Category Archives: Criminal Justice

Have I Got a Revenue Enhancement for You!

I’ve been pondering the arguments about how to reduce the national debt, and I have a proposal. Dump the drug war.

The fiscal consequences of our current policies are staggering. While other estimates have been as high as 88 billion, an economics professor at Harvard reported in 2005 that replacing marijuana prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation similar to that used for alcohol would produce combined savings and tax revenues between $10 and $14 billion per year.  Even that’s not chump change. (Estimates from a variety of sources are that marijuana prohibition costs U.S. taxpayers nearly $42 billion dollars a year in criminal justice costs and lost tax revenues alone. This is just from marijuana prohibition—not efforts to control harder drugs.) As of August 19th of this year, state and federal governments together had spent $25, 969,752,344 on an effort that has–as the AP recently reported–has failed to meet any of its goals. The federal government alone spends approximately 500 dollars a second on drug prohibition.

Then there are the opportunity costs. Indiana used to have a robust hemp industry. Hemp is an enormously versatile and useful product that cannot be smoked or used as a recreational drug, but our indiscriminate policies outlaw its growth. They also prohibit use of marijuana to alleviate the side effects of chemotherapy. And the drug war diverts desperately needed dollars from serious crime-control efforts and other government programs.Estimates are that the money spent annually on the drug war would pay for a million additional teachers.

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition is an organization formed by law enforcement professionals–current and former police officers, sheriffs, prosecutors and judges. These are people who have seen the drug war up close and ugly, and their message is simple: it has been a costly disaster. Just as with America’s prior experiment with alcohol prohibition, the result has been policies that have created a set of perverse incentives that have made drug dealing so profitable that they outweigh the prospects of being caught. Last year the FBI reported that there is a drug arrest every 19 seconds in the US, and 82% of those were for simple possession. That isn’t surprising, since government estimates are that 47% of Americans over the age of 12 admit to using illegal drugs–mostly marijuana, which is no more harmful than those legal drugs, tobacco and alcohol.

There is a copious academic literature documenting the failure of American drug prohibition–and wide consensus on the magnitude of its social and human costs. There is also wide recognition that politicians of both parties are loathe to act on the basis of evidence when that evidence contradicts their ideology or (heaven forbid) threatens their electability by causing them to be seen as insufficiently concerned about law and order. On the other hand,  the country’s current fiscal crisis may finally provide a rationale for doing what most students of the issue have long advocated: discard a policy that has never worked. Decriminalize, tax and regulate marijuana, and focus on treatment and prevention for those with genuine addictions. (Ironically, federal law does not distinguish between use and abuse: it simply declares that any use of a substance that has been declared illegal is a crime, no matter how sporadic or casual the use. This “zero tolerance policy” has cost us a fortune–on average, it costs $25,251 to incarcerate a federal prisoner for one year.) Surely, even the most rabidly anti-tax Republicans would not object to taxing another “sin.”

Over the past 30+ years, we have ignored the numerous books, scholarly studies and organizations advocating the repeal of drug prohibition. Perhaps the current focus on national financial issues can help us achieve both savings and sanity.

Comments

Death and Taxes

These days, those of us who follow policy debates are suffering from overload: same-sex marriage, immigration policy, foreign policy—not to mention the re-emergence of pocketbook issues like collective bargaining rights—are generating lots of heat, if distressingly little light.

And then, of course, there are the perennial complaints about taxes.

Everyone, it seems, wants government to cost less–until someone suggests cuts to our particular sacred cows. In Washington, we see lawmakers eager to de-fund Planned Parenthood and NPR become livid when someone suggests cutting military spending. Here in Indiana, an eminently reasonable proposal by Governor Daniels and the Chief Justice to incarcerate fewer nonviolent offenders and save the billions of tax dollars that we would otherwise spend building additional prisons has been eviscerated by defenders of “law and order.”

In fact, the criminal justice system offers one of the best opportunities to save significant tax dollars, beginning with abolition of the death penalty.

People have different opinions about the morality of capital punishment, and I leave those arguments to ethicists and theologians. There are, however, some pretty compelling practical and fiscal arguments for abolition.

As a practical matter, years of scholarship have confirmed that capital punishment is not a deterrent. In 2009, states with the death penalty had murder rates of 5.2 per 100,000 residents; in states without, the rate was 3.9—a 35% difference. Police agree. In a recent poll, police chiefs ranked the death penalty last among ways to reduce violent crime; they also considered it the least efficient use of taxpayer money, and complained that it diverted money from more effective crime control measures.

Which brings us to the fiscal issues.

In 2010, Legislative Services analyzed capital punishment costs in Indiana, and determined that the average cost of a capital trial and direct appeal was 449,000–over ten times the 42,658 cost of a life-without-parole case.  In California, taxpayers pay 114,000,000 more each year than it would cost to keep those same offenders imprisoned for life. In Kansas, capital cases are 70% more expensive than non-capital cases, even including the costs of lifelong incarceration. In Texas, a death penalty case costs three times what it would cost to imprison someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years.

Advocates of the death penalty often complain that the higher costs are a result of “interminable appeals,” but that isn’t actually true. Appeals do add costs, but a capital trial is very expensive. Cells on death row and extra staff cost more.

We could eliminate appeals and execute people immediately upon conviction. That would save money. Unfortunately, such a proposal raises another pesky problem we have with capital punishment—the fact that we convict innocent people. Since 1973, over 130 people have been released from death row because they were found to be innocent. These were not folks freed on a “technicality,” they were people wrongfully convicted.

One of those people will be in Indianapolis on April 14th. Randy Steidl will speak at the IUPUI Campus Center at 7 p.m. about the 17 years he spent on death row for a crime he didn’t commit. Randy comes from a law-abiding middle-class family; his brother is a retired State Trooper. His story is troubling, to say the least: there was evidence of the sort of police and prosecutorial misconduct that—more often than we might like to think—accompanies the rush to solve high-profile murders.

As Steidl says, “If it happened to me, it can happen to anyone.”

I guess that’s one of those “moral” arguments I said I wasn’t going to make.

Comments

Pesky Evidence

I’ll admit to being one of the multitude of fans who have made shows like NCIS and CSI such hits. It isn’t that I don’t recognize how unrealistic they are—no publicly financed lab could afford such cutting-edge equipment even if someone invented it—but I love watching the search for hard evidence, and the characters’ willingness to abide by what that evidence shows even when the result is to exonerate some really unattractive suspect.

Wouldn’t it be nice if those we elect to make policy were similarly devoted to evidence-based decision-making?

In the real world, unlike the televised version, policymakers routinely disregard research that doesn’t match their ideological preferences. I’m not talking about a couple of studies where the results are ambiguous, or subject to conflicting interpretation. I’m talking about policies where the evidence is copious and expert consensus compelling. Global climate change is one such area; our incredibly expensive “drug war” is another.

Some years ago, I got a call from a teacher in northern Indiana who wanted to arrange a public forum on the pros and cons of our punitive drug policies. In private conversations, the Chief of Police, a local judge and the prosecutor had all told him that prohibition simply doesn’t work. Not one of them, however, would repeat those sentiments in public. My students who are police officers consistently tell me that alcohol—which is regulated but legal—is a much greater problem than marijuana, because people are more aggressive when they are boozed up than when they are zoned out.

The fiscal consequences of our current policies are staggering. In 2005, an economics professor at Harvard reported that replacing marijuana prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation similar to that used for alcohol would produce combined savings and tax revenues between $10 and $14 billion per year. Estimates from a variety of sources are that marijuana prohibition costs U.S. taxpayers nearly $42 billion dollars a year in criminal justice costs and lost tax revenues. This is just from marijuana prohibition—not efforts to control harder drugs.

Estimates are that the money spent annually on the drug war would pay for a million additional teachers.

Then there are the opportunity costs. Indiana used to have a robust hemp industry. Hemp is an enormously versatile and useful product that cannot be smoked or used as a recreational drug, but our indiscriminate policies outlaw its growth. They also prohibit use of marijuana to alleviate the side effects of chemotherapy.

Other states have begun to rethink these policies. Fifteen states have legalized medical marijuana. Oakland, California has begun assessing a sales tax on marijuana sold in marijuana dispensaries.

I recently had a call from a group hoping to convince the Indiana legislature to revisit policies on medical marijuana. The caller asked what the evidence showed.

I told him that the evidence conclusively demonstrated two things: that the drug war is both costly and counterproductive, and that in politics—unlike television—evidence is irrelevant and ideology rules.

Comments

The Ethics of Private Police

In my historic neighborhood, we are having a vigorous debate about the wisdom/propriety of paying monthly “dues” to hire off-duty police officers to conduct extra patrols. The concern is that the Indianapolis police force is stretched thin, and despite Mayor Ballard’s emphasis on public safety, not much has changed, and certainly not for the better.

I understand the problem; it’s real, and not improving. Like my neighbors, I want to feel that my person and property are being adequately protected. But I have a real problem with “rent-a-cop” proposals of this sort.

Public safety is one of the very few things that virtually all Americans believe should be provided by government. Practically speaking, private policing creates the classic “free rider” problem–if I pay a private security guy to patrol my street, my neighbor who refuses to pay his fair share for this service will benefit anyway. Ethically, the question goes to the heart of why we have collective mechanisms like government in the first place: why should citizens who can afford to pay extra get adequate basic services while our poorer neighbors don’t?

 If I thought that hiring private security for the Old Northside would prompt the city to deploy added police in underserved poor neighborhoods–where social dysfunction and economic distress increases the incidence of violent crime–I might reconsider my opposition, but anyone who understands the way these things work knows how unlikely that is. It’s more likely that the Mayor would breathe a sigh of relief and REDUCE the public police force proportionately. My neighborhood would benefit at the expense of poorer areas.

What’s worse, we’d be echoing the message that seems to resonate with all those “tea bagger” folks: that we don’t need no stinkin’ government. If for some reason you can’t fend for yourself,  it’s probably because you are undeserving. In any case, that’s your problem.

Duke and Prosecutorial Hazard

The recent dismissals of all charges brought against the Duke lacrosse players—accompanied by condemnations of the prosecutor who originally brought the charges—reminded me of something said in 1940 by Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, who later presided over the Nuremberg trials.

 

Jackson said “The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous…The citizen’s safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law, and not factional purposes.”

 

Whatever other lessons we may learn from the sorry spectacle at Duke—lessons about race, privilege and resentment, or the ease of playing to an ever-more sensation-seeking media—surely the importance of prosecutorial integrity is the most important. Prosecutors are officers of the court; they are lawyers for “the people.” If they do not place their duty to the truth above personal or partisan considerations, they can do enormous damage both to the lives of individuals and to public trust in our institutions.

 

It isn’t only Duke. In Wisconsin, a Republican U.S. Attorney launched a corruption case against an obscure state bureaucrat, and even got a conviction. It was an election year, and not surprisingly, the case was featured prominently in attack ads against the Democratic governor. After the election, the appeals court threw the case out.  The opinion, written by (exceedingly conservative) Judge Easterbrook, called the evidence "beyond thin" and the case “preposterous.”

 

The Wisconsin case, even more than the travesty at Duke, provides a telling example of why the current Congressional investigation into the Justice Department’s firing of eight federal prosecutors is so important.

 

The previous Congress ignored numerous warning signs about politicization of the Justice Department—from the hiring of attorneys with few qualifications and little experience, to the departure of career lawyers who had served both Republican and Democratic administrations. Seasoned career lawyers were overruled so that the department could reverse prior policy in voting rights cases. The list goes on.

 

Then there is the curious “coincidence” that several of the fired prosecutors came from battleground states that will be critical in the 2008 election: New Mexico, Nevada, Michigan, Washington and Arkansas.

 

It is easy for citizens numbed by the constant drumbeat of accusations and counteraccusations and disgusted by the political gameplaying and outright corruption of the last several years to shrug off the situation at the Justice department as one more fight between equally unpleasant political insiders. But that would be a mistake, because we all have an important stake in the independence and integrity of the men and women entrusted, literally, with life and death decisions.

 

Once we lose confidence in the probity of those officers of the court, once we suspect that they have based the decision to pursue (or overlook) behaviors on political calculation rather than on the evidence, we will have lost what John Adams memorably called “a government of laws, not men.” We really will have lost America.