The Mikado
By: Chief Justice Elliott E. Maynard
The Gilbert and Sullivan Operetta which gave us those words was written in 1885, and we are still today struggling with the prickly problem of fitting the punishment to the crime. And now, as then, locking people up is a very expensive enterprise. But, if government is going to perform its most basic obligation, to keep the streets safe, is there any real choice? Most people have an easy answer to that question. Conservatives say build new jails and liberals say fund new anti-poverty programs. Both are wrong. The correct approach is to find practical, workable alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders.
West Virginia has spent more than 320 million dollars in the last dozen years building new prison beds. We’ve built seven completely new regional jails; a new state of the art penitentiary at Mt. Olive; new beds at Huttonsville, Pruntytown and other institutions; and we are now building a 20 million-dollar prison for women, our first ever, at Lakin. Besides all that tax money, it costs in addition, and on average, about 20 thousand dollars per year to keep one person incarcerated. Modifying a little human behavior is costly! Surely there are cheaper alternative sentencing options for nonviolent offenders.
Let me strongly emphasize that our first concern with sentencing must always be public safety. We must never place the public in jeopardy nor give them grounds for anxiety or fear. That’s why the focus must be on nonviolent offenders.
Soon I hope to have a commission in place to examine alternative sentencing options and to fashion new and creative sentencing ideas.
Some of the programs the commission will look at are in use and may need to be expanded. Others may require legislation. A partial (and arbitrary) list of these programs includes such options as electronic home confinement, which is already in place in some counties and is self-sufficient. It pays for itself because the offenders on it have to pay a daily fee to offset costs. Community corrections, or involving the community with offenders, keeps them out of jail and makes them work. It uses their skills and talents. An offender who has carpenter skills can repair low-income houses, a painter can paint the local abuse shelter, or anyone can collect litter or do janitorial work. In fact, work is wonderful rehabilitation and should be part of every offender’s program. We don’t use it enough.
Other areas to be explored are restitution to victims by paying money or working for them; pre-trial diversion with community service; and counseling and therapy for alcohol and drug offenders with close blood alcohol monitoring.
For DUI offenders, a group which accounts for one-third of our regional jail population, there is a long list of proposals, some in limited use already: Interlock devices; home confinement with daily breath or blood checks; auto forfeiture; Scarlet Letter laws which require the offender’s vehicle license plate to say "Drunk Driver" or similar words; and involuntary hospitalization or mandatory attendance at a treatment facility for alcoholics, which many persistent drunk drivers are.
I am convinced that real and substantial tax dollars could be saved and used for far better purposes if we can find workable, safe alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders. Human behavior is not like soft plastic that can be easily molded by the criminal justice system. The real solution is murky but clearly includes new technology, treatment, putting offenders to work, involving the community in corrections, and closely watching and testing every offender when he is not in jail to guarantee compliance. In the words of Yogi Berra, "You can observe a lot just by watching." Since it costs more per year to keep someone in jail than to send him to college, we must find better ways to spend scarce tax dollars. Common sense and simple arithmetic demand it.