{"id":17833,"date":"2012-07-20T12:52:51","date_gmt":"2012-07-20T17:52:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/?p=17833"},"modified":"2012-07-20T12:55:33","modified_gmt":"2012-07-20T17:55:33","slug":"for-punishment-do-costs-count","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/2012\/07\/for-punishment-do-costs-count\/","title":{"rendered":"For Punishment, Do Costs Count?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>In my previous post<\/a>, I discussed some of the fascinating results from the recent Marquette University Law School Poll, <\/a>in which about 700 Wisconsin residents were asked various questions about crime and punishment. In this post, I\u2019ll consider what the Poll results have to say about a crucial question for sentencing policy and politics: do costs matter, or are the interests served by punishment of such overriding social importance that expense is no object at sentencing?<\/p>\n

This question is related to another question I raised in the previous post: is punishment valued more in instrumental or symbolic terms? If people look to punishment primarily as a way to decrease crime and increase public safety (the instrumental approach), then costs seem to have a natural place in the equation. As much as we value our safety, there are always limits to what we are willing to spend to protect ourselves. Few of us hire body guards, or purchase bulletproof vests, or build panic rooms in our homes \u2014 the small reductions in risk that we would enjoy simply do not seem worth the cost and inconvenience, and there seems nothing odd about thinking of risk in these sorts of cost-benefit terms. But if punishment is instead viewed in symbolic terms \u2014 as making a statement about who we are as a people and what our\u00a0deepest moral values are \u2014 then cost considerations seem out of place. It would make us uncomfortable to say, \u201cX is the right thing to do, but I\u2019m not going to do it because it is too expensive.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Poll did not ask the big philosophical question about costs directly, but several questions seem to get at it indirectly. The answers suggest some real ambivalence and division in public attitudes.\u00a0 <\/p>\n

For instance, consider question 26e, in which respondents were asked whether they agree with the statement, \u201cWisconsin spends too much on prisons.\u201d About half (49%) agreed, thereby implicitly indicating that cost is a relevant consideration for sentencing policy. A little less than one-third (29%) disagreed. That answer may indicate that a respondent does not believe that cost is relevant, or it may instead indicate that the respondent is convinced that we are getting our money\u2019s worth. Given the extraodinary amount that we are spending on corrections as a state (more than twice as much per capita as Minnesota, despite closely similar crime rates)<\/a>, my instincts are that the \u201cdisagrees\u201d probably reflect \u201ccost is no object\u201d thinking more than instrumental cost-benefit balancing. In any event, it is also interesting to note the high number of \u201cdon\u2019t know\u201d responses to this question (21%) \u2014 out of the 19 crime and punishment questions in the survey, only one generated more \u201cdon\u2019t knows.\u201d This seems to indicate an unusually high level of public ambivalence, which may reflect uncertainty over the basic question of whether cost is even an appropriate criterion for punishment.<\/p>\n

Now take a look at 26f: \u201cIt is usually a waste of money to send nonviolent criminals to prison.\u201d Like 26e, the implicit premise of the statement is that costs do count. Here, we see a slightly lower number of \u201cagrees,\u201d 41%. The \u201cdisagrees,\u201d much higher at 50%, may indicate either a rejection of the \u201ccosts count\u201d premise or a belief that incarceration of the nonviolent is actually cost-benefit justified. Again, given the high cost and low public-safety benefit of incarcerating nonviolent offenders, my instincts are that the \u201cdisagrees\u201d are probably driven more by symbolic than instrumental thinking.<\/p>\n

Cost-benefit thinking is also implicit in 26g: \u201cOnce a prisoner has served at least half of his term, he should be released from prison and given a less costly form of punishment if he can demonstrate that he is no longer a threat to society.\u201d Again, we see something far short of overwhelming support, with just over half (55%) agreeing.<\/p>\n

It is interesting to compare 26g, which frames early release in cost-benefit\/instrumental terms, with 26a, 26c, and 26d, which frame early release more in terms of moral desert. All three received higher numbers of \u201cagrees\u201d than 26g:<\/p>\n