RSS Feed MenuIf you represent a client who is found guilty and goes to jail, the first thing that happens is that you return to your office. You have a few moments together. Then the chasers come with cuffs in hand and take your client so that he can begin serving his time.
For anyone who has observed the sudden passage between liberty and confinement, the experience is deeply affecting. But one need not be a part of our criminal justice system to take pause that 2.38 million Americans are currently behind bars. To illustrate the magnitude of this figure, consider that America’s jails have a greater population than do sixteen states.
A recent initiative by Senator Jim Webb’s (D. VA) seeks to reduce the U.S.’s high incarceration rates. The senator’s bill (a summary of which can be found here) creates a blue-ribbon commission directed to find ways to ensure public safety other than incarceration.
For Webb, the central point behind his initiative is that the high number of Americans in jail must have one of two causes. Either we are worse than people in other countries or we put too many people behind bars. Given these choices, he naturally sides with the second.
Webb’s argument is that we are sending certain offenders to jail who have no business being there. In particular, he seeks to keep non-violent drug offenders from crowding our prisons. It would be helpful, however, for the commission to study how many of these inmates pled guilty to drug possession in return for the dismissal of other drug, or non-drug, related charges. Webb is also concerned with the high number of mentally-ill inmates, suggesting that the proper response to this class of prisoners should be treatment rather than confinement.
My own view is that the senator is correct on at least one point. We can deter crime without imprisoning millions of convicts. During New York’s dramatic crime drop, for instance, the state’s incarcerated population fell.
The example of New York shows that where it is possible to ensure public safety without imprisonment we should seize the obvious invitation. Still shunning imprisonment alone is not the whole solution. Rather, crime should be looked at as a failure of local government. An important focus of Webb’s commission, therefore, should be to study the extent to which our federal prisons are full because states have been preempted from prosecuting certain offenses by the federalization of local criminal activity.
Indeed, the level of policing required to protect the public’s safety ought to be handled at the lowest possible level. As a military veteran, who served in Vietnam and went on to become President Reagan’s Secretary of the Navy, Senator Webb is no doubt aware of the primary responsibility of communities to police their own. The military – whose justice system the senator singles out for praise – has successfully contained illegal drug use through a policy of local enforcement. At frequent intervals, service members are randomly tested for use of any controlled substance. These systematic tests, carried out at the unit level, make effective the Department of Defense’s zero tolerance policy for drug use.
The principle of local responsibility does not mean that states should have a monopoly on criminal justice. Nowhere in the promotional materials is Senator Webb’s blue-ribbon commission encouraged to study the documented link between family breakdown and high crime rates. Of course, the role of the federal government should remain limited. But any study group focused on analyzing crime rates across the United States should focus on the roots of the problem, including that children raised in two-parent homes are far less likely to engage in criminal activity.
The linkage between family breakdown and crime goes also to the issue of equality. America, throughout its history, has balanced liberty and equality by understanding that each is necessary for the other. Liberty is compromised when artificial distinctions are used to privilege one class of citizens against another.
But beyond merely stripping away artificial distinctions, it is necessary to ensure from the start that all people have the same opportunity to succeed. The discipline that parents provide may not always be appreciated. But when parents are not present, the lessons that were once learned at home are taught by increasingly more distant authority figures. Standing before a judge cannot be the first time that anyone realizes that as social beings our happiness depends on our getting along with those around us.
mlindroo // Apr 27, 2009 at 11:23 pm
>… the high number of Americans in jail must have> one of two causes. Either we are worse than> people in other countries or we put too many> people behind bars. Given these choices, he> naturally sides with the second.Oh? I thought the correct answer was c) neither of the above [other nations are too soft on crime, that's all! Yet another sign of American exceptionalism and superiority]MARCU$
barker13 // Apr 28, 2009 at 6:32 am
Are you a lawyer, Captain Toth – JAG?”…how many of these inmates pled guilty to drug possession in return for the dismissal of other drug, or non-drug, related charges.”BINGO!!! (*GRIN*) Hey Tom… note… when one clicks on your link to the Senator’s bill one is indeed taken to the Summary page. Problem is, from there, when one clicks on the “Read the Legislation,” the link is to “generic” Thomas – not the actual bill. FYI, the actual bill is S-714 and can be found at: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.714:“Webb is also concerned with the high number of mentally-ill inmates, suggesting that the proper response to this class of prisoners should be treatment rather than confinement.”Someone notify the ACLU. If memory serves, it was professional “civil libertarians” who via successful court actions were able to “free” the mentally ill from mental hospitals in the ’70’s. Again… just “memories”… just the bare bones of what I recall as “general knowledge,” but if I’m basically remembering correctly what happened… I’m not so sure returning to “warehousing” in city and state mental hospitals is a viable policy initiative.”…the level of policing required to protect the publics safety ought to be handled at the lowest possible level.”Agreed! And, yeah… enforcement starting at the lowest anti-social rung of the ladder in keeping with “the broken window” theory. (Wilson’s?)”Nowhere in the promotional materials is Senator Webbs blue-ribbon commission encouraged to study the documented link between family breakdown and high crime rates.”What’s to study…?!?! It’s been studied to death. It exists. No need to constantly be reinventing the wheel. (That’s my whole complaint about yet another “Blue Ribbon” committee.) Excellent contribution, Captain Toth! Flesh it out a bit in terms of detail. I for one would like to hear more.BILL
sinz54 // Apr 28, 2009 at 8:26 am
Let’s start by decriminalizing marijuana. Whether you use it, grow it, or even sell it, the word that can happen to you is you pay a fine. But you don’t go to jail.Our drug laws, and their penalties, are based on hype, fear, lobbyists, and politicians looking for a talking-point. They are not based on the latest medical science.Medical science ranks the health risks of various drugs in an order that doesn’t correlate with our drug laws at all. Tobacco is far more addictive than marijuana, yet tobacco is totally legal and available in every corner store. While the Federal Government considers marijuana to be illegal, even for terminally ill cancer patients who aren’t going to live long enough to experience marijuana’s side effects.Our drug laws should be based on what medical science knows about the risks of these drugs.
Cforchange // Apr 28, 2009 at 10:28 am
When NY cities crime rate dropped – it dropped ONLY because the criminals were moved out to Reading, Rochester, Jamestown, Olean. The judicial system only moves crime about – that must change. The judicial system is simply broken – the police arrest actors and they are back out on the streets within hours -this includes arrests for violent actions if there is lacking space at the inn. I would be disgraced if my daily work had results such as this. Non violent drug offenders have no business being incarcerated. Drug laws need to be modified so they are enforceable. Welfare payments to addicts need to stop and children should not be in the care of selfish addicted parents. The time has come for a very austere institutionalized setup where less expensive supervision is provided for our huge population of addicted persons who can not earn a living nor care for their families correctly. Children’s homes need to be setup again to care for the affected child, let the parent visit but not have the responsibility to let the child suffer as they now do.Jails should be reserved for those who harm others. That may include meth manufacturers, drug salesmen that intoxicate/addict minors. But for the junkie who just wants his necessary fix, we’ve spent an extraordinary amount of money to only clog our system so much that child abuse is a given and public safety at large is in jeopardy.
michaelctoth // Apr 30, 2009 at 6:39 am
The comments are much appreciated. To answer Barker13’s question, I am a lawyer in the USMC. Semper Fi, Capt Toth.
barker13 // Apr 30, 2009 at 8:36 am
Semper Fi to you, sir. My dad was a marine during WW-2 and two of my nephews are currently serving – one on his second tour in Iraq.Thank you for your service to our country and God bless you.BILL