“The facts of crime and punishment in the United States are staring us in the face.

For 20 years, American state and local governments have turned away from rehabilitation programs deemed too ”soft” on crime, and pursued a strategy of locking up as many criminals as possible in the most secure facilities we could construct.”

By Dan Feldman, 3 Oct 1987, NY Times Archives

In New York, and many other states, these ”tough” policies have produced a combination of large-scale prison overcrowding without meaningful reductions in our crime rate. It is time to admit that the dominant anticrime policies of the 1970’s and 1980’s have created a fiscal and programmatic time bomb.

After years of increased sentences, and an extraordinary drain on our state’s treasury, we need to acknowledge that longer sentences do not deter most crime.

The New York State prison population has gone from 12,500 in the early 1970’s to more than 40,000 today. Yet our crime rate is not significantly lower now than it was in 1970. This is true in spite of increased sentences and a decrease in the percentage of the population in the ”crime prone” 16- to 30-year-old age group, which some demographers predicted would reduce crime rates all by itself.

Our experience in New York is not an anomaly. The United States now has the highest rate of incarceration of any technologically advanced country in the world except for the Soviet Union and South Africa.

Except for some extremely poor Caribbean, Latin American and African countries, we also have the highest violent-crime rate.

This does not prove that high rates of incarceration cause high crime rates, but it surely indicates that high rates of incarceration don’t cause low crime rates.

In addition to facing the stark reality of our mistaken reliance on longer sentences as a deterrent, we also need to acknowledge that the kind of treatment criminals receive from the state can affect their subsequent conduct.

In other words, some rehabilitation programs – inside and outside of prison walls – do work.

There are some individuals who clearly need to be removed from society. Outside of this relatively small group, we now need to consider that alternatives to incarceration are less expensive and that they provide critical opportunities for those who can reform.

Adherents of this new approach to penology can be found in surprising places. Corrections systems in some of the most conservative states in the country have begun to move away from policies based on the premise that ”tougher” sentences reduce crime.

Georgia, a state traditionally known for tough sentences and tough judges, has instituted a program of ”intensive probation supervision” as an alternative to incarceration. Preliminary reports indicate that the recidivism rate for offenders placed in this program is far lower than that of their counterparts who go to prison. Texas, New Hampshire and California have recently enacted similar programs.

The rationale for these programs is partly fiscal – it costs far less to put someone on probation, or in a halfway house – than to lock them up.

The expansion of alternatives to incarceration also reflects a growing recognition that a portion of our criminal population will respond to opportunities for rehabilitation, if we make them available. In fact, it is increasingly apparent that more emphasis on rehabilitation may actually help reduce crime. While raising the direct cost of crime by increasing sentences doesn’t appear to have much deterrent effect, raising the opportunity cost of crime has, in a number of well-documented experiments, demonstrated a substantial potential to deter crime. In other words, people have a strong tendency to refrain from committing crimes not simply when the cost is going to prison but rather when a trip to prison means giving up rewarding job or family relationships. The jobs don’t have to be as physicists or corporate executives, either.

The so-called wildcat employment program has placed ex-offenders in jobs as security guards at a major metropolitan college, whose president says their record of integrity over the past several years stands up well in comparison with any other security force. The Kennedy School of Government at Harvard says the recidivism rate for ex-offenders in the wildcat program within a year after release is 1 percent, not the usual 20 percent.

The New York State Assemblyrecently passed legislation establishing two programs – earned eligibility and shock incarceration – which would provide effective punishment, while reducing our prison population and providing opportunities for those offenders who are receptive to changing their ways.

The earned eligibility program provides that qualified inmates who successfully complete their assigned work, vocational, drug treatment or educational programs receive certificates of earned eligibility, entitling them to release from prison at the expiration of their minimum sentence unless the parole board determines that they are not likely to remain at liberty without violating the law.

Similarly, shock incarceration offers selected males under the age of 24 immediate consideration for release by the parole board upon satisfactory completion of a six-month regime of intensive physical training, drug abuse counseling and high school education courses.

Unfortunately, we continue to encounter resistance to such programs from those who cling to the idea that longer sentences and even more massive expenditures for prison cells are the only sound penal philosophy.

We will never build our way out of the present crisis with new prison cells. If we continue to experiment with promising alternative programs, we may find the solution we seek. We need to work quickly, because New York’s prison time bomb is ticking away. Alternative programs do the job better. Longer Sentences Do Not Deter Crime Dan Feldman, Democrat of Brooklyn, is chairman of the New York State Assembly Corrections Committee.

By Dan Feldman The facts of crime and punishment in the United States are staring us in the face.

For 20 years, American state and local governments have turned away from rehabilitation programs deemed too ”soft” on crime, and pursued a strategy of locking up as many criminals as possible in the most secure facilities we could construct.

In New York, and many other states, these ”tough” policies have produced a combination of large-scale prison overcrowding without meaningful reductions in our crime rate.

It is time to admit that the dominant anticrime policies of the 1970’s and 1980’s have become extraordinarily expensive and are not working properly.

After years of increased sentences, and an extraordinary drain on our state’s treasury, we need to acknowledge that longer sentences do not deter most crime.

The New York State prison population has gone from 12,500 in the early 1970’s to more than 40,000 today. Yet our crime rate is not significantly lower now than it was in 1970. This is true in spite of increased sentences and a decrease in the percentage of the population in the ”crime prone” 16- to 30-year-old age group, which some demographers predicted would reduce crime rates all by itself.

Our experience in New York is not an anomaly. The United States now has the highest rate of incarceration of any technologically advanced country in the world except for the Soviet Union and South Africa.

Except for some extremely poor Caribbean, Latin American and African countries, we also have the highest violent-crime rate.

This does not prove that high rates of incarceration cause high crime rates, but it surely indicates that high rates of incarceration don’t cause low crime rates.

In addition to facing the stark reality of our mistaken reliance on longer sentences as a deterrent, we also need to acknowledge that the kind of treatment criminals receive from the state can affect their subsequent conduct. In other words, some rehabilitation programs – inside and outside of prison walls – do work.

There are individuals who clearly need to be removed from society. Outside of this relatively small group, we now need to consider that alternatives to incarceration are less expensive and that they provide critical opportunities for those who can reform.

Adherents of this new approach to penology can be found in surprising places. Corrections systems in some of the most conservative states in the country have begun to move away from policies based on the premise that ”tougher” sentences reduce crime. Georgia, a state traditionally known for tough sentences and tough judges, has instituted a program of ”intensive probation supervision” as an alternative to incarceration. Preliminary reports indicate that the recidivism rate for offenders in this program is far lower than that of their counterparts who go to prison. Texas, New Hampshire and California have recently enacted similar programs.

The rationale for these programs is partly fiscal – it costs far less to put someone on probation, or in a halfway house – than to lock them up.

The expansion of alternatives to incarceration also reflects a growing recognition that a portion of our criminal population will respond to opportunities for rehabilitation if we make them available. In fact, it is increasingly apparent that more emphasis on rehabilitation may actually help reduce crime.

While raising the direct cost of crime by increasing sentences does not appear to have much deterrent effect, raising the opportunity cost of crime has, in a number of well-documented experiments, demonstrated a substantial potential to deter crime. In other words, people have a strong tendency to refrain from committing crimes not simply when the cost is going to prison but rather when a trip to prison means giving up rewarding job or family relationships. The jobs don’t have to be as physicists or corporate executives, either.

The so-called wildcat employment program has placed ex-offenders in jobs as security guards at a major metropolitan college, whose president says their record of integrity over the past several years stands up well in comparison with any other security force. The John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University says the recidivism rate for ex-offenders in the wildcat program within a year after release is 1 percent, not the usual 20 percent.

The New York State Assembly recently passed legislation establishing two programs – earned eligibility and shock incarceration – which would provide effective punishment while reducing our prison population and providing opportunities for those offenders who are receptive to changing their ways.

The earned eligibility program provides that qualified inmates who successfully complete their assigned work, vocational, drug treatment or educational programs receive certificates of earned eligibility, entitling them to release from prison at the expiration of their minimum sentence unless the parole board determines that they are not likely to remain at liberty without violating the law.

Similarly, shock incarceration offers selected males under the age of 24 immediate consideration for release by the parole board upon satisfactory completion of a six-month regime of intensive physical training, drug abuse counseling and high school education courses.

Unfortunately, we continue to encounter resistance to such programs from those who cling to the idea that longer sentences and even greater expenditures for prison cells are the only sound penal philosophy.

We will never build our way out of the present crisis with new prison cells. If we continue to experiment with promising alternative programs, we may find the solution we seek.

Dan Feldman, Democrat of Brooklyn, was chairman of the New York State Assembly Corrections Committee.

Travis Hiland, ReFraming Justice