Why Does the U.S. Tend to Punish Rather Than Rehabilitate?

Over-crowded prisons are a serious problem in the U.S. This country has a higher percentage of its population behind bars than any other developed nation. Is this an indication of increased crime? Not necessarily. It reflects a years-long crackdown on sentencing for drug-related crime. To address the issue, many states have implemented drug courts that give non-violent drug offenders, whose crimes are often committed to get the drugs they crave, the opportunity to get off drugs through addiction treatment programs instead of going to prison. Drug courts have saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars but, nevertheless, drug court funding is frequently near the top of the list for budget cuts when money is tight.

In addition to reducing the number of people on drugs and the number of prisoners incarcerated for non-violent drug-related offenses, drug courts also successfully reduce recidivism (committing another crime after release and going back to prison) and the number of people going to prison, or back to prison, because they violated probation. In some states, recidivism and probation violation account for the majority of prison system costs.

Drug courts get people off drugs, reduce crime, insurance claims and health costs, make our neighborhoods safer, and lower the potential of our own kids being introduced to drugs because there are fewer druggies around. They also turn drug addicts into productive members of society.

All told, this also saves the government, and taxpayers, a considerable amount of money. The reduction in incarceration costs alone is significant - sending someone to prison costs about $26,000; getting them through drug rehab costs less than $7,000.

A study conducted on New York’s drug courts estimated that diverting 18,000 non-violent drug offenders saved the state $254 million in incarceration costs.

Similar studies in California showed over $43 million in costs saved over a two-year period.

Washington State realized $1.74 in benefits for every dollar invested in drug courts.

A study in Multnomah County, Oregon, found that every dollar spent on drug courts saved $10 for taxpayers. This small county with a population of about 660,000 saved more than $1.5 million in 30 months.

So why are drug courts and similar alternatives on the list of things to go when the money’s tight? Anyone who can count their change when they buy a quart of milk can see it doesn’t add up.

Whatever the reasons, they certainly haven’t been forthcoming. Start-up costs, initial investment, have been mentioned. But California solved that problem long ago: about 60% of the drug court funding came from the corrections budget.

Other than that, we get double-speak platitudes like "In tough economic times, you have to make decisions that aren't easy or pleasant." Thanks to Del. Chris Jones, R-Suffolk, Virginia for that one. Where, by the way, housing an adult prisoner costs about $23,000 year, a juvenile costs more than $100,000, and the average amount spent on drug court, per participant, is $2,190.

You’d think it would be a no-brainer. Obviously, there’s something going on we don’t know about, and we might never know. But drug courts have proven time and time again that addiction treatment works and with enough pressure from the general public – who pay through the nose for the justice and prison systems and still have to live with high crime rates, much of which is drug-related – we may be able to save these programs.