Sentencing bill needs rehabilitation

By William DiMascio

Pennsylvania's criminal justice system is in disarray and the steps we are taking to address the problem offer slim hope of success.

Instead of a systemic approach aimed at addressing aberrant behavior of prisoners and improving public safety, we continue to create policies that seek revenge for the crime of the day and that contribute to the high rate of recidivism. We have turned the state’s correctional system into one focused almost solely on punishment. And, while some may subscribe to the “just desserts” theory, society has benefited little from this increasingly harsh system.

Meanwhile, prisons are overflowing, our cash-strapped treasury must come up with hundreds of millions of dollars to build and operate more bed space, and thousands of prisoners are ending their sentences with few marketable skills.

Philadelphia’s recent spate of fatal police shootings was committed by former prisoners — the fruit of our punitive policies. The violence exhibited by these individuals may not have been born inside the prisons, but years spent in the so-called correctional environment apparently did little to change them.

These tragedies should raise questions, not about how long someone served but about what was done with them while they were incarcerated.

Daniel Giddings, the 27- year-old parolee who killed Philadelphia police officer Patrick McDonald, was a product of the prison system. He spent as much of life in correctional custody as he did on the streets. Rehabilitative therapies are not foolproof but they do keep improving. And if the choice is between trying and just warehousing, the right option should be obvious.

Pennsylvania policymakers have overwhelmed the prison system (currently operating at almost 120 percent of capacity) by frequently lengthening sentences and curtailing parole releases. As a result and despite a budget approaching $2 billion, fewer resources have been available for the kind of evidence- based programs that have shown success in rehabilitating prisoners.

A Department of Corrections briefing paper notes: “The decreased amount of rehabilitation received in prison contributes to high recidivism rates and prison returns for parolees. Inmates re-entering society today are more likely than in the past to have previously failed at parole. Research indicates that 68 percent of released state prisoners are rearrested within three years and 52 percent are returned to prison.”

The latest example of our reactionary crisis-by-crisis policymaking is House Bill 1567, which is portrayed as prison without parole for repeat violent offenders. It is a measure prompted by community anger at the killing of those police officers by parolees. Public outrage is understandable and should lead to re-evaluation but shouldn’t turn the system on its ear.

Under HB 1567, Pennsylvania judges could impose from 15 to 30 years for a conviction on a second violent offense; this would be followed by 15 years of intense post-prison supervision (which sounds an awful lot like parole). Under Pennsylvania’s existing habitual-offender law, the mandated sentence is a minimum of 10 to a maximum of 20 years. A second repeat violent offense would get a flat sentence of at least 30 and possibly life; a 15-20- year supervision tail would apply if the individual were released before dying.

This system would provide little incentive for anyone in prison to behave, much less bother trying to improve. Once prisoners have served the number of years prescribed by the judge, they would be free to walk out of prison.

No one can require them to take more-anger management or violence prevention classes, as the parole board does now. No one can say they have to serve another year or two while they try to improve their attitude, as the parole board does now. No one can demand to see a workable home plan that would help them make a successful re-entry, as the parole board does now.

When Temple University professor John Goldkamp issued his initial findings after the governor’s call for a top-to-bottom review of our parole system, he praised the board for its professionalism and for its diligence in applying the latest and most sophisticated assessment tools and techniques available. Yet this proposed legislation would discard the board’s evaluation completely in favor of a mandated release date set by a judge years earlier.

Neither the current nor the proposed system can guarantee success. The longer-sentence strategy has been tried and failed over the last three decades. It clearly is time for a change that builds on what is good about the system and that recognizes that corrective strategies can lead to safer communities.

Somehow that logic seems to have difficulty cutting through the fog of emotion and political appeasement.

William DiMascio is executive director of the Pennsylvania Prison Society, a nonprofit organization that advocates for prison reform.