courts is that the court can oversee and supervise the
>coordination of the treatment and the community restraint."
>
>"As with Drug Courts, the prison-based substance abuse programs appear to be
>a promising way to reduce the drug use and associated criminal activities of
>offenders, once they leave prison. In general, the studies of in-prison
>therapeutic community programs demonstrated that such programs reduced the
>recidivism rates of offenders once they were released."
>
>
>"Cost Effectiveness of Mandatory Minimums," RAND study.
>Spending an additional $1 million on longer sentences for convicted dealers
>would reduce the nation's total consumption of cocaine by less than 29
>pounds a year. The same $1 million on treating heavy cocaine users would cut
>consumption by as much as 220 pounds. For every crime eliminated by X
>dollars on mandatory minimum sentences, 15-17 crimes are eliminated by
>spending that same amount on treatment of heavy users.
>
>
>J. P. Caulkins, C. P. Rydell, W. Schwabe, and J. Chiesa, "Mandatory Minimum
>Drug Sentences:
>Throwing Away The Key Or The Taxpayer's Money?" RAND Study
>Spending the money on mandatory minimum sentences for drug dealers can
>reduce total national cocaine consumption by 13 kg. Spending it on
>conventional enforcement against such dealers cuts use by 27 kg. Spending it
>to treat heavy users reduces consumption by over 100 kg. Treatment reduces
>about 10 times more serious crime then conventional enforcement and 15
>times more than mandatory minimums.
>
>
>D.R. Gerstein, R.A. Johnson, H.J. Harwood, D.Fountain, N. Suter, and K.
>Malloy, "Evaluating Recovery Services: The California Drug and Alcohol
>Treatmenjt Assessment (CALDATA)," Calif. Dept. of Alcohol and Drug
>Programs, Sacramento, CA, 1994.
>Treatment can generate a seven to one return on investment (mostly due to
>reduction in crime). Illegal drug use by participants dropped by 40% as a
>result of treatment. Hospitalization rates dropped by a third after
>treatment. The greater the time spent in treatment, the greater the
>reduction in individual criminal activity.
>
>
>"Preliminary Report: The Persistent Effects of Substance Abuse Treatment -
>One Year Later," Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, The National
>Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human
>Services, Rockville, MD, September 1996.
>Clients reported reducing drug use by about 50% in the year following
>treatment. Reports of arrest decreased from 48.2 to 17.2 percent comparing
>the year before with the year following treatment. Substance abuse-related
>medical visits decreased by more than 50 percent and in-patient mental
>health visits by more than 25 percent after treatment. So, too, did risk
>indicators of sexually-transmitted diseases. Following treatment,
>employment rates increased while homelessness and welfare receipts both
>decreased.
>
>
>C. Peter Rydell and Susan S. Everingham, "Controlling Cocaine: Supply versus
>Demand Programs," A joint study by the RAND Corp., the U.S. Army, and the
>Office of National Drug Control Strategy.
>This study found that treatment is seven times more effective than local
>enforcement, eleven times more effective than border interdiction, and
>twenty-two times more effective than trying to control foreign production.
>This data presented by CURE-NY, P.O. Box 102, Katonah, NY, 10536. Further
>information can be found on the internet at http://www.mhv.
>net/~cureny/homepage.htm
>
>Forwarded as a service from Dr. Rudy Cypser of CURE's New York chapter by:
>
>
>John Wilmerding, Gen'l Secretary | EMail <jvw@together.net>
>==============================================================
> International Secretariat | WWW: http://www.cerj.org
>---------------------------------+============================
>Campaign | 111 High Street | For | A
>for | Brattleboro, VT | Justice | AR
>Equity- | 05301-3018 USA | that | ART
>Restorative | Telephone & FAX | Restores | EAR
>Justice | [802] 254-2826 | Equity | HEAR
>================================================= HEART
>Work together to reinvent justice using methods | EARTH
>that are fair; which conserve, restore and even | HEARTH
>create harmony, equity and good will in society | [CERJ]
>==============================================================
>We are the prisoners of the prisoners we have taken - J. Clegg
>
>
John Wilmerding, Gen'l Secretary | EMail <jvw@together.net>
==============================================================
International Secretariat | WWW: http://www.cerj.org
---------------------------------+============================
Campaign | 111 High Street | For | A
for | Brattleboro, VT | Justice | AR
Equity- | 05301-3018 USA | that | ART
Restorative | Telephone & FAX | Restores | EAR
Justice | [802] 254-2826 | Equity | HEAR
================================================= HEART
Work together to reinvent justice using methods | EARTH
that are fair; which conserve, restore and even | HEARTH
create harmony, equity and good will in society | [CERJ]
==============================================================
We are the prisoners of the prisoners we have taken - J. Clegg