3 strikes law

So this has been bothering me for a while. There is a new bill on Beacon Hill for "habitual offenders" and which has been called the "Three Strike Law". Legislators are bragging about it being one of the toughest in the country. It would make "violent and habitual offenders" ineligible for Parole. They define the violent crimes as "murder, manslaughter, mayhem, rape, kidnapping, and assault and battery causing serious bodily injury".

On paper, it is a tough on crime, and makes a whole lot of sense. I mean, who wants these guys paroled, right? Why I agree on some, I think they include over 60 crimes. Murder, rape, and kidnapping makes sense to me. What does not make sense is that we will release individuals that have committed violent crimes with no supervision after their sentence. Part of the bill states that there would some mandatory post-release supervision, but they do not indicate who would be responsible for this or how they plan to grandfather (or not) current parolees, probationers, and incarcerated people. This part of the bill has been proposed in the past but has died due to not being able to agree who would be responsible for this post-incarceration supervision. And, please tell me, if they violate mandatory post incarceration supervision, what are the consequences? 


Also, we will overload a very crowded jail system, jails which by the way, the current administration want to close or reduce. The Department of Correction is the biggest part of the state budget and if this law passes, it will only get bigger. Maybe this gets DOC backing, but keep in mind that it costs roughly $45,000 a year to house an inmate. If this inmate has special needs or is acting up and such, it increases the costs. I firmly believe that inmates who will incarcerated for the totality of their sentence may be a little upset and may act out. I think that by making inmates angrier, more frustrated, and upset at the "system", we may have more issues. If you need some examples of what a three strikes law does to the prison population and their behavior, look up California and their experience with the 3 strike law.


I also believe that with recent issues with parole, the board is more aware of these issues. Cineli and Corales were appalling neglect of the board to read about inmates they are granting parole. I also believe that parole does a great service to former inmates: it sets-up a series of conditions of release that are tailored to the parolee and get them the services they may need. This, in turn, increases the chances of effective adaptation to the community and probably address their criminogenic issues. This, in turn, make our communities safer. Probation does similar work and I also applaud them for their work to get probationers ready for reintegration to the community. I also firmly believe this helps diminish recidivism. 


As for financial considerations, let's take an inmate with a 3 year sentence. If he was released on parole with 1 year left on his sentence, it will reduce DOC cost by $45,000. It will cost maybe $10,000 to be on parole for 1 year. In addition, the parolee must pay $80 a month and if he works (usually part of the condition), this parolee will pay taxes to the government. So, conservatively, the parolee may pay $2500 back to the community, have supervision to support proper reintegration to the community. So again I ask, what makes more sense?


Now legislators need to be "tough on crime" and especially in an election year.  There are some individuals who should NEVER be release...but 97% of them are released at some time....Again, I ask you: 3 strikes, or community supervision