You're right, this is a big idea. A large percentage of crimes are committed
by persons who have already been through the prison system once. Both Fattah
and Evans have focused on it, I believe. It runs completely counter to
public sentiment of the past 30 years, which has turned intensely punitive
and scornful of attention to the simplest and sanest social-service needs of
ex-convicts.
But clearly, if a man gets out of prison, with an extensive résumé in making
money by criminal activity and not a clue how else to make money ... he's
going to make money somehow. For him to make it legally will likely require
help from society. For him to make money illegally will require no help from
society, yet it will impose a substantial cost on society. Which is better?
For what it costs to incarcerate an individual for one year, you could pay
him to do all sorts of work for two years. Prisons are a staggeringly
inefficient, uneconomic way to control crime and their social product is
pretty painful also. It's an example of the Monster State at work,
bludgeoning complicated problems with sledgehammers.
-- Tony West
From: "Glenn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A candidate mentioned a real issue, the employment of ex-offenders. This
is the type of thing that should be outlined in a serious comprehensive
strategy.
However, at least a real problem was mentioned with real evidence existing
to support sound policy making. In my opinion, the re-employment of
ex-offenders would be the most important single strategy to reduce
recidivism. Having studied this problem thoroughly, I would like to see a
real effort to address this real problem which could have real cost
effective solutions. Cost effective especially with expenditures to invest
in properly implemented "supported work" strategies. This would have a
serious impact on recidivism.
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
