The following column is the opinion and analysis of the writer:
Arizona lawmakers are reconsidering many so-called โtough-on-crimeโ policies. I applaud the Legislatureโs efforts because this is not a popular topic for politicians on either side of the aisle.
Putting people in prison is a brutal business. Iโve seen firsthand how deep and debilitating the fangs of justice can be, especially for nonviolent crimes. Guidelines slot people into neat categories and lose sight that some people donโt fit. Lost is the understanding of a personโs individuality.
No matter how repentant a person is, sentencing guidelines, in general, ignore what good a person may have done. Their contributions to society or their local communities, or their military service or other beneficence to their country are moot. A history of being a productive member of society means nothing in sentencing guidelines. The result is that the punishment of incarceration push people down a path none of us can imagine.
When a person leaves prison, legalized discrimination permeates employment and housing opportunities. The inability to find employment pushes people to the margins of society, denied access to the mainstream economy. If people canโt find a job, housing or food, what does society expect people to do to survive?
According to a report in U.S. News & World Report from May 2019, Arizona has the fourth-highest incarceration rate in the country. Who knew we lived in such a lawless state?
The cost of warehousing humans goes beyond the $1.2 billion that Arizona spends on prisons a year. The difficulty former inmates face finding a job, forces taxpayers to pay for Medicaid, supplementary food assistance, and other safety-net programs for low-income people. Seeing this, Iโve often asked myself what compelling social purpose is there to inflict such hardship? Is caging people really effective?
Sentencing guidelines that include prison time hope to deter future crime and positively change future behavior. Prison time may have the opposite effect. Being locked up is certainly punishment and keeps criminals off the street, but inmates learn more effective crime strategies from each other, and the time spent in prison desensitizes many to the threat of future imprisonment. Inmates give leads to those leaving prison to earn money; most are illegal. Many resist the temptation, but others donโt out of desperation.
Sentencing guidelines also make the criminal-justice system unforgiving. Mercy or leniency of any kind are unacceptable considerations. Forgiveness has no role in retributive justice.
If forgiveness is not part of the equation, the cycle of retribution goes on and on. Forgiveness can break the cycle of injury and vengeance. As a community, do we want prosecutors to exact the greatest possible punishment or win at all costs? Or would we rather have them offer mercy in equal measure to justice?
As our Legislature debates reforms, I hope it considers four points.
First, calculate the costs of incarceration at the time of sentencing. Understanding the costs may reduce our prison population by sending only the worst offenders to prison.
Second, redirect monies from incarceration to diversion programs in which an offender is helped to remedy the behavior leading to their original arrest.
Third, punishment canโt be more severe than crime. Grinding out unwarranted and counterproductive levels of punishment does not make our communities safer.
Fourth, our laws do not provide a concrete way to help restore a personโs life and dignity. The quicker we can get people on their feet and become productive members of society, the better our communities will be.
Our civic fabric would be stronger if, instead of trying to sever relationships with those who have done wrong, we tried to repair those relationships. Being a little less judgmental, and a bit more compassionate would serve all Arizonans well.
