Most public spending decisions involve some measure of oversight. The criminal justice system is an exception. The cost of incarcerating one person in prison for a single year in California is nearly $31,000. Yet, in sentencing offenders to prison, judges are not expected to -- indeed, they are not statutorily permitted to -- consider cost.
Why should this be? After all, politicians are routinely grilled on how they intend to pay for proposals to expand healthcare, education or other social programs. In most spheres of government, it is understood that benefits have to be weighed against costs. But when it comes to criminal justice, safety and peace of mind are precious commodities, and the assumption is that they justify the expenditure not just of substantial sums but of whatever it takes.
The result is the $5.7-billion-a-year Department of Corrections, the largest state agency in California.
Granted, murderers, rapists and child molesters should be locked away at any cost. But should we really do the same in cases involving nonviolent crimes such as drug possession and theft?
Given the significant costs of incarceration and the demands of mandatory sentencing schemes such as three strikes, isn't it appropriate to give thought to introducing cost into the sentencing equation?
Simple possession of a controlled substance provides an apt starting point. When punished with imprisonment, the crime carries a sentence of 16 months, two years or three years. A two-year sentence, or the "mid-term" as it is referred to in the parlance of criminal practice, translates to a cost of nearly $62,000.
The price jumps significantly if the offender has prior convictions; a three-strikes sentence -- which requires a minimum of 25 years in prison -- costs more than $750,000, before adjustment for inflation.
Even when parole and the moderating effect of Proposition 36, the initiative that provides an opportunity for drug treatment, are factored in, the fiscal effect remains enormous. Eight and a half percent of the prison population (or more than 13,000 people) are serving prison sentences for simple possession of drugs. Is this a reasonable expenditure? Is it worth the cost to society to keep drug users off the streets (especially when the cost of incarcerating drug offenders outstrips all but the most exclusive private rehabilitation clinics)?
