Recently it was reported that plans by Washington Department of Corrections to reduce its costs by 15% include several prison population reduction scenarios.
Nearly all of them make a distinction between violent and non-violent offenders, but none of them make a distinction between prisoners who are likely to recidivate and those who aren’t. This is a common tactic in political circles, which allows politicians to pay lip service to reform and put the public at ease, but does little to actually protect public safety or reduce mass incarceration.
Recent prisoner release strategies in the wake of COVID-19 are an example of this misguided approach. Gov. Jay Inslee passed over prisoners who have won unanimous recommendations of clemency for their extraordinary merit based on good behavior and demonstrated rehabilitation — as well as many thousands of prisoners with low risks of recidivism who have served decades of their sentences — to instead release young, chemically dependent, active criminals who had not been incarcerated for violent offenses. Many non-violent offenders released in this way were rearrested within months, some for violent crimes.
The COVID-era release strategy is a product of what the conversations around prison and sentencing reform get wrong. The widespread belief that people who have once committed a violent crime are especially likely to do so again has no basis in empirical fact. Indeed, people paroled from murder convictions have exceptionally low recidivism rates; far lower than most other crimes. Many people convicted of serious violent crimes — either under extraordinary circumstances or when they were young — have subsequently transformed their lives. They have matured into very different people. Such prisoners pose far less risk to public safety than young, chemically dependent, active criminals who have received short sentences for non-violent and/or drug crimes who have not had the time or access to rehabilitation programs and who’s criminal activity may well be peaking.
Washington One — the Department of Corrections very own specially commissioned, expensive risk-prediction tool — confirmed that many who have committed violent crimes are far less likely to recidivate when compared to many of those whom state legislators mistakenly consider the safer bet.
I am not advocating for a contest between who should and shouldn’t be given a second chance. All who enter our prison system need an opportunity for redemption. Nor am I advocating that people convicted of violent crimes shouldn’t go to prison. But when determining sentences and who is deserving of early release, we should be relying on the science and data that supports who is ready to reintegrate into society, not emotion and rhetoric.
Lawmakers, prosecutors and enforcement communities have sold society the false narrative that long sentences would show we are tough on crime, which was expected to deter future crime, and therefore our communities would become safer. Nevertheless, no matter how tough on crime we got, and how long sentences got, crime continues to plague our communities.
Excessive sentences cost excessive amounts of money and serve no one. Not the victims, their loved ones, society or those who have committed the crimes and caused harm. And longer sentences have not been shown to reduce crime. Tax dollars spent unnecessarily and inhumanely warehousing prisoners for decades could help communities rebuild and fund the gaps they struggle to currently support, such as education, drug prevention programs and reducing homelessness. These are the areas where tax dollars will best serve society and make all communities safer and more sound.
(This article was originally published in December 2020 in HeraldNet)
Republish this article
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Here are our ground rules:
- You must credit Prison Journalism Project. In the byline, we prefer “[Author Name], Prison Journalism Project.” At the top of the text of your story, please include a line that says: “This story was originally published by Prison Journalism Project” and include a link to the article.
- No republishing of photographs, illustrations or graphics without specific permission. Please contact inquiries@prisonjournalismproject.org.
- No editing the content, including the headline, except to reflect changes in time, location and editorial style. For example, changing, “today” to “last week,” or San Quentin to San Quentin, California. You can also make minor revisions for style or headline size, and you can trim stories for space. You must also retain all original hyperlinks, including links to the Prison Journalism Project newsletters.
- No translation of our stories into another language without specific permission. Please contact inquiries@prisonjournalismproject.org.
- No selling ads against our stories, but you can publish it on a page with ads that you’ve already sold.
- No reselling or syndicating our stories, including on platforms or apps like Apple News or Google News. You also can’t republish our work automatically or all at once. Please select them individually.
- No scraping our website or using our stories to populate websites designed to improve search rankings or gain revenue from network-based advertisements.
- Any site our stories appear on must have a prominent and effective way to contact you.
- If we send you a request to remove our story, you must do so immediately.
- If you share republished stories on social media, please tag Prison Journalism Project. We have official accounts on Twitter (@prisonjourn), Facebook (@prisonjournalism), Instagram (@prisonjournalism) and Linked In.
- Let us know when you share the story. Send us a note, so we can keep track.