Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, February 4, 1993 TAG: 9302040395
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A8 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
THE COST OF BEING TOUGH ON CRIME
DEL. "CHIP" Woodrum of Roanoke is right: Demagogic lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key proposals, which abound particularly in election years, can have major financial consequences for taxpayers. When politicians preen with tough-on-crime legislation, the public should be forewarned about the potential costs.Woodrum has introduced a bill that, effective in 1994, would require 10-year cost estimates for any legislation that would increase prison sentences. Additionally, money to cover the highest single-year cost would have to be appropriated before the tougher sentences could be imposed.
"I think of it as `pay as you incarcerate,' " says Woodrum. "People who want to be tough on crime ought to belly up to the bar and take responsibility" for the fiscal burden with which they are saddling state and local governments.
One doesn't have to look far to see the inspiration for Woodrum's bill. Roanoke's city jail is packed to the brim, as are most other local jails. So too are state prisons.
To be sure, this is a consequence of proliferating guns and drugs and related violence. But it is also the result of mandatory sentencing laws and other tough-on-crime policies that are the General Assembly's typical response to increased crime.
As Woodrum points out, as recently as 1981 - when he was a freshman member of the House of Delegates - state prisons had 9,897 inmates and state spending for adult prisoners was $89 million. By 1991, the number of state-prison inmates had jumped to 20,460. The cost of incarcerating them had soared to $286 million. And this figure doesn't include prison-construction costs, or costs associated with arrests and trials.
By the year 2000, it's estimated that current sentencing laws will result in a population of 30,000 inmates in the state penal system - or about 10,000 more than now. It is high time lawmakers who push for longer sentences weighed the fiscal consequences.
Woodrum's bill, patterned after a Tennessee law, would not affect numerous proposals offered this year to combat violent crime. (At the behest of the National Rifle Association, for instance, some lawmakers have sponsored bills to stiffen penalties for gun-related crimes as an alternative to gun-control proposals. Rather than do something to prevent gun-related violence, the NRA prefers to catch the culprits after the fact and throw them in the slammer.)
Perhaps Woodrum's rules should be applied to this year's batch of crime legislation. The reality, however, is that there's not enough time left in the session to do fiscal-impact statements on all the bills.
Even so, his measure should be enacted this year, for two reasons. First, it may serve to remind political candidates - and the public - that talk is cheap but get-tough-on-crime proposals can carry a heavy price tag.
Second, with Woodrum's bill on the books, the next governor, attorney general and General Assembly may begin to engage in serious cost-benefit analysis of anti-crime measures.
Even cursory analysis of this sort would reveal the need for greater investment in crime- prevention strategies and sensible alternatives to incarceration. From the public's standpoint, the sooner such analysis is performed and acted on, the better.