 |
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
|
Home | Search | Browse | About IPO | Staff | Links |
Politics
|
Popular 'lock 'em up' mentality costs billions with dubious benefits
|
American reaction to the plight of Michael Fay, the hapless Ohio teenager whom a Singapore judge sentenced to be flogged for petty vandalism, has been both disheartening and instructive.
Despite the barbarity of the punishment, by all accounts popular opinion in America, his native land, is running strongly in favor of the sentence.
The more charitable commentators suggest those applauding the judge are not aware of what the punishment entails, perhaps equating it with the sort of paddling that once was commonplace for unruly schoolboys in this country.
In fact, what Fay faces is a brutal beating with a moistened rattan cane wielded by a martial arts expert that will leave him bloodied and scarred for life. Moreover, a doctor will be on hand to revive him should he pass out from shock during the caning—as seems likely—to make sure he feels each of the six lashes.
In this country, even the most heinous criminal is shielded from that sort of torture by the U.S. Constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. No such ban exists in Singapore, an island city-state on the Malay Peninsula in southern Asia. At least some Americans seem to be willing to forego Eighth Amendment protections in their anger and frustration with what they see as a growing crime rate and lax law enforcement.
The public concern with crime underscored so dramatically by the Fay case has not been lost on Illinois lawmakers, most of whom will face the electorate in November. So the spring session has seen the introduction of scores of bills intended to burnish the anti-crime credentials of their supporters. To be sure, the legislative mood is not as bloodthirsty as that evidenced by those who espouse Singapore-style vengeance. Still, the law-and-order atmosphere is as harsh as it's been since the days the late Rep. Douglas Huff, a Chicago Democrat, suggested that thieves be punished by cutting off their hands. Among the ideas attracting the most attention are a pair with catchy titles but dubious benefits—the so-called "truth in sentencing" and "three strikes, you're in" initiatives, both of which play to a "lock them up and throw away the key" mentality.
Championed by Cook County State's Attorney Jack O'Malley and the Illinois State's Attorneys Association, truth in sentencing would have inmates serve at least 85 percent of their prison terms. Now, many serve less than half their sentences under the state's day-for-day good time policy and other incentives for participation in prison work, education or substance abuse programs.
The current three strikes concept would build upon the state's existing three-time loser law, expanding the offenses for which a third conviction results in an automatic sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole. Measures embodying both notions sailed through House and Senate committees last month despite reasoned objections from prison officials and watchdog groups.
The underlying rationale of the bills seems simple: the crime rate will go down if we lock up violent offenders for longer periods of time, in some cases, forever. On the surface, that's an enticing proposition, yet there are good reasons to resist this simplistic approach.
The basic premise seems to be contradicted by the evidence of recent years. Illinois now has some 35,000 persons incarcerated, up from about 8,000 in 1970. During that time, the state population increased by less than 3 percent. Yet does anyone seriously believe that our streets and neighborhoods are any safer now than they were a generation ago, even though we're locking up more than four times as many offenders?
Moreover, we don't just lock up offenders and forget about them. Instead, we lock them up and pay for their upkeep, providing free food, clothing, shelter and health care, to the tune of some $16,000 a
6/May 1994/Illinois Issues
year per inmate. That's more than the annual income of some Illinois families whose taxes help pay the bill for the prison system.
Just one proposal—the truth in sentencing measure O'Malley and other prosecutors are pushing—would cost $5.8 billion over a 10-year period, according to estimates from the state Department of Corrections. The price tag includes $1.5 billion to construct 28 new, 1,600-inmate prisons and $4.3 billion to pay operating expenses like guards' salaries and prisoner upkeep. Those are tax dollars that can't be spent on education, child welfare or job training, all programs that offer greater long-term potential to reduce crime by preparing young people for a meaningful role in society. As state Corrections Director Howard A. Peters correctly notes, "Every dollar we spend on prisons is a dollar we can't spend on things we value as a society."
Meanwhile, public fascination with such misguided notions is overshadowing the legislature's habitual unwillingness to tackle a more significant aspect of public safety, the need for tighter controls on firearms possession and use.
Despite support from Gov. Jim Edgar, Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, and police chiefs statewide, for example, chances for passage of a meaningful ban on assault weapons have been harmed by political gamesmanship. In the House, Speaker Michael J. Madigan (D-22, Chicago) scuttled an Edgar-Daley agreement on assault weapons to set the governor up for a losing vote on a more restrictive bill. In the Senate, a purported "compromise" pushed by President James "Pate" Philip (R-23, Wood Dale) actually would harm the effort to rein in the urban arms race by stripping local governments of their power to restrict firearm usage.
A modest package of handgun control measures also appears on shaky ground, amid criticism from the Illinois Rifle Association and other pro-gun groups.
While these proposals are no panacea, steps to limit the arsenal available to gang-bangers and their ilk deserve the support of all those who are serious about reducing violent crime.
Charles N. Wheeler III is director of the Public Affairs Reporting program at Sangamon State University and a former Springfield correspondent of the Chicago Sun-Times.
May 1994/Illinois lssues/7
|
|