While the nation’s imprisoned population has declined since peaking in 2009, incarceration levels still remain extraordinarily high, reports the USA Today.
Continued efforts to lower incarceration rates will
stall unless we address the role that revenue plays in the daily
operation of police departments, courts, jails and prisons across the
country. So much of these entities’ time and effort goes into generating
revenue that the goals of pursuing justice and improving public safety often
get pushed to the side.
A new Brennan Center for Justice report delves into the
interlocking economic incentives that underpin our justice system. Many of
these practices rely on a simple calculus: More people in the justice system
means more dollars for agencies, governments and contracted for-profit
firms
Some of the revenue streams flow straight out of the
pockets of the people who are ticketed, searched, arrested, jailed,
tried and sent to jail or prison, while others arise from a growing trade
in bed space at correctional and detention facilities.
Michael Brown brought attention to Ferguson,
Missouri
A 2020 study found that when a
municipality increased the percentage of its revenue
coming from law enforcement fines, fees and forfeitures, that rise was
associated with statistically significant decreases in clearance rates (the
ratio of arrests to reported crimes) for both violent and property crimes.
That is an unacceptable trade-off. It’s time for the
government agencies involved in the criminal justice system at all levels to
examine the revenue-generating parts of their work and its true costs,
alongside the budget holes they are meant to fill.
In the face of shrinking state or federal
monetary aid, eroded
property and sales tax bases, and public distaste for tax increases, the
pressure to bring in revenue has been intense, to put it mildly. Even so, every
program, every policy that now privileges revenue over safety and justice can
be realigned. The solutions to these problems exist. They just need people of
courage to apply them.
The killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson,
Missouri, drew national attention to user-funded justice – the
city had pushed the
police department and the courts to maximize funding potential of
fines and fees.
In fiscal years 2010 and 2011, about 12%
of Ferguson's general fund revenue came from fines and fees.
By fiscal year 2015, the city was budgeting for 23% of its revenues to
come from fines and fees.
Civil asset forfeiture no longer hits just drug
kingpins
Civil asset forfeiture, too, has metastasized into a
major revenue source, going well beyond its onetime purpose of targeting drug kingpins.
Law enforcement agencies seize and retain peoples’ cash, vehicles, homes and
other items on a suspicion of their connection to an offense without having to
prove the connection.
Take Minnesota’s Metro Gang Strike Force. An
investigation revealed that its members were stopping and searching
people who were clearly not involved in gang activity, and then taking or
buying seized items for personal use – like televisions, tools, appliances and
jet skis.
Law enforcement agencies have also been earning
revenue from bed space. Some counties offer open beds in local jails to state
or federal authorities whose own facilities are overcrowded, such as
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Marshals. Counties can arrange for
the federal government to pay them to maintain a “guaranteed minimum”
number of beds in their facilities. Some expand their facilities or
build new ones to serve this market. Or they can act as
intermediaries between federal agencies and for-profit firms, agreeing to
house federal detainees and then subcontracting with a company that puts those
people in their facilities.
Rebalance the scales of justice
While it is easy to agree that governments should not be extracting money from the most vulnerable, nor that agencies be rewarded for securing overly harsh punishments, the primary challenge to reform is that these financial motivations – and their budgetary effects – have become persistent and self-reinforcing. Nevertheless, we can rebalance the scales of justice, and we must.
For example, policymakers can push back against the
growing market in bed space and take steps to reduce correctional and detention
populations safely. At the same time, where housing deficits still exist,
negotiations and contracting should be subjected to increased transparency and
accountability.
Lawmakers can also choose to eliminate civil asset
forfeiture. Alternatively, states can redirect forfeiture proceeds away from
law enforcement.
Legislatures can eliminate all fees, with
outstanding debts automatically forgiven.
To realign our priorities, Congress, state
legislatures, local governments and law enforcement agencies must work
together to diminish the lure of existing financial incentives for agencies and
municipalities that are often stretched too thin. The justice system should be
funded equitably by taxpayers, all of whom are served by it – not
primarily by the community’s poorest, most marginalized members.
To read more CLICK HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment