Is the Budget Crisis Changing the Way We Look at Sentencing and Incarceration?

Abstract

Justice, 2002. Should cost matter when it comes to deciding who goes to prison and for how long? The process and results of sentencing reform in most states suggest that, until recently, the standard answer to this question has been no. During the 1980s and 1990s, economically costly measures such as stiff mandatory minimum sentences, three-strikes legislation, and truth-in-sentencing laws were planted or took root. Critics of the reforms argued that spendthrift lawmakers driven by political gain and fear of appearing OsoftO ignored the Þscal ramiÞcations of new policy. Tough-on-crime advocates asserted that no price was too high for initiatives that would protect public safety. There is little debate about who won the argument: during the last two decades of the twentieth century, AmericaOs incarcerated population grew more than 281 percent, Þnally approaching two million; expenditures for state and local corrections increased 601 percent. A growing body of evidence suggests that the tide of opinion is now changing: in the twenty-Þrst century, Þscal impact does appear to matter. From Louisiana to Iowa, from Ohio to Washington, in every corner of the United States, lawmakers have been looking to slow corrections spending as they grapple with the nationOs most serious economic downturn in a decade (for many, the Þrst of their careers). As we reach the midpoint of 2002, 39 states have lowered their annual revenue projections. Of these, 24 have already reported that they will not meet even their revised targets. Spending has exceeded budgets in 33 states. Spending cuts are on the table in forty. Nationwide, estimates of the total state budget shortfall for Þscal year 2002 range from $27 billion to $38 billion. Lawmakers are responding to these conditions in several ways. Some have taken predictable immediate action to stanch the sow of expenditures by closing prisons, cutting corrections staffs, and eliminating what they deem to be none ssential programs. Others have revisited particular sentencing policies and instituted limited reforms (e.g., reducing sentencing ranges and repealing mandatory minimums) hoping to cut corrections spending by slowing or even reversing prison population growth. As a result of steady reductions in crime that have eroded public fear and expanded votersO appetites for alternative corrections strategies, these ofÞcials are discovering political latitude to make broader policy changes. Is the Budget Crisis Changing the Way We Look at Sentencing and Incarceration?