Over the summer, new debate arose about the criminal justice system in the U.S.

Senators Rand Paul and Corey Booker, a conservative and liberal, respectively, both found common ground on a subject that needs reviewing. Incarceration statistics in the U.S. are mind-boggling. According to a study by the Hamilton Project titled, “Ten Economic Facts About Crime and Incarceration in the United States”, the incarceration rate of the U.S., which is 710 per 100,000 residents, is five times higher than the typical global rate of 130. Do we really believe the U.S. citizens are inherently more susceptible to being locked up than the rest of the world? Or, does this present a fundamental flaw in our judicial system?

Criminal justice reform is an area where both liberals and conservatives should be able to find common ground on ways to improve our current process. Not only do prisons cost taxpayers millions every year, there are policies in place that exacerbate larger issues such as generational poverty and the straining and breakdown of the family structure.

Many times, the effect on nonviolent criminals and their families is felt disproportionally to the crime. When a young father is put in prison for a decade there can be many unintended consequences. Severe declines in family earnings as well as hampered job prospects lead to cyclical poverty where too many times the son pays the price for the sins of the father. The human cost of our current system is vast.

For instance, as congressman Paul Ryan points out in his new discussion draft titled “Expanding Opportunity in America”, “a single gram of crack cocaine could be all that separates a convict from a less-than-five-year sentence and a 40-year sentence,” Ryan said, “Rigid and excessive mandatory sentences for low-level drug offenders, like these, may add to an already over-crowded prison system without appreciably enhancing public safety.” 

The question at stake is this: what is the most effective way to hold individuals accountable? 

We must then examine how we deal with non-violent offenders. Do the social costs outweigh the benefits in our current system? I believe so. There are three areas I believe require attention: sentencing, reform and reintegration. 

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2013, Judge Patti G. Saris said, “The bipartisan seven member commission unanimously agrees that mandatory minimum sentences in their current form have led to unintended results, caused unwarranted disparity in sentencing and contributed to the current crisis in the federal prison population and budget. We unanimously agree that statutory changes to address these problems are appropriate.” 

Restructuring of current law would fix the issue of serving a 40 –  year versus five –  year sentence for miniscule differences in amounts of a particular drug. Reform of inmates to reduce recidivism should be another aim of  prison reform. Studies show that participation in programs such as work assignment, GED, literacy programs and drug rehabilitation reduce the rate of recidivism in former inmates. 

A bipartisan bill called the Recidivism Reduction and Public Safety Act of 2014 attempts to promote participation in such programs. 

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), a cosponsor of the bill, said “By reducing recidivism, we not only save taxpayer dollars, but also help people leave behind their past mistakes and become productive members of society.”

Prison reform offers an opportunity to simultaneously be fiscally and socially responsible. Consequently, republicans and democrats alike should remember that being “tough on crime” does not mean you cannot be “smart on crime.”