Are Prisons Making the U.S. Less Competitive?

Yes, says this excellent blog piece by Tim Ferguson of Forbes:

One reason America as a whole–as opposed to its brightest lights– is beset in international competition is that the country misspends. It infamously has done so on housing assets, probably does on motor vehicles and arguably is feeding a bubble in college expense. But through government it also is plowing too much into the low end of the human experience: prisons. ...

Citing huge prison costs ($74 billion in fiscal year 2007) and populations (2.3 million, the highest in the world), Ferguson asks whether it's worth it:

Compounding the political problem is the easy mental association of an era of “get tough” policies with relatively benign crime statistics in much of the U.S. Is it not the case that putting bad actors away has left the streets safer for decent citizens? The answer in many cases blessedly is yes (at least until the hardened predators are released). But in how many? And at what cost: of injustice in the case of those disproportionately punished, and of misplaced resources–and fiscal wreckage–from the total confinements?

Everybody knows that confronting the public-policy mistakes that have put the U.S.–and many other developed economies–in our current fix is going to mean a fight. Add prisons to that agenda.

Excellent questions.  Sure, prison keeps offenders off the streets, but virtually all of them will return home eventually.  Many of these -- too many -- are low-level, nonviolent offenders who don't need the harshest punishment (short of death) that we have available.  Sending the wrong people to prison is like paying for full coverage car insurance on an old, banged up beater.  It's excessive, probably unnecessary, and a waste of money.

Add Forbes to the list of people who say we need to be smarter on crime, not tougher.