Case Study - "Time to Dig Out"

The case study, "Time to Dig Out", the Governor has come against a road block in concerns with the budget for correctional facilities and making sure that all other areas of the budget, such as school funding, are being met. The decision that the Governor decided was to propose a bill called, "The Truth in Sentencing", which was similar in nature to California's Three Strikes You Are Out law. (Stojkovic, Kalinich, & Klofas, 2003, pp. 75-76). Wisconsin implemented one of the nation's toughest truth-in-sentencing laws four years ago without ever assessing the cost. Today, thousands of inmates are on waiting lists for prison jobs, education and treatment programs. Wardens report more bad conduct and hopelessness among offenders. When they are released, inmates report to parole officers with average caseloads of about 60 who have little to offer in direct aid other than free bus tickets, hygiene kits and referrals to agencies with more long waiting lists. "When truth in sentencing sailed through the Legislature in 1998, Wisconsin's crime rate had fallen 14.3% over the preceding five years. From 1998 to 2003, that trend continued, with a decline of 12.4%". (Barton,Zahn, 2004) The Truth in Sentencing is comparable to the Three Strikes Law that California currently has in place.

There are several groups that would likely support a reduction in funding for the state's department of corrections. Supporters of higher education argued that the cost for higher education was becoming out of hand and that this area needed to be reviewed for more funding. Supporters of mental health programs argued that if the budget was simply put towards correctional facilities, mental health programs would suffer, which in turn would just increase the inmate population. Finally, Citizens were fed up with the amount of taxes that they already had to pay on property taxes. If more correctional facilities were created this would just increase the amount of taxes that the already frustrated citizens would end up paying.
Lawyers, judges and law enforcement would be in support of changes in criminal sentencing. The change would come from the "Truth in Sentencing" proposal that the Governor was trying to put into motion. Lawyers and judges would be able to review the laws and control criminal sentencing in different ways without having to rely strictly on the correctional system. The citizens, although already feeling as though they are paying too much, would in the end benefit from funding the department of corrections or prison construction. The reason being is that with crime comes prison time in many cases. Almost 45% of all criminals will end up in the correctional system at one time or another (2006)

Correctional employees, law enforcement and advocates of strike guidelines in terms of jail time for criminals would not want to see a reduction of funds going towards the corrections department. Not only would correctional employment go down, but law enforcement would have more strain put on them if criminals knew that they could commit a crime and not have to do any jail time. If the Governor decides that no more funding will be allocated to the correctional departments, the department of corrections would be looking at possible lay offs of employees, and a decreased amount of pay to those individuals who would end up applying for any upcoming vacant positions.

The best case scenario is for the Governor to go over the budget with a fine tooth comb and make sure that all areas are given the amount of money they need to run their areas. Areas such as mental health programs and law enforcement need to be able to have a budget that can accommodate them. The worst case scenario is that criminals do not get sentenced to hard time in a correctional facility due to the budget issue. Criminals may get the idea that it's ok for them to commit crimes because they will just have to sit behind bars and not have to worry about parole.

The department of corrections can affect the outcome by bringing hard stats to the table, by showing what could occur with a reduction of money going into their facilities and by making sure the citizens understand the outcome of having fewer facilities to house criminals. With less correctional facilities come more crimes that will have to be dealt with simply the already overbooked court system. If the correctional facilities were able to show that placing criminals in jail for the crimes they commit, they could possibly persuade the Governor and the citizens of the need to keep funding for the correctional facilities.

References

Stojkovic, S., Kalinich, D., & Klofas (2003). Criminal justice organizations: Administration & management (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thompson/Wadsworth.

(2006). District of Columbia. Retrieved June 2, 2006, from Department of

Corrections Web site:

http://doc.dc.gov/doc/cwp/view,a,3,q,491585,docNav,|30833|30856|.asp

Barton, Zahn, Gina,Mary (112004). Tougher sentencing law carries hefty price.

Retrieved June 4, 2006, from JS Online Web site:

http://www2.jsonline.com/news/state/nov04/277059.asp