Nebraska Seems Quite Adept At Filling Prisons

By Author: asdfas
Total Articles: 105
Comment this article

How fortuitous that the state budget will undoubtedly preclude the building of yet another state prison. Nebraska can ill afford another one.
Oh, it's not that the state could not promptly fill one; Nebraska seems quite adept at filling prisons. The "new" 960-bed prison at Tecumseh, opened in 2001, is already near capacity — and that was the facility designed to alleviate overcrowding elsewhere in the state system. Overall, the Nebraska state prison system is 33 percent above capacity. Nor is that figure likely to drop in the near future. The Department of Corrections estimates the prison system will be 40 percent above capacity by 2006 and 61 percent by 2008. That's only five years away. No, there would be no problem filling yet another state prison where it built. In-deed, these statistics suggest that building more prisons might well be an unending cycle of build- fill, build-fill, build- fill.
Something's amiss. While arguments can rage indefinitely regarding the efficacy of prisons to deter or rehabilitate offenders, the fact remains that Nebraska prisons continue to fill rapidly — and often with ...
... repeat offenders. Equally susceptible to argument are questions surrounding inmates' rights, prison amenities and work privileges. But the fact remains that in five years, Nebraska's prison population could exceed capacity by 61 percent.
Thus a severely restricted state budget promises to prompt legislators to examine more closely the system as a whole. The nature of a crime, alternative sentencing and judicial discretion are all areas that impact the current prison dilemma. For instance, violent or nonviolent crimes often translate to maximum or minimum security prisons. However, if an evolving hierarchy of sentencing existed — especially for nonviolent crimes — that might well lead to more frequent and consistent use of alternative sentencing.
To some degree, such alternative sentencing options as electronic monitoring, home incarceration, work camps, drug court, intense rehabilitation programs and educational opportunities already exist in the state. They are potentially less costly though equally valid options to prison sentences. Yet not all judges use them. What does such random and inconsistent use of these alternatives say about the alternatives themselves and about judges' awareness of our commitment to such options?
If the bigger goal is to reduce crime and teach offenders a lesson, building prisons and warehousing inmates falls woefully short. Senators and judges alike need to do more than complete surveys and consult think tanks. They need to find the will to alter the system.