[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 45 (Thursday, April 21, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                             ALL LOCKED UP

                        HON. MAURICE D. HINCHEY

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 21, 1994

  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask that David Broder's thoughtful column 
on crime that appeared in last Sunday's Washington Post be included in 
the Congressional Record. He raises important questions about 
legislative responses to crime. Most importantly, Mr. Broder points out 
that while prevention may be a more difficult strategy and really a 
tougher one than the simple slogans we hear about ``getting tough on 
crime,'' it may be the more promising approach. Prevention starts with 
jobs, school, and job-training programs that teach our young people 
values and give our children hope about their futures. I hope we can 
all give his ideas serious attention.

               [From the Washington Post, April 17, 1994]

                             All Locked Up

                          (By David S. Broder)

       Well before the end of the century, the United States will 
     achieve the distinction of having a million of its citizens 
     in prison. We are not far from that now--more than 925,000--
     and the number of prison inmates is growing almost as fast as 
     the national debt. In the year ending last June 30 alone, 
     prison population increased by 70,000.
       To visualize what that last figure means, think of putting 
     high walls, triple-strand barbed wire and guard towers around 
     entire cities the size of Lynchburg, Va., St. Joseph, Mo., 
     East Orange, N.J., or Appleton, Wis.
       The incarceration rate in the United States is almost three 
     times that of Canada and six times that of Italy. Add in the 
     half-million people being held in local jails on any given 
     day, and you have a total that is even more impressive--or 
     depressing.
       In the 1980s, the number in prison and in jail more than 
     doubled. During that decade, the number behind bars grew at a 
     rate 10 times higher than the growth of the adult population. 
     It was 17 times higher than the increase in serious crimes.
       Where all this will end is anyone's guess. One thing it is 
     surely doing is straining the budgets of all levels of 
     government. One thing it is not doing is easing people's fear 
     of crime. Yet voters and politicians continue to believe that 
     locking up criminals is the key to getting safer streets and 
     neighborhoods.
       The House of Representatives is about to pass another crime 
     bill, which will build more prisons to incarcerate still more 
     thousands. The legislation includes a version of the popular 
     ``three strikes and you're out'' requirement for lifetime 
     sentences for those convicted of three violent crimes. It is 
     more restricted in its language than the crime bill passed by 
     the Senate late last year, but it still embodies the prospect 
     of senescent former muggers spending their declining years in 
     prison hospitals, while their grandsons' generation causes 
     mayhem on the streets.
       Crime is at the top of almost every local news show and, 
     not coincidentally, the issue voters say is most on their 
     mind. Congress, which is nothing if not responsive, aims to 
     give the people what they want. The quaintly named 
     subcommittee on intellectual property and judicial 
     administration of the House Judiciary Committee decided last 
     month by voice vote to authorize $3 billion over 5 years to 
     build new cells for repeat offenders. The Republicans tried 
     to increase the amount to $10 billion. Next year, as we 
     approach a presidential election, someone will undoubtedly 
     bid $20 billion.
       Once you have convinced yourself that you can eliminate 
     criminals by locking them up and throwing away the key, there 
     is no limit to what you can spend. But there are some voices 
     being raised to challenge the popular notion that punishment 
     is the best way to reduce crime.
       I have cited several such reports in recent columns, and 
     this week I received another one from the office of 
     California Assemblyman John Vasconcellos (D). It is written 
     by Joan Petersilia of the University of California, Irvine, 
     the director of the criminal justice program at the RAND 
     Corp., a private research organization with close ties to the 
     Pentagon.
       The report reviewed California's get-tough strategy, which 
     quadrupled the prison population between 1980 and 1992, and 
     pronounced it a failure. ``The analysis suggests that the 
     much higher imprisonment rates in California had no 
     appreciable effect on violent crime and only slight effects 
     on property crime,'' she said.
       To be fair, the crime bill passed by the Senate and the 
     measure being debated in the House do more than toughen 
     penalties and build prisons. They also finance additional 
     police, drug treatment and crime prevention programs. But the 
     keynote here, as in California, is the easy-to-sell ``three 
     strikes and you're out'' provision.
       Petersilia argues the futility of that approach. ``If 34 
     million serious crimes are being committed in this country 
     (as authorities estimate) and 31 million are never detected, 
     the only way truly to reduce crime is to find some way to 
     stop some of the crime from being committed in the first 
     place.''
       Most of the violent crimes are committed by young 
     offenders, often when they are drunk or drugged-up and 
     reacting to stress or giving vent to antisocial impulses. The 
     deterrent value of threatened long sentences for them is 
     questionable, given the odds against their arrest and 
     conviction. The only effective way to curb such crimes is not 
     by punishment but by deterrence.
       Deterrence is difficult--and less emotionally satisfying 
     than muttering ``three strikes and you're out.'' It starts 
     with effective policing and moves back to job-training, 
     school and even preschool programs that instill decent values 
     and equip youngsters with options outside crime. That is the 
     only approach that will keep us from adding another million 
     wasted lives to our prison population.

                          ____________________