Governor Chris Christie signed a bill ending the early release inmate program implemented in January 2011. The bill was enacted to release inmates, six-months early, who met certain criteria. Since January, 363 inmates were released and 22 of those inmates were rearrested with 2 being charged for homicide. That is approximately 6% recidivism rate. The challenge the State faces is whether those re-offenders are just the tip of the preverbal iceberg.
There are questions I would like to raise:
Q1) What crimes were the offenders arrested for? Some may say this does not matter, but indeed it does. In order to fully judge the success or failure of the early release program, we must understand which offenders had a higher rate of re-offending and whether the crimes were violent crimes.
Q2) Did the economy have any thing to do with the offenses? Releasing inmates into a society where the unemployment rate for African-Americans is at 16% and the overall jobless rate is approximately 8.5% should be done with the expectation that some would commit crimes. UNLESS proper re-entry services were in place to facilitate a stable economic, living, and/or family environment.
Q3) Is five months enough time? The program lasted from January to May 9, 2011. Ending the program is said to be necessary in order to protect the citizens of New Jersey.
Q4) Is this rate of new offenses or re-offenses comparable to the crime rate in the State?
Q5) What is the ethnicity of the inmates released? What are the ages of the inmates?
MOST IMPORTANTLY – What is the impact of both decisions on the victims (pre- and post-early release)?
Reading articles and following this on the news, I am not seeing enough information for the public to make an accurate appraisal of whether or not the program was successful. Yes, I agree that if the inmates were not release the two homicides would not have happened. I also agree that crime is a problem in New Jersey which should not be addressed lightly nor overlooked. However, the fairness of the imposition on the law must be called into question.
When a plan is implemented with the expectation of failure…it will more than likely fail. If a plan is implemented in order to trade safety to increase expendable state income (by no longer paying for the imprisonment of inmates)…the plan would likely fail. If inmates are release and cast into a struggling society with no support and a stamp saying “convict” on their forehead…they will likely re-offend.
I am not offering an excuse for those that chose to re-enter a life of crime when given a second chance. On the contrary, I feel those who wasted the opportunity should serve the full original sentence as well as the additional sentence for the crime they committed. I am questioning whether or not Gov. Christie, the criminal justice system of New Jersey, and all other “powers that be” within the state gave the inmates the chance they deserved. Or, was this a political power play with people’s lives? I am sure much thought was given to the initial decision to implement the releases and the decision to repeal. I question what the logic involved in the thought process. Release from jail or prison should be done on a case-by-case basis. A blanket release is asking for trouble.
Articles to read:
