Public Defense

If the budget deficit exceeds $1bn, it must be bizarro-world

By Gideon

Ever since the Governor announced her proposed budget earlier this week, the cost-cutting proposals have received a lot of scrutiny both in the press and on the web. So it is only in this troublesome climate that eliminating a measure that would reduce incarceration costs can be considered a cost-saving measure.

One of the things she mentioned in her speech was that, in order to save money, 130 “obsolete” laws would be repealed. An interesting idea, to be sure, until you look at one of the statutes on that list. That would be Conn. Gen. Stat. 54-125d. If you’re too lazy to click on the link, I’ll tell you what it is: the deportation parole statute. The statute essentially says that if someone is not a citizen and has a final order of deportation, then the DOC shall refer that inmate to parole for release to INS for eventual deportation.

The purpose of this statute is clear, and in my opinion, pretty useful. If an individual is going to get deported anyway, then why should the State pay for the full period of incarceration? Eliminating this bill would ensure that every inmate who could (and probably should) get deported, will instead be housed at correctional facilities in the State, at expense to the taxpayers. Where are the savings in this? Doesn’t this increase costs? Under the statute (when actually enforced), an inmate serving a sentence of 20 years could potentially cost the state only 10 years of incarceration. Now, there would be no potential savings at all. Either someone mistakenly included this statute on the list or there’s some ulterior motive not having to do with saving money.

Full post as published by A Public Defender on February 06, 2009 (boomark / email).