by: F.R. Duplantier

"The overall rate of serious crime in the United States is at a 20-year low," reports Morgan Reynolds of the National Center for Policy Analysis. "The murder rate," he adds, "is lower than in the 1970s. In New York City, it is as low as in the 1960s. Not by coincidence," Reynolds observes, "the likelihood that a criminal will be punished for a serious crime is higher today than it has been since the late 1970s."

Noting that "America continues to be burdened by an appalling amount of crime," Reynolds argues that we must continue to increase the likelihood of punishment if we expect to reduce crime still further. "Most offenders are not mentally deranged," he asserts. "And most crimes are not irrational acts. Instead, criminal acts are freely committed by people who often compare the expected benefits to the expected costs. The reason we have so much crime is that, for many people, the benefits outweigh the costs. But, in recent years," Reynolds points out, "the likelihood of going to prison for committing any type of major crime has increased, as has the amount of prison time served."

Reynolds concludes that "potential criminals respond to incentives. Crime increases when expected punishment declines, and vice versa." While conceding that "the cost of building and maintaining more prisons is high," Reynolds points out that "the cost of not doing so appears to be higher." He cites research studies showing that "keeping most prisoners behind bars lowers their cost to society." Incarceration is expensive, however -- more expensive than it needs to be. But Reynolds sees "no insurmountable obstacle to total privatization of prison operation. Unlike government agencies, private firms must know and account for all their costs, including long-run costs," he emphasizes. "Governments conceal costs and markets reveal them (as well as reduce them). If private enterprises operate prisons for less than the government with equal or better quality services," Reynolds argues, "then government should set punishments for felons and let the private sector supply prisons."

The best way to keep the costs of prisons down, of course, is to have the inmates earn their own keep. "America's prisons originally were intended to be self-supporting, and during the 19^th century many state prisons ran surpluses and returned excess funds to their governments," Reynolds recalls. "Today, prison inmates are a huge drain on taxpayers, despite the millions of available hours of healthy, prime-age labor they represent. Increasing productive work for prisoners can be facilitated," he counsels, "by repeal or liberalization of some federal and state statutes and clearing away bureaucratic obstacles."

Reynolds emphasizes that prison labor "enables prisoners to earn wages and acquire marketable skills while learning individual responsibility and the value of productive labor. It also ensures that they are able to contribute to victim compensation," he adds, "and to their own and their families' support while they are in prison."