Corrections officials have argued that criminal justice and sentencing policies, and the funds that support them, should be driven by rational principles such as public safety, not emotions such as rage and revenge. That sound idea should dramatically change the sentencing laws that state officials and Congress enact.
Such policies have fueled a quadrupling in the U.S. prison population since the 1970s to more than 2 million people. Most of the increase occurred in the 1980s and 1990s, when states adopted mandatory-minimum sentences for drug offenses, three-strikes laws and other get-tough measures.
In recent years, policymakers and politicians, facing tight budgets, have questioned those practices. Pennsylvania and other states have enacted reforms and focused resources on assisting the 95 percent of the prison population that will eventually be released.
Marc Mauer, head of the Sentencing Project in Washington, D.C., has an even better idea. He proposes capping federal prison sentences, with some exceptions, at 20 years. Congress and state lawmakers should consider it.
As he notes, most offenders age out of crime after 40. They become far less dangerous, but more costly to incarcerate, given the medical expenses for an older prisoner.
Mr. Mauer’s proposal for a 20-year sentencing cap should be debated without distracting labels or excessive partisanship. At issue is whether such a change would significantly affect public safety, while freeing up hundreds of millions of dollars for programs that could actually prevent crime.
Reducing prison populations to rational levels will take courage, foresight and fresh ideas. The alternative is wasting billions of dollars that could be better spent on education, health care, crime prevention, transportation and other vital needs.
First Published: March 21, 2015, 4:00 a.m.
