Column: Saving state money starts in prison
Published Feb. 26, 2010
The recent slow down in the economy has caught up with Missouri lawmakers, and that means budget cuts are inevitable. Unlike the federal government, the Missouri Constitution requires legislatures to keep a balanced budget. Using predicted revenue levels, lawmakers try to balance the budget for the next year.
Any revenue above what was budgeted is set aside in a rainy day fund, and when revenue falls below predictions, it is taken out of this fund and used to offset the loss. The Missouri state budget is $23 billion. General revenue for the state (taxes and the like) comes out to just less than $8 billion, and the legislature has to find a way to cut $1.3 billion from the budget.
With such a drastic budget cut underway, state government has to reduce its size. Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice Ray Price encouraged lawmakers to take a closer look at the cost of incarcerating nonviolent law offenders, during his State of the Judiciary speech earlier this month.
"Perhaps the biggest waste of resources in all of state government is the over-incarceration of nonviolent offenders," Price said.
House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Allen Icet, R-Wildwood, attempted to correct the budget by asking the Corrections Appropriations Committee for a $19 million cut from the corrections department. His cuts faced opposition from Rep. Michael Brown, D-Kansas City, and others who thought the cuts were too much.
Although these cuts might sound drastic or extreme, they have to be. To me, cutting the corrections budget sounds like a fair compromise. We should cut down on putting nonviolent offenders in jail so we can save funding for educational programs.
One great example is Gov. Jay Nixon's promise to not cut Missouri's higher education budget by more than 5 percent in exchange for a freeze on in-state tuition. When a recession hits, families have to change their spending habits, and so does our government.
Releasing nonviolent criminals who pose no threat to our society from jail is one way to drastically reduce government spending. Some might say releasing criminals from jail is scary, but the really scary part is when they go to jail in the first place.
These offenders go into violent jails and come out worse off than they started. After being released more than 40 percent of offenders will return to jail within two years.
By keeping nonviolent criminals out of jail, we ensure there is enough money to keep the violent criminals, who pose a real threat to society, behind bars. No, I am not for letting people who break the law off without any repercussions, just for making sure people truly pose a threat to society before locking them away.
During a budget crisis, such as the one Missouri is in right now, let's use alternative forms of punishment such as treatment programs or rehab facilities. Let's use this economic downturn to our advantage by finding more efficient ways to run government programs.
Maybe we can even find a program that helps rehabilitate criminals, so they do not perpetually stay in our prison center. Or we could just stick with eliminating funds for education and social programs to balance the budget, which is such a good idea.
Clay Carter is a sophomore finance major and can be reached at ccp6c@mail.missouri.edu
Comments (2)
5:42 p.m., Feb. 26, 2010
Brandon said:
Victimless crime laws are pointless. Prostitution, gambling, drugs, etc. should all be legal if done responsibly by informed adults who know what they're doing. As long as they're not hurting anyone, who cares? "Morality" or "family values" is no justification for locking people up. I don't consider a person who gets high as some kind of threat to me. That's their business. If some gay couple wants to marry, it does not in any affect MY relationship. Common Sense, come on now. Yes, what Carter has written in the past few weeks can be summed up as "gop talking points" in a nutshell. But haven't just about all the political columnists for the Maneater in the past few years (since I came to Mizzou in fall 2007) espoused what are basically Democratic or Republican talking points? Was Nate Kennedy any more of an "independent" liberal? I don't think so. Plus, he WAS an actual leader in College Dems. As well as the other Republican who was vice president or president of Jackson County Republicans and worked with College Republicans. Last semester we actually had an admitted Limbaugh dittohead (he admits it on his facebook, at least) writing the conservative column, if I recall. It's obvious the Maneater wants to continue this phony left-right paradigm and shut out ACTUAL outside-the-box discussion or debate. They don't want to encourage "too much" independent political thought. I applied once, and I'd say my political views and thought process are far more outside the box than most, if not all, of the past few year's political columnists here. I'm an Independent libertarian, for the most part. I have views from all sides of the aisle, and sometimes my views change. I constantly question my own views and put them under the microscope. You can bet your ass the typical Maneater columnists, esp. the political ones, rarely do that. They usually just identify with one party or the other and have knee-jerk reactions on certain issues.
10:09 a.m., Feb. 26, 2010
Common Sense said:
Clay, congratulations on writing something that is common sense and not GOP talking points for a change. Please make sure Sen Kurt Schaefer, R-CoMo, reads this before he continues on his K2 campaign. He is also pushing for "real sentencing" which would make the incarcerated serve their entire sentence instead of being let out early for good behavior, etc.