Should Judges Consider Costs?
The New York Times describes how Missouri judges now have additional information to consider while making decisions:
When judges here sentence convicted criminals, a new and unusual variable is available for them to consider: what a given punishment will cost the State of Missouri.
For someone convicted of endangering the welfare of a child, for instance, a judge might now learn that a three-year prison sentence would run more than $37,000 while probation would cost $6,770. A second-degree robber, a judge could be told, would carry a price tag of less than $9,000 for five years of intensive probation, but more than $50,000 for a comparable prison sentence and parole afterward. The bill for a murderer’s 30-year prison term: $504,690.
Legal experts say no other state systematically provides such information to judges, a practice put into effect here last month by the state’s sentencing advisory commission, an appointed board that offers guidance on criminal sentencing.
Noted libertarian economist Jeffrey Miron asks: “When a judge is on the fence about alternative punishments, why not choose the less expensive one?”
For me, the answer to that question likely depends on how those costs are measured. Do they include the different recidivism rates, and thus the different residual costs, that accompany different punishments? Based on the article it seem like that’s probably considered. What about the economic costs should businesses and residents be driven away by policy that is too lax on criminals? That seems trickier to measure in such a way, but perhaps it can be modeled.
I’m all for giving judges as much information as possible, but jurisdictions should be careful about not using the availability of such information as an excuse to let judges handle decisions about the allocation of social resources that might best be left to the legislature. Ultimately, it should be up to the representatives elected by the people to determine where precious resources are best spent. That said, if they think giving judges this information will maximize the utility of those funds they have allocated to law and order, than it might be a worthwhile experiment after all.