In light of the budgetary pressures and constraints faced by all levels of government, how would you justify increased expenditures on prison treatment and rehabilitation programs to the tax-paying public

Dec 16, 2016

TITLE:  “In light of the budgetary pressures and constraints faced by all levels of government, how would you justify increased expenditures on prison treatment and rehabilitation programs to the tax-paying public?”

Many sections of the United States government have experienced unprecedented cuts to their budgets during the Great Recession over the past several years. Some education departments have experienced double-digit percent cuts, leading to the furloughs of teachers or massive fee increases to make ends meet. Other departments have experienced lay-offs, cuts in hours, cuts in service, or cuts in pay. With all these departments experiencing such massive cuts in budget, it is difficult to persuade the public that anything actually deserves an increase in spending. However, most modern pushes in incarceration and imprisonment procedures suggest that increased expenditures on prison treatment and rehabilitation programs are needed. How can these be sold to the public? On the one hand, the sale is naturally tough. Many people harbor a deep-seated "colonial" view of punishment and incarceration, seeing them as deterrents and punishments for crime. Individuals who have committed crimes are believed by many to deserve whatever it is that they get. If everyone else in society has to cut back on their budgets and services, why should extra spending be specifically devoted to helping those that actively break the law? Should law-abiding citizens not get the first chance at benefiting from increased spending and services?

The way to sell this to the public is by making the exact same argument: rather than framing this as increasing spending on prison treatment and rehabilitation programs, treat it as an alternative cost-cutting measure. The goal of these programs is to prevent these individuals from repeating their same crimes. Repetition of those crimes means additional incarceration time, additional court fees, and other additional costs. This means that if these individuals are prevented from committing the crimes again through these rehabilitation and treatment programs, this ultimately is a cut in cost: it spends a little initially to prevent a major later expense. At a more macro level, over time, this type of plan could make a major impact on the crime rate. By reducing the rate of recidivism, the overall rate of crime drops. This drop in the overall rate in crime then means that there is less money needed for enforcement in the first place: fewer police officers, fewer prisons and prison guards, and all the other systems affiliated with high crime rates are no longer necessary either, constituting an even further drop in the money needed for the overall enforcement system. To take that even one step further, crime rates are known to "snowball": crime sparks more crime, and by that same virtue, less crime sparks even less crime. By reducing the overall rate of crime through reduced recidivism, a drop will be seen in the overall crime culture and incidence even of first-time offenders, further reducing the need for the various expensive systems in the corrections process overall.

Of course, in order to make this argument work, some concessions may have to be made. For example, a current major drain on the finances of the prison system is the incarceration of non-violent drug offenders. These incarcerations are considered unpopular by many: after all, if the individual is only a danger to themselves, why are they costing the public money to incarcerate? There are arguments as to why non-violent drug-related crimes still warrant incarceration, but given their lack of popularity with the public and the need to convince the public of the merits of these plans, it may be necessary to make such concessions to demonstrate the despite the increased spending in the areas above, the department is still equally dedicated to cutting costs overall. By reducing the number of non-violent individuals incarcerated, the overall cost of the system will diminish. This, in turn, could actually help the bottom line of the department as well: alternative treatment and rehabilitation programs may be expensive, but they are far less expensive than all-out incarceration. If the sentences for non-violent drug-related crimes are replaced with these alternative treatments, not only is the public happier with the plan, but the costs will diminish anyway, further selling the plan to the public.