The County Line - May/June 1999

“Tough on Crime” Legislation Worthwhile, but Costly for Counties
Few things ring the political bell as consistently and with such productivity as a candidate proclaiming that he or she is "tough on crime." I'll concede that calls for "education reform" and pledges to "take care of our senior citizens" rank a close second and third on the greatest political promise list, but the anti-crime refrain is clearly and unquestionably the king of the political hill. In my political memory, this rally cry began in earnest in the late 1970s. It was during a runoff for the office of attorney general that a little known candidate from Mobile promised -- in graphic terms -- that those convicted of the death penalty would be given their time in the state's electric chair. The tactic worked. He served two terms as attorney general and darn near became governor eight years later.

Since then I dare say that no candidate for statewide office -- either successful or unsuccessful -- has made a loop on the political merry-go-round without dropping a few pledges to do something about crime. Even those candidates who are seeking offices that have nothing to do with the criminal justice system usually drop a few crime-stopper promises for good measure. A little insurance, they are probably thinking, can't hurt these days.

And such is the case in the legislative process, as well. During the 1999 regular session and in several sessions before this one, dozens of get-tough crime measures have been dropped into the legislative basket. Although each piece of legislation takes a different angle on this issue, they all have one thing in common with the "get-tough-on-crime" campaign pledges -- they remain silent on the massive public cost of getting tough on crime.

And seldom does anybody call this to the public's attention -- either on the campaign trail or afterwards.

One might guess that we in Alabama simply don't realize that there is a substantial cost to increasing the penalty for a crime, or to creating new punishments for old crimes, or to denying work release for certain convicts or to denying bail to persons accused of certain crimes. All of these ideas -- one might argue -- are worthwhile efforts at curbing crime in our darkening society; however, these measures all have substantial price tags, even if we don't want to think about the price tags right now.

The operation of the county jail is without question the largest line in the county general fund budget. And that cost is increasing daily. In fact, the cost has probably gone up in the time it has taken you to read this column. But there is consistent and effective opposition to any increase in revenue to operate the county jail.

So counties are left with little help as they defend federal lawsuits over jail conditions; face contempt of court orders because of inaction on directives to build new jails; and, for those few who construct new jails, endure public outcry against any tax increases to fund the growing cost of getting tough on crime. And, the problem gets worse every year as more get-tough legislation becomes law, thereby escalating the cost of keeping the prisoners behind bars.

The cost is not confined to the county level, either. The State Department of Corrections faces its own set of difficulties. Right now a new prison in Bibb County sits half empty because the department does not have the money to hire staff to utilize the entire facility.

And while those prison beds are empty, the pressure for the department to let its prisoners "back up" in county jails mounts. The pressure has become so severe on two separate occasions in the last decade that counties have been forced to sue the state over its refusal to promptly shift prisoners to state custody.

Now, I'm not trying to advocate a soft position on crime. It just seems that logic dictates we take a more comprehensive view of this plague.

About three years ago the Association began an effort to amend EVERY new crime bill introduced in the Alabama Legislature to include a provision that the county be reimbursed at least a portion of the cost of housing these new prisoners in the county jail. In the last three years literally dozens of amendments requiring reimbursement have been drafted by the Association, but at this point we have not been successful in having a single amendment make it through the process and become law.

At the time of this writing, there is one crime bill hanging on the edge of becoming law that contains our reimbursement language. If you are now assuming that somewhere in this piece you will read particulars about the bill that contains the amendment, you can stop reading with this sentence. Cause there is no way I 'm going to jinx our effort by telling you anything else.

Those of us who represent the interests of county government here in Montgomery are holding out some hope that if we can finally see the reimbursement language become law, then next year it will be a lot easier to put this language into the other crime bills.

Two years ago the Association joined forces with the Department of Corrections in pushing a bill that would have established a procedure for collecting a portion of the cost of incarceration from persons housed in municipal and county jails and in the state prison system. The bill even passed both the House and Senate last year before opponents bottled up the measure until the session concluded. That bill was not even re-introduced this session.

But even though most of the news is grim, we must admit that there is some growing support for facing up to the cost of anti-crime legislation. Earlier this session the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Bill Fuller of Lafayette, volunteered to sponsor a stand-alone bill that would require convicted criminals to pay one-third of the cost the county incurred while the person was in the county jail awaiting trial. His pledge to sponsor this legislation was made, without prompting, during a public meeting of the committee.

Several members of the committee echoed his remarks and vowed support for correcting the problem at the county level. The House Local Government Committee then passed the bill without any opposition.

For a number of reasons, however, the bill is not likely to become law this session. But you can be sure that the bill will be back. Just as you can be sure that the flood of anti-crime bills will be back, as well.