Page images
PDF
EPUB

FOOTNOTES

1Coleman McCarthy, "The World Learns America's Dirty Secret, Its Prisons,' Los Angeles Times, March 20, 1979, p. 5.

2James L. Potts, "Alternative Punishment for Being Poor Won't Reduce Crime. A Proposal for Non-Correctional Alternatives to Punishment, The Prison Law Monitor, 160, Nov. Dec., 1979.

3Ira M. Lowe, Esq., Testimony before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Senate Judiciary Committee, Oct. 5, 1979.

4L.A. Nkoloric, "Getting Tough' With All Convicts Is a Prescription for More Crime," The Washington Post, Oct. 14, 1979. 5Thomas Whittle, exclusive to Freedom News Journal, 23 March, 79. 6"When Will It Happen Again," Newsweek, 70, Feb. 18, 1980.

7 Ibid., p. 68.

8"The Killing Ground," Newsweek, 66

68, February 18, 1980.

CITIZENS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO PRISON

CITIZENS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO PRISON
307 Yoakum Parkway, Suite #1717. Alexandria, Virginia 22304
Telephone: (703) 379-1171. Answering Service, Unit #3-1717: (703) 370-0100

October 29, 1979

Subcommittee Members and Staff
Criminal Justice Subcommittee
Judiciary Committee

U. S. House of Representatives

People:

The following is a summary of studies which demonstrate that utilization of sentencing alternatives can be responsibly, substantially increased. Britain has demonstrated that courts can successfully match offenders to suitable alternative programs, which reduces recidivism, which has a multiple reduction effect on the crime rate. Many U. S. alternative programs exercise tight control over program participants and thereby provide excellent security to the community. Many alternative programs are available which can upgrade offender job-skills and thereby reduce unemployment, as well as reduce the micro-economic incentives for criminal activities. At this time, there is sufficiently solid justification for you to enact legislation providing for the full utilization of suitable alternative programs.

NCJRS numbers have been provided in most of the footnotes in the Appendix to facilitate your acquisition of the full text of the studies cited, from either the Department of Justice or the LEAA library.

You may also refer to my October 5, 1979 testimony before the U. S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

INDEX

Alternative Programs can save a Substantial Amount of

Tax Money,

P. 1

Can Alternatives to Imprisonment Deter Crime as Effectively
as Imprisonment?

P. 3

Can Alternatives to Prison Provide More Effective Punishment
than Imprisonment? P. 7

Alternative Programs Can Provide Excellent Security to
the Community, P. 8

Reducing Recidivism with Alternatives to Prison Will Reduce
the Crime Rate, P. 10

Alternatives Coupled with Probation Can Greatly Increase
Deterrence and Reduce Recidivism over Probation Alone, P. 18

Can Public Opinion Accept Alternatives to Imprisonment,

P. 20

Does the Authority to Impose Alternatives to Imprisonment Need
to be Legislated? P. 22

Sentencing Provisions for Legislation, P. 24

References, See Appendix

Alternative Programs Can Save

A Substantial Amount of Tax Money

By lifting the current presumption against alternatives, sentencing judges would be able to substitute alternative programs for short terms of imprisonment, and shorten longer terms of imprisonment by adding alternative service as a split sentence. There are very few alternatives which are as expensive as imprisonment. Many alternatives actually provide a substantial benefit to the community. Cost-benefit analysis of community service shows that alternatives return at least two to three times their cost in services to the community. It takes only a small amount of ingenuity to find a low-cost alternative which will benefit both the community and the offender.

In contrast, the Department of Corrections in the District 2 of Columbia spent $24,790 per inmate per year in 1974. The 3

1

cost of a year's lost taxes, a percentage of the cost of AFDC, the costs of the period of unemployment after release, the costs of Medicaid, and the costs of the interest on the budget deficit are not even included in this figure. Recent economic pressures have made the cost of imprisonment considerably more expensive than alternatives. The fact that prisons are now well known to be ineffective in reducing recidivism, and that long terms of imprisonment are not effective in deterring crime, makes the

consideration of alternatives to imprisonment especially important.

The District of Columbia is listed as the single jurisdiction with the highest rate of imprisonment in the World, 926 prisoners per 100,000 population. The Republic of South Africa has a

rate of 400 per 100,000; the United States 250; Russia 391 and

the European countries have between 20 and 85 prisoners per
5
100,000 population. European countries have enacted strong
legislation requiring the utilization of alternatives whenever
6

appropriate alternatives are available.

« PreviousContinue »