Is this country getting emptier, or is it just me? A study released last week might help explain this trend.
The land of the free has a long history of being No. 1 - especially when it comes to incarcerating its citizens. For quite a few years we have ranked first in this arena, but now we are taking this record to even greater heights.
According to state-by-state data collected by the Pew Center during 2007, more than two million Americans were serving time in correctional institutions at the beginning of 2008.
That number makes us first in the world - in both total number and per capita. China, for example, a nation of over a billion people, has only 1.5 million incarcerated prisoners.
The United States currently accounts for 25 percent of the world's total prison population, and, as of this year, one in every 100 Americans is serving time in jail.
In the last 20 years, the amount of federal funds necessary to house our nation's prison population has swollen from under $11 billion to over $49 billion. That is quite an increase - a six times greater increase than funding for higher education. And while our bridges and other infrastructures may be falling apart, the prison-industrial complex is riding high.
More importantly, are we getting what we pay for? The homicide rate has remained stable over the last few decades, but is still nearly four times higher than that of Western European nations. In the last two decades, the number of U.S. prisoners has tripled, yet there has been only a slight drop in national crime rates.
The growing number of prisoners is not caused by increased crime in the United States, but rather due to increased sentences and harsher punishments. While being tough on crime"" has made good fodder for political speeches, in reality the lock-them-up-and-throw-away-the-key approach is not justifiable under the law, cost effective or even effective at reducing crime.
Don't worry, I'm not suggesting we throw the prison doors open and let violent criminals stream out into your neighborhoods. There are always going to be some individuals who must be incarcerated - murders, rapists, etc.
Even so, there are over a million non-violent criminals for whom an alternative to incarceration is a viable option. This number includes countless scores of non-violent inmates serving time for drug possession.
First of all, we should stop sending people to prison for marijuana offenses. In the last 15 years, we have moved from a president who admitted to smoking marijuana, but never inhaling, to a viable candidate who admits to having ""inhaled frequently,"" adding, ""that was the point.""
Perhaps it is time for our laws to reflect the general consensus in this country that while marijuana may be harmful, it is at least no more so than tobacco or alcohol. Relaxed punishments of marijuana and other ""soft drugs"" in the Netherlands has resulted in lower rates of both drug abuse and imprisonment.
Regardless of how you feel about drug policy in the United States, perhaps we could all agree these individuals would benefit more from being treated as addicts rather than as criminals.
Currently, among those serving time for drug related offenses, there is a 60 percent recidivism rate. Treatment outside of prison could be a far more effective and less costly alternative to incarceration.
Right now, we spend around $20,000 a year per inmate. This funding ensures inmates are not only fed, but also have access to free healthcare, vocational training, higher education and therapy.
That's right, only the 2.3 million incarcerated Americans have access to universal health care.
Perhaps it is even more ironic these same individuals are the only ones with access to free vocational training and the possibility for free higher education. These measures are in place because it is widely believed that mentally and physically healthy individuals - with applicable job training, education and vocational skills - are far less likely to be repeat offenders when released back into society. Statistics show that these measures are generally successful, and I wholeheartedly agree with the programs.
However, this begs the greater question:
Why don't we extend the same privileges to our citizens who aren't incarcerated?
It seems that giving citizens on the outside access to these privileges might be a better solution than the current stop-gap system which waits for them to commit a crime before making these opportunities available.
Instead of spending $49 billion a year to keep people in prison, perhaps that money could go to education and health care for people who abide by the law.
Regardless, at this rate, with 47 million Americans lacking adequate health care and facing the general lack of access to higher education, it seems more than likely that before too long, the non-incarcerated American population may have neither the health nor the necessary funds to continue supporting the prison system in its current manifestation.
Perhaps there is a silver lining to this situation. Wisconsin is one of only 14 states which actually decreased its prison population in 2007.
Even though prison population dropped by almost 4 percent, the state nonetheless still spends nearly 7 percent of its general fund dollars on the prison system.
In the following years we should expect to see many states beginning to follow suit by redirecting non-violent prisoners into rehabilitation and community service programs. In light of thinning budgets, many states are finally noticing that the anachronistic system of being tough on crime is, in reality, ineffective and much tougher on tax payers.
Matt Jividen is a senior majoring in
history. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
