Resolving the Fiscal Crisis in the United States: Cutting the Corrections Spending - Research Paper Example

Of Resolving the Fiscal Crisis in the United s: Cutting the Corrections Spending Introduction For over three decades now, America continues to experience fiscal crisis and the burgeoning prison population. To solve these problems, it has been suggested to cut the corrections expenditure by reducing the prison crowd via the prisoners’ early release. On the surface, this solution appears to be practical, if not pragmatic. At the deeper level, however, the budget cut for correction spending poses several important issues; one of these is the threat to public safety. As prisoners are released earlier than expected, the community outside the prison space becomes too vulnerable for possible crimes to occur. Moreover, loopholes within the policy or law, involving early release for the criminals, could destroy the integrity of the judicial system. On the other hand of the scale, this paper argues that budget cut in corrections spending alleviates, at certain rate, the nation’s perennial crisis. Furthermore, this essay tackles the positive and negative results of cutting the corrections spending. Finally, this paper attempts to provide a synthesis to the good and bad sides of cutting the corrections expenditure. Concerning Cutting There are two major reasons why state politicians in general and the U. S. governors in particular adhere and support the budget cut for corrections spending: (1) the burgeoning prison crowd; and (2) the perennial fiscal crisis. First, the number of prisoners in the United States is expanding exponentially for the last three decades. Few noticed that the population in the U.S. prison is booming; in fact, it is the most conspicuous in contrast to the growth of corrections spending. In Connecticut alone, its prison population has dramatically increased from 4,800 to 19,500 within just two decades (McMahon). The chief factor concerning the booming prison population is arguably attributed to the state policy of “tough on crimes.” This state policy is grounded on the notion that the criminal ought to serve his or her jail time based from the nature of the crime he or she committed or the verdict given to him or her. Within the rule of tough on crime, the offender receives no special pardon or treatment -- his or her jail time, in particular, is not shortened -- even if he or she had been “good” in the state prison. While the offenders stay longer in their prison cell, a number of new prisoners come in. In the process, the state prison becomes overcrowded. The U.S. politicians and the rest of the American people become deeply disturbed by this unexpected, if not uncontrollable, phenomenon. Finally, the fiscal crisis that occurred, and continues to occur, in the United States puts the legislators to thinking about cutting the corrections spending (Gramlich; Associated Press; McMahon). The crisis that hit America forces the state politicians to review the current framework of distributing or allocating the state and federal budget to several key sectors. Some of these budgeters considered cutting the corrections spending as a way of resolving the economic woes of America. It has been observed that the corrections budget is dramatically increasing almost every Federal Year. Rep. Michael Lawler states that, “We now spend more on our prisons than our colleges” (McMahon). Not to mention, corrections spending is third to the highest that receives the bulk of America’s monetary resources. With the growing crime rate, on the other hand, it has been perceived that increasing the corrections spending does not translate to solving the crime-related problems. Few suggested to re-channel the allocation for corrections budget to other more important sectors such as, but not limited to, education. Education, some contended, is the right avenue for the U.S. budget to go to. In educating the youth, crimes will lessen if not significantly be eradicated. Of Good Side There are several positive results in cutting and re-channeling the corrections budget: (1) other much important sectors (i.e., education and health care) will largely benefit from such state policy/act; (2) the population growth in state prison will dramatically decrease; and (3) the number of crimes will essentially be lessened. First, the portion or part from the correction-budget cut will be redirected to other more vital spheres of civil life. Other than the health care, the sector of education will be revitalized as a result of cutting corrections spending. The state of education in America today requires further allocation in order to support programs that fundamentally alleviate the social and economic conditions of the marginalized people. Although budget for education is generally high -- in contrast, there are states that spend more money on correction rather than on education (Associated Press) -- additional increase of allocation via correction-budget cut could facilitate the poverty-stricken youth to go to school and eventually land a decent and regular job. In focusing the education of the American children, for whatever their creed or breed, crime and violence could gradually diminished, if not avoided. Second, cutting the corrections spending would compel the U.S. Judiciary System in general and the prosecutors in particular to enforce or implement a policy that is “soft” to the nonviolent offenders. As the case today, the budget cut is a direct response to the need to depopulate the prison place (Associated Press; McMahon). In depopulating the correctional facility, the required budget for the corrections sector will eventually be lessened. Thus, monetary expenditure requires no further increase with few prisoners to feed, care, and other scores of bodily needs. And with little number of criminals, the state will no longer be overburdened to spend a great amount of budget allocation for such sector. Finally, the number of crimes will significantly not increase if proper procedure and policy are strictly followed and established in the process of the nonviolent offenders’ early release. Under the proposed program/policy, the offender who committed crime -- except those violent and/or sex-related crimes -- leaves the prison with a better tomorrow. Floyd Prozanski contends that “it makes perfect sense” to release prisoners earlier than their supposedly jail time only if they complete “transition program” (qtd. in Gramlich). If states promote and pursue a transition program for the preparation of the nonviolent prisoners’ release, then the civilian populace no longer has to worry about the so-called recidivism. Pat Nolan states that the early release of the nonviolent offender without preparation is not only dangerous for the American public but also “cruel” for the offender him- or herself (qtd. in Associated Press). Of Bad Side Cutting the corrections spending has many and varied criticisms from the other side of the camp, so to speak: (1) it will diminish the services allotted for this sector; (2) it is not the answer to the problem of prison overcrowding; and (3) the number of crimes will uninterruptedly increase. First, the number of crimes is not lowering. Moreover, the correctional facilities are too small in space for the burgeoning population of the prisoners. It seems contradictory to lessen the budget supposedly allocated for the corrections spending while crimes and criminals increase in greater number. And not just space, cutting the corrections budget automatically includes reducing the budget for the maintenance and operation of the prison place. The corrections’ spending does not only concern about the prisoners or offenders but also about the facilitators and the correction personnel as well (Abramsky). It may be true that offenders receive, directly or indirectly, a handsome amount from corrections budget, nevertheless, other key personnel (i.e., correction officials) are, by necessity, part and parcel of such spending. Thus, to cut the budget allocated for the correction sector is to open or augur a catastrophic crisis within the prison walls. Second, budget cut is not the solution to the problem involving prison overcrowd. It seems that cutting the corrections spending is driven mainly for the reason of resolving the fiscal crisis. In effect, the budget cut does not offer any persuasive logos: to solve the root of crimes. It is true that the allocation for the correction sector is somewhat high; and so is the health care sector. But this is not a matter of which is which: higher. The status of the correction budget needs it to be high in order to establish and maintain, within the society, its peace and order. Peace is not only priceless but also costly for its attainment, if not maintenance. Furthermore, this budget cut will not depopulate the prison overcrowding. Without adequate budget, the correctional facilities and other important services characterized in the corrections spending will be depleted, if not an additional dilemma for the congesting prison cell. Finally, the number of crimes will increase if correction budget is cut via the prisoner’s early release. Take the case of the serial killer named Henry Louis Wallace. Convicted of burglary in 1988, Wallace was able to avail for an early release (Block and Twist). Also in 1990, he was released eight days later after his arrest for the crime of an attempted rape, in a gunpoint, to a 16-year-old girl. Over and over again, Wallace kept on repeating the same crime, and kept on availing for an early release characterized in the “pre-trial intervention” program. For the record, Henry Louis Wallace killed eleven (11) women. Essentially, early release for the criminals (e.g., Wallace) jeopardizes public safety. Putting the offenders to prison “for long stretches” significantly results to low crime rate (“Florida Links”). Weighing the Balance Fiscal crisis is inevitable especially in America. And to resolve this crisis is, without question, a must. To cut a portion of the corrections’ expenditure is one of the many ways of unloading the burden marked by fiscal crisis. The health care, education, and correction sectors are the top three sectors that receive the highest allocation in the United States (Abramsky; McMahon). Undoubtedly, the highest priority for this great nation apparently gets the highest importance, which is expressible in money. The sectors in health care and education should, to my mind, remain in the top two sectors that receive the lion’s share of the nation’s resources. On the other hand, the budget for the corrections spending should “level” the needs of its constituents, both prisoners and personnel. Of what this level is, it necessarily concerns to the physical and/or biological needs of these constituents; and to cut the budget for corrections’ spending does not invariably translate to diminishing the services provided by and for such sector, particularly if the leveling (budget = needs) is significantly meet. While a number of nonviolent offenders are released earlier than their original jail time, the budget for corrections’ expenditure levels with, if not becomes lighter to, the needs of the existing or present correction-based people. No doubt, cutting the corrections budget is not the only solution for the fiscal crisis. It is, in fact, an additional crisis (essentially social) for the nation. The solution to the seemingly riddle of prison overcrowding is to seek and learn the fundamental root/s of crime. Crime per se, indeed, is utterly complicated; but so is human society. If we, human beings in general, are able to discern or grapple the basic nature of crime, perhaps we will be able to diminish, if not totally eradicate, the problem associated to prison overpopulation. Admittedly, that is a mere wishful thinking. Ultimately, the problem with budget cut in general and early release of prisoners in particular is whether or not this will pose real threat to the public safety and thereby undermine the judicial system. Even the modifier “nonviolent” in the phrase “nonviolent drug offender” poses a question. At certain extent, “violent” criminals -- in finding a loophole in the state provision -- might be released earlier than expected. The case of Henry Louis Wallace is an example to this. On the other hand, Wallace case cannot be oversimplified. It must be remembered that the victims of Wallace are black and poor women. This implies that the threat to public safety is not directly connected to the early release of the offenders. Apparently, racism importantly plays a vital role in the sentencing disparity. At the end, the crucial issue here is the content of the law, its interpretations, and implementation. Conclusion Cutting the corrections spending essentially helps the local economy of a specific state. As correction budget is reduced, other much relevant sectors of the society are revitalized in depth and breadth. Also, this budget cut does not jeopardize the public safety only if laws and actions are taken in their proper place. Of course, peace and order in general and public safety in particular must be the utmost priority for any state or country. Nevertheless, cutting the corrections expenditure does not mechanically undermine the judicial system. The prison place should, theoretically, be a venue for offenders to change their characters into something beneficial and healthy for the community at large. If proven that offenders are behaving inside the prison cell, then to reduce their jail time “makes a perfect sense” to a rational person. Still, the state has to help, economically and ethically, the offender rise in his or her transition: from the shackles of prison to the free society. Works Cited Abramsky, Sasha. “No Resources, No Results.” The American Prospect. The American Prospect, 1 Dec. 2003. Web. 2 Nov. 2010. . Associated Press. “States Ponder Early Release for some Prisoners.” msnbc.com. msnbc.com, 10 Jan. 2009. Web. 2 Nov. 2010. . Block, Michael K., and Steven J. Twist. “Lessons from the Eighties: Incarceration Works.” Common Sense 1 (1994): 77. “Florida Links Falling Crime Rate to Lock-Up.” Corrections Digest 37.26 (2003): 3. Web. 2 Nov. 2010. . Gramlich, John. “States Using Early Release of Prisoners to Save Money.” newjerseynewsroom.com. newjerseynewsroom, 1 Mar. 2010. Web. 2 Nov. 2010. . McMahon, Patrick. “States Cut Inmates Loose to Cut Costs.” EBSCO. USA Today, 11 Aug. 2003. Web. 2 Nov. 2010. . Read More