Pennsylvania prisons are overcrowded. The state’s prison population continues to increase even as the national trend shows a decline. Recidivism rates remain high despite recent measures to lower them. These are the serious symptoms of an ailing criminal and correctional system that is in need of an immediate and substantial overhaul.

While there are many factors that worked together to create the prison population problems in Pennsylvania, there are some main contributors. Pennsylvania criminal law judges impose the incarceration terms, but they must follow statutory mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines. In addition, they do not have the discretion to send criminals to prison alternatives, such as drug rehabilitation facilities, halfway houses or house arrest. Pennsylvania lawmakers now must simultaneously treat the symptoms and heal the system.

Prison Overcrowding

According to The Pew Center on the States, the population of state prisons across the nation has fallen for the first time in almost 40 years. During the course of 2009, the number of prisoners dropped by 0.3 percent. Even though the general trend showed a decline in 26 states, the other 24 posted a growth in their incarceration levels. Pennsylvania was among the top five states for both their percentage of growth during the year, which was 4.3 percent, and their increase in the number of prisoners, which was 2,122.

The detailed statistics of Pennsylvania’s rising prison population are staggering. According to the Department of Corrections (DOC), between 1971 and 2009, the number of inmates grew from 5,284 to 52,000. The budget to incarcerate these criminals also expanded from $33 million to $1.8 billion. The DOC is continuing to add facilities and beds to the prison system, while also transferring thousands of inmates to other states to avoid further overcrowding. This cycle will continue to cost Pennsylvania and its citizens, who lose the funds for preventive and other social service programs, until the state legislature wakes up.

RRRI and its Impact

The Pennsylvania legislature responded to the overcrowding phenomenon in 2008 by enacting legislation to allow inmates to become eligible for parole earlier. The purpose of the Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive (RRRI) act was to help reduce the habitual relapse to commit crimes by providing opportunities for inmates convicted of non-violent offenses to engage in evaluative programming. Upon successful completion, prisoners receive reduced minimum sentences that they must serve before being released.

A judge determines if criminals are qualified for participation under RRRI, which means that they meet the eligibility criteria under the statute. If inmates do not fulfill their RRRI program requirements while in prison, they serve their full mandatory minimum sentences. The RRRI act is still new, so its true impact on recidivism remains to be seen. However, it did not address the underlying causes of overcrowding, nor did it present judges with alternatives to imposing mandatory prison sentences. In essence, the legislature, through the RRRI act, did not address the root of the criminal and penal system’s problems.

Contributing Factors and Prison Alternatives

When states are tough on crime, there are benefits, but there are also repercussions. Statutory laws that force judges to assign mandatory minimum sentences may lock many dangerous criminals behind bars for long periods of time. However, these restrictions for sentencing non-violent drug offenders, for example, show that sometimes the punishment does not fit the crime. Instead of occupying expensive prison beds and adding to the already overcrowded facilities, they could be saving the state time and money by serving sentences elsewhere.

For low-level drug users and other non-violent criminals, prison time does not address the source of their problems, which is usually an addiction to drugs or other mental or behavioral problems. Alternative places like drug rehabilitation facilities or halfway houses could be more helpful to them and less expensive to the state. In addition, using electronic monitoring devices to hold teenagers or minor crime offenders with short sentences under house arrest could save prison space and state funds for use in more proactive measures to stop crime. State lawmakers must look to these options to help the immediate symptoms of overcrowding and to begin to resolve issues with the corrections efforts in general.

Review, Revise and Reduce

Pennsylvania should take cues from other states, such as New Jersey, New York, Michigan and Kansas, which have all shrunk their prison populations over the last decade by better controlling the laws that dictate who goes to prison and how long they stay there. In addition, attacking the issues of substance abuse among those convicted of drug crimes and helping inmates experience a smoother transition out of prison and into parole has helped these states reduce their recidivism rates. Pennsylvania must reduce its increasing numbers of prison inmates.

The Pennsylvania legislature should review existing criminal laws and revise them in a way that allows judges to consider alternatives to the statutory prison terms. Reforming the sentencing laws by which judges must comply will leave them with the discretion to place those with minor criminal convictions in cheaper, and potentially more effective, institutions. Pennsylvania’s criminal and corrections system is not beyond hope, so if the legislature can work on relieving the state of its symptoms of overcrowding in prisons and high recidivism rates, they will put the healing process in motion.