Priority Test: Health Care or Prisons?

[tricky]

August 20, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Priority Test: Health Care or Prisons?

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
At a time when we Americans may abandon health care reform because it supposedly is “too expensive,” how is it that we can afford to imprison people like Curtis Wilkerson?
Mr. Wilkerson is serving a life sentence in California — for stealing a $2.50 pair of socks. As The Economist noted recently, he already had two offenses on his record (both for abetting robbery at age 19), and so the “three strikes” law resulted in a life sentence.
This is unjust, of course. But considering that California spends almost $49,000 annually per prison inmate, it’s also an extraordinary waste of money.
Astonishingly, many politicians seem to think that we should lead the world in prisons, not in health care or education. The United States is anomalous among industrialized countries in the high proportion of people we incarcerate; likewise, we stand out in the high proportion of people who have no medical care — and partly as a result, our health care outcomes such as life expectancy and infant mortality are unusually poor.
It’s time for a fundamental re-evaluation of the criminal justice system, as legislation sponsored by Senator Jim Webb has called for, so that we’re no longer squandering money that would be far better spent on education or health. Consider a few facts:
¶The United States incarcerates people at nearly five times the world average. Of those sentenced to state prisons, 82 percent were convicted of nonviolent crimes, according to one study.
¶California spends $216,000 annually on each inmate in the juvenile justice system. In contrast, it spends only $8,000 on each child attending the troubled Oakland public school system, according to the Urban Strategies Council.
¶For most of American history, we had incarceration rates similar to those in other countries. Then with the “war on drugs” and the focus on law and order in the 1970s, incarceration rates soared.
¶One in 10 black men ages 25 to 29 were imprisoned last year, partly because possession of crack cocaine (disproportionately used in black communities) draws sentences equivalent to having 100 times as much powder cocaine. Black men in the United States have a 32 percent chance of serving time in prison at some point in their lives, according to the Sentencing Project.
Look, there’s no doubt that many people in prison are cold-blooded monsters who deserve to be there. But over all, in a time of limited resources, we’re overinvesting in prisons and underinvesting in schools.
Indeed, education spending may reduce the need for incarceration. The evidence on this isn’t conclusive, but it’s noteworthy that graduates of the Perry Preschool program in Michigan, an intensive effort for disadvantaged children in the 1960s, were some 40 percent less likely to be arrested than those in a control group.
Above all, it’s time for a rethink of our drug policy. The point is not to surrender to narcotics, but to learn from our approach to both tobacco and alcohol. Over time, we have developed public health strategies that have been quite successful in reducing the harm from smoking and drinking.
If we want to try a public health approach to drugs, we could learn from Portugal. In 2001, it decriminalized the possession of all drugs for personal use. Ordinary drug users can still be required to participate in a treatment program, but they are no longer dispatched to jail.
“Decriminalization has had no adverse effect on drug usage rates in Portugal,” notes a report this year from the Cato Institute. It notes that drug use appears to be lower in Portugal than in most other European countries, and that Portuguese public opinion is strongly behind this approach.
A new United Nations study, World Drug Report 2009, commends the Portuguese experiment and urges countries to continue to pursue traffickers while largely avoiding imprisoning users. Instead, it suggests that users, particularly addicts, should get treatment.
Senator Webb has introduced legislation that would create a national commission to investigate criminal justice issues — for such a commission may be the best way to depoliticize the issue and give feckless politicians the cover they need to institute changes.
“There are only two possibilities here,” Mr. Webb said in introducing his bill, noting that America imprisons so many more people than other countries. “Either we have the most evil people on earth living in the United States, or we are doing something dramatically wrong in terms of how we approach the issue of criminal justice.”
Opponents of universal health care and early childhood education say we can’t afford them. Granted, deficits are a real constraint and we can’t do everything, and prison reform won’t come near to fully financing health care reform. Still, would we rather use scarce resources to educate children and heal the sick, or to imprison people because they used drugs or stole a pair of socks?

•

I invite you to visit my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by tricky

Consider a few facts:

¶The United States incarcerates people at nearly five times the world average. Of those sentenced to state prisons, 82 percent were convicted of nonviolent crimes, according to one study.

And 100% were convicted of a felony.

Originally Posted by tricky

¶California spends $216,000 annually on each inmate in the juvenile justice system. In contrast, it spends only $8,000 on each child attending the troubled Oakland public school system, according to the Urban Strategies Council.

It is more expensive to keep tabs on a kid in CYA than in high school. Imagine that.

Still, CA is a terrible money manager without regard to which hole it pisses its cash down

Originally Posted by tricky

¶For most of American history, we had incarceration rates similar to those in other countries. Then with the “war on drugs” and the focus on law and order in the 1970s, incarceration rates soared.

OK. So we put felons in prison at a greater rate. Whether one agrees or disagrees with prohibition there's no confusion about the current illegality.

Originally Posted by tricky

¶One in 10 black men ages 25 to 29 were imprisoned last year, partly because possession of crack cocaine (disproportionately used in black communities) draws sentences equivalent to having 100 times as much powder cocaine.

If they went to prison they went because they were convicted of a felony. Much of that disparity in sentencing has been addressed. However, it is rational for a state to distinguish between one thing and another. To regard crack as a greater scourge to poor communities and therefore more deserving of harsh penalties is a rational policy choice. One can disagree but the author implies there is no basis for the distinction and that is false.

Originally Posted by tricky

Black men in the United States have a 32 percent chance of serving time in prison at some point in their lives, according to the Sentencing Project.

That's an idictment of black men not of our prison system.

[BigBallinColin]

stealing socks is a felony? stupid yes but a life sentence is retarded. I can see you have a black and white stance but being reasonable especially with money is better than being right. I have seen some people put on probation for murder and others put in jail for pot that isn't justice.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by BigBallinColin

stealing socks is a felony? stupid yes but a life sentence is retarded. I can see you have a black and white stance but being reasonable especially with money is better than being right. I have seen some people put on probation for murder and others put in jail for pot that isn't justice.

justice is dispensed locally - never forget that rule

the three strikes rule... mostly a fucked up joke but one does need to pile up three felonies. Further, just because some one gets charged w/a felony doesn't mean they get a strike. The DA has discretion as to whether they charger a felony as a strike felony... or at least did way back when I was there. Sounds mostly like this guy should have otherwise been struck, had a tremendous file of troublemaking etc etc etc.. basically... violated for the minor act caught and punished for the major acts not proven. Sentencing reports can take items not admissable in court into consideration for analysis and recommendation to the court.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Wilkerson

[BigBallinColin]

I just think prisons should be for the worst of the worst and not non violent offenders. I have a lot of problems with the system in general. no one ever pays their debt to society while others get away scott free. I don't know the story specifically and maybe you are right on this case but I am sure there are tons of cases that could be handled better for less money and ruin less lives in the process.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by BigBallinColin

I just think prisons should be for the worst of the worst and not non violent offenders.

No one would dispute that preference.

Originally Posted by BigBallinColin

I have a lot of problems with the system in general. no one ever pays their debt to society while others get away scott free.

You'll never get 100% crime prevention or detection coupled w/conviction much less uniform sentencing. It has been tried over and over. Guidelines exist and disparities even amongst counties in states range widely for the same set of operative facts.

You can wish for it but facts drive cases and sentencing and facts are as unique as the people who commit them.

Originally Posted by BigBallinColin

I don't know the story specifically and maybe you are right on this case but I am sure there are tons of cases that could be handled better for less money and ruin less lives in the process.

I'm certain mishandled cases are out there; both unnecessary overkill (rare) and inadequate sentencing (sadly more common.) Perfection is not attainable... progress towards greater justice is. We need the right yardstick. Our penal systems blah blah fucking blah

[BigBallinColin]

I totally agree, perfect is impossible but that treatment is a much better option than imprisonment and probably raped.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by BigBallinColin

I totally agree, perfect is impossible but that treatment is a much better option than imprisonment and probably raped.

CA for all intents and purposes doesn't jail it's low level drug offenders. As long as one is deemed a user and not a dealer all one needs to do is demonstrate a commitment to a program of sobriety (iirc) to stay out of jail. They'll be limitations on conduct like UAs, meetings, employment etc but they are essentially diverted out of the penal system. Cali's got way too many murderers that need beds to toss addicts into prison.

[BigBallinColin]

I was talking about texas, as far as personal experience goes.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by BigBallinColin

I was talking about texas, as far as personal experience goes.

Texas is a very different matter.

[Damnsammit]

Originally Posted by PETA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Wilkerson

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's not the guy who went to jail for sock theft.

[PETA]

ya think?

[tricky]

also

IN 1995, a year after Californians voted for a “three strikes and you’re out” law that guaranteed much tougher sentences for criminals who reoffend, Curtis Wilkerson stole a pair of socks that cost $2.50. This is usually counted as a misdemeanour, but a prosecutor in Los Angeles got it classed as a felony. Since Mr Wilkerson had already been convicted of abetting two robberies in 1981, when he was 19, his petty theft was counted as the third strike. He was sentenced to life in prison.

[Damnsammit]

Originally Posted by PETA

ya think?

Not really. I just thought it was funny that you posted it because I tried looking him up on Wikipedia after reading the original post and saw the baseball player.

Then I was like "WTF? Did I miss something?"