The case against re-entry

I have followed the prisoner release facility being proposed for Kootenai County, and have been concerned with the misleading way that the proponents of the facility have been presenting their arguments causing confusion with dueling statistics. The proposed facility would be a minimum security prison, and would have 130 beds, but we are to take comfort from the fact that only 100 prisoners would receive early release per year into our community according to the Idaho Department of Correction director. Even if the program was 12 months long, 100 releases out of 130 participants would result in only 77% of those placed in the program being graduated. Other facilities have had prisoners “walk away,” a euphemism for escape!

Long-term Department of Justice studies have found that within nine years, 83% of felons will be re-arrested. The proponents defense is that these are 10-year old studies, and that more recent studies show lower recidivism rates, and that Idaho is special, our felons are not as violent or as bad. However, it takes 10 years to do the study and the recidivism rates in the “old” federal study shows that rates start slow and rise over the duration of the study.

Of course a shorter study, limited to being re-incarcerated in Idaho only, would show lower recidivism rates. Studies being used by the proponents only follow offenders for the duration of the program or for three years, neither a good indicator of success based upon National Institute of Justice statistics. In addition, the state does not do long-term studies since the position of the state is, once a felon has completed the program and been released, it is no longer the state’s problem how he or she behaves, it is the community’s problem.

Beware statisticians who have an agenda. For those interested in the details, read on, otherwise skip this paragraph. The following details are from the Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC) statistics and are given in their one-page summary. The definition of recidivism used is “… the return of an offender to incarceration under Idaho Department of Correction responsibility within three years of release.” This definition ignores those who re-offend in another state, or who are incarcerated more than three years after release. For comparison, the federal numbers define recidivism as being arrested again within nine years, and it includes those arrested in a state different from the state from which they are released. In the IDOC study, 18,705 offenders are tracked. 14,314 (77%) are classified as either on probation or parole where they are being monitored. 2,739 (15%) are on probation through the RIDER program. For some reason there are a missing 1,652 (9%) not identified! 6,546 offenders (35.0%) were returned to IDOC custody. 4,299 offenders (30.0%) from the probation or parole segments were returned to IDOC custody. 1,139 offenders (41.6%) on probation through the RIDER program were returned to IDOC custody. Unmentioned by IDOC, 1,108 offenders (67.1%) of the unidentified group were returned to IDOC custody within only three years. So while IDOC claims only 35% recidivism, of those not being monitored, more than 2 out of 3 ARE re-incarcerated within a short time. This rate is actually worse than the national study for three years. Obviously, Idaho felons are no better than the national average. Unfortunately, we cannot monitor these felons forever, and the rate of re-offending climbs when the monitoring stops.

Contrary to one of the progressives’ favorite emotional appeals, when someone proves that they cannot abide by society’s expectations, it is not the responsibility of society to welcome them with open arms. Doing one’s time does not earn a place in society, it does not make whole the victim of the crime. It is punishment for past behavior which is meant to promote more acceptable behavior in the future. It is the responsibility of the offender to prove that they can accept society’s standards of behavior, and earn their place in society. When they cannot, they should be returned to prison to protect society. When one cannot abide by society’s code of conduct, one forfeits the privilege of access to society’s benefits. My biggest problem with this program is that one of the primary local voices in favor of the program, a violent felon himself, who has served significant time in prison, has publicly presented himself as a success story for felons re-entering society. This individual has privately harassed and threatened more than one of the opponents of the prison facility with violence. Do we really need more felons threatening to perpetuate their violence if you disagree with them? Considering the behavior of this “success story”, I emphatically say NO to this early release program for felons in Kootenai County.

•••

Dave Botting is a Kootenai County resident.