Every School Left Behind

Sean Kerr

“A 1993 report to Congress said that the more education inmates have, the less likely they are to return to drugs and crime after being released. The study also found that intense literacy programs cut the recidivism rate among juveniles by an estimated 20 percent.”
       --Sacramento Bee, “Prisons teaching literacy to young inmates,” November 9, 1998

The answer to the question of where to allocate the monies budgeted for education and correctional facilities seems quite simple, since the two systems are funded out of the same pot. If more money was allocated to the educational systems, then less would be spent on the prison systems. The more educated an individual, the less likely it is for that individual to make uneducated or irrational decisions that could lead to incarceration. However, the situation is far more complex than that. There is a lack of rationale in what is considered crime prevention, and a costly discrepancy in what should be considered criminal. These are factors that tip the scale in the wrong direction, leading us into a vicious cycle wherein education money is spiraling down the proverbial toilet known as crime prevention.

       Since the enactment of mandatory minimum sentencing for drug users, the Federal Bureau of Prisons budget has increased by 1,954 percent. Its budget has jumped from $220 million in 1986 to $4.3 billion in 2001, according to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics.

       Getting tough, especially on petty crimes, means more criminals to incarcerate and more prisons to build. Do you know what that means, kids? It means less money to the schools and universities. Less money makes it more difficult to afford or receive a good education. This is a trend that has been continuing with no end in sight. As rational human beings, how is it that we have allowed this cycle to continue?

       A major problem arises from the fact that we allow ourselves to believe that getting criminals off the street is a form of crime prevention. The underlying philosophy is this: if the criminal is locked up, he or she cannot commit a crime. This is true, but is this crime prevention, or crime detention? To prevent means to keep something from happening. According to data compiled by the Department of Corrections, about 1/4 of those initially imprisoned for nonviolent crimes are sentenced for a second time for committing a violent offense. This doesn’t sound like prevention.

       Over 80 percent of the increase in the federal prison population from 1985 to 1995 was due to drug convictions, according to the Bureau of Justice. It is important to note that the one of the more violent periods on America’s streets coincides with the escalation of the modern-day War on Drugs. In 1980, the homicide rate peaked at ten per 100,000, according to U.S. Census Data and FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

       It seems to me that this could be a quite simple trend to reverse. If petty drug conviction is the cause of the gross increase in prison population, and is thus responsible for turning one out of every four prisoners into a violent criminal, then maybe we should not incarcerate individuals for drug offenses. Considering the fact that the homicide rate in the country was at its peak at the same time that the War on Drugs was at its pinnacle, it might just make sense if we quit the War on Drugs altogether. If drugs were decriminalized, the resulting benefits could have resounding effects: less tax dollars spent on a task force, no new prison buildings to spend money on, more tax funds going into the budget to pay for education by way of sales tax on legalized drugs. Not only would this bring more money to the education system, but it would also bring along the lasting advantages of having a well-educated society.