The newspaper's recent stating that tough criminal laws that put more people in prison cause a "strain" on government finances is correct, as far as it goes. But what the editorial didn't sufficiently analyze was the cost of not locking criminals up.
A criminal who is on the street commits additional crime, and this additional crime costs more money than locking him up, both for the government and private citizens. Why? Because responding to crime isn't free. Responding to the additional crime requires additional money. Let's examine the additional costs to the government first.
When the government responds to an additional crime that a freed criminal commits, police officers must be dispatched, perhaps accompanied by investigators, detectives, photographers and the yellow tape guys. And these additional crimes also require more prosecutors, more public defenders and more prison psychologists.
Indeed, the total cost of this additional crime is mind-boggling. And these costs are not only borne by the government. Private citizens also pay a price, both financially and emotionally.
When a store is robbed, the stolen inventory must be replaced. And when a car window is broken, it must be fixed. When someone is shot, the medical treatment isn't free, and as for the cost to a community when someone is murdered, both in terms of heartbreak and dollars, well, how can you put a price tag on that? You can't. That "strain," to use the editorial's language, is too large to measure. It is gigantic beyond all understanding. Just ask a murder victim's family.
If you want to lessen the cost of incarceration, the answer isn't letting criminals roam free. The answer is building "no frills prisons." That's the smart response to our crime problem. Letting criminals go free is not only immoral and dumb, it actually costs more.
MIKE WEINBERGER
founder, Home Defense Foundation
Metairie