[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 18 (Monday, January 30, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S1791]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                          ON ECONOMIST ARTICLE

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, a few months ago, we passed the 
dubious milestone of having 1 million inmates serving time in prison. 
That number is expected to soar further as Congress and the States 
respond to the public's fear of crime by enacting longer prison terms 
for drug offenders and other criminals.
  Before we head full-steam down this prison-building path, I think we 
need to consider carefully whether we are being smart about how we 
punish criminals. Last year, I asked my staff to survey prison wardens 
around the Nation for their views on our crime policies. The results 
were surprising. Only 39 percent recommended building more prisons. But 
65 percent said we should use our existing prison space more 
efficiently, by imposing shorter sentences on nonviolent offenders, and 
longer prison terms on violent ones.
  A few States, such as Florida and Georgia, have begun to respond in 
this way. They have begun to look at innovative ways to free up prison 
space by sentencing nonviolent criminals to ``intermediate sanctions,'' 
such as home detention and work release. As a recent article in the 
Economist noted, these programs are highly cost-efficient. In Florida, 
for example, these alternative programs cost only $6.49 per day per 
felon, compared with nearly $40 per day for prison.
  And, the programs don't compromise public safety. As the Economist 
reported, ``A 6 year survey by the National Council on Crime and 
Delinquency shows that in Florida, people sentenced to such penalties 
are less likely to be arrested within 18 months of their release than 
similar offenders who had been sentenced to between 12 and 30 months in 
jail.''
  That is what I call being both tough on crime and smart. It is an 
approach Congress should consider before it spends billions more on 
another incarceration binge. I ask that the full text of the Economist 
article be reprinted in the Record.
  The article follows:
                  [From the Economist, Nov. 19, 1994]

               Alternatives to Prison--Cheaper is Better

       Richmond, Va.--Self-preservation requires American 
     politicans to be slap-'em-inside tough on crime these days. 
     The argument for toughness stands on uncertain ground: the 
     number of Americans in prison has more than doubled since 
     1982, now standing at over 1m, and yet notified violent crime 
     has risen by two-fifths, according to the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation. Still, the voters want to lock the villains 
     up, and the politicans reckon they had better get on with it. 
     The next question is how much it will cost the taxpayer.
       In Virginia, whose capital has the country's second-highest 
     homicide rate, the General Assembly recently met in 
     extraordinary session to lengthen prison terms for violent 
     criminals and--like 13 other states and the federal 
     government--to abolish discretionary parole for newly 
     convicted felons. That needs nearly 30 new prisons. Some say 
     this could cost $2 billion. The new Republican governor, 
     George Allen, says that the true cost is closer to $1 
     billion, and that the state's prison population would anyway 
     have doubled, without the new measures, by 2005.
       But the Democrats who control the legislature balked even 
     at that figure, and have given Mr. Allen only about $40m to 
     erect a handful of the work camps needed to accommodate the 
     queue of prisoners waiting for space in the local jails. Mr. 
     Allen, who has promised not to raise taxes, will have to go 
     back to the Assembly next year and try to find the rest of 
     the $370m that he describes as a down-payment for safer 
     streets. It costs $19,800 a year to keep an inmate behind 
     bars. It is doubtful whether the governor can raise what he 
     needs by cutting expenditure elsewhere and selling off 
     surplus state properties. Many state agencies are still 
     operating on recession budgets. The sale of state land and 
     equipment is expected to net a paltry $26m.
       On the other side of the country, in Oregon, where parole 
     was abolished in 1989, a cheaper way of coping with over-full 
     prisons is being tried. Oregon's voters are not keen on 
     paying more, either: the advocates of tougher penalties for 
     crimes against property failed to get enough signatures to 
     put their proposal on the ballot last year, presumably 
     because it would have cost $300m a year. So the state 
     legislature, in providing more money for the corrections 
     department, said that most of it should go into alternatives 
     to prison for non-violent offenders. That would free some 
     existing prison space for more dangerous criminals.
       This approach has already been tried in states with some of 
     the highest incarceration rates in the nation, among them 
     Florida and Georgia. So-called ``intermediate sanctions'' for 
     non-violent felons--for instance, house arrest or work 
     programmes--are cheap. In Florida, they cost only $6.49 per 
     day per felon, compared with prison's near-$40 a day. They 
     may also be working. A six-year study by the National Council 
     on Crime and Delinquency shows that in Florida people 
     sentenced to such penalties are less likely to be arrested 
     within 18 months of their release than similar offenders who 
     had been sentenced to between 12 and 30 months in jail.
       Texas, though, stays old-fashioned about its prison 
     problem: it throws money at it. Twice this year, the Texas 
     legislature has taken $100m from other parts of the state 
     government to pay for more prisons. The voters, who rejected 
     a $750m bond issue for schools, backed $1 billion for the 
     Corrections Department. The trouble is that new parole 
     restrictions look like further increasing the demand for 
     Texan prison space. In the Lone Star state, getting into 
     prison may prove tougher than getting out of it.
     

                          ____________________