Missouri thinks judges should— that the strategy can favorably impact the state’s budget and recidivism.
As the St. Louis Post Dispatch explains, it is the first state to provide judges with defendant-specific data on what particular sentences would cost the taxpayers, and on the likelihood that the person in the dock will reoffend.
Here’s more on the story story, courtesy of ABC.
When judges in Missouri prepare to sentence an offender, they have a new tool unavailable to other judges across the country: an invoice detailing the cost to taxpayers of different sentencing options.
The information is part of an offense summary culled from statistics kept by the state’s Bureau of Corrections that is tailored to the offender and also details the risk that he might re-offend.
“I feel very strongly that Missouri is pioneering an important and valuable revolution in sentencing procedure,” wrote Ohio State University professor Douglas A. Berman on his Sentencing Law and Policy blog.
The program was unveiled last month by the Missouri Sentencing Advisory Commission (MOSAC) as a tool to help judges determine the best chances for reducing recidivism with cost-effective punishments.
A judge or lawyer is able to enter specific information on the MOSAC website, such as an offender’s prior criminal history, the crime committed, his education and employment status. The computer then uses statistics from other actual sentences to process the information…..
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has more too.
Q. So-o-o-ooo, do you think California would consider such an innovative plan?
A: At the moment? Fat chance.
Celeste, why do you think California would not consider such a plan at this time?
Wow. Thanks for bringing this fascinating program to my attention. I definitely like giving judges info on recidivism rates and cost, but it’s asking them to do a lot of work they’re not accustomed to performing. I would hope the judges are getting some kind of training in how to best use this data and integrate it with the justice-centered approach they have previously cultivated.
The cost should never be considered. Consider the safety of the public, what the law calls for and the suspects rap sheet. Nothing else is needed.
Sure Fire’s right. And if we run out of money we can just build more prisons with legos.
One of those could hold a guy like you Rob.
If public safety is top priority we should get rid of the police.
Sad when a guy can’t come up with new material, same old shit just doesn’t cut it Rob.
As a conservative tea party member and a fiscal conservative, I just find statements like this disturbing:
“The cost should never be considered.”
I used to be a liberal until I was enlightened by geniuses such as Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Tony Rafael. I used to think money grew on trees. That if something could be improved, you just throw more money at it. Not anymore. We live in a real world, and the country’s going broke. I think the cost of everything should be considered. All public spending should be deeply scrutinized, from welfare to police. I just don’t want to see my country go bankrupt. I love my country.
God Bless America!
And God Bless you, Sure Fire!
We should spend less on incarcerating felons. We are way too nice to those in custody. In prison there should be two options, work or some type of learning activity. That learning activity should include different types of counseling for those who need it. Minimal time for excersise, with no weight training, should be included. The most minimal food requirement to sustain life should be the basic menu.
Make prison something people want to avoid and not a viable alternative to behaving on the outside.
That’s just not realistic, Sure Fire. You might as well suggest we just shoot felons. We’re not going to roll anything back to the stone ages. The only realistic solution is to reduce sentences for non violent, drug related crimes.
“The only realistic solution is to reduce sentences for non violent, drug related crimes.”
That and if you live in California vote yes on Proposition 19 on Nov. 2nd.
Spending less on felons, while sustaining these assholes are the same as shooting them? That’s a bit dramatic.