Prison Overcrowding – A Conservative Solution

Posted on October 27th, 2009

Back in September I made a blog post about prison overcrowding in Arkansas to give conservatives a heads up that we have a problem to which we ought to propose solutions. Now we find ourselves in a situation where we have cut funding to the Department of Correction and the Department of Community Correction by about $12 million dollars. (A larger percentage than ANY other sector of state government.) If you have been keeping up with the efforts of Rep. Allen Kerr about funding county jails, you may realize that the state government is shifting the cost of incarcerating criminals to already cash strapped county governments. People will soon start referring to this situation as “crisis”. We all know that decisions made in “crisis” are always less than optimum, and that the liberal solution usually means either a tax increase or an emergency release of criminals back onto the street. I would like to draw your attention to two excellent articles by Wisconsin State Senator Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) who demonstrates why letting prisoners go will not save the state and why we cannot afford to ease up on corrections. Sen. Lazich clearly demonstrates the irresponsibility of the choice to prioritize funding for corrections below other priorities that are not a foundational purpose of government.

Any plan or program to provide a prompt and adequate solution to the overcrowding problem in
state and local detention facilities should address the following issues:

• The detention facility population should be brought down to a level consistent with capacity so that
  the most violent offenders can serve out their full sentences.


• Juveniles and non-violent misdemeanor offenders should be the focus of rehabilitation and early release.


• Additional economic burdens should not be placed on taxpayers. To the greatest extent possible, the program’s costs should be borne by criminals.


• Supervision of those on parole and probation must be increased.


• Private companies should be utilized, and there should not be a sole reliance on the government run
  parole and probation system. The private sector appearance bond system is a well proven workable
  model.


• Finally, and most importantly, there should be assurances that under the program’s operation there
  would be no increase in recidivism. The solution must be capable of demonstrating in the early stages
  of implementation that no adverse impact upon community safety occurs.

A Conservative Solution: Conditional Post-Conviction Release

In addition to placing corrections as a priority in state government spending, a solution to lowering costs would be “conditional post-conviction early release” program that would rely on performance bonds and security or indemnity agreements to keep participants from committing new crimes and assure their prompt return to custody should they misbehave. The program would focus on the large number of incarcerated juveniles and misdemeanor non-violent offenders and operate much like the current private bail bonds system,
which has been successfully used to grant pretrial releases to individuals across the country. It would
be a means for providing early release of non-violent offenders from state and local facilities in such a
way as to reduce recidivism with no additional costs to taxpayers. Best of all, the program would rely on
the proven success of the private bail bond industry, rather than the proven dysfunction of the government run parole and probation system, by requiring families and communities to take some responsibility for
future acts of the person who is displaying signs of trouble.

The Conditional Post-Conviction Release would work as follows:

• Legislatively defined participants would be chosen by parole officials at the penitentiary level and
  judges at the trial level (hereafter referred to as releasing authorities).


• Participants would be released from confinement under the terms and conditions of a performance
  bond. The bond would require a surety, (financial guarantor) by a qualified insurance company. The
  terms and conditions of the performance bond would have to be fully met at all times in order for
  the participant to remain in society.


• Failure of the releasee to meet numerous requirements such as house arrest, regular drug
  testing, recovery program involvement, mandatory check-in requirements, non-interference with
  witnesses or victims, maintenance of gainful employment, payment of restitution, and no
  subsequent arrests or any additional requirements would obligate the surety to promptly return the releasee to custody thus safeguarding the community. Failure to so perform would subject the
  surety to full financial penalty under the bond.


• Persons in the participant’s release environment, such as parents and guardians, would voluntarily
  sign “agreements of indemnity” whereby they, along with the individual would have a monetary
  incentive, as indemnitors to the surety, to encourage compliance by the participant. If there is a violation
  of the bond, the family as well as the offender would be drawn into the circle of responsibility.


• Upon the breach of any single condition of release, the bond could be revoked by the court, a warrant issued and the participant re-incarcerated, and the surety required to pay a financial penalty to the state in the alternative.

The financial penalties of the bond would create strong incentives on the part of the surety and the
indemnitors to see that the participant abides by all the releasing authority’s conditions of release or else
be promptly surrendered back into custody, thereby guaranteeing low recidivism. The program would
require no additional staffing or administrative costs for state and local governments. Prison space would
become available to ensure that violent offenders serve their full sentences. At the trial stage, this
program would be a sentencing alternative. For those who operate prisons and jails, it would be a very
tightly controlled early-release vehicle for selected, non-violent offenders.

The program would relieve overburdened parole and probation officers of many non-violent
and juvenile offenders. Offenders would also perform better in the Conditional Release Program
as compared to the current system because of the financial penalty subject to being imposed.

The current path of under prioritizing funding and failing to proactively address the problem in the conservative manner described above can only lead to the ordered Emergency Release of Prisoners back into society. That is bad policy that, while immediately alleviating overcrowding, will have lasting consequences that far outweigh the “benefits.”

Filed under Uncategorized |

Comments are closed.