For many years various interests have argued that the government’s “War on Drugs” has escalated the terms of imprisonment unnecessarily.  Unfortunately, efforts to reform these harsh penalties have been largely unsuccessful.  As a result of recent developments in Missouri, it appears that the country’s  dismal economy and its impact on the stability of  government may very well motivate sentencing reform.

Last week,  sentencing judges in Missouri were  provided with statistics identifying the cost of imprisonment to assist them with their sentencing prerogatives.  For example, a three year prison term relating to a drug conviction could cost approximately $37,000, while probation for that same offense can cost $6,770.00.  This policy which was implemented by the state’s sentencing advisory commission has ignited a sharp debate.   Defense attorneys and financial conservatives consider  this alternative to be  long overdue.  Others,  especially prosecutors, considerate it as a transparent effort to pressure judges to send fewer people to prison.  One presiding judge said “ it is almost foolish not to look at it.  We live in a  what’s-its going-to-cost society now.”   A law professor from New York University said the policy makes sense because economic factors play roles in all sorts of legal decisions.  Another law professor from the University of Utah said that “no one can put a price tag on being a victim” and to that extent, the policy offends principles of reason. 

Missouri’s position is simply  another spin on other state’s efforts to contain the cost of maintaining a prison system.  Michigan has closed its prisons.  Arizona has considered placing the supervision of its prison system in the hands of independent contractors and California is seriously probing ways to reduce  its prison population.

The cost of over-incarcerating  non-violent offenders, especially drug and alcohol offenders, is a problem that needs immediate attention.  That attention may be focused on having sentencing judges spend more time analyzing the unique personal characteristics of the defendant, as well as the cost to society, including the economic cost, to determine if other punitive alternatives are available.