Gary North has written an article called “Deficits Do Matter.” In the article he targets federal spending:

According to a recent article by Dr. Brian Riedl of the conservative Heritage Foundation, deficits do matter. They are going to matter a whole lot more over the next decade. They are going to matter to people who are dependent on the Federal government for handouts. That is a large number of people. He writes:

 The Office of Management and Budget has released its annual mid-session review that updates the budget projections from this past May. They show that this year, Washington will spend $30,958 per household, tax $17,576 per household, and borrow $13,392 per household.

Think about that. For every American household about a hundred million the Federal government will spend $31,000.

Wait a minute. The typical American household makes about $46,000 a year. Are we to believe that the Federal government will spend, in the name of the American people, $31,000 per household? That each household will be taxed income taxes, Social Security taxes, corporate taxes, etc. $17,000? That is what the figures say. Dividing $46,000 by $17,000 is 37%. Can that be possible? Add to this another $13,000 in debt. That is what the government’s statistics report. Anyone who thinks an extra $13,000 in household debt doesn’t matter is living in la-la land. This includes economists.

The scary thing is that this is the kind of spending that is happening while lawmakers try to cut their budgets. A study was released recently by the VERA Institute of Justice. The report details the cuts in spending for various correction programs due to the current recession in the United States:

This report, based on a survey of enacted FY2010 state budgets and other recent sentencing and corrections legislation, found that at least 22 states have reversed the trend of recent decades and cut funding for corrections.

What makes this particularly interesting is the large numbers of people that are affected by this:

> On any given day 7.3 million adults are under federal, state, or local correctional control (including those on probation, parole, and other forms of supervision)one in 31 adults.

7.3 million people is almost two and a half percent of our country’s total population. According to an article on stateline.org:

Corrections is the fifth-largest area of state spending after Medicaid, secondary education, higher education and transportation. State spending on prisons has swelled as the nations jail and prison population has climbed to 2.3 million people, or about one in every 100 adults. But grim budget realities are forcing state lawmakers hand.

Ninety-nine adults, including those who are retired or are on welfare and unemployment, are paying for the upkeep of one prisoner. They are also paying for the frequent checkups of two other felons who are on probation or parole. Realize that for prisoners we are not just talking about the cost of food and toilet paper, this also includes the cost of all the guards, paperwork and security hardware that they need.

So here is my question: with these budget cuts, what are we going to see more of? Will the punishments for crimes against other people go down or are we going to execute people for lesser crimes?
When the population of the earth was less, it was possible to simply exile criminals from the rest of the civilization. This is what happened to Adam and Eve and then again to their son Cain in the first four chapters of the Bible...
The next option is to kill those who are unable to treat others decently. As a society, right now, we decry this as inhumane.
We seem to like option #3, which is to separate the criminals from the rest of society, while still keeping them close by. Sometimes the prisoners are made to work and other times they aren't. This, again, comes down to what the people around them consider to be "humane."
There is final option as well, which is what we seem to be moving toward. It means letting the criminals live freely among the rest of the society. I say freely because, despite their restrictions, it is still possible for them to do what they have proven they want to do.
A large part of the problem is that these people do not know lives other than the ones that they live. All that we have to do, if that is the only problem, is show them that a better life awaits them. Right? I would argue that this is not so.
If you look over the [Alcohol Anonymous 12 Steps](http://www.serenityfound.org/steps.html), it becomes clear that not only must the person acknowledge that there is a problem, he has to want change as well. What happens if someone does not want change? He is going to end up back in the system. I've heard a pastor laugh at a statement made by a prisoner he sees occasionally -- "Man, it's hot in here. I don't know why we keep coming back. You'd think we'd learn."
That is a good question. Why do they keep going back? Is it because they have not been taught a skill set to make legitimate money? I think it is more than that. Let's take a quick detour so that this makes sense.
I believe that the purpose for our laws is to let men live together with as little trouble as possible. If someone does something to harm another then the situation needs to be made right (or as right as possible). The laws are supposed to make the consequences for bad actions fall on the person who harmed someone else. This buffers the rest of society from those same consequences.
In other words, if somebody printed a bunch of money it would make the value of the money in your wallet (or bank account) go down. Or if you were allowed to steal from others, they could return the favor. Soon you don't know from one minute to the next what you own and can rely on or cannot use. This would harm everyone in the society, so printing money and stealing from others have punishments associated with them.
Now we can return to the first question. Why would someone keep returning to a lifestyle that gets him put in prison? I think it is because [trust is easy to take advantage of](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtJ2RyjRaWI). Maybe the person doesn't see the long-term consequences, or maybe he simply chooses to ignore them because he gets something out of it now.
I think we need to go back to a system where the person who harmed others has to work off his debt. It is not a "debt to society." We can narrow it down to individuals that were hurt by the actions.
For those of you who are reading this that are Christians, prisons were not an option according to the laws given to Israel. I think it is a system that is a luxury and not a need. We need to get our spending under control and this is one way to do it. Unfortunately I think it is going to take more than what our lawmakers are willing to do.
What do you think?