Is Montana Soft on Crime?

Ruey-Lin Lin
Sociology
MSU-Billings

If sending more people to prison means being "tough" on crime, we are "tougher" than Washington, Wisconsin, Hawaii, Utah, Nebraska, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and North Dakota, among others. Between 1971 and 1991, the imprisonment rate in Montana INCREASED 417%, fourth highest increase in the nation and slower only than Delaware, Arizona, and Alaska!

Is it that Montana sends more people to our crowded state prison because crimes, particularly violent crimes, are more serious than other states? It is instructive to compare "crimes known to police" in Montana with our four neighboring states that have lower imprisonment rates.

Table 1. Rates of Offenses Known to Police, 1991 (per 100,000 inhabitants)

As shown on Table 1, contrary to the assumption of a serious crime problem in Montana, we have the LOWEST rates of Index Crimes (consists of murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, and arson) known to police of any of our neighbors. Most importantly, the states compared have "higher" rates of "violent" crimes known to police than Montana: Minnesota is 126% higher, Utah is 105% higher, Wisconsin is 98% higher, and Washington is 274% higher.

It might be argued that we send more people to prison because we make more arrests, even though we might not have more crimes. As reported on Table 2, with the exception of Minnesota, Montana has a lower total crime index arrest rate. In fact, all four states made MORE violent crime arrests than Montana: Minnesota was 27% more, Utah was 146% more, Wisconsin was 147.8% more, and Washington was 171.6% more.

Table 2. Rates of Arrests, 1991 (per 100,000 inhabitants)

It is clear that we send more people to prison not because crime is a greater problem in Montana, or because there were more arrests. We imprison more people than the states with more serious crime problems because of the combination of the following reasons: (1) we use few sentencing alternatives other than prison; (2) we send more non-violent, non-dangerous persons to prison; (3) we keep prisoners in prison longer than other states.

Crime is not only a "social" problem, it is a "political" problem. As a social problem, it affects our sense of security and well-being. We all have a vested interest in keeping our streets free from crime. On the other hand, the entire process throughout the criminal justice system is a political process. "Discretion" is the bedrock of decision-making in arrest, prosecution, and sentencing. We know that ninety percent of all the criminal cases are disposed of through the process of "guilty plea" during the prosecution stage. We know that judges have various alternatives in sentencing options and, if imprisonment is imposed, the range of sentencing length.

Crime is also an "economic" problem. Our prison is overcrowded and is bulging to the state of explosion. (Let's not forget about our prison riot of 1991!) It is a serious "economic" problem if we decide to further expand our prison capacity. Prison is an expensive enterprise both to build and to operate. It has to be constructed of very expensive and sturdy materials because it has the operating objective of restraining persons against their will. We need to know the financial constraint that having more of something (e.g., prison) is only possible by having less of something else (e.g., education). Can we afford to mortgage our children's future simply because we want to send more people to prison?

There were about 200,000 persons imprisoned in the state and federal prisons in the United States in 1971, by 1981, 400,000 imprisoned, and by 1991, there were 800,000 imprisoned. We "triple" our prison population during the last 20 years. We now have the "highest" imprisonment rate in the world! Is "a society of prisoners" what we can be proud of? Political propaganda aside, a "reasoned" and "rational" public discussion on solutions, imprisonment and other alternatives, to our "social," "political," and "economic" problems of crime is critical at this particular time. Using Minnesota and Washington as models, I would suggest that the Montana Legislature establish a "Sentencing Guideline Commission" to coordinate the judicial processes in criminal sentencing and administrative matters relating to prison. The composition of the Commission would include the director of Correction, the State attorney general, the chief court administrators, key judicial committee legislators, and members of public interest groups. The primary tasks of the Commission would be to minimize sentencing disparity and to assure that changes in the sentencing structure would be so finely tuned that at no time would the number of sentenced prisoners exceed the availability of prison space. The Commission should be staffed with legal counsel and statistical personnel to assure that both laws and facts are known.