Ana Yanez Correa is Right!
This debate has been going on for decades.
The right has said repeatedly that good criminal justice policy means Texas should "Lock 'em up and throw away the key." The left, by contrast, has championed the rights of the "downtrodden "including those whose inherent disadvantages of birth, geography and political station have driven them over the line into behavior which has again stigmatized these unfortunates by labeling them "criminals."
In 1993, when Texas was firmly in the throes of a violent crime wave, I entered the Texas House of Representatives as a solid member in good standing of the political right. I served on the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee with the intention of cracking down on criminals with tough new laws and was a part, though a relatively insignificant one, in the rewriting of the Texas Penal code. For the next decade I continued my work by writing much of the state's current laws dealing with sex offenders, including Ashley's Laws, Sex Offender Registration and Notification, Civil Commitment and mandatory life in prison for repeat rapists. I also served six terms on the House Corrections Committee, serving as the Vice-Chair of that committee in 1995-1998, and as Chairman in 2003 and 2004 during the infamous session of the $10 billion state budget shortfall.
That session was brutal, and despite my objections, the legislature slashed the criminal justice budget by cutting corrections expenditures in every category other than prisons. Within a year, the prison system exceeded its capacity and began leasing beds from county jails to house a flood of new inmates. About half were sentenced with new criminal offenses, and the balance were returned to prison because Judges revoked probations at a much higher rate, often for violations which were merely technical in nature rather than for new crimes.
Offenders on probation are supervised by county probation officers whose service is funded primarily by local tax dollars with about one-third of total funding from the state. Total cost of daily supervision is about $1.50. Prisons are funded in full by state tax dollars at a cost of $35-$40 per day.
So why did the prisons fill up until they were overflowing into leased space? The answer is simple and logical: elected judges who must answer to voters were afraid that the funding cuts to probation supervision and treatment had made it too difficult for probation officers to effectively supervise their caseloads.
For the next four years, the state's new criminal justice challenge was to handle the flood of inmates pouring into expensive prison beds. This fiscal and managerial problem was further complicated by the longer sentences and reduction of parole eligibility which was written into law in 1993, and that population was aging rapidly and along with that aging came the serious and costly medical problems inherent to high-risk populations.
In 2007, faced with what seemed like a clear necessity to build even more prison beds, the legislature took a different turn, declaring that prisons are too costly for taxpayers for many classes of offenders who would be more cheaply and effectively served by drug and alcohol treatment and enhanced probation supervision. That was the policy they implemented.
After seven terms invested in studying the realities of our criminal justice system, I agreed fully with their assessment. As an unrepentant, hard-right conservative, I was not only able to agree, I was forced to agree based on the facts. Our prisons house many inmates who are little more than incorrigible animals-- criminals who should never again see the daylight of freedom. However, that is not true for thousands of inmates whose crimes were non-violent, were inspired and fueled by foolish and undisciplined substance abuse and mental health issues, and who were consigned to prison by judges who had little faith in the ability of a weakened Probation and Parole system to effectively protect the public.
The Legislatures of 2003 an 2005 made small steps in the smart direction with many conservatives like me recognizing that prisons are not the only remedy for criminal behavior, and that other less costly options are available through lower probation and parole caseloads, more direct supervision of specifically targeted lower-level felons, electronic monitoring , and more aggressive short-term confinement and treatment of substance abusers. Those of a more liberal bent agreed, saying that is what they had been saying all along. The legislatures of 2007 and 2009 extended that approach and made larger strides in the smart direction by dramatically increasing treatment options for substances abusers, and by enhancing short-term confinement options for inmates who were having trouble following the rules, but who had not committed new crimes.
Prison population numbers began to fall, even as crime rates remained stable. The 17,000 prison beds which were thought by many to be inevitable were proved to be unnecessary after all. As of this week, it appears that the state has roughly 2,000 empty prison beds, and if the trend continues, we should be able to selectively moth-ball some of the facilities which were first constructed in the 1800's--prisons which are more costly to operate than facilities designed and constructed to embrace advancing technologies.
So now, Ana Yanez Correa, who heads the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition has written about an important subject in yesterday's Austin American Statesman. She is absolutely right (though, certainly NOT far-right). Legislators once again face the dilemma of 2003 when they convene in 2010. The budget must be cut, including the budget for Texas' criminal justice system. The question is what should be cut: prisons, or probation, parole, and programs which are proven to reduce offender recidivism.
In 2003, the state prison budget saw few budget cuts. Probation, parole and treatment programs were decimated. That decision triggered an immediate influx of new direct sentencing to prison by concerned judges whose concerns also led to a flood of technical probation revocations based upon their assessment that reduced supervision budgets would degrade local probation departments' ability to adequately protect the public.
That 2003 budget cutting of probation, parole and treatment programs backfired.
Yes, the cuts helped balance the budget in 2003-4, but they led to significantly expanded spending in subsequent years in the most costly category of criminal justice spending--prison beds. 2003's cuts saved nickels in that budget cycle, but forced future spending of millions.
An old, familiar saying expresses a phrase worth remembering: "Penny wise; pound foolish(referring to the British Pound Sterling)." The immediate urgency of a crisis should not be addressed without considering the long-term consequences which may follow.
Ana's insightful article is featured on our home page under the heading GovBizPartners: news you can use....
(You can navigate to her article by clicking on the Home tab at the top left of this page, then, click the link where her name appears in the headline.)
The right has said repeatedly that good criminal justice policy means Texas should "Lock 'em up and throw away the key." The left, by contrast, has championed the rights of the "downtrodden "including those whose inherent disadvantages of birth, geography and political station have driven them over the line into behavior which has again stigmatized these unfortunates by labeling them "criminals."
In 1993, when Texas was firmly in the throes of a violent crime wave, I entered the Texas House of Representatives as a solid member in good standing of the political right. I served on the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee with the intention of cracking down on criminals with tough new laws and was a part, though a relatively insignificant one, in the rewriting of the Texas Penal code. For the next decade I continued my work by writing much of the state's current laws dealing with sex offenders, including Ashley's Laws, Sex Offender Registration and Notification, Civil Commitment and mandatory life in prison for repeat rapists. I also served six terms on the House Corrections Committee, serving as the Vice-Chair of that committee in 1995-1998, and as Chairman in 2003 and 2004 during the infamous session of the $10 billion state budget shortfall.
That session was brutal, and despite my objections, the legislature slashed the criminal justice budget by cutting corrections expenditures in every category other than prisons. Within a year, the prison system exceeded its capacity and began leasing beds from county jails to house a flood of new inmates. About half were sentenced with new criminal offenses, and the balance were returned to prison because Judges revoked probations at a much higher rate, often for violations which were merely technical in nature rather than for new crimes.
Offenders on probation are supervised by county probation officers whose service is funded primarily by local tax dollars with about one-third of total funding from the state. Total cost of daily supervision is about $1.50. Prisons are funded in full by state tax dollars at a cost of $35-$40 per day.
So why did the prisons fill up until they were overflowing into leased space? The answer is simple and logical: elected judges who must answer to voters were afraid that the funding cuts to probation supervision and treatment had made it too difficult for probation officers to effectively supervise their caseloads.
For the next four years, the state's new criminal justice challenge was to handle the flood of inmates pouring into expensive prison beds. This fiscal and managerial problem was further complicated by the longer sentences and reduction of parole eligibility which was written into law in 1993, and that population was aging rapidly and along with that aging came the serious and costly medical problems inherent to high-risk populations.
In 2007, faced with what seemed like a clear necessity to build even more prison beds, the legislature took a different turn, declaring that prisons are too costly for taxpayers for many classes of offenders who would be more cheaply and effectively served by drug and alcohol treatment and enhanced probation supervision. That was the policy they implemented.
After seven terms invested in studying the realities of our criminal justice system, I agreed fully with their assessment. As an unrepentant, hard-right conservative, I was not only able to agree, I was forced to agree based on the facts. Our prisons house many inmates who are little more than incorrigible animals-- criminals who should never again see the daylight of freedom. However, that is not true for thousands of inmates whose crimes were non-violent, were inspired and fueled by foolish and undisciplined substance abuse and mental health issues, and who were consigned to prison by judges who had little faith in the ability of a weakened Probation and Parole system to effectively protect the public.
The Legislatures of 2003 an 2005 made small steps in the smart direction with many conservatives like me recognizing that prisons are not the only remedy for criminal behavior, and that other less costly options are available through lower probation and parole caseloads, more direct supervision of specifically targeted lower-level felons, electronic monitoring , and more aggressive short-term confinement and treatment of substance abusers. Those of a more liberal bent agreed, saying that is what they had been saying all along. The legislatures of 2007 and 2009 extended that approach and made larger strides in the smart direction by dramatically increasing treatment options for substances abusers, and by enhancing short-term confinement options for inmates who were having trouble following the rules, but who had not committed new crimes.
Prison population numbers began to fall, even as crime rates remained stable. The 17,000 prison beds which were thought by many to be inevitable were proved to be unnecessary after all. As of this week, it appears that the state has roughly 2,000 empty prison beds, and if the trend continues, we should be able to selectively moth-ball some of the facilities which were first constructed in the 1800's--prisons which are more costly to operate than facilities designed and constructed to embrace advancing technologies.
So now, Ana Yanez Correa, who heads the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition has written about an important subject in yesterday's Austin American Statesman. She is absolutely right (though, certainly NOT far-right). Legislators once again face the dilemma of 2003 when they convene in 2010. The budget must be cut, including the budget for Texas' criminal justice system. The question is what should be cut: prisons, or probation, parole, and programs which are proven to reduce offender recidivism.
In 2003, the state prison budget saw few budget cuts. Probation, parole and treatment programs were decimated. That decision triggered an immediate influx of new direct sentencing to prison by concerned judges whose concerns also led to a flood of technical probation revocations based upon their assessment that reduced supervision budgets would degrade local probation departments' ability to adequately protect the public.
That 2003 budget cutting of probation, parole and treatment programs backfired.
Yes, the cuts helped balance the budget in 2003-4, but they led to significantly expanded spending in subsequent years in the most costly category of criminal justice spending--prison beds. 2003's cuts saved nickels in that budget cycle, but forced future spending of millions.
An old, familiar saying expresses a phrase worth remembering: "Penny wise; pound foolish(referring to the British Pound Sterling)." The immediate urgency of a crisis should not be addressed without considering the long-term consequences which may follow.
Ana's insightful article is featured on our home page under the heading GovBizPartners: news you can use....
(You can navigate to her article by clicking on the Home tab at the top left of this page, then, click the link where her name appears in the headline.)
Comments