Student Publications
University of Houston
151C Communications Bldg
Houston, TX 77204-4015
713.743.5350

©1991-2007
Student Publications,
All rights reserved.

Last modified:

Contact:
ktruitt@uh.edu

Opinion

TIME IS MONEY

AT ISSUE: A report released by the Pew Charitable Trusts predicted the number of inmates in prisons will continue to grow and that "if nothing changes, taxpayers will spend as much as $27.5 billion more on prisons over the next five years, and the jury is still out as to whether that investment will yield commensurate results in crime control." How should policy makers combat this rising cost? Should incarcerating criminals be the main priority, or saving taxpayers money?

If taxes aren't used to keep prisoners in jail, 
public will pay an even greater price

URSULA HAWKINS: Policy makers should absolutely tax the public for prisons. Safety -- not money -- is most important. Incarcerating criminals should be the No. 1 priority, as fewer criminals on the streets will mean less crime. If taxpayers do not pay to keep these criminals in jail, they will eventually have to deal with them being released back into society.

Last year, as Texas prisons approached capacity, officials actually considered releasing prisoners. Although this didn't happen, it demonstrated the fact prisons need more resources to protect the public. If officials were forced to discharge prisoners, those who have committed petty crimes, such as theft, robbery and vandalism -- all of which cost people money -- would be the first ones released back onto the streets. 

There is already a police shortage in some parts of the country, including here in Houston. An increased number of criminals on the street would only make the problem worse. 

Taxpayers frequently complain about paying more money, but that is something that will never change. As the saying goes, "There are two thing guaranteed in life: death and taxes." As long as taxpayers are not paying for unnecessary commodities for prisoners, which they are not, the extra money should not be an issue.

Hawkins is a communication/Spanish sophomore.

Laws should be altered to keep minor offenders out of prison

AUSTIN HAVICAN: Members of law enforcement and the judicial system should reconsider the severity of punishments issued for those convicted of non-violent crimes.

Prisons are built to punish criminals and to protect the public from dangerous individuals, but not all offenses are a threat to public safety. Victimless crimes such as vandalism, theft, tax evasion and drug possession should be punished in other -- though not necessarily less severe -- ways. Putting a teenager in jail for selling pot should be much less of a priority than incarcerating a murderer or rapist.

Instead of jailing CEOs for stealing from their companies or evading the IRS, put them to work on public service projects. Their crime shouldn't be ignored, but it certainly doesn't require 24-hour lock down when they pose no tangible threat to humanity. Unpaid manual labor and house arrest would be much less expensive for taxpayers. In addition, the time that would otherwise be wasted sitting in a cell is put to use for public benefit.

Instead of spending more money on storing bad people, our legislators should be looking for ways to cut costs in the penal system. This may require a re-examination of how we punish lesser offenses. That's not to say we should legalize all drugs and let thieves go free, but instead try to find alternative punishments that are less costly to tax payers.

Havican is an English senior.

Less severe laws would help ease the burden of maintaining prisons

CHRISTIAN PALMER: There have already been plenty of instances where public safety has been forsaken for a variety of reasons. 

We can swear up and down all day that we will put every criminal we encounter behind bars (or to their death in many cases), but that simply isn't feasible. 

There are many types of legal violations, and just about every one of us is guilty of something. If everyone who violated the law were in prison, more people would be in than out, which doesn't seem reasonable. 

However, we don't want to consciously allow criminals to go free and, worse yet, have it ingrained into our culture that crimes can be easily gotten away with. 

We would all feel less safe -- regardless of whether or not the feeling is justified. On the other hand, putting every dirty Tom, Dick or Harry behind bars will continue to cost more with population increases and the creation of more laws to break. 

People are ultimately more concerned about their pocketbooks and simply don't want to pay for prisons. They want to have their cake and eat it, too. So with all this in mind, the answer seems so obvious: We need to redefine what constitutes a crime. Houston has already decided to implement a no-chase policy for the police. Next on the list could be decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana, like some other cities have already begun doing. 

Palmer is a media production/sociology junior.
 

Send comments to dccampus@mail.uh.edu