Okay, I knew I couldn't agree with Brian Dubie on everything.  Today he came out with a cynical attack on his Democratic opponent about his proposal to be fiscally responsible and release nonviolent inmates to save the state millions of dollars.

I don't really care about the day-to-day particulars of the gubernatorial race–beyond my interest as a voter–since I'm not running for that office.  But I have to interject here because the dubious blog post in question really does an injustice to a couple important issues.

First of all, Dubie cites this:

“There are virtually no low re-offense risk, non-violent offenders in prison.”
– Vt. Dept. of Corrections report to the General Assembly, Dec. 12, 2007

Interesting that The Team didn't provide a link to the report.  Don't worry, I found it with my mad Google skillz.

Anyway, the post is chock full of scaremongering about repeat offenders and dealers selling drugs to kids.  It was not very constructive and actually missed a critical observation by Robert D. Hoffman, Commissioner of Corrections:

Before anyone criticizes either the Legislature or the Department of Corrections for considering these choices, I urge them to offer better suggestions for how to limit escalating correctional costs that have escalated on average by 10% annually.

Sadly, The Team didn't take this opportunity to share Dubie's plan to reduce our burdensome corrections expenditures.  The whole point of the DoC's report was to investigate cost savings that many states have been looking for.  Back in 2008 there was a proposal to reform how we deal with nonviolent offenders, and Governor Douglas supported the idea.

So here we are in 2010 discussing the issue which hasn't gone away.  Shumlin says his plan will save $40M, of which $33M he'd reinvest in pre-K education.  That's a pretty compelling idea since level of education seems to be a key component in nonviolent crime.

Recidivism is certainly a concern, and it's an inherent problem when you throw nonviolent offenders into jail.  Since almost all are eventually released, there's always a risk of re-offense so unless Dubie suggests we imprison nonviolent criminals forever, he can never keep his promise to “keep convicted criminals locked up.” 

We'd do better by investing in early education to reduce the potential for crime, reintegrating those who have already done time back into society, and providing real rehabilitation so they won't fall into the re-offense trap.  We'll save significant money through prison reform in the short-term and much more in the long-term while making sure our children get their best chance at success.

Does Dubie's “fiscal conservatism” only extend to cuts in education and taxes for the wealthy?  I'd be interested to hear his ideas on this beyond fear-based rhetoric.

todd

(x-posted at Todd for Vermont House)

 Loading ...