Relegated to the minority, the House Republicans have whittled their priorities to four main goals. This story is several days old. I know TDW and others have commented on it. But one quote from minority leader Bosma caught my eye.
First, the 4 priorities: preventing general tax increases, cracking down on crime, making changes to education and promoting economic development.
The part that caught my eye:
One proposal would require violent offenders to serve at least 85 percent of their prison sentence before becoming eligible for parole.
House Speaker Pat Bauer, D-South Bend, said he has concerns about the potential cost of keeping people in prison longer.
“Every action has a reaction,” he said.
Bosma said officials are working to determine the long-term fiscal impact of the proposal.
“I almost don’t care what the fiscal is,” Bosma said. “The government’s top priority is to make our neighbors safe. They are not safe today.”
Sure, passing “tough on crime” longer sentences makes you feel better. It might even make you feel safer. But I don’t think the evidence shows that longer incarcerations, beyond a certain point, will actually make you safer. It will certainly cost more.
Unconcerned about the fiscal impact of longer sentences, opposed to a general tax increase, and in favor of locking up criminals for longer periods of time. Certainly, these things aren’t out of the main stream — but how do you harmonize these goals? I suppose you have to either cut government services or dump more burdens on local governments. In the 2005 budget, the General Assembly mainly chose the latter. In any event, we can’t let our emotions — in this case, fear of crime — impair our reason. We have to figure out what works to prevent crime and whether we can afford implementation. We can’t just build more prisons because it feels good.