Costs to Keep Criminals Locked Up Still Costs Money.

Status
Not open for further replies.

USAFNoDAk

Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
489
Location
Minnesota
Below is an article from the Minneapolis Star Tribune. How does it relate to guns? Anti-gun folks and politicians, including mayors and police chiefs of large cities never seem to consider the costs of implementing more gun control laws that are ineffective in stopping or preventing violent crime. But suggest to them that violent criminals, sex offenders, and other dangerous people be kept off of the streets, and the first thing they ask is "how are we going to afford it?"

Comments?

http://www.startribune.com/562/story/1386010.html

Susan Lenfestey: It still costs money to get criminals off streets


Budget cuts are stretching investigators and prosecutors to the max.

Susan Lenfestey

Published: August 28, 2007


Susan Lenfestey: It still costs money to get criminals off streets
When Dru Sjodin was murdered in November 2003, there was an understandable hue and cry from the public. How could it be that her now-convicted killer, Alfonso Rodriguez Jr., a recently released Level 3 sex offender -- the category deemed most likely to reoffend, and as such, a candidate for a form of indefinite treatment and detention known as civil commitment -- was out on the streets unsupervised?
Well, as with fallen bridges, it's complicated, but perhaps government-on-the-cheap played a part.

When Gov. Tim Pawlenty took office in January 2003, the state was facing a $4.5 billion deficit, and with his campaign pledge not to raise taxes, cuts were being made to departments across the board, including Corrections.

In May 2003, Anita Schlank, head of Minnesota's sex-offender program, resigned after being told by a supervisor that the program was growing at an "unsustainable rate" and after being directed to draw up a list of 40 civilly committed sex offenders to place in community housing in order to save money. (This testimony became a political hot potato, denied by some but confirmed by several of Schlank's coworkers.)

According to Schlank, the order to pare down the program was in place before Pawlenty was elected, so I am not laying the release of Rodriguez at the governor's feet. But I am saying that if Rodriguez was released to save money, the savings came at a terrible cost.

Since Sjodin's murder, there's been plenty of tough talk and new legislation. Local lawmakers have changed civil-commitment procedures and have extended sentences for sexual predators. Nationally, Dru's Law, which creates a public database of sex offenders, was enacted in 2005.

However, talk about public safety is as plentiful in politics as photo ops. Paying for it is another matter. Although the 2007 legislative session restored some of the funding that was cut in 2003, the squeeze from the statehouse is still being felt at the courthouse. And Pawlenty's controversial reductions in local government aid (LGA) -- which provides state funds for cities, including Minneapolis -- is being felt acutely at the Minneapolis Police Department and city attorney's office.

In talking to people in the criminal-justice system, at both the county and the city levels, it becomes clear that they are stretched to the max.

The sex-crimes unit of the Minneapolis Police Department has been reduced from 10 officers to four, who are responsible for investigating an average of 1,300 cases a year, and that doesn't include oversight of the 2,500 registered sex offenders living in Minneapolis. "Do the math," said an officer we spoke with. "We're not checking on them." The math also means that many cases aren't being assigned an investigator -- and no investigation means no charges can be brought.

A county prosecutor said she is outraged over the low number of filings of child-abuse cases due to budget cuts in the police department's Family Violence and Sex Crimes units, which, she says, makes it impossible for the officers to keep up with investigating child-abuse cases.

The city attorney's office handled a total of 27,195 cases in 2006. (The city attorney's office handles misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors. Higher-level crimes are referred to the county.) There are 28.5 attorney positions in the office, so that's an average of 951 cases per attorney per year. Both the American Bar Association and the Minnesota state public defender recommend an annual average of 400 misdemeanor cases per attorney per year, or 250 gross-misdemeanor cases per attorney per year, so our city attorneys are carrying more than double the recommended amount. "The LGA cuts came in on top of other cuts," said one city attorney. "We've always done more with less, but now we simply can't do any more."

After a high-profile tragedy like the murder of Dru Sjodin, the tax-paying public clamors for the criminal-justice system to do a better job but balks when presented with the bill.

Obviously, throwing money at the complicated problem of sex crimes, especially at the corrections end and not the prevention end, is no panacea. But giving the justice system a shrinking budget and expecting it to effectively administer justice in these complex cases is, well, criminal.

It takes little courage for political leaders to lower the bar on sex offenders, but it takes extraordinary courage to raise the bar on taxpayers.

And as we're all slowly learning, you get what you pay for.

Susan Lenfestey is the founder of WATCH, a court monitoring and research organization that focuses on cases of violence against women and children. She writes at www.Clotheslineblog.com.


 
More BS. Governments and government agencies will always spend every single dollar they are given, and if they are given dramatic increases they will expand and spend every last dollar of thier new budget and need more.

So every agency will be always be "underfunded". In fact the more funding a given location has the more anti gun they tend to become and the more money they have to increase oversight and restrictions on many things. The more jail space available the more new crimes are created, including an expansion of "gun control".
When government is made to work with a small budget they are forced to focus on the most important issues. If they are releasing "dangerous" or "violent" criminals because of a lack of space it is to get more funding. Jails are always packed with numerous people there for drug offenses, some of whom are stereotypical addicts, and others that otherwise live normal lives. They are all criminals for breaking a law, but many are not violent.

a candidate for a form of indefinite treatment and detention known as civil commitment
While I in no way want to be around such an individual or have them around my family, do you really want the government to have the funding to "indefinitely detain" someone that has served all thier time? They either need to have bigger sentences given, or be released. Bypassing our justice system and detaining people who have served all thier time is not something I wish to increase funds for. Sure right now it might be for a type of individual that we can easily despise, but who is to say what new catagories can become eligable for permanent detainment after they serve thier time.

It has been my observation that the larger the funding of a specifc government, the more funding it has to use for tyrannical purposes. Lets keep them to the basics. If they are lacking funding tell them to cannibalize something else that is unnecessary. Jails and prisons are always the first places budget cuts are made to provide cash to other unnecessary programs because they can operate on very little. It is not because they originaly are underfunded, it is because politicians divert funds to other projects. Increasing the funding for what they tell you is underfunded just means they have even greater funds to divert towards additional projects, some of which will be more authoritarian, all at the tax payer's expense. Then they will once again be underfunded and they will cry that the agencies that create the most fear or panic in the population are again underfunded. These are often the places that house dangerous individuals, however they are only underfunded because of thier choices.

This would be like a parent who chooses to buy unnecessary luxuries, chooses to enjoy intoxicants, chooses to poorly manage thier money then highlighting that thier children are undernourished because they don't have enough money. That thier children need new clothing or shoes they cannot afford because they dont have enough money. You see this a lot in bad neighborhoods where people can afford drugs and booze and partying every weekend at least, but supposedly dn't have enough for the bare necessities. It is a bunch of BS. Don't be fooled just because it is government doing the fooling.

Any extreme authoritarian measures and systems put in place for the type of people mentioned in the article will eventualy be expanded for use with others. It is fear mongering, highlighting the worst in society in an attempt to reduce civil rights of everyone, and increase funding for programs that better allow rule with an ironfist. It may get tested and improved on those individuals, but it will gain acceptance and become a normal part of American justice and branch out from there.

I am always amazed with gun owners who feel they are untouchable people of a different species than those who commit crimes, and then are amazed on an individual basis when they suddenly find themselves a target for a minor technicality the BATFE or other agencies call them on. Then they get to enjoy the harsh system they promoted and encouraged. A system with many checks and balances they helped to remove, with mandatory sentences etc, so even a judge that agrees with them has thier hands tied.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."
Thomas Jefferson
 
About this time of the year at every government funded facility there is a mad dash to spend money before the fiscal year is out to prove they need more next year.

--wally.
 
The question, obviously, is one of priorities. Does government spend our money on limousines for its highest ranking self-styled "civil servants," or prisons to protect the tax payers from the predators?

Did I even need to ask?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top