How Florida Governor-elect Rick Scott Should Cut the Corrections Budget
While I join in the applause, I go further and suggest that the soon to be governor should replicate this model within the adult system as well.
Scott, who drew the ire of some law enforcement officials during his campaign for suggesting severe cuts in the Department of Corrections budget, may find opposition among some fellow Republicans who may fear being labeled “soft on crime” should they support measures that would lessen sentences or decriminalize certain acts.
But the truth is that those who labor within the criminal justice system—the lawyers, judges and probation officers who must deal with the annual “get tough” legislative saber rattling, realize the awesome costs in dollars and cents of locking everyone away while deemphasizing rehabilitative programs within the prison system.
This past Fall, one of the most opprobrious campaign commercials during Rick Scott’s hotly contested battle against Democrat Alex Sink was an ad depicting a motley crew of criminals laughing as they are released from a fictional prison while reciting Scott’s “Let’s Get to Work” theme outside of the prison walls.
The problem with this commercial is that we all can agree that the most violent offenders should not be considered for sentence reductions or alternative sentencing.
The problem is that there are certain other crimes that are far less heinous, but result in significant prison time for the offender, prison time that must be paid for by taxpayers. Perhaps the most successful aspect of the “get tough” on crime movement that swept through the legislature after the spate of tourist murders in the 1990’s is that violent crimes—murders, rapes and burglaries with persons assaulted—are decreasing. One can argue that mandatory sentencing and publicity campaigns have sunk in for some criminals.
Another legacy of the mid-90’s is that sentences were enhanced and guidelines made more rigorous across the board. An example includes prison sentences for felony driving with a suspended license, economic crimes such as public assistance fraud and grand theft, and of course the perennial elephant in the room, lengthy prison stays for drug addicts.
As to felony driving with a suspended license, I remain in awe as offenders are sentenced to 18 months or more for driving with a suspended license. While the reasons that licenses are suspended in the first place may vary from too many speeding tickets to failure to pay child support, I have long felt that the nature of this offense is civil in nature, meaning that we should fine the person and garnish wages—not rehash the old debtors’ prisons from England.
With respect to public assistance fraud and economic crimes, of course there are instances in which the severity of the amount defrauded requires imprisonment. No, my concern is for those in jail or prison facilities for nominal sums. These offenders should be allowed to remain free but subject to electronic monitoring, as well as wage or benefit garnishment to repay the debt.
Last, while I believe that those who sell narcotics are dangers to society and should be treated similarly to violent offenders with respect to incarceration, I harbor grave concerns about the number of drug addicts that are sentenced to prison each year. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the modern era of prohibition is our inability to comprehend that drug addiction is a disease. With lean budgets eliminating the amount of services available to treat drug addiction, particularly for those dually diagnosed with mental health disorders; it leads me to conclude that perhaps these offenders would be better served by increased drug diversion courts across the state.
Another major reform that the Scott administration must consider is by following the lead of the Federal government in making sentencing guidelines less rigid. As it currently stands, state judges are often forced to sentence offenders to prison unless the defendant can establish one of several “mitigating” factors. These factors include remorse, lack of sophistication of the crime, the need for restitution and substantial assistance in solving other crimes, to name a few. The problem is not so much about judges in this instance, rather, the issue is prosecutors, many of whom will sympathize with defense counsel during negotiations about the lack of seriousness of a given case but who also realize that their office policy requires them to show great deference to the guidelines or sentencing enhancers like 10-20-Life.
Further, perhaps it is time that Florida considers following Missouri’s lead in providing information to courts about the costs of incarceration for certain offenses so that judges, when deciding an appropriate sentence, can determine whether it is smart to spend upwards of $20,000.00 to incarcerate someone for driving with a suspended license.
While these reforms may not be popular, particularly in small towns in which the prison system is the primary industry, the potential for private outgrowth for services, from monitoring of offenders to support for other diversionary programs like work camps, in time will allow Florida to reduce state spending within the Department of Corrections while also spurring private sector growth to help punish and or rehabilitate those accused of non-violent criminal offenses.
