This is part two in a three part interview with Arizona Representative Cecil Ash concerning the very important topic of reforming the Arizona penal system and changing how sentencing is done in Arizona. Those who wish to help may contact Rep. Ash at his legislative office at 602-926-3160 (cash@azlag.gov), or through his webpage at www.cecilash.com
Part One of my interview is available here.
5) I know that part of your reasoning is based on the success of the Arizona's Safe Communities Act and the Pew's Public Safety Performance Project, but how do we rule out the reported drop in crime simply as a result of either looser enforcement or a population drop resulting from the poor job market? In other words, how do we make sure the benefits of Arizona's Safe Communities Act, and any proposed sentencing reforms, are real and not just nominal?
Rep. Ash: The success of the "Safe Communities Act" in Arizona has been measured and documented. It's produced 28% less revocations to prison over the last two years. But prison reform (or sentencing reform -- if you will) is occurring around the country with similar results in other jurisdictions.
The successes of the reforms have been apparent in many jurisdictions. They have saved money and reduced recidivism. Thirteen states just shut down prison facilities that are no longer needed. We are not going into uncharted territory; we are merely going into uncharted territory for Arizona.
6) What is your opinion of the private prison industry?
Rep. Ash: I don't blame anyone for trying to earn a dollar. And what other states do with their inmates is not my concern. But for Arizona, I believe private prisons are the wrong approach. No one will argue that the incarceration of criminals is not a legitimate function of government. The reason is that, like many government functions, it’s engaged in out of necessity, not for profit. But private prisons have not been shown to be either cheaper or safer than state-run facilities. In most industries you have the control of the market place so that the best goods or services are offered in the most economical fashion. So for example, a private school that can offer a good product at a fair price will be successful.
However, it is the consumers of the product that are making the decision to buy. With private prisons, however, the consumers of the product (the inmates) have no say in the purchase decision, which is made by the governor and the legislature. Inmates can't take their business and go elsewhere. The primary goal of a state institution should be public safety and reducing recidivism through rehabilitation. The primary goal of a private prison is profit. These cross-purposes make them suspect. Are they feeding prisoners adequately? Are they providing quality educational or behavior modification programs? Or are they just warehousing the inmates as commodities? Another concern is that private prisons have structured their contracts to take only those prisoners who are not problematic, either health-wise or risk-wise. The state screens the prisoners, classifies them, handles any disciplinary problems, and provides medical services.
In my opinion, in the long run it is a losing proposition for the state, and we should work harder to reduce our prison population rather than making our prisoners commodities.
7) Do you believe that there are lobbies (private prison industry, law enforcement organizations, attorneys, etc..) with an economic interest in keeping more Arizonans in custody whether or not that makes the public safer? Could that be a reason why the Arizona Republic said the reforms you proposed have "gotten nowhere this session"?
Rep. Ash: Of course, that's possible, but I have not seen it. Naturally, there are lobbyists for the private prison industry. That's to be expected. In my experience they are no different than lobbyists for any other industry. Nor have I seen any evidence of attorneys, law enforcement organizations or politicians who are advocating for private prisons for reasons other than a philosophical belief that they provide an alternative way of financing prisons.
Obviously, I don't know anyone's personal motivations other than my own. The small amount of donations made to their proponents has not seemed to me to be unusual.
8) Would you support legislation, similar to Minnesota's House File 3670 "The Post-traumatic Stress Bill", which would require judges to consider a veteran's combat history and PTSD in mitigation?
Rep. Ash: I have not studied the Minnesota bill, however, we have already within the last year or 18 months established "Veteran's Courts" as an acknowledgement that the considerations are different for those who have voluntarily subjected themselves to combat, or who have been trained to be combatants, than for typical criminals. I believe this is appropriate.
Our troops see some pretty nasty things. They are trained to do some bad things. That's war. We understand a lot more now than we did before. Unfortunately, there are those sitting in prisons now that were veterans of the Vietnam era who did not have the benefit of veterans' courts. For them there was no intervention. It would be nice to correct some of those cases.
In addition, we have a significant number of mental health cases in our jails and prisons. These, too, are there because of conditions not necessarily under their control. In both cases, supervised treatment may be more appropriate than punishment.
(Part Three here of my interview)