Kentucky’s Democratic governor vetoed a GOP-backed criminal justice bill that would impose harsher sentences for a range of crimes, saying it would saddle the state with sharply higher incarceration costs.
The bill, which spurred some of the most contentious debates of the session, would make a multitude of changes to the state’s criminal code, enhancing many current penalties and creating new offenses.
Supporters portrayed the bill as a necessary policy shift that would do more to hold criminals accountable and to make communities safer. Opponents warned the measure would carry a hefty price tag for taxpayers with no assurances that the tougher approach would lower crime.
Full story: Kentucky governor cites higher incarceration costs in veto of criminal justice bill
While America has almost always had a harsh on crime attitude, is making a life sentence mandatory for three-offenders the best move? The most concerning aspect of this “three-strike” sentencing guideline is the financial aspect. Many of these offenders can be young, in their thirties and forties, and even in their twenties. Think of the financial impact that imprisoning an individual in their twentieth through the rest of their lives could make. This is even more of an impact when those imprisoned grow old, as the cost of housing and caring for these offenders drastically increases. I feel as though we should look at other options of sentencing, for which many do not make as much financial stress on taxpayers money.