Prisons and schools

Jails and prisons are the compliment of schools. So many less you have of the latter the more you have of the former.

- Horace Mann

Over the years I have read about the challenges the Sisters School District has had with their budget. They are endlessly trying to squeeze more out of a budget which keeps getting tighter and tighter. They seem to have risen to the challenge, but the challenge gets more difficult year by year.

Last year, Oregon spent just under $10,000 per student on K-12 education. Our state ranks 32nd among all states in the amount spent per student, a very poor showing. Back in 1995 we were among the states spending the most per pupil and we were in the top 1/4 of the nation on average. In addition to that we also have the second highest student/teacher ratio in the country. That is terrible and embarrassing.

I think part of the reason (not all) is that we have chosen to build prisons over investing in our schools. During the period between 1983-2013 the Department of Corrections (DOC) budget went up four times. We now spend two times on prisons what we spend on state colleges and universities and, I believe, we are the only state that spends that proportion. We spend less than $10,000 per year to keep a kid in school but over $30,000 to keep an inmate in prison.

How did all this happen? Let me give you my take.

I became district attorney for Lincoln County in 1989. At that time when we convicted a defendant of a serious felony the judge often sentenced him or her to prison for a determinant sentence. So if a defendant got a 10-year sentence the public assumed they would serve a fair amount of time in prison. Not so. Due to prison overcrowding many defendants who were sentenced to years in prisons got only a few months and were released into the community by the parole board. Some served a few months, others a few weeks, days or, in some cases they were almost immediately released. It was an untenable system and the public was furious -and justifiably so.

A task force was formed by the governor to look at alternatives, and they developed a sentencing guideline system which passed the state legislature in 1989 and was implemented soon thereafter.

Briefly, a chart was developed which took into consideration the seriousness of the offense and the defendant's criminal history.

Where the lines converged was number of months (a range) and in that range was a prison sentence a judge could impose.

This system took away some authority from the judges and the parole board.

It basically was a way to allocate an existing resource and provide sentencing consistency.

It did do that, but the public perception was that the time served was woefully inadequate and it probably was for more serious offenses.

The guidelines system is still used for non-person crimes.

But, during the 1990s crime and gang-related crime was raging. Pushed by Rep. Kevin Mannix, angry Oregon voters overwhelmingly passed Measure 11. For 21 "person" crimes, stiff, mandatory sentences were required (murder, felony assault, rape, etc.) and it was decided the remand system would be discarded and everyone from the age of 15 to adulthood would be tried and sentenced as adults.

There was no early release for good behavior - or any reason. Sentences were for a specific period of time and they were lengthy. Defendants who committed multiple offenses could have their sentences stacked consecutively. Oregon went on a prison-building boom. Our percentage of people incarcerated per population is not outrageous, but when incarceration is required per Measure 11 the sentences are lengthy and rigid.

Prosecutors gained an enormous amount of power under this scheme since what is charged ultimately affects the final sentence outcome with certainty. The judge's role was again minimized. If one gets convicted of a Measure 11 offense the specific sentence is predetermined.

I am not opposed to most of this, but I think we have to remember an iron law of incarceration: almost all inmates get out. So while sentencing a 15-year-old to 10 years in prison takes them off the street for that time, they are out when they are 25 years old. We, in this state, do miserably dealing with offender re-entry and our recidivism rate shows it.

Don't get me wrong. There are a lot of people for whom we need to keep a wall between them and us. (Certain sex offenders, repeat offenders, etc.). I do think, however, we need to take another look at the system as a whole and determine the purpose of incarceration for each defendant. For some it may to keep that wall there; for others it may be to rehabilitate. If the latter is the case then prisons are a tool, not an end in themselves.

For some, we need to take an honest shot at getting them reintegrated, as in the case of some younger offenders. We need to build a bit more flexibility in the system. We need to do more.

There is a linkage between sentencing a defendant somewhere in Oregon and our own local education system. Money for one takes away from money for the other. It's time we took an honest, comprehensive look at it.