On Tuesday, FAMM (Families Against Mandatory Minimums) released the results of a poll  (pdf) of New Jersey citizens concerning their attitudes on sentencing drug offenders. The poll results are interesting in that they are so contrary to what has been happening for decades in our criminal justice system. It appears that the people of New Jersey (and probably of every state) can see easily what most of our elected officials cannot seem to grasp.

80% of those polled support sentences of mandatory treatment and community service for low-level, non-violent drug offenders, if such sentences will reduce the amount of money New Jersey spends on corrections.

73% favor giving judges the ability to set aside a mandatory prison term for a low-level drug offense. An identical 73 percent favor the use of “drug courts” or other mandatory treatment programs for offenders with drug and alcohol addictions, when the judge thinks it is appropriate.

Put simply, the public disagrees, in a big way, with Congress' attitude. Why would the public be more lenient with offenders than Congress? Why would the public trust judges' decisions more than Congress? Why would the public approve of returning offenders to the street more quickly than Congress?

In Supremes upset the sentencing applecart, we saw the Supreme Court declaring some of Congress' sentencing guidelines unconstitutional.

In To hell with Congress, say federal judges, I wrote about federal judges virtually thumbing their noses at Congress' sentencing guidelines.

Judges know that Congressional interference in the courts is wreaking destruction. Evidently the people of New Jersey understand that too. Why can't Congress comprehend, and get the hell out of the way?

As I wrote a year and a half ago... $156 billion each year on criminal justice, and rising, to eliminate about 2.7 crimes for each 1,000 people, which is 772,200 crimes reduced from the previous year. It may be a meaningless number, but that's over $20,000 for each crime reduced.

Two million in prison, with a direct cost to us of $25,000/year/prisoner, and FOR WHAT? It sure isn't PREVENTING "crime"; 53% of those in prison will become repeat offenders and get even longer sentences. Congress' long-standing, bullheaded tough-on-crime stance has solved nothing and has cost all of us dearly, yet they sit there like a bump on a log, apparently unable to fix what they've broken.

Unable, or just unwilling?

Thanks to the War on Drugs and tough-on-crime legislation, criminal justice has become a massive government industry. Like many government enterprises, it has taken on a life of its own, resistant to change or even improvement. There has been so much investment in it, so many jobs dependent on it, that to reduce it is like trying to close military bases after a war is over. Over 1400 state prisons and 102 federal prisons, thousands of jobs involved in running them, plus all the private business involved in supplying them with food, clothing, medical supplies, etc.

That's big enough to make decisions about it into political (votes and contributions) decisions. No doubt there is also the factor of Congress not wanting to admit being wrong for so long. Since legislators have wired themselves into guaranteed reelection, many of those who voted for the original disastrous plans are probably still in office.

To be fair, scaling back any operation is never easy, whether it's government or private. Unfortunately, that never seems to be considered when government is scaling UP an operation. With the power to do whatever they choose, spending other people's money, with all sorts of special interests pushing in differing directions, and no requirement to earn a profit, the chance of productive, non-destructive systems is damned near impossible.

So... organizations such as FAMM, spending private contributed money, have to press Congress and state legislatures to do what seems obviously sensible to almost everyone else.  Even with reduced sentencing promising financial relief to stressed legislative budgets, it still isn't enough to overcome all the legislative inertia. As is so often the case, what Congress is now resisting undoing is something that either needn't have been done in the first place, or should have been done with far more moderation.