|
|
How Likely Are Sex Offenders to Repeat Their Crimes?
|
| |
In debates over laws monitoring released sex offenders, it’s common to hear claims that they’re sure to commit more sex crimes. “‘What we’re up against is the kind of criminal who, just as soon as he gets out of jail, will immediately commit this crime again at least 90 percent of the time,” a California legislator told the New York Times in 1996. (Other examples of such rhetoric are collected here.) Fox News — like the Wall Street Journal owned by News Corp. — said of child molesters in 2005, “Not only are they almost certain to continue sexually abusing children, but some eventually kill their young victims.”
But as my print column this week points out, the numbers don’t bear this out. Recidivism rates vary widely depending on which crimes are counted, the timeframe of the studies, and whether repeat offenses are defined by convictions, arrests, or self-reporting. But even the author of a widely published report suggesting a recidivism rate of 52%, Wisconsin psychologist Dennis Doren, told me of the notion that all sex criminals are likely to re-offend, “There is no research support for that view, period.” Dr. Doren, evaluation director at the Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center in Mauston, Wisc., added, “You’re not talking to a bleeding-heart kind of guy here.”
Yet incorporating convicted sex offenders’ undetected crimes can lead to higher numbers, such as one controversial Canadian study that found long-term recidivism could be as high as 88.3%. (It was debated in the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice in 2006.) Critics say that rate was artificially increased by the study’s design.
This isn’t just an academic exercise. The conventional wisdom on sex-crime recidivism, coupled with high-profile sex crimes against children, has helped spur the spate of registry and neighbor-notification laws, even before they could be properly studied for their impact on recidivism rates. Several researchers, including Dr. Doren, say that residency-restriction laws may be counterproductive. Such a constraint “drives them out of their community, and leads to a lack of stability,” said Karen J. Terry, a criminologist at John Jay College in New York. “Those are some of the underlying conditions that caused them to abuse in the first place.” A consensus on how to measure recidivism, and determine its baseline rate, would help evaluate such laws.
This research is expensive and long-term follow-ups are, by definition, slow to produce results. Even if we were to know whether rates have declined in recent years, it would be difficult to isolate the cause. Dr. Doren proposes several alternate explanations for his perception that rates have declined in recent years, including better and more frequent treatment, and closer monitoring.
Meanwhile, the existing research raises tough questions about the relative danger child molesters pose to society. Their likelihood of being convicted for a crime after release is much lower than average for all criminals released from prison, and even for all sex offenders, at least in the short term, as measured by a Bureau of Justice Statistics study and others. Yet their crimes, when they do repeat child abuse, are unusually harmful, and their victims particularly vulnerable. Does that justify the closer monitoring of child molesters after release, compared with other criminals? Dr. Doren isn’t sure, pointing out, for example, that convicted rapists are more likely to re-offend in the years immediately after release, and more likely to commit other violent crimes. “If we’re concerned about violence generically, it’s rapists we should be concerned about” in the short term, he said.
What do you think? What is the best way to measure recidivism rates, and what should be measured? Do the numbers justify registries and neighbor notification? Please let me know in the comments.
Further reading: Other newspapers previously have pointed out that measured recidivism rates appear to contradict conventional wisdom. Some states are attempting to fine-tune their post-release plans for sex offenders based on differing rates of recividism; here’s an article about the plan in Texas. Illustrating the difficulty of measuring the effect of interventions on recidivism rates, a Canadian study found that sex offenders who completed treatment were far less likely to re-offend — but that may not mean the treatment itself was successful. Instead, it might just demonstrate that a willingness to complete treatment is an indicator of other factors that diminish the likelihood of repeating a sexual crime.
|
|
Underreporting Clouds Attempt to Count Repeat Sex Offenders
|
| |
Conventional wisdom says people released after serving time for sex crimes are likely to strike again. The numbers aren't as certain.
Among convicted criminals released from prison, sex offenders released from prison are less likely to be arrested for any new crime than most other offenders, with the notable exception of murderers, researchers say. Child molesters' rate of recidivism is at least as low as the group of sex offenders taken as a whole. Abusers of children within their own family have a lower rate still.
"The observed rate of sexual offenders' recidivism is much lower than commonly believed," says R. Karl Hanson, senior research officer at Public Safety Canada, who has studied the issue for decades. When he speaks to groups, including police officers or therapists, and asks them to estimate the observed rate of sex-crime re-offense, he typically hears numbers such as 70% to 90%. But his review of available research in Canada and the U.S. finds the typical rate is 25% to 30% over 20 years.
One reason for the numerical confusion may be that supporters of sex-offender registries who say sex offenders are more likely than not to re-offend are considering the rate of repeat sex offenses of sex criminals compared with the rate of sex offenses of prisoners released for other crimes. Sex criminals are less likely to be arrested for another crime of any type, but they commit more sex crimes than other groups of criminals. (In general, criminals are more likely to commit crimes in their category than are criminals from other categories.)
All these numbers need to be approached with some skepticism. There also are time limitations to many of the studies, which typically stop tracking the rate of repeat offenses after just three to five years. Pooling all sex crimes together also muddles the picture, as different types of criminals -- say, rapists, child molesters, exhibitionists -- show very different behavior after release from prison. And looming over all of this is the unknown of what proportion of sex crimes go unreported -- particularly within families, a major source of child sexual abuse.
Tracking outcomes for years after release is expensive and slow to show results. The Bureau of Justice Statistics has the most thorough recent U.S. study, covering more than 9,000 male sex offenders released in 15 states in 1994. The study found that sex criminals were less likely to be reconvicted over the following three years than the group of all released prisoners -- 24% compared with 47%. Child molesters had a lower rate, of 20.4%.
The study hasn't been updated, says co-author Matthew Durose, a statistician with the bureau, because "given the time required to collect criminal history information from offenders, it's not something that can be done on a more regular basis." As a result, there are little data measuring the effect of the past decade's spate of state measures, such as sex-offender registries and laws keeping convicted sex offenders a certain distance from schools.
Also, a short period of follow-up -- such as the three years of the U.S. government study -- is especially susceptible to unreported crimes, Dr. Hanson says.
Counting crimes that go unreported is, of course, paradoxical. One approach is to extrapolate a true crime rate from victimization surveys and compare that with reported crime, typically finding that roughly 90% of sex crimes go unreported. Some put the estimate even higher.
Allison Taylor, executive director of the Texas Council on Sex Offender Treatment, says underreporting is especially prevalent with sexual assault within a family.
At the core of this numbers controversy, as with many others, lies a debate over definitions. "One of the main problems with recidivism studies is that all studies measure it differently and define it differently," says Karen J. Terry, a criminologist at John Jay College in New York.
One long-term study of sex offenders from Canada measured recidivism seven ways. The highest rate, 88.3%, included prior, undetected sexual offenses confessed by first-time convicts. "But you don't know what the effect is going to be of getting caught," Prof. Terry notes.
Most researchers agree crimes committed after a first brush with law enforcement count as recidivism, detected or not. But Ohio Northern University criminologist Keith Durkin points to anonymous surveys in which sex offenders admit to as many undetected offenses as the number for which they have been caught. He views 50% as a conservative estimate for recidivism.
The debate over an all-encompassing number obscures the wide variance in different people's risk of repeating sex crimes, depending on the nature of their first crime and other factors. Young, violent offenders who suffer from mental illness, use alcohol or drugs and target very young victims outside their family pose the biggest risk.
Several states, including Texas, analyze their released sex offenders using actuarial tools to determine who is in greatest need of follow-up. "What we really want to identify is the 10% of the sexual-offense population that is truly predatory," says Ms. Taylor of the Texas sex-offender treatment agency.
Email me at numbersguy@wsj.com. Read daily commentary about numbers and join a discussion with readers at my free blog, wsj.com/numbersguy
|
|
Reforming Florida's Correctional System
|
| |
The Correctional Policy Advisory Council
The Need for Reforming Florida's Correctional System
By Hugh MacMillan
Guest Writer & Special Consultant
Editor's Note: The Center for Florida Fiscal & Tax Reform is proud to welcome Hugh MacMillan, a man who has dedicated his life to the reform of Florida's Correctional System.
As we go to press, Representative Priscilla Taylor is working with Representative “Sandy” Adams and Senator Arthenia Joyner is working with Senators Victor Crist and Paula Dockery to ensure that the “Correctional Policy Advisory Council,” housed in the Office of Legislative Services, provides a report to the Legislature by March 10, 2009, addressing the impact of alternative sentencing for non-violent offenders that would reduce the need for, and cost of, building additional prisons in the future.
The Center also recommends that the report should evaluate the impact of restoring gain time for those current inmates who have participated in and completed substance abuse and educational (workforce training) programs, and gained support of community groups in the community to which they would be released.
***
 When I wrote “Razor Wire in Rural Florida: Can our prisons succeed?,” back in May 2008, I suggested that Senate Bill 2000 (Chapter 2008-54, Laws of Florida) signed by Governor Charlie Crist on May 28th and effective on July 1, 2008, would bring a “tough and smart approach” to the correctional system as an investment strategy to corrections in Florida.
Sadly, however, that effort has languished in the back of the legislative bus. The law, although effective last July 1 and staffed by the Legislature, is not even acknowledged in either the House’s or the Senate’s websites. Governor Crist made his three appointments last August to The Correctional Policy Advisory Council; but only recently have I been able to find the legislative appointments. Worse, the Council has never even met! It must meet immediately and provide at least an interim report by the regular legislative session beginning in March of this year.
The United States’ national incarceration rates are among the highest in the world, and Florida leads the pack! In fact, Florida led the nation in its prison population growth in 2007; sadly, it almost tripled the average of the next highest nine states and nearly doubled the Number 2 state-- so much for Florida’s economic development strategy.
Florida now incarcerates 98,192 individuals (as of 6/30/2008) -- up from 33,681 barely twenty years ago (on 6/30/1988), a growth rate of almost 200%!
The cost of feeding and housing a prisoner has been calculated at $52.90 per day, or $19,308 per year (down from the $20,190 reported in 2001). This was 16% lower than the national average in 2001 and further reflects on the minimal services Florida provided for rehabilitation. Bear in mind, this does not include the capital costs of building facilities or the cost savings realized from work performed by the inmates in operating the prison.
Governor Crist continues to propose building new prisons; paying for them from bonded debt, although our state has far exceeded its statutory debt to general revenue ratio, a proposal that would impose massive future costs for Florida’s taxpayers to build and operate these prisons. He, along with the members of the House of Representatives, has also recently proposed cutting the very services likely to save taxpayers’ money over the long run and reduce the recidivism rate in the state’s prison population.
The Governor and the members of the Florida House have failed to fund any investment strategy that links budget decisions with proven and successful methods that combine sentencing reform with prison strategies to better prepare inmates for a successful transition into society.
It should also be noted that the Department of Corrections, through its Office of Community Corrections, supports community efforts serving over 275,000 probationers (a rate 12% higher than the national average per 100,000) who paid more than $37.3 million in FY 2004-05 in restitution under mandatory financial obligation agreements established at the onset of their supervision.
People on probation also paid for the costs of their probationary services. Many also paid child support. In contrast, a 2001 study of inmates in the State of Massachusetts found that more than three-quarters of their prison population had paid none of its mandated child support in the previous 12 months. During the same timeframe, more than two-thirds of parolees in Massachusetts with child support obligations managed to make at least partial payments. Overall, the average Massachusetts prisoner paid only $206 over the previous year for child support obligations, while the average parolee in a community setting paid $1,538—more than seven times as much!
These and other community and prison education and substance abuse programs are currently on the Legislature’s chopping block, even though they have provided positive economic outcomes for the community -- higher level of payments for restitution, child support, and operations cost. These programs also provide more productive integration with the general population of the state rather than creating an isolated population of inmates and guards.
And this is just the state prison system and state probation and parole system – these arguments do not include the thousands of people languishing in county jails whose rated capacity of 60,589 (2006) is often exceeded, or the hundreds housed in locally-run diversion programs.
Florida courts have taken the state to task for failing to meet its mental health obligations and for continuing to support the placement and retention of individuals with severe mental health issues in county jails.
The Center for Florida Fiscal & Tax Reform will issue a complete report following the current legislative special session outlining proven ways to reduce recidivism, avoid building additional prisons, and provide economic stimulus for the state’s economy instead of the state’s current “put them behind bars and throw away the keys” approach, which has proven to be irresponsible, very costly, inhumane and unproductive.
Hopefully, the Council established by the 2008 Legislature will also provide its recommendations.
To read/download this article and its links in Acrobat Reader format, please click here.
From OPPAGA:
U.S. Department of Justice Prisoners in 2007
At the end of 2007, federal and state prisons and local jails held just under 2.3 million inmates (2,293,157). The number of inmates incarcerated in prison or jail increased by 1.5% during the year. About 1 in 198 U.S. residents was imprisoned with a sentence of more than one year in a federal or state prison. The federal prison population experienced the largest absolute increase of 6,572 prisoners, followed by Florida (up 5,250 prisoners), Kentucky (up 2,457 prisoners), and Arizona (up 1,945 prisoners).
|
|
ACLU letter to Miami Chief of Police
|
| |
John F. Timoney
Chief of Police
400 N.W. 2nd Ave.
Miami, FL 33128
Dear Chief Timoney:
It has come to the attention of the Greater Miami Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida that within the past week or so City of Miami police officers have repeatedly threatened to arrest homeless persons around the western bridge area of the Julia Tuttle Causeway for trespass upon public property. Specifically, homeless persons who are sleeping in the grassy areas on either side of the overpass have been warned by City of Miami police officers that, unless they move their bedding, tents and other personal belongings off the grass and underneath the overpass, they will be arrested for trespass to public property and their possessions will be destroyed.
This harassment of homeless individuals residing around the causeway overpass contravenes the letter, as well as the spirit, of the Settlement Agreement, to which the City of Miami was a signatory, in Pottinger, et. al, v. City of Miami, Case No. 88-2406-CIV-Atkins, a copy of which is attached for your convenience.
That Agreement concluded litigation against the City of Miami for violating the rights of homeless individuals by arresting them under various city ordinances and state statutes for engaging in "life sustaining conduct" on public property where there was no available shelter in which they could live. The Agreement defines "life sustaining conduct" as, inter alia, "eating, sleeping, sitting, congregating, or walking in public."
Para. VII (14)(C)(1). The Agreement defines "Homeless Person"as one who "lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate night time residence and has a primary night-time residency that is: . . .(c) a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings." Para. VII(10). "Public Property" is defined to include "all property owned by any governmental entity (federal, state, or local)," Para. VII (12), unless exempt pursuant to Para VII(12a).
Under the Agreement, City of Miami police officers may not warn, let alone arrest, a homeless person for sleeping on public property unless there is "available shelter," the officer has advised the person of and offered the "available shelter," and the homeless person has refused to accept it. Para. VII (14)(C)(2). Specifically, the homeless person to whom available shelter has not been offered may not be arrested, or threatened with arrest, for trespass by sleeping on public property, or for other misdemeanors conceivably associated with life sustaining conduct, such as sleeping in vehicles, littering, camping, erecting temporary structures in parks, etc. Para. VII(14)(C)(3)(a)-(k). Furthermore, the City is enjoined to "respect the personal property of all homeless people," even where arrest is permitted. VII(14)(F)(1). "In no event shall any city official or worker destroy any personal property known to belong to a homeless person, or readily recognizable" as such. Id.
As you are no doubt aware, the people residing under and around the western bridge area of the Julia Tuttle Causeway are homeless sex offenders. They are homeless because municipal and county residency restrictions have created vast exclusionary zones which have rendered virtually all affordable housing off-limits to them. They are engaging in life-sustaining conduct on public property that is not exempt under Para. VII(12a). Furthermore, because they are sex offenders, the homeless shelters in the City of Miami will not take them in. There is therefore no available shelter for this group of people. The Settlement Agreement is clear and unambiguous on this point: where a person is homeless, is engaging in life-sustaining conduct on non-exempt public property, and there is no available shelter for him, City of Miami police officers are prohibited from arresting or threatening to arrest him for trespass, and are prohibited from destroying, or threatening to destroy, his personal belongings.
Nor is there any basis under the Agreement for forcing the homeless persons residing around the causeway overpass, under threat of arrest or confiscation of personal property, to move their belongings under the overpass. The City of Miami has no right to require that its homeless population make itself invisible. The City of Miami is precluded by the Agreement from resorting to arrest and threats of arrest to achieve such a goal. The homeless population around the causeway will continue, inevitably, to grow -- as the exclusionary zones spread, with each additional bus stop, school and day care center, and as the number of sex offenders who have completed their sentences and are therefore released from prison increases as well. Just as the Pottinger Settlement established that the City of Miami may not "solve" its general homeless problem by sweeping it into jail, the City may not "solve" this particular homeless problem by sweeping it under a bridge.
We ask, therefore, that City of Miami police officers immediately be directed to cease and desist from arresting or threatening to arrest homeless sex offenders residing around the causeway overpass for trespass, and from destroying, or threatening to destroy, their personal belongings. We ask further that you notify us in writing forthwith (addressed to Ms. Sawyer at the address below) that this direction has been given so that we may inform the homeless offenders residing around the causeway overpass that they need no longer live in fear that they will lose their liberty or their property in contravention of the Pottinger Settlement Agreement.
Absent the receipt of such notification, we will invoke the "Enforcement/Mediation" provision in Paragraph 25a of the Agreement. Pursuant to that provision, we propose a meeting to either resolve this matter or to agree upon a mediator. If we do not receive requested notification within 48 hours, we will be in touch with your office to plan a time and place for the meeting.
Sincerely,
Carlene Sawyer
President, Miami Chapter of the ACLU of Florida
915 Palermo Avenue #105
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Phone: (305) 299-4202
Fax: (305) 572-9922
Email: sawyerandfriends@aol.com
Jeanne Baker, Esq.
Cooperating Attorney, Miami Chapter of the ACLU of Florida
cc:
Julie Bru
City of Miami Attorney
City Attorneyʼs Office
444 S.W. 2nd Ave., Suite 945
Miami, FL 33130
Pedro G. Hernandez
City Manager
City of Miami City Hall
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, FL 33133
Carlene M. Sawyer, Executive Director
Dranoff International Two Piano Foundation
3550 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 702
Miami, FL 33137
305-572-9900
305-572-9922 Fax
carlene@dranoff2piano.org
|
|
Public Notification
|
| |
Call will go out when sex offender moves in
Starting Sunday, Lee County residents will get a heads-up phone call when a sex offender or predator moves into their neighborhood..A call program is already in place to alert residents to events such as a missing child or Alzheimer's patient or college student.
A pre-recorded phone blast is sent out over land lines within a quarter-mile radius. The message informs residents of what's happening and who to call with information.
But the sheriff's office is joining several other Florida law enforcement agencies in expanding that program to include notifications when sex offenders are on the move.
Sgt. Tracy Booth, who oversees the sexual offender program at the sheriff's office, said by law, her agency is required to notify schools, parks and day care facilities when a sexual predator moves. But parents also can check the agency's Web site or sign up for e-mail alerts about where offenders are living.
As of Friday, the county was tracking 529 sexual offenders and 36 sexual predators.
"But parents are busy, and they don't always have time to check the Web sites or seek out the information," Booth said. "This is another tool to let them know, to get the word out there."
Claudia Corrigan is vice president of the Fort Lauderdale-based nonprofit A Child Is Missing, which is providing the service to the sheriff's office free of charge. Booth said once her staff verifies the new address of the offender, a call is made to A Child Is Missing, which can put out the information almost immediately. Calls will be made only between 7 a.m. and 10:30 p.m.
Corrigan said her office's technology allows 1,000 phone calls to be placed in under one minute. Because her office identifies itself as the law enforcement agency trying to release the message, there is a 98 percent listen rate.
"This is very important, and it's not meant to scare anyone or have anyone act out against the offender," Corrigan said. "But it just gives parents a little more awareness."
In fact, the recording states the information is not to be used to harass the offender. The pre-recorded statement will simply tell the listener the name of the offender, offer a description and reveal where=2 0he or she is living. Corrigan said the phone system will try each number three times before leaving a message, if there is an answering machine.
But it works only for published land line numbers. Those with a cell phone or private number who want to be registered can sign up at: achildismissing.org.
Corrigan said the information is used for the alert system only and not shared or sold to any third party.
|
|
Reforming DOC
|
| |
The Correctional Policy Advisory Council
The Need for Reforming Florida's Correctional System
By Hugh MacMillan
Guest Writer & Special Consultant
Editor's Note: The Center for Florida Fiscal & Tax Reform is proud to welcome Hugh MacMillan, a man who has dedicated his life to the reform of Florida's Correctional System.
As we go to press, Representative Priscilla Taylor is working with Representative “Sandy” Adams and Senator Arthenia Joyner is working with Senators Victor Crist and Paula Dockery to ensure that the “Correctional Policy Advisory Council,” housed in the Office of Legislative Services, provides a report to the Legislature by March 10, 2009, addressing the impact of alternative sentencing for non-violent offenders that would reduce the need for, and cost of, building additional prisons in the future.
The Center also recommends that the report should evaluate the impact of restoring gain time for those current inmates who have participated in and completed substance abuse and educational (workforce training) programs, and gained support of community groups in the community to which they would be released.
***
When I wrote “Razor Wire in Rural Florida: Can our prisons succeed?,” back in May 2008, I suggested that Senate Bill 2000 (Chapter 2008-54, Laws of Florida) signed by Governor Charlie Crist on May 28th and effective on July 1, 2008, would bring a “tough and smart approach” to the correctional system as an investment strategy to corrections in Florida.
Sadly, however, that effort has languished in the back of the legislative bus. The law, although effective last July 1 and staffed by the Legislature, is not even acknowledged in either the House’s or the Senate’s websites. Governor Crist made his three appointments last August to The Correctional Policy Advisory Council; but only recently have I been able to find the legislative appointments. Worse, the Council has never even met! It must meet immediately and provide at least an interim report by the regular legislative session beginning in March of this year.
The United States’ national incarceration rates are among the highest in the world, and Florida leads the pack! In fact, Florida led the nation in its prison population growth in 2007; sadly, it almost tripled the average of the next highest nine states and nearly doubled the Number 2 state-- so much for Florida’s economic development strategy.
Florida now incarcerates 98,192 individuals (as of 6/30/2008) -- up from 33,681 barely twenty years ago (on 6/30/1988), a growth rate of almost 200%!
The cost of feeding and housing a prisoner has been calculated at $52.90 per day, or $19,308 per year (down from the $20,190 reported in 2001). This was 16% lower than the national average in 2001 and further reflects on the minimal services Florida provided for rehabilitation. Bear in mind, this does not include the capital costs of building facilities or the cost savings realized from work performed by the inmates in operating the prison.
Governor Crist continues to propose building new prisons; paying for them from bonded debt, although our state has far exceeded its statutory debt to general revenue ratio, a proposal that would impose massive future costs for Florida’s taxpayers to build and operate these prisons. He, along with the members of the House of Representatives, has also recently proposed cutting the very services likely to save taxpayers’ money over the long run and reduce the recidivism rate in the state’s prison population.
The Governor and the members of the Florida House have failed to fund any investment strategy that links budget decisions with proven and successful methods that combine sentencing reform with prison strategies to better prepare inmates for a successful transition into society.
It should also be noted that the Department of Corrections, through its Office of Community Corrections, supports community efforts serving over 275,000 probationers (a rate 12% higher than the national average per 100,000) who paid more than $37.3 million in FY 2004-05 in restitution under mandatory financial obligation agreements established at the onset of their supervision.
People on probation also paid for the costs of their probationary services. Many also paid child support. In contrast, a 2001 study of inmates in the State of Massachusetts found that more than three-quarters of their prison population had paid none of its mandated child support in the previous 12 months. During the same timeframe, more than two-thirds of parolees in Massachusetts with child support obligations managed to make at least partial payments. Overall, the average Massachusetts prisoner paid only $206 over the previous year for child support obligations, while the average parolee in a community setting paid $1,538—more than seven times as much!
These and other community and prison education and substance abuse programs are currently on the Legislature’s chopping block, even though they have provided positive economic outcomes for the community -- higher level of payments for restitution, child support, and operations cost. These programs also provide more productive integration with the general population of the state rather than creating an isolated population of inmates and guards.
And this is just the state prison system and state probation and parole system – these arguments do not include the thousands of people languishing in county jails whose rated capacity of 60,589 (2006) is often exceeded, or the hundreds housed in locally-run diversion programs.
Florida courts have taken the state to task for failing to meet its mental health obligations and for continuing to support the placement and retention of individuals with severe mental health issues in county jails.
The Center for Florida Fiscal & Tax Reform will issue a complete report following the current legislative special session outlining proven ways to reduce recidivism, avoid building additional prisons, and provide economic stimulus for the state’s economy instead of the state’s current “put them behind bars and throw away the keys” approach, which has proven to be irresponsible, very costly, inhumane and unproductive.
Hopefully, the Council established by the 2008 Legislature will also provide its recommendations.
|
|
|
|
