RATIONALE: Most states have about 80% of their inmate populations housed in MEDIUM SECURITY (or less) facilities. SMASCH offers those 80% a chance to compete their way into a privately-housed status, i.e. the State will no longer pay for their housing. MAXIMUM Security inmates are not statistical candidates for SMASCH–but could be: bureaucratic classifications for inmates are often short-term, multi-based (disciplinary, precautionary, or arbitrary), and expedient: bureaucrats miraculously have exactly the same number of medium security inmates as they have medium security places. Using Oklahoma’s statistics:

CAVEAT: Such a drastic drop in inmates housed cannot carry through the entire fixed-cost of bureaucratic staff. White-collar staff costs would be reduced, but not at the 75% rate. Nonetheless, this arbitrary estimate also does not allow for the inherent savings for inmates who might be sentenced to incarceration–but for SMASCH–who will, in the future, go directly to SMASCH.

<Top>

SUPERVISION: The myth of "supervision" was created by prison bureaucrats to answer the obvious problem of high recidivism (prison life did not rehabilitate most inmates), and, ironically, it fit well into the sister problems of overcrowding and what-to-do with low-risk criminals who did not appear to merit incarceration at all. In short, the bureaucrats offered to increase their staffs and budgets (importance), promising to "keep an eye on" probationers, who were otherwise committing new crimes at a high rate. Supervision is a myth, because probation officers are understaffed and must risk promotion by choosing which probationers to call or write– visits only occur when an re-arrest is imminent. To off-set this risk, supervisors tend to turn in (revoke) probationers for petty infractions: failure to report, failure to: pay court costs & fines, or perform community service, etc. Irresponsibility runs rampant among probationers. This fills any quotas implied to the supervisor, but it also fills prisons.

SMASCH replaces parole and commutation with a transition period after incarceration. It builds:

TRANSITION. In prison, inmates can compete to get to SMASCH sooner. They would compete much as they do now for paroles, but SMASCH adds a powerful factor: the Steward. Even in the face of lackluster performance, an inmate can be transitioned earlier if a steward assumes the risk. The steward’s motivator: greed. If he can control the incorrigible, he can reap the benefits of their labors, but if not, the Steward might lose all his part of the oligopoly–his license.

CONTROL. The Steward controls (locked-in) 2/3 of the inmate’s time, and 100% of his resources. While at work, the inmate is subject to the close scrutiny of his co-workers: if he fails to perform there, and is fired–repeatedly–the inmate returns to prison. Resources are assumed in our society, but very little crime can be committed without them. In transition, a SMASCH inmate could walk away from work, be reported by co-workers, but have no resources–much the same as an escaping prison inmate, but the Steward is 100% liable for what happens; has far more authority to retrieve the escapee, and works within a totally different system than law enforcement: prisons rely on absolutes (walls, wire, and punishment): SMASCH Stewards rely, in part, on cooperation and incentives. The Steward’s inmates gain when their system produces: all lose when it fails to produce–there is a clear TEAM involvement.

<Top>

3. RECIDIVISM. Prisons do not compete for productivity: SMASCH Stewards would, and, ironically, force prison officials to then compete for inmates. Each would insure their products would not recidivate. Insurance socializes risk for us, and could for this socialized system. Sovereign immunity reigns supreme in every state prison system. Escapes, brutality, drug-abuse, extortion, rape, etc. are all rampant within many prison walls, but there is no liability there. Bureaucrats are not induced to improve a methodology, or its miserable performance, rather they must justify their existence with enforcing super- technical rules and returning parolees to lock-ups for meaningless infractions. Success (of the bureaucrats) is not rewarded: their failures are not punished.

Guaranteeing ZERO recidivism is as simple as a warranty on a new car: the risk is spread among all the units. With hundreds of thousands of inmates under SMASCH, the risk is managed and funded by the Stewards: those Stewards who fail to meet the requirements are terminated. Because the rewards to Stewardship are so great, there will be a long line to replace a failure.

<Top>

4. REHABILITATION. This myth was invented to justify the high costs–esoterically, at first–but now fiscally--of prisons. Modern prisons set a plan or program for each new inmate: courses to attend and behavior to be modified, but have no way to prove the inmate’s performance capability. The only true test for "rehabilitation" is to produce a functioning, tax paying, law-abiding citizen from an inmate. SMASCH actually does that BEFORE releasing the inmate. Prisons cannot do so even after the inmate is at large in society with zero protection from his high likelihood to recidivate. Prisons are a 14^th century concept claiming to pursue 21^st century goals: SMASCH takes over after prisons–a necessary burden on society–have stabilized SOME inmates. SMASCH is not alchemy: it cannot produce what the individual inmate does not seek. SMASCH provides a competitive environment where inmates are transitioned into citizens. To some, "competition" implies some inmates will be left behind, due to their lack of skills and capacity: only in a bureaucratic model where the State adopts a cookie-cutter mentality. SMASCH stewards can be as varied as the jurisdiction can support. Prison labor has long been a political orphan, because it appears to compete with, or unfairly assist, private labor resources. Under SMASCH, it does neither. SMASCH stewards can carve their niches; trade their own talents and manage them just as professional athletic team managers do. Flexibility to meet demand is not just implied: it is essential.

Every SMASCH inmate must complete his contract, pay his taxes, support his family, and be on-the-job-trained to be a functional, self-supporting citizen. His savings (specified by contract) await him; his after-full-release performance is monitored, but not by a bureaucrat who is expected to create failure, but by a Steward who must produce success.

<Top>

5. FUNDING REHABILITATION. Prisons are not responsible: their budgets are not increased as a reward for the success of its products, nor are they cut due to their failures. Their expenditures are the product of society’s thirst for security. SMASCH stewards compete with each other and prisons: they do and pay more for some inmates, depending upon the steward’s goals and gauge. Stewards will fail; prisons never do: they are just closed. Regardless of its reputation, a prison is political pork barrel: jobs for the constituency–all at the expense of the body politic. Increasingly, due to the high capital costs, these jobs are second fiddle to the political favors paid by national corporations. They can accept prisoners outside the local jurisdiction, and side-step the embarrassing outlay of precious State-budget dollars for brick & mortar. SMASCH is self-funding. A politician’s nightmare: no control over funds, physical location, or credit for its success–it’s all PRIVATE. In SMASCH, inmates pay, because inmates can pay. In prisons, inmates are paupers, and they cannot pay. Nonetheless, there is a movement afoot to do just that: force inmates and their families to pay for their accommodations and bill them as a means of forcing them back into prison–while on parole. Truly, a means to a means. SMASCH looks to the steward for performance. A steward who fails to perform is a steward no more. But while a steward, zero state funds are sent to him/her. The State will bear the inherent costs of steward supervision and accountability checks. Otherwise, stewards are solely on their own.

<Top>

6. ABUSE. A significant correlation exists between crime, its punishment, and substance abuse. Theories abound that prison populations could be halved if drugs were legalized. SMASCH neither accepts nor adopts such societal decisions. However, it is the fool who denies: A) illegal drugs are a huge economic drain on any society: they are not taxed, they consume precious resources (families, fortunes, law enforcement, and prisons–to name but a few); B) efforts at control ("Wars on Drugs") have all attacked the supply side of this economic problem; C) such efforts are expensive to taxpayers; D) such efforts have generally failed.

SMASCH does not address "supply" but directly attacks demand–like no other plan or policy. SMASCH does so at zero cost to society. Again, this is a politician’s nightmare: no control, no glory, no self-justification (which all politicians desperately need). SMASCH relies on economic principals, and "time" [as distinguished from delay] to limit demand.

Few who discuss the illegal drug trade describe it as an economic crisis: to do so admits failure and incompetence. Until SMASCH, no policy or program has dared to address the economics of substance. Failure is from inability to formulate realistic attempts, but incompetence describes the utter inability to understand substance abuse.

The concept of prison has become obscured by its operatives (bureaucrats), but remains 14^th century discipline: total force instills total obedience. Unfortunately, prisons were NOT created for criminals. They were conceived for nobility who refused to conform to the king. For such persons, they remain highly functional. However, when used to impoverish the poor, who are then required to pay for their own impoverishment, prisons are highly dysfunctional. If it is inhumane to remove a four-legged animal from its environment, remove its ability to sustain and protect itself, then, later, force it back into its original environment, hungry, defenseless, and stressed, how can we justify doing that to inmates? SMASCH goes beyond on-the-job training: it bridges the inmate back into society with new resources, new relationships, and all the skills necessary to succeed in an extremely hostile environment: a free society.

<Top>

7. BAIL. As a concept, bail (more correctly: bond), is even less understood than prison. From its inception, it was a means to: A) get current prisoners out of jail, and–thereby-- B) earn money for the jailer–there being no intention that the criminal would ever return for trial (a concept still followed by most municipalities for traffic offenses). However, bail remains an economic phenomenon: the poor cannot pay it, and must stay in jail; the wily borrow it and have the skills to commit new crimes to repay the bondsman’s "loan," those capable of posting bond don’t have to because they are "recognized" back Hence, bail is a form of economic suppression of the poor; an economic catalyst for the wily (spell that "drug dealers"), and a non-sequitor for the wealthy In the process, bail causes our jails to bulge. SMASCH intervenes to nearly empty jails, prevent new crimes from being committed by those bonded, and reduce substance abuse. SMASCH can accomplish all these–and more–at the jail level, because it is not based on 14^th century concepts. SMASCH is based on the concept of control of resources. Prisons deprive totally; SMASCH deprives selectively. The essential elements of most crimes are withheld, but inmates are monitored effectively and efficiently: 24/7. Under present bail, accused on bond are not monitored at all. They have full access to the essential elements of additional crimes. Without understanding the essential elements of crime, how can we create a policy to combat crime? We blindly rely on concepts which have proven futile, inhumane, and economically foolish, while a simple, basic analysis of this process remains unsought.

<Top>

8. PLEA-BARGAINING. While the public despises it, prosecutors and judges fully recognize that the voluntary settlement of criminal cases is just as essential as such for civil cases–if not more. Fewer than 5 % of criminal cases reach trial. To speed all the rest, case managers (lawyers) need more tools, not fewer. SMASCH expands those tools, because it expands the means of moving inmates through the prison system and guarantees most will become taxpaying, productive citizens. It induces settlements, because it understands: the innocent need lawyers, the guilty need a negotiator–and they know it. For those who feel themselves innocent, SMASCH reduces jury-abuse, by creating an inverted matrix. However, this incidence, within the criminal justice system, is so minute as to be ethical, but hardly functional to the system. Nonetheless, jury-abuse is increasingly a recognized phenomenon that must be addressed. Nothing but SMASCH does so. Such a solution must not induce the true convict to seek trials: SMASCH does not. SMASCH recognizes that NO ONE goes to prison for first–or rarely even second–felonies. Murder is nearly the only exception to this rule. Not rape, not arson; and rarely financial (white-collar) crimes (unless the celebrity factor is included) are exceptions. When Martha Stewart refused a plea bargaining (such as it exists in the federal forum), she claimed the prior niche: those who believe themselves innocent. Amazingly, many drug offenses carry mandatory, and often, without-parole, prison time as a further admission that the prison system is not seen a retaliatory: it is seen as a means to a means.

<Top>

9. PUNISHMENT. What is it? Deprivation? If so, of what should we deprive the inmate? Dignity? Humanitarian treatment? Identity? Self worth? Light, food, water ... what? What is the end-product we desire from the (justice) process? Do we prefer a hungry, destitute, desperate, confused and lonely parolee? Or, do we truly want justice for the victim; the creation of a taxpaying citizen from the ashes of a former inmate; and minimized costs to society from the entire system, as well as the reputation of magic-workers among our sister nations as the innovator and leader in criminal justice?

12. CHAIN GANGS. Unlike "chain gangs" and more recent returns to prison labor, boot camps, and tent cities for "voluntary" punishment of jailed inmates, SMASCH does NOT: A) demean inmates in a public setting: roadside trash pickers are a recent example of this form of punishment: SMASCH rejects this; B) enslave inmates to a corporate overseer for labor exploitation; corporations cannot be stewards, and inmates must hold regular, compensable jobs; C) deprive inmates of choice: SMASCH is voluntary, and mandates the inmate’s participation and choice of his own development; D) define physical labor as punishment, because SMASCH deems inmates as valuable, not waste–to be disposed-of; nor E) exploit inmates by usurping all their productivity: SMASCH inmates must receive their savings. SMASCH does not contain inmates by chains: it contains them by their own choice and desire.