The Cost Of Crime: An Inflationary Story No One Will Touch

« We Finally Hear From A (Former) AIG Executive

Thursday Stories: "Road to Hell"; GM & Chrysler Get More Money; End of the Xbox? »

March 25, 2009 01:47 PM EDT by Brian Sullivan

The Cost Of Crime: An Inflationary Story No One Will Touch

$180 billion taxpayer dollars for the bailout of AIG?   Small change compared to the huge and growing cost of crime and incarceration in America.   Lost in the talk over the billions in extra spending proposed in the President's 2010 budget to cover various programs is anything about lowering the costs of a true drag on this country: the cost of crime.

According to the Justice Department, in fiscal year 2006, federal, state, and local governments spent an estimated $214 billion for police protection, corrections, and judicial and legal activities.   That was up more than 5% from the previous year and and has more than doubled in the past decade.   If the pace of incarceration inflation continues at this pace, Americans could be spending more than $1 trillion dollars per year on crime prevention and prosecution in just a generation.

Let's start with some good news.

The last few years has brought a big drop in violent crime.   According to the official Bureau of Justice Statistics violent crime is down considerably in the last 10 years.

The bad news lies on the expense side of the story.   Even as violent crime drops, costs have soared.   Look at the two statistics below, again from the Justice Department:

Police spending can be a big positive.   There is a correlation between the spending and the drop in crime. Yet that still does not explain much of the the huge jump in federal spending, particularly on the corrections side which focuses more on incarceration than prevention.

As the graphic above shows, spending on corrections has surged an incredible 660% since just 1982.    And while the overall number of people incarcerated has also jumped, the pace of cost increases far outstrips the percentage growth in number of prisoners.

A big part of the spending jump has to do with an issue that faces all of America; health care.   According to the Justice Department, prisons spent $3.3 billion dollars in 2001 (the last year this data was broken out nationally) on health care.    California spent more than $1 billion alone taking prisoners out of lockup for visits to outside hospitals and specialists.

There are also a few large and bizarre cost discrepancies between states.   In 2001, operating costs per inmate ran highest in Maine ($122 per day) and 2/3rds less in West Virginia ($41 per day).     Costs per resident were the highest in Washington, D.C. ($251 per resident) and just $1/5th as much in Minnesota ($48 per resident).   A prisoner in Pennsylvania eats much better ($5.69 per inmate per day in food) than one in Louisiana ($0.96 per inmate per day).     Louisiana inmates also receive the least in spending on utility costs per day at just $0.92 vs. $5.43 per inmate in Massachusetts.

In 2007, more than 7.3 million people were under some form of correctional supervision, including jail, prison, probation or on parole and the problem may only get worse.    A 2007 Pew Research Center study estimated that costs will continue to rise, by as much as another $27.5 billion dollars, within just a couple of years.

Incarceration costs are growing at rates similar to that of health care and eduction, yet there is no real discussion of how to bring them down.   Sadly for the taxpayer, this issue is a political nonstarter.   Few politicians bring it up because it is too easy for political opponents to use the rhetorical dagger of a candidate being "soft on crime," a sure way to lose an election.

Discussing the issue of soaring costs should not automatically lead to an accusation that we are trying to release criminals from prison before their debt to society is paid.    But if we are talking about the other kind of debt - taxpayer dollars - it may be time to take a hard look at these and other soaring costs.   Instead of raising taxes to fill budget holes, perhaps Congress should take a closer look a finding smart ways to keep these problems from growing so large in the first place.

13 Comments

Barbara

I really do think we've gone way overboard on pampering prisoners. We can be humane without making their stay too pleasant. It is after all supposed to be "punishment." We handly want to imply, "have a nice stay, come back again."

March 26, 2009 at 10:13 am

(1 Reply)

Corey in GA

Spend MUCH more on enforcement, especially of juvenile crime and petty crime, and do NOT let the petty criminals get off easily Make sure they understand that they will pay for the crime, and that they will be caught. Also, define BASIC rights for criminals, and quit giving them more. I see no reason for temps above 60F or below 85F. You can pay for a lot more guards to handle angrier prisoners (the reason often cited for precision temperature control) with utility savings. Same with food. If they don't likethe healthy veggies offered today, maybe they'll like the selection tomorrow night, especially since they'll be hungrier. Textbooks, great. Counseling, great. General TV, no. If they really want to work out, let them lift their beds. There are few muscles you can't train effectively with NO weights other than your own body. Also, hard work gets greatly shortened sentences. Maybe they could do all the jobs that ordinary Americans don't want to do, and we can send the illegals back home! Most importantly, let's recognize the difference between hardened criminals and those with the potential to straighten up and be strong members of society. Give those with the most potential more access to education with greater requirements for good behavior and real work, and for those who are just a problem, put them in the worst places with no special benefits. And yes, transfer people based on conduct during their incarceration as well as before.

March 26, 2009 at 10:05 am

JR

I am an administrator of a community corrections agency and must deal with this issue everyday. The temptation in this debate is to formulate public policy based on emotion, which is not always the best route. I believe the function of the corrections system, institutional or community, should be to modify the offenders' behavior. Because I am soft on criminals? NO, because I realize that the overwhelming majority of offenders WILL return to our communities and I prefer to have them become law abiding productive citizens upon return. This saves tax dollars. It always wins elections to say we will be tougher on crime (mandatory minimums, more cops on the streets, lock 'em up and throw away the key). What doesn't win elections is saying we need to raise taxes to pay for all of the people that we as a society have deemed unfit to live amongst us. But those are the facts, we can build a prison on every street corner in America if you want to get out your checkbooks and pay for it. We must base our policy on what has been proven to work, to reduce recidivism, and incapacitation of all criminals is not the answer. I want prison beds available for the most violent and dangereous criminals. These are the people I am willing to pay to be kept behind bars. The current system forces parole boards to ration the use of these spaces due to the overwhelming numbers of prison admissions. This is not good policy, nor is it safe, but it is expensive, ask any governor.

March 26, 2009 at 9:53 am

Ts colorado

you guys are all crazy. how about we only put real criminals in jail stop locking up are youth for none violent crime such as smokeing pot the jails are full of people that schould not be there but were put there by over zellis cops and judges treatment is what these people need not jail.its a drain on all of us and dont forget you can judge a socitey by the way they treat there prisoners

March 26, 2009 at 9:48 am

rebelman

Lock up all criminals and or execute the murderers, etc and bingo! No Crime!

March 26, 2009 at 7:42 am

wmw

Crime is big business. Lawyers, judges, detectives, home burglar alarm companies, insurance companies, etc etc,and on and on all have a vested interest in seeing crime go up not down. We the People must demand change at all levels of society unless we want to see America become South Africa or worse. I subscribe to the Mayberry theory of crime control by making sure all criminals are locked up and off the streets where decent people roam and or execute the convicted without a doubt murderers, etc. Andy and Barney did not have to deal with crime since they did not allow criminals to roam loose back in those days.

March 26, 2009 at 7:40 am

Jaygee

Bring back flogging !!! Minor criminals, petty thieves, etc. should be put into "the stocks" and face public humiliation. For more serious offenses/crimes the convicted should be flogged in the prescence of the victim(s)(or their representatives), the media, a medical team and the arresting officers. AND the victim should be offered the opportunity to appoint the flogger. Public humiliation and short sharp severe pain would certainly reduce the recidivism rates across the country. In crime fighting -- NO PAIN, NO GAIN.

March 25, 2009 at 6:26 pm

MIKE JONES

Send them to sheriff Joe's prison in the Arizona desert.

March 25, 2009 at 5:30 pm

Cindy

Prisoners have too many rights. They are incarcerated for a reason; punishment. Therefore, why do they get even get health care?! They get to watch TV, read books, are fed three meals a day, get use of exercise equipment, etc. Solution? Make prison a place NO ONE wants to be. Make it a place to be feared. Make it hurt. Better yet, vote the death penalty for the hardened, murderous criminals. That should cut some costs. Oh wait, that will never happen because Americans must take a "tolerant" attitude. Not this one.

March 25, 2009 at 3:47 pm

Carla,Ballwin,MO

Proactive versus reactive approach to crime - hire more COPS (constables on patrol)! Go Missouri Tigers!!!

March 25, 2009 at 2:11 pm