Letter to the Editor (Andalusia Star News)

Re: State must reduce prisoners or raise taxes, January 4, 2012

Dear Editor,

What exactly do conservative politicians mean when they talk about being 'tough on crime'? Almost invariably, it's all about locking up more people for longer periods of time for increasingly pettier offenses. And to be honest, the people in question tend to reside on the economically-disadvantaged end of the social spectrum. Isn't that proof enough that economic inequality is the root cause of crime? (For the sake of focus and brevity, I'll avoid getting into the lack of any conservative crusades against white-collar crime, which of course is decidedly a rich man's game.)

If public money is to be spent on addressing criminal activity, it would be much better spent proactively on programs addressing the needs of disadvantaged youth and providing self-improvement opportunities for those who could use them, rather than the prison system, which is essentially an expensive social housing program which seems to yield little rehabilitative value, and thus little return on investment.

Perhaps the prospect of punishing poor people provides too much of a thrill for conservatives, and must pale in comparison to reducing crime by more effective and proactive means.

As a Canadian I wish I could say things are different up here, but our Prime Minister was reelected on a 'get tough on crime' platform that included pumping millions into the construction of new prisons, despite an overall reduction in the rate of crime. So much for 'limited government'.

James Deagle

Ottawa, Canada