Las Vegas Sun

March 28, 2024

[Essay]:

Correcting an Institution

Why releasing low-level, nonviolent inmates is safer than keeping them incarcerated

Traffic Offenders

Ming Doyle

Thank you, political opportunists of the ’90s, for championing laws that turned the U.S. prison system into an industry whose existence—to say nothing of its appeal to profit-hungry private investors—is predicated on criminalizing generations of Americans. Instead of making us safer, mandatory minimum sentencing and “three-strikes” laws helped make the United States the world’s foremost jailer of its own people—1 in 100 U.S. adults live behind bars.

Thank you for incarcerating the bodies—to say nothing of the minds and spirits—of tens of thousands of homeless and mentally ill, drug addicts and alcoholics, traffic scofflaws and petty thieves, embedding prison dependency so deep into their internal constitution that scores of them, unable to act of their own free will and accord, now see jail as a means to an end, as a liberator freeing them of the responsibility of governing their lives.

Thank you for contributing to a bizarre reality in which we spend more on housing inmates ($16,000 per year for Nevada prisoners) than educating children (less than half of that). In which police departments toe the entrapment line—undercover Metro officers dangling money out of their pockets to lure homeless or tempting auto thieves with decoy cars. In which programs like the Downtown Initiative lets cops ticket people for infractions as minor as jaywalking, then arrest the ticketed if they miss their court dates.

Once jailed, things can deteriorate for the arrested. Cops detained Downtown art pioneer Dray in 2005 for making an illegal U-turn on his bike. When they ran his name, three offenses (nonresident driving privilege; no proof of insurance; unregistered vehicle) totaling $2,700 popped up. Dray spent two days in jail. “Instead of painting, I was listening to people recite recipes on how to cook crack cocaine,” Dray told the Weekly in 2005. I could’ve caught a case in there for fighting or gotten raped. There goes my career.”

It’s common for people to go to jail for minor offenses and end up getting trouble while incarcerated, says Shawn Smith, founder of the nonprofit Guiding Individuals from Trouble Inc. (G.I.F.T.)

“Lots of individuals during my passage in federal prison came in serving between 20 and 48 months for minor crimes and ended up with a lot more time,” Smith says. The armed muscle for West Las Vegas drug dealers in the ’80s, Smith served a decade in federal prison on drug and weapons charges. While incarcerated, he formed G.I.F.T. to help inmates to return to society. “They weren’t really criminals to begin with, but they became criminals.”

Which is why, I’d argue, that we’re safer as a society if a certain class of inmate—nonviolent, parole eligible, less threatening—is released from prison.

As expected, the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s March ruling to retroactively reduce prison sentences for people convicted of crimes related to the possession and sale of crack cocaine—it could affect 20,000 federal inmates, including nearly 60 in Nevada—and passage of a 2007 Nevada law freeing parole-eligible inmates from having to attend parole board hearings in person have drawn howls from the tough-on-crime crowd.

Ignore them.

For every story about prison’s rehabilitative powers, there are two about its ability to destroy lives. About lagging mental health and drug treatment programs, scant vocational programming and an inability to separate low- and high-risk offenders. Exposure to a more virulent strain of criminal can harden nonviolent inmates. All of a sudden, Smith says, “they’re fighting, engaging in drug trafficking, having contraband, or engaging in gang violence. Once released, they return to the community with no skills and often to areas already burdened by poverty and crime.”

Combined, the federal ruling and Nevada parole law indicate, to me, acknowledgement of problems in the penal system. One clear indication of our misguided approach to corrections was Governor Jim Gibbons’ request for $300 million for new prison construction during last year’s legislative session—essentially building capacity in anticipation of filling prison beds in much the same way gaming companies erect casinos for future hordes of tourists. During the same time, he repeatedly declined to fund all-day kindergarten.

Why build new prisons when we can rectify overcrowding by releasing the nearly 1,300 parole-eligible awaiting hearings from the backlogged Board of Parole commissioners? Why not hire extra staff to process the requests? Every day they’re in jail, it’s costing us. Ka-ching. Money that could be directed to any number of issues.

“It’s to our benefit from a financial standpoint,” says Nevada Department of Corrections spokeswoman Suzanne Pardee, “if we can release some of these inmates sooner.”

Assemblyman David Parks, chair of the Select Committee on Corrections, Parole and Probation in the 2007 legislature, says reducing pressure on overcrowded prisons is a good thing. He’s part of a legislative group reviewing the parole law to make sure lawmakers don’t screw up its application. “We often pass a law and leave it to the agency to come up with a regulation, and in their regulation, they negate the intended purpose of the statute change.”

At least on the outside, low-level and nonviolent inmates have easier access to resources that can help engineer a turnaround in their lives. Inside prison, rehabilitation is a crapshoot at best. “There’s no need to hold them if they can be on the outside (re)gaining life skills,” Smith says. “Because if you’re not self-motivated or can’t find a mentor and stay away from trouble, you’re left in the dark.”

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy