An innovative new practice issued by Missouri’s Sentencing Advisory Commission gives a judge an idea just how much the sentence he or she hands down will cost the taxpayers of the state. By computing the cost of a sentence, the commission hopes that prosecutors and judges will consider other options.
The new policy has both supporters and critics. Defense attorneys and budget minded constituents like it. Prosecutors feel that there should not be cookie-cutter sentences, because all criminal acts are not the same, and justice for the victims must be considered. But, some judges wanted to know just what it costs to incarcerate. The Sentencing Advisory Committee provided answers.
The New York Times reported the figures for incarceration, and probation for several crimes. In a case involving endangering the welfare of a child,
a three year sentence would cost $37,000. Probation granted for the same charge would be $6,770. Five years in prison, and parole afterwards, for second-degree robbery adds up to $50,000, but only $9,000 for five years probation. Thirty years in prison for murder costs $504,690, but in case like that no one is calling for an alternative to incarceration.
A computer does most of the work in figuring out costs, and possible alternatives. Information including the criminal code, offender’s past criminal history, and other bits of information are entered into a computer. The computer prints out statistics such as if other Missouri offenders with a similar history and sentences have committed more crimes, and offers the cost of alternatives to incarceration.
Missouri State Supreme Court judge Michael A. Wolff, chairman of the sentencing commission, claims that although the information about the cost of incarceration is available, not all judges take advantage of it, and simply pass down whatever sentence they deem fit. Defense attorneys try to incorporate the cost factor when discussing a client’s case with the prosecutor. Some judges and prosecutors refuse to put a price tag on a crime, believing that doing so is an affront to the victims. Other judges and defense attorneys decry the mass incarceration of non-violent offenders. The debate continues, but Missouri took the lead in asking judges to investigate if alternatives to incarceration might be a viable solution. Other states are now looking toward Missouri to see if they, too, should follow the leader.
|
|
|
|
