Badin vs. Fredericktown
Miamisburg graduation 2012
Valley View vs. Greenville
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.
Scott Elliott is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He writes about education, city and suburban issues, politics, business, workforce and consumer issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > July > 31
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Editorial: Ohio can’t keep locking everyone up
Politicians and judges love to talk about locking up criminals and throwing away the key. There’s just one problem: When the offenses are minor, the cost for all that prison time adds up fast. There has to be a better way.
Other states are showing that there are other options. Minor criminals are better dealt with outside of prison as long as they are well supervised. For Ohio, supervision is the missing link.
A study by the Council of State Governments Justice Center released Monday, July 26, showed Ohio’s uncoordinated probation and supervision processes contribute to a revolving door for minor offenders who constantly return for short stints in lockup.
Those short sentences, usually less than a year, cost the state dearly. Incarcerating a single inmate for a year in Ohio runs more than $25,000 — a figure that exceeds other states.
The pattern also keeps the state’s prisons full. Ohio houses more prisoners than the three closest states by population — Michigan, Illinois and Pennsylvania — with more than 50,000 inmates.
States like California and Texas are taking action to instead manage minor offenders through enhanced probation. The programs have shown promise both for reducing incarceration costs and for helping the offenders break the cycle of repeatedly returning to jail.
A key is coordination. Ohio has a patchwork system of probation in which different jurisdictions use different standards, follow different procedures and infrequently connect even when managing the same offender who has committed crimes in different counties.
That needs to change. As the report states, Ohio should redesign its system so that it works statewide and follows consistent standards.
Those who have committed nonviolent property crimes and thefts can benefit from better supervision. For example, Ohio can look to drug and mental-health courts in the Dayton area. In both cases, offenders who have drug or mental-health issues are referred to court on days when experts in treatment, diversion and rehabilitation are on hand. They link the offenders with services while judges keep close tabs on their progress.
Those who can’t stick with a probation plan end up in jail. But court officials delight in the success stories of many who have gotten their lives together.
Not every low-level offender needs intense supervision. Statewide standards for assessing them and placing them under the right level of monitoring (with the constant threat of being locked up as leverage) would create a better chance of keeping them out of the prison revolving door.
Ohio’s 32 prisons are 30 percent over capacity. Between 1980 and 2000, Ohio was fourth in the nation for prison construction, tripling the number of facilities. The state found it could not build its way out of its criminal-justice problems.
With a multibillion dollar state budget crisis looming, Ohio has to look for better options. It can’t afford to jail people who can be punished in a cheaper way.
Permalink | Comments (18) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Law Enforcement and Public Safety, Scott Elliott
