Crime Committee Report e.indd - New York State Senate

XXI.
Conclusion
We have made great advances this past legislative session. In no small feat, we have turned
away from decades of overreliance on a punitive drug enforcement strategy, marred by racial
bias. Based upon the rate of recidivism, incarceration as a mechanism to deter unlawful activity
has largely proven to be counterproductive. The constant removal and return of prisoners
compromises the economic stability of our neighborhoods, thereby leading to the further
destabilization of communities. According to a study on the “spatial effects” of high incarceration
rates by Jeffrey Fagan, “[i]ncarceration begets more incarceration, and incarceration also
begets more crime, which in turn invites more aggressive enforcement, which then re-supplies
incarceration.” 41
It is beyond dispute that the imposition of harsh criminal penalties is the wrong paradigm
for addressing the problems related to chemical dependency, thus the necessity for reform of
our drug laws. A new and more effective model based on a public health frameworks is a better
course of action that has broad support among New Yorkers. 42
To the extent that public policies, independent of other factors, can successfully effect and
sustain reductions in crime, victimization and incarceration, both punishment and prevention
— prisons and programs — are both necessary. As is the case in passing sex offender laws
and residency restrictions, policymakers are doing their best to protect society — particularly
its most vulnerable members, children. Yet many of these laws have been enacted without the
benefit of evidence about which approaches work best. To get the best public safety outcomes,
we must devote resources to stopping the most serious and repeat offenders from harming
people and also work to rehabilitate those who are charged with less serious offenses and who
objectively present less or no risk to re-offend.
Moreover, a fiscal crisis requires strict cost-cutting and creative ideas, all the more reason to
implement policies that effect real reform and are not rooted in the status quo. Henceforth,
New Yorkers can expect its legislative leader to address budgetary woes while performing a
pivotal role in pointing criminal justice practices in a more constructive direction. Real reform
means giving the judicial system the discretion and resources to view chemical dependency as a
health problem and making efforts to address the cause of addiction and the criminal conduct
that often follows such abuse.
To that end, we have redirected funds to provide individual and group counseling for persons
with chemical dependency, and provided judges a flexible and broad range of programs
that include outpatient and residential treatment programs. For those who require tougher
sanctions, we have given judges the authority to place offenders in Shock Incarceration Correctional
Facilities and the Willard Program. Both of these programs incorporate a “boot camp”
curriculum, as well as intensive counseling. If treatment fails or if the defendant re-commits
a crime while attending treatment programs, we made sure that stiff sentencing guidelines
remained available to judges as a viable option.
Since attaining majority status, the Senate Majority Conference has taken a progressive approach
to curbing criminal misconduct. Mental illness, chemical dependency, poverty, homelessness
and hopelessness are all contributory factors to criminal behavior. The need to rightsize
our prison system is abundantly apparent, and as our policies continue to have a positive
impact, we anticipate further prison closings in years to come. Mainly due to our drug law
reform policies and imposition of stiff sentences for violent felony offenders, the crime rate
and the prison population continues to decline. Yet, when we close a prison, there is a “ripple
effect” that tears through the heart, economy and tax base of the local communities. The Sen-
41 Jeffrey Fagan, Valerie West, Jan Holland, Reciprocal Effects of Crime and Incarceration in New York City Neighborhoods,” 30 Fordham Urb. L.J.
1551, July 2002, at p. 1554.
42 Legal Action Center survey, June 2002.
Standing Committee on Crime Victims, Crime and Correction | 2009-2010 Report 73