RE: http://www.news-tribune.net/op...story_004005709.html


Mr. Johnson, It isn't that I disagree with this column in totality- I appreciate the overall sincerity of it.... However, your logic is flawed using strict budget numbers alone. Overhead costs are often not variable costs. In other words, it costs the same to keep the lights on whether you have 10 offenders or 1000.

Further, program after program after program has shown it isn't that easy to just "reduce recidivism". The answer is complex, and involves many factors.

You're absolutely right...but we've got to start somewhere.

Good numbers from government agencies are hard to come by.

AsIseeIT, you are correct. You're logic is also true when people complain on how much it "costs" per inmate when speaking of the death penalty. They don't realize it is average cost. You pay a certain amount for food, utilities, staff, etc., unless there are large variations in the census of a jail. However, the Reverend is right specifically in this case. You don't have to build more space if you have fewer inmates. A new building is not an inevitable need if we follow his suggestions.

My opnion on the repeat offenders is: The judicial system gives plea deals way too much, and the criminals get out with usually a smack on the hand. They go back out and do another crime because they know another plea deal is waiting for them. If they would have to serve a tough sentence, then maybe, just maybe, they would think twice about going to jail again. By tough sentence, I mean, no cable, no nothing... They are too comfortable in jail, so they probably dont mind going back. They should be made to go out each day, rain or shine, and do some sort of horrible job that nobody else would want to do. They shouldnt be allowed visitors. If they want to see their loved ones, then too bad...Let them write a letter. I might sound mean spirited, but that is how I feel. Something drastic needs done, or the repeats will always keep coming back and we will continue to feed them, and keep them warm and comfy in their cells.

The way the economy is, there are alot of people that cannot afford their electric bills or groceries. But the inmates are sitting in there with electric, and they get 3 meals a day. Hell, they live better than alot of people that go to work everyday and pay taxes to keep them comfy in their cells. I just do not understand the whole system in general. They make all kinds of cuts on schools because the money just isnt there, but the inmates take priority over education and everything else. They are more worried about violating their rights, cramming them all together in a warm and lighted cell, and dont give a rats behind, if the children are not learning enough.

WOW, while it is only my opinion I think you are be extremely naive Richard. You are stating that the easy answer to this entire problem is to reduce the number of inmates at the jail. Well, that would be great if those inmates make the choice to change. I still haven't heard one single plan to stop recidivism, if it were that easy it would be sharply decreased nationwide and it isn't.

We as a community have to build a bigger jail, even if you are like me and think that they have too good of a time in jail you still can't have them sleeping on the ground (it opens the county up for a lawsuit). Most of the population agrees, if you do the crime be prepared to do the time. It would be great if they choose to change their evil ways but almost all of them don't.

Good Luck Richard, I sincerely hope that your plan makes a diffrence.

Recidivism will be lower when jail is hell compared to the alternative. Right now it is a warehouse with cable.

quote:

Originally posted by Floyd Boy:
Recidivism will be lower when jail is hell compared to the alternative. Right now it is a warehouse with cable.

Yeah, right. The ACLU would kill someone. If they had their druthers, inmates would have maid service, gourmet meals, and karaoke night. . .

This is exactly what I hoped would happen when I started writing these columns...that people would start discussing and debating the issues, and looking for answers. We don't have to agree on everything, and I sure don't claim to have all the answers.

I also appreciate the civility of the conversation. I don't mind being called naive, though I'd like to think, after fifteen years of listening to inmates throughout the US and Canada lie to me, try to minimize their crime, or deny their responsibility all together, that I have few illusions about criminal mindsets, attitudes, and behavior.

I readily admit to being a visionary, and having hope that people can change. I have been disappointed more times than I care to count, but I have also witnessed the inner change that leads to a drug and crime free life too often to give up. If that's naive, then I am guilty as charged.

The bible says that without a vision, the people perish. God made me a leader, and leaders need vision and grace...and a thick skin doesn't hurt either.

I admit to being rather narrowly focused on faith-based approaches. That's what I've been doing all these years, and as a minister, that's my calling.

Those of you who say that the problem is complex are right; there are a number of things that could be tried. But the complexity of the issue doesn't negate the approach I happen to advocate, nor does it change the documented success of faith based programs. I agree that a faith based approach is just one piece of the puzzle.

You may be surprised to learn that I also believe we are too soft on first time offenders, especially juveniles. After a wrist slap or two, they get the idea that nothing bad will happen to them...and most of the time, they are right!

From that point on, they develop contempt for the law and the system...so they keep doing what they are doing.

I could go on, but this post is long enough, and I've got another column to write...so thanks for the feedback, and please keep it coming.

What is your plan to address recidivism in such a way that it keeps us from building a new jail?

quote:

Originally posted by Floyd Boy:
Recidivism will be lower when jail is hell compared to the alternative. Right now it is a warehouse with cable.

There is no evidence to support that. Evidence suggests that a valid risk assessment should be done on all inmates, and those deeemed to be low to medium risk should be separated from those deemed to be high risk. This reduces recidivism.

Great question, RU...I start breaking it down to a specific faith-based plan in this Sunday's column.

I invite people to pick my plan apart. If there are holes in my logic, I want to know. If my plan can be improved, I want to know that too.

Great minds do not always think alike; sometimes your best friends are the folks who show you what you've missed.

"The wounds of a friend are faithful, but an enemy multiplies kisses."