2003 - Proposal for Federal Sentencing Relief

GIVE U.S. PAROLE A SECOND CHANCE! - Draft

By Al Battone, Prisoner of the Drug War

(You may also Download this Entire Document in Adobe Acrobat PDF format)

Over 90,000 citizens have signed our Petitions in favor of Early Release for Non-Violent Drug Law Violators, and this is just the Beginning . . .

INDEX

Introduction

Federal Prisons, Past, Present, and Future

Monetary Standpoint

Creation of Jobs and Tax Revenues

Federal Parole Outline

Federal Parole Requirements

Incentives For Returning U.S. Parole

Alternative Programs Created By Reinstating U.S. Parole

Conclusion

The National Incentives In Returning U.S. Parole for Federal Prisoners: Introduction

President Bush recently said in his January 20, 2004 State of the Union Address that "America is the land of second chances." It is time to stop throwing good money after a bad money idea and give U.S. Parole a second chance. The federal prison system as it stands today is nothing more than a storage system for the men and women who have been convicted of committing a crime. Thus, in reality, creating a college for criminals who learn more about crime from one another, rather than receiving any type or incentive for rehabilitation. Then, at the end of their sentence only to return to society with minimal supervision to commit more crimes and return to federal prison. It is time to stop the revolving door system of federal prison and turn the use of the bad money ideas into a positive use of the tax dollars.

The following plan breaks down the federal prison system's deficiencies and use of the tax dollars. It demonstrates how billions of tax dollars could be saved and better utilized than investing in the current sys tern of "warehousing" people. Additionally, the plan will give a positive overturn of how the tax dollars could be used for Homeland Security, space programs, children's education programs, job training and job placement programs for prisoners and the children of the Nation so as to become productive citizens in society.

Of course no one can ever stop crime nor should prisons close their doors, but the fact remains that the men and women who get convicted of breaking the laws will be returning to society one day. No one is saying the prison sys tern is a bad idea, just that it needs changes so it can become a positive use to society - not as it is today, a negative one.

Please take the time to read the following plan. This plan has the incentives laid out for returning the U.S. federal parole system. It also shows 1) how billions of dollars can be saved, 2) how to create jobs for people who are currently on unemployment and 3) how the new found dollars can be utilized in a positive way, all without stopping our criminal justice system from working.

In closing, the following plan has been sent to senators, congressmen, presidential staff and other organizations. Currently, we have the Parole Bill that was written by the late Senator Patsy Mink. The revised bill has over 90,000 voter signatures asking for U.S. Parole to be given a second chance.

The November Coalition has gathered over 90,000 signatures to some form of early release and give it a second chance. They can be reached at: The November Coalition, 795 South Cedar, Colville, WA, 99114, (509) 684-1550, www.november.org. We are asking any Politicians to pick up this new Parole Bill and present it to Congress.*

For a copy of the Parole Bill, pleas e contact: Attorney George W. Galgano, Jr., 399 Knollwood Drive, White Plains, NY 10963 (914) 428-2323.

Respectfully, The People for U.S. Parole

* Of course, any individuals who may have a personal financial interest in any form of the prison/industrial complex, i.e., stocks in private prisons, or ownership in any companies who supply items to prisons from food to clothing to building supplies or paper goods, might not want to give U.S. Parole a second chance. Let's not have these men or women stop what is best for the Nation.

Proposal To Restore Federal Parole

The time has come to restore U.S. Parole for federal prisoners. There are many benefits for all involved to see that the system is restored.

The Federal Prisons: Past, Present and Future

The number of inmates held in federal prison had risen from 24,000 in 1980 to 130,772 by late 1999. See B.O.P. web site, http//www.bop.gov (August 22, 1999, 130, 77~ By the beginning of 1999, overcrowding in federal prisons was approximately 27%. See Allen J. Beck and Christopher J. Mumola, Prisoners in 1998 "(Washington, DC; Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999). Today, there are approximately 174,224 federal prisoners (bop.gov., January 26, 2004), thus bringing the overcrowding to a shocking 31%. Beginning in 1992 and continuing through today, due to the mandatory minimum sentencing laws, approximately 60% of all federal prisoners are serving sentences for non-violent drug offenses on their current charges. [See BOP web site above.]

Interestingly enough at the time of the research and writing of this proposal, a news article written by the Hon. Carl Horn III, Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Western District of North Carolina was published in The Champion Magazine. Judge Horn states: "[a]ccording to the Justice Policy Institute, these results include a current jail and prison population of over two million, state and federal. This means that the United States, with less than five percent of the world's population, now incarcerates over twenty-five percent of the world's prisoners."

It may be helpful to put these figures in historical perspective. In 1970, our jail and prison population was less than 10 percent of what it is today; that is, there were less than 200,000 prisoners. Does any neutral observer really believe an increase in crime - or any other objective factor - justifies an incarceration rate 30 times what it was for the five decades before 1970? Can any neutral observer articulate a just basis for sentencing low-level drug user/distributors, who would have formerly received a sentence measured in months or even probation, to minimum sentences of 20 or more years?"

The Hon. Judge Horn goes on, "those with any doubt about wisdom deficit in our current criminal justice policy should take time to read Crime: When They Get Out, by Sasha Abramsky (The Atlantic Monthly, June, 1999) . Quite apart from the justice of disproportionate sentences for ever-increasing numbers, Abramsky draws an alarming picture of how unprepared society is to reabsorb - during the following ten years - "somewhere around 3.5 million first time releases. Because, after all, unless they die in prison, even their oppressively long prison sentences will eventually come to an end.

What Abramsky poignantly establishes is that the release of millions of long-term prisoners, with poor employment prospects and a great deal of built up anger and frustration, is upon us and, more to the point, that there has been almost no preparation for it. He cites the work of William Sabol of the Urban Institute, who has studied the likely effects of release of substantial numbers of long- term prisoners in 90 metropolitan areas in the United States. The bot tom line: Sabol and an increasing number of other experts see a prescription for what Abramsky calls "violent chaos" just around the corner, especially in already marginal metropolitan areas. This is undeniably a grim picture. Do those who enthusiastically push mandatory minimum sentences and other laws contributing to the burgeoning U.S. Prison population ever consider these consequences? If these consequences are brought to the forefront of the public conversation, will the bipartisan enthusiasm for longer sentences begin to erode? In any event, these are figures and questions to keep in mind as we turn our attention to constructive strategies and potential solutions." [Champion Magazine, March/April 2003 Vol. 21, No.2.] Judge Horn presents a good case for restoring parole for federal prisoners.

Looking From a Monetary Standpoint

As a result of the prisons running at 31% over capacity, the prison facilities are under a tremendous strain, causing more and more breakdowns of the necessary and orderly running of the prisons, which raises the costs significantly. These figures are not available and are not included in the cost of housing an inmate. Additionally, the costs of overtime for staff to complete repairs and to secure the overcrowding problem are not available. By restoring U.S. Parole for federal prisoners, it would ease the overcrowding and bring the number of inmates back to what these facilities were originally built to handle - which would lower the costs and payroll for operating these prisons.

Moreover, once U.S. Parole is restored, the doors to the prisons would start releasing inmates, eliminating the need to build more federal prisons, making way for the new incoming prisoners.

At the current rate, and utilizing the available data, of 131,000 federal inmates in 1999, 174,224 in January 26, 2004, over the almost 5 year period, the annual growth has increased 33% or 6.6% per year. With the annual growth rate of 6.6%, this equals approximately 11,499 additional inmates per year. Taking these statistics, without parole, by the year 2013 there will be 309,687 inmates in federal prison. At the present rate of growth, by the year 2013, there will be an added 19,174 inmates that year. These rates of growth correspond with the number of defendants in pre- trial services sys tem cases opened in 2003: 97,371 total. [See 2003 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary by Chief Justice Rehnquist, U.S. Supreme Court, footnote 8.] Additionally, taking the inflation rates of 1.9% - 2% annually, it will cost the government $36,570 per inmate per year. On this note it will also cost the Department of Justice and the taxpayers billions of dollars to build, staff, and supply new prisons. At an approximate rate of 1200 inmates per prison, one would have to build at least 10 new prisons per year.

As author Joel Dyer states in his book The Perpetual Prison Machine, "By the late 1980s, the prison expansion had begun to reach what should have been its economic limits. State after state had built countless new prisons only to see them quickly filled by hard-on-crime sentencing measures. The majority of taxpaying voters were beginning to express their concern over ever-increasing corrections costs, as exemplified by the fact that they began to vote down many of the bond issues needed for new prison construction. Considering that most states were under court order to reduce overcrowding, this refusal by voters to allow state governments to create bond debt for prisons should have spelled the end of the war on crime - but it wasn't to be. Private corporations and politicians who were benefiting from the expansion came up with an alternative plan. If state governments couldn't get their voters to approve the general-obligation bonds historically needed to construct new prisons or they simply wanted to save their general-obligation bond capacity for more popular projects, then [certain corporations], and others would raise the construction money the states needed by underwriting lease-revenue (a.k.a. lease-payment) bonds that don't require voter approval or by actually building the prisons themselves and then charging the states [and federal government] to house their inmates in the privately owned facilities." Id. pp 4,5. As of January 26, 2004, there were over 10,000 federal inmates in privately owned facilities. [See www.bop.gov., ante, (January 26, 2004, 10,369).]

Joel Dyer further states: "In the end, this market intrusion into the justice sys tern means that politicians can simply divert tax dollars out of existing programs such an education, child welfare, mental-health care, housing, and substance-abuse programs to repay the' market and its investors for having put up the money to construct the prison facilities. If finagled properly, this diversion of funds does not require voter approval. In many ways, it's as if the prison expansion is now being funded by way of credit card is sued by the prison-industrial complex - a high-interest credit card that the taxpayers have no control over when it comes to spending but are nonetheless still being required to pay for at the end of the month." It is noteworthy that the cost of housing a federal inmate is approximately $30,000 per prisoner per year. For example, lets say 50,000 inmates meet the requirements for U.S. Parole. [See Parole Requirements infra.] At a cost of $30,000 per year x $50,000 = $1.5 Billion a year that the taxpayers would save. Additionally, the parolee would be required (see Requirements) to wear an electronic monitor bracelet, which he or she would pay $100 per month or $1,200 per year. The $1,200 x 50,000 parolees would bring revenues of $60 million per year.

The parolees also would be required (see Requirements) to be employed. Let's say these 50,000 parolees would be employed at a low level job earning approximately $20,000 per year. Let's say, for argument, they would be required to pay taxes of approximately $6,000 per year. Multiply the $6,000 by 50,000 prisoners and the amount is $300 million per year income to the government. Additionally, the parolee would more likely be spending the balance of his/her wages on rent, clothes, food and other living conditions putting $14,000 x 50,000 prisoners = $700 million into the economy per year.

Taking the above figures of: $1.5 billion (housing per prisoner) $60 million (monitor for bracelet) $300 million (employment tax) $700 million (living conditions), then $2.56 billion dollars per year is the total.

The figure of $2.56 billion per year would be a combination of savings and an added income to the economy of this country. Also, keep in mind the savings of not having to build additional prisons and the overgrowing expenses of running the existing prisons (figures not available).

The Creation of Jobs in Societal and Tax Revenues

Currently, unemployment is at its highest level since 1982. If parole were to be reinstated, it would create jobs for those who are currently unemployed and collecting some kind of Public Assistance, thus draining money from the economy. Parole would take some of the strain of this employment problem. Taking the figure used above at 50,000 parolees, it would require at least 500 parole officers carrying a 100 person case load. Additionally, the Parole Boards would have to be expanded in order to visit and review the inmates who are at that time of his/her sentence which makes them eligible to see the parole board. So, lets say that would require an additional 500 people. This writer will say that at a salary of $40,000 a year, and if there are parole officers and Board members needed, that would mean 1000 people would be paying into the economy 12 million dollars a year in taxes. Additionally, some of the 1000 parole employees would be coming off of some kind of public assistance - thus taking some kind of strain off the economy. Also the balance of these parole employee's pay checks would be spent into the economy in one form or another. This figure is approximately $25 million a year.

In addition, the parolee would be required (see Requirements) to wear a monitor bracelet. This also would create jobs for the hundreds of monitor personnel to keep a watch on the parolees' movements throughout his/her time while they are required to wear this device. Again, using the example of 50,000 parolees, it would require 200 people to be employed as monitoring agents at a salary of $30,000 per year. This would mean that these monitoring agents will be paying approximately $1.8 million a year in taxes. Also, the balance of their paychecks would equal approximately $4 million per year, which would end up back into the economy in one form or another.

Taking the figures of $12 million (payroll taxes of parole employees),$25 million (living expenses, parole employees), $1.8 million, (payroll taxes, monitor agents) $4 million (living expenses, monitor agents) we arrive at $42.8 million dollars.

Thus, $42.8 million per year is the total amount that would be added income into the economy of this country. The revenues (estimated $60 million per year) gathered from the fees parolees would pay for the monitor bracelets alone supports restoring U.S. Parole.

Finally, all of the above, Parole Officer, Parole Board members, and electronic monitoring agents are already' a functioning entity of the Department of Justice. Thus, to implement the restoration of U.S. Parole for federal prisoners would only require the expansion of the existing U.S. Parole Commission and require minimal costs. Also note, that the enclosed figures would fluctuate each year according to the number of inmates that would be eligible for parole plus the inmates that are already on parole. All in all, by restoring U.S. Parole for federal prisoners, the economy would benefit greatly, which in turn, would in and of itself create jobs in every field, lowering the unemployment and public assistance rate.

Federal Parole Outline

Since the enactment of the United States Sentencing Guidelines became effective November 1, 1987, federal prisoners no longer receive parole. U.S. Parole was officially abolished with the enactment of the Parole Commission Phaseout Act of 1996. [See Public Law 104-232.] More and more taxpayer dollars are being used to keep men and women in federal prisons for extraordinary long terms. Under the current federal sentencing structure, federal prisoners must serve at least 85% (87% according to the Bureau of Prisons) of the draconian sentences meted out under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and Mandatory Minimum sentencing regime. As previously discussed above, (see Prisons, Past, Present and Future), this has caused an enormous rate of growth within the federal prison system, which continues to grow and as it grows, so does the expense to the taxpayers along with taking funding away from positive programs that can benefit society.

It should be noted that after a federal prisoner completes their sentence that person is released back to society with little if any rehabilitation, job training, finances, job placement, education, a place to reside or supervision. Basically, with the long sentences that most federal inmates are serving, at the end they are released with very few options available to them. Of course, it is mandatory that each federal inmate receives some year or years of supervision but that supervision is minimal at best and the inmate has very few requirements.

Parole experts have long held that the public' is misinformed when it labels parole as lenient. By exercising discretion, parole boards can single out the more violent and dangerous offenders for longer incarceration. When States abolished parole [like the federal system after November 1, 1987], or reduce the discretion of parole authorities, they replace a rational, controlled sys tern of "earned" release for selected inmates with "automatic" release for nearly all inmates. No parole systems sound tough but remove a gate-keeping role that can protect victims and communities.

Parole boards can demand that released inmates receive drug treatment, and research shows that coerced treatment is as successful as voluntary participation. If parole boards also require a plan for the released offender to secure a job and a place to live in the community, the added benefit is to refocus prison staff and corrections budgets on transition planning.

Involving victims in parole hearings has been one of the major changes in parole in recent years. Ninety percent of parole boards now provide victims with information about the parole process, and 70 percent allow victims to attend the parole hearing. Parole boards can also meet personally with the crime victim. Meeting victims' needs is a further argument for reinstating parole. Perhaps most important, when information about the offense and the offender has been gathered and prison behavior observed, parole boards can reconsider the tentative release date. More than 90 percent of offenders in the United States are sentenced because they plead guilty, not as the result of a trial. Without a trial, there is little opportunity to fully air the circumstances of the crime or the risks posed by the offender. A parole board can revisit the case to discover how extensive the victim's injuries were and weather a gun was involved. The board is able to do so even though the offense to which the offender pled, by definition, involved no weapon. As one observer commented on this power of the parole board, "In a system which incorporates discretionary parole, the system gets a second chance to make sure it is doing the right thing. Again, this can make a difference for crime victims." [See Sentencing & Corrections, U.S. Dept. of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November, 2000, Papers From The Executive Sessions On Sentencing and Corrections, No.9, (emphasis added).]

Restoration of U.S. Parole is a win-win situation for the taxpayers, prisoners, and America as a Nation. The restoration of parole should apply to all federal inmates that were sentenced subsequent to the abolishment of federal parole, and to include those prisoners whose sentences include a mandatory minimum sentence. This also would include those who are serving life sentences to be eligible to see the Parole Board who would review the prisoners on a case by case basis. Like already established U.S. Parole rules, any prisoner with a sentence of 30 years to life would start seeing the Parole Board at 10 years. Under Federal Parole, the prisoner would be eligible to see the Parole Board after the completion of one third (1/3) of his or her sentence. If the prisoner does not meet the Parole Board's requirements at that point, he or she sees the Parole Board every 24 months thereafter until completion of two thirds (2/3) of their sentence, a t which time the prisoner would be automatically released on Parole for the remainder of their sentence. If the prisoner has a mandatory supervised release at the end of their sentence, that supervision would be added to the back end of their parole.

Additionally, by restoring U.S. Parole, this does not mean the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and the statutes which provide for mandatory minimums would have to be altered. Sentences could still be imposed as they are now. The only difference is that U.S. Parole will be available. If there is a mandatory minimum sentence, that does not mean that the prisoner has to serve the full length of the mandatory sentence. The mandatory sentence is just that: a mandatory sentence, not a mandatory term of imprisonment. It is of great importance that any legislation that considers U.S. Parole for federal prisoners specifically provides U.S. Parole for all prisoners sentenced subsequent to the abolishment of federal parole and the implementation of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, November 1, 1987, regardless of whether the prisoner's sentence includes a mandatory minimum.

It is essential to note that once a prisoner meets the parole board's requirements to be released on parole, he or she would be under the strictest supervision (see Parole Requirements for Supervision) and for a longer period or-time, thus deterring the parolee from committing further crimes or violations and being returned to prison.

Federal Parole Requirements, Supervision

The decision to release a prisoner on parole is often partially based upon considerations of family and other social ties. The Parole Board takes into consideration the prisoners records while he has been incarcerated, if he worked, stayed out of trouble, if he used narcotics, if he took prison programs and any letters good or bad that were sent to the Parole Board for their consideration.

Additionally, the prisoner would have to sign a waiver and agree to the conditions of the Parole Board and Parole Officer for the following: He or she:

1.Is limited on what Public Assistance is available

2.Must find a job within 60 days or enter an educational or job training program

3.Must have a current address with a telephone 4.Will wear a monitor bracelet and pay the expenses for this monitor if the Parole Board so requests

5.Produce a paycheck stub once a week

6.Report to the Parole Officer as directed

7.Must produce tax returns w/receipt that taxes are paid

8.Will produce any other receipts as requested by the Parole Officer, ~., rent, phone, electric, etc.

9.Parole Officer may visit home or work at anytime

10.Will have no Police contact and if so, must report it immediately to-the Parole Officer

11.Drug testing and alcohol testing at anytime

12.If the prisoner owes restitution, must make monthly payments

13.Will have no contact with other felons.

If he or she violates any provision of their parole requirements, the prisoner is subjected to be returned to prison until a hearing is held and a determination is made by the hearing Officer of what additional time the prisoner will have to be incarcerated before they see the Parole Board. By the prisoner having to follow the rules set out above or any other conditions set by the Courts or Parole Board, the prisoner's standard of living and personal confidence will be restored while teaching the prisoner responsibility.

Incentives For Society and Inmates By Returning U.S. Parole

Parole can be a useful behavioral management tool in It rewards the prisoner who wants to stay out of trouble learned his "lesson" by being able to regain his or her earlier. It also helps shape the behavior of prisoners be difficult to reach through other programs.

The prisoner will more likely participate in most, if not all, of the prison programs available to them. This is so because the Parole Board will be taking these factors under consideration in determining whether to grant parole.

Parole makes it possible for prisoners under supervision to work full-time jobs in the "free" economy. They can contribute to their own support as well as their families support, stimulate the economy by spending their wages, and support the government through the taxes they pay.

Additionally, the men and women on Parole can take advantages of services offered through the community such as substance-abuse counseling, support groups and church out reach programs. While a few similar opportunities may be available in prison, the community environment itself can enhance the effectiveness of treatment programs by reducing the stigmatization of the prisoner in prison. Thus allowing the prisoner to participate in a more "normal" environment which would encourage the prisoner not to break the rules and conditions of parole so as not to return to prison.

The incentives for prisoners to work towards becoming a less likely candidate for recidivism would be increased significantly because prisoners would be more willing to participate in relapse prevention programs, anger management, and drug education that are designed to address the problems that resulted in incarceration. Since participation in such programs is a factor that the parole Board will consider in determining whether to grant Parole, it is more likely than not that the prisoner will take these programs and learn from them.

In Fiscal Year 2003, the federal courts experienced record highs in filings in most program areas... [f]ilings in the 12 regional courts of appeals grew 6 percent from 57,555 to 60,847, a record number. Criminal case filings increased 5 percent to an all-time high of 70,642, surpassing the previous record reported in 1932, the year before the Prohibition Amendment was repealed. [See 2003 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary by Chief Justice Rehnquist, page 5, (footnotes omitted).] Prisoners with nowhere to turn from their extra long prison sentences are forced to file excessive appeals and petitions to the Courts in hopes to gain some kind of relief on their prison sentences. This has put an extra burden on the courts which also takes tax dollars away from other avenues that this money could be used on. The courts are becoming so back logged with these appeals that bringing new cases into the court takes months or even years to process. On this note, the courts are experiencing serious administrative problems that they are rubber-stamping many of the prisoner's filings denied - eroding the Constitution which America stands for.

The tax dollars are being spent toward the funding of a huge perpetual prison door which is extending to the children of federal prisoners. Those children are more likely to become candidates for prison because of the lack of maternal or paternal presence and guidance due to the prolonged incarceration.

Federal Parole would reunite families. Children will learn from the parent that has been incarcerated that crime does not pay and that the end result of crime is either death or prison. No one can teach this lesson better to a child than the parent who has experienced prison. President Bush's statement during his State of the Union Address in 2003 said that he wanted funding for a program to train people to take on a parental role for the children of imprisoned men and women. The President recognizes that proper molding for thoEe children is important to us all as a nation. However, this writer does not think the President gave this statement enough thought. It is offensive to say, "we will have someone else raise your children." Most if not all children have a problem learning or even listening to a step parent let alone some stranger trying to take the place of Mom or Dad because they are in prison.

Instead what we should be saying is: Here is all the training you need to be responsible citizens and parents. Now you have another chance to correct your wrongs and live right and if you do wrong we will be violating your parole and sending you back to prison." This by itself will teach our children one of the meanings of life: "you should give a person a second chance after they make a mistake; and you must be responsible for your actions."

Most importantly, the fact that the President took the time to address this problem shows that the President must be realizing that there is an overwhelming. amount of men and women in prison and it is time to take action in order to s top the revolving prison door. If for no other reason, for the children and families of this Nation.

Alternative Programs That Can be Implemented with The Money Saved By Reinstating U.S. Parole

In the section above - monetary standpoint - we will use our example of 50,000 prisoners receiving parole from that figure we get an idea of the money that can be generated to alternative, positive producing programs. At a minimum, restoring U.S. Parole is saving and bringing in revenues of $2.5 billion dollars per year. To start with, job training and job placement programs can be instituted within communities for both the younger generation and the men and women returning to society from prison.

Additionally, drug education, anger management, counseling, computer classes, community college, technical courses and any rehabilitation programs necessary to educate the parolee are best set in motion in the school sys terns and the community. Federal prisoners returning home on parole will have the meaningful opportunity to receive the many needed educational and beneficial programs that are found only in the community, helped by the money gained by reinstating U.S. Parole. Moreover, being that a lot of prisoners don't have a place to live (of their own), some kind of low cost housing can be devised. This is one of the many programs that is being addressed by Congressman Danny Davis of Chicago. [See Public Safety Ex-Offender Self-sufficiency Act.] The Davis bill provides for tax credits for developers who set up low-income housing with on site support services like job training, employment counseling and placement, drug-and-alcohol abuse counseling and anger management counseling. Rent will be set according to income, and residents will be limited to two-year stays.

A stable housing environment would enable an ex-offender to begin to build a new life, especially with critical services available right on the premises, to become a productive part of society.

Additionally, President Bush started a program called the "Leave No Child Behind Act." While this program is a great positive for our children, the funding for this program has been limited. While it is true that the children are our future, with the lack of education, what kind of future will we have as a nation if we don't invest and fund these types of programs? Likewise, President Bush announced that he would like to restart the Space Program - sending man missions both to the Moon and Mars. These types of programs take an excessive amount of funding, funding that simply is not available with the way the economy is today.

Of course, we will always have the expense of Homeland Security to deal with; these programs can no longer be left behind. There can be no price tag put on National Security, and as Homeland Security tightens and closes up the holes that terrorists use, the more the terrorists will expand their effects to find new ways to attack our Nation. Thus, Homeland Security will have to expand to counteract these effects by expanding our security, that will mean more and more funding each year. As of January 27, 2004, the government announced that the deficit over the next four years will be $477 billion. Restoring U.S. Parole will ease this deficit. Finally, while there are so many positive programs that the money saved and earned by reinstating U.S. Parole can be used for - we will only cross that bridge when we get to it.

CONCLUSION

There is a more positive and productive way to approach crime, justice and punishment cost-effectively: Bring back U.S. Parole and give it a second chance. It's a win-win program for America.