For those of you who don't already know, Thomas Sowell is an economist and one of the best conservative writers in the business. Here he makes some observations on "alternatives to incarceration:"

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/03/11/the_costs_of_crime

That article reminds me of a quote I recently heard on the radio regarding some of the budget-based decisions being made about corrections policy in certain states. To paraphrase:

"How did we go from 'the punishment fitting the crime' to 'the punishment fitting the state's budget'? Budgets rise and fall -- justice should not."

Unfortunately, the "playing with statistics" Sowell mentions is not limited to those who oppose incarceration, but is also actively done by those who favor it. In my government experience, 'juking' stats was like steroids in baseball -- it seemed like everyone did it and everyone justified it by pointing out that everyone did it, even while denying that they themselves did it. To paraphrase, "There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are the other guys statistics."

Part of the problem is that if you can't trust the statistics, then how can you base rational policy decisions on them (one way or the other)?

The latest code word for cutting costs and reducing punishments is being "smart" on crime. In immediate budget costs, that's an easy claim to make. Unfortunately, the politicians and pretend conservative that make that claim never follow up with proof of their results. Over time, the costs of that "smart" approach mount, just not in the same biennium. When you read "smart", start thinking "soft."

Why is this simple equation so difficult for some outside of our profession to understand?

Bad guys in jail + strong sentences = lower crime rate

Nothing too complicated about that. What did I miss?

That equation is easier to follow if you accept the existance of "bad guys."

Some tend to think of criminals as people who did one or more bad things. Others have reason to believe that a certain percentage of the population is just plain bad.

I guess it may depend on how long you've been doing this. There are certainly some criminals who have just made a bad choice, although I think when you start to see a pattern that tends to fly out the window. On the other hand, in this job, I've seen more people I can count who are "just plain bad" and every day they remain off the street is one more day I sleep soundly.

Interesting too, that the statistics saying less crime and more people in jail are interpreted as bad by some folks--to me that is exactly the goal of our jobs. That seems to prove two things: that because more people are in jail, there is less crime!! I don't know how anyone could prefer the obvious alternative--more criminals not in jail, more crime!!

quote:

---

That equation is easier to follow if you accept the existance of "bad guys."

---

Well of course I accept the existence of bad guys- rapists, murderers, governors soliciting hookers, Soviets, child molestors, drug dealers, terrorists.....