The affluence of the United States and the various States has allowed us to spend a great deal of money on the criminal justice system. Now, we have a downturn in our economy causing States to run massive budget shortfalls. As anyone knows, this always leads to a cutback in "alternative" programs, meant to divert people out of the criminal justice system. Of course, there are other things which affluence has allowed us to impose upon the criminal justice system: indigent defense, expensive death penalty cases, high imprisonment rates, etc.
Of the items listed above, the high imprisonment rate is the one which the one which we have already seen affected. We've all read the stories of judges and sheriffs discharging prisoners early because there's not enough space or money to incarcerate them.
Indigent defense is an ongoing problem. There has been a push for years to improve indigent defense. Obviously, indigent defense is not something which legislators are going to have as the top item of their list of things to do to satisfy their constituents. Still, as long as the country and the States were riding an economic high actual opposition to funding improvements faded. Now, with states such as Virginia facing billions of dollars of shortfall, it's unlikely that any legislator is going to be favorable to putting money into defending those accused of breaking the law.
Expensive Death Penalty Cases: This is the sacred cow. Under the rubric "death is different", more and more and more expensive requirements have been added to death penalty cases. Facing the finality of the punishment, it has been difficult for anyone to step up and say "no more." And, it is obviously part of the anti-death penalty stratagem to make death penalty cases financially untenable. Personally, I don't think the current economic downturn is enough to effect this one way or the other. Sure, anti-death penalty activists are reliably making noises about eliminating the penalty because it is too expensive, but it does not seem to be making too much headway. Nevertheless, the question at hand is, should the economy ever become so depressed that it cannot support the money we now spend on capital defense will we prune the defense or eliminate the punishment?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular entries
-
With the price of gas in the modern day, I've looked around at scooters/mopeds a little bit. An interesting thing out there is the 3 whe...
-
This month's edition of The National magazine ( National (English) - October/November 2010 ) has a significant multi-page article on pri...
-
In the "Street View" lawsuit with the Borings (see: Boring lawsuit over Google's "Street View" ), Google has filed a...
-
Following in the footsteps of British Columbia and Alberta, bar owners in Halifax are talking about rolling out a "Bar Watch" prog...
-
Every time I get on Facebook it tries to set me up with someone. Now, not to be too cynical about things, but girls who looked like that wer...
-
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had an interesting Op/Ed on privacy, highlighting contemporary expectations of privacy. Information Age ...
-
New York City has lowest crime rate . Good, now maybe I can finally get somebody to buy that bridge I purchased last year.
-
A long-time friend of this blog just recently sent me a link to a new decision from the British Columbia Supreme Court ( R. v. Pickton , 201...
-
After a very long hiatus, I've been reinfected with the photography bug thanks to acquiring a new digital SLR (some of my recent work i...
-
June 16, 2004 In this newsletter: HAWAII EXTENDS ACT 221 Hawaii has some very impressive and generous tax incentives. Considering all the pu...