In 1990, a 31-year-old man went into a Fry’s grocery store. When no one was looking, he picked up a carton of cigarettes, and walked quickly to the exit. All of this was captured on the store video, and he was apprehended in the parking lot with the cartoon of cigarettes and no receipt.

This offense could have been prosecuted as a misdemeanor, given the value of the cigarettes ($16.95). A misdemeanor may carry up to six months in jail. However, the prosecutor at the time elected to charge it as a felony, since he entered the store for the purpose of committing a crime. Because the defendant had two previous, non-related convictions, he was sentenced to prison for 8.3 years.

Question No. 1: Do taxpayers of the state want to pay $20,000-plus per year to incarcerate people for this kind of a crime?

Question No. 2: In this case, who had the greatest say in what the time served would be? The prosecutor or the judge? The apparent answer is the prosecutor. But, ultimately, the fate of this defendant was sealed by members of the Legislature, who set up the mandatory sentencing parameters of our current criminal code.

In 2008, Arizona spent $951 million incarcerating felons, many of whom posed no danger to the general public. A recent Pew Center report indicates that in 2008 one in 33 adults in Arizona was under correctional control, which includes jail, prison, parole and probation. Twenty-five years ago, this number was one in 79.

What has changed so much is not human nature, but the offenses for which we incarcerate and the imposition of mandatory sentences. In these times when budget deficits are mushrooming, it is time to take a fresh look at the sentencing structure of the state’s criminal code. For this reason, Speaker Adams has appointed an “Interim Committee on Sentencing Reform” to evaluate the effectiveness of our current criminal code.

All of us agree that the public must be protected from dangerous and repetitive offenders. But it is time to acknowledge that with new technologies and evidence-based sentencing, the state may be able to have a more effective criminal justice system at lower cost. And everyone agrees that there are plenty of other places in the state budget where the savings can be used.

Dec. 15 is the first meeting of the House Interim Committee on Sentencing Reform. Public comment is invited, by testimony, mail or e-mail. The committee will consider who needs to be incarcerated as a matter of public safety, and what evidence-based sentencing alternatives can reduce recidivism and rehabilitate, rather than simply warehouse offenders.

With input from the public, the judiciary and criminal justice agencies, this bi-partisan effort will yield savings to Arizona, as well as in some cases redirecting inmates misspent years into more productive use.

 

Rep. Cecil Ash (R-Mesa) is chairman of the House Interim Committee on Sentencing Reform. Contact him at (602) 926-3160 or cash@azleg.gov.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.