The judicial system in Missouri has adopted a controversial new practice when sentencing criminals &- providing judges with details about the estimated dollar amount the government would have to pay for each sentence they dole out.
The practice has sparked a heated debate between those who believe that it will help fix problems with the prison system and those who think it will lead financially cautious judges to reduce sentences for violent criminals.
If the information is used responsibly, it could be a very valuable factor in determining prison sentences for offenders convicted of non-violent crimes. It is a commonly held fact that the American prison system is riddled with problems, chief among those being overcrowding. This is due in large part to the fact that often judges dole out long sentences that are not entirely necessary for people who are not a danger to society. If states were to explore cheaper alternatives, such as house arrest, they could not only save money, but begin to reform the overcrowded, ineffective prison system that is a staple of the American judicial system.
The new policy definitely has the potential to cause problems. Obviously, cost to the government should not be the first factor considered by judges when deciding the fate of someone who is truly a danger to society. But most judges value the law and the safety of the people far more than saving the government money. It is difficult to imagine a judge letting a murderer off with the lowest possible sentence just because they know that it would cost less. Determinations would still have to be made on a case-by-case basis, as it would be unwise to use the cost to set precedents for sentencing.
If anything, the system will cause judges to think twice before they give out a sentence. Even if they ultimately decide that the harshest option is the best in the given situation, they will at least have been given a motivation to think harder and determine what punishment is the best fit for the specifics of the case.
Missouri's policy is controversial. It should be made very clear that the cost should not be used as the primary factor in sentencing decisions. But if the judges who are entrusted with acting in the best interests of the people take that duty to heart, it has the potential to do the state more benefit than harm.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
