WASHINGTON – Incarcerating nonviolent offenders is taking up more than just beds in federal prisons: It’s eating up a big portion of the federal budget, a situation that experts say is likely to get worse unless Congress makes some changes in federal policies.
Nearly one-third of the Department of Justice’s proposed budget for fiscal 2013 is allocated to federal prisons and detentions, an increase of more than 4 percent from 2012. Meanwhile, law enforcement spending is set to decrease 0.3 percent from the prior year.
Experts at a Senate hearing Wednesday agreed that mandatory minimum sentences for drug convictions are largely to blame for overcrowding and an increasing prison budget. Drug offenses alone account for 48 percent of the current inmate population in federal prisons.
“Beds are taken by individuals who are on minimum mandatory…beds that can be better utilized for those serving time for violent crimes in our community,” said Edward Davis, commissioner for Boston Police Department.
Jeffrey Sedgwick, an assistant attorney general in the Bush administration, said minimum sentencing for drug offenses is “a misuse of resources.”
“We make a big mistake on dealing with drugs when we treat all drugs the same and as if they have the same effect on a community,” Sedgwick said.
For the past decade, the federal government has emphasized zero tolerance for crime and tough sentencing, according to Brett Tolman, former U.S. attorney in Utah.
But he said tough sentencing only exacerbates problems and recommended a focus on reducing recidivism for individuals who could likely be rehabilitated. Otherwise, he said, “we will continue to warehouse those citizens” in prisons. Recidivism refers to recurring behavior by criminals that lands them back behind bars.
“You can impact those while they are incarcerated so that there’s not just a revolving door,” he said.
But coming up with a solution to federal prison overcrowding and recidivism isn’t easy. Tolman touted Texas for its diversion and treatment programs, which offer alternatives to prosecution and seem to have decreased its incarceration rate. But each expert acknowledged there isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution.
“It’s easy to find particular programs that appear to be working in a particular setting,” Sedgwick said. “It’s difficult to find programs you can scale up to a national setting.
“I’d be hard-pressed to come up with four to five programs that we could implement tomorrow that would have a direct impact on recidivism rates,” he said.
But it’s much easier to identify what doesn’t work.
“Simply letting people out of jail early is not going to solve the problem,” Davis said.
According to Tolman, states that decide to simply expand “good time,” a sentence reduction for good behavior, do not experience a reduction in crime rate or recidivism.
“There must be a system to assess individuals differently,” Tolman said.