I was taught that there are three branches of government – executive, legislative and judicial. That is an erroneous view. There is a fourth: the criminal justice system. It is accountable to no one; no one can influence what goes on within it; and it is wasting a lot of lives due to insufficient oversight, public inattention and a concept of “punishment” that belongs in the age of the dinosaur.

Clearly, the criminal justice system needs to be reformed, and efforts in that regard should begin with a strong awareness that there are individuals serving time for crimes that they did not commit. Currently, it is extremely difficult, if not virtually impossible, for anyone who has been convicted to prove their innocence. While “DNA” evidence is proving, increasingly, that a significant number of individuals have been wrongly convicted of violent crimes, there is no “DNA” to prove that someone has been falsely convicted of a white collar crime.

The area that is most ripe for reform is that of “white collar” crime. For example, it makes no sense to me that someone convicted of “bank fraud,” for the first time especially, should be institutionally confined. Doing so results in an annual cost to the taxpayers of anywhere from $40,000 to $60,000 for each inmate. These individuals are not threats to the physical safety of our society, which I believe is essentially the sole reason for confinement. Instead, we should subject such individuals to home confinement and require them to work and make significant restitution through what they earn from such work.

The facility which I visited and have reported on in earlier columns is a low security “camp” for women. Those confined there are NOT hardened criminals; their ranks include many young mothers and grandmothers. They can walk out the gate whenever they want, because the place is “low security.” One unarmed guard monitoring the behavior of nearly 300 inmates is testimony to how little of a risk these women are. Therefore, if they are no threat to society, why are they being institutionally confined and paid fifteen cents per/hour for their labor when they could be outside contributing to society, taking care of their children and families, and making restitution.

The idea that institutional confinement or “prison” is the only way to punish someone for a crime is foolish and not in the best interest of our society. That idea is responsible for the outrageous costs that have developed over the years with regard to administration of the criminal justice system. The Congress desperately needs to confront the question of what constitutes punishment appropriate to the crime and what is in the best interest of society, with safety and fiscal considerations in mind.

In addition to making fundamental reforms about appropriate punishment and sentencing, attention needs to be given to the matter of making “correctional” institutions truly correctional. Currently, many “camps” or prisons harden individuals who are incarcerated rather than socializing them and preparing them to lead productive lives in society. I should stress that this observation is intended to apply only to the type of facility that I visited, which is one of low security.

There is no opportunity to get a taste of normalcy once an inmate sets foot on the campus of one of these facilities. For example, would the world come to an end if women serving time in a low security facility were given a 24 or 48-hour furlough every six months to visit their loved ones, provided they earn this time off based on good behavior? I think not. The basic problem is that no one seems to be thinking about how to make the system better. Instead, the emphasis seems to be on how many more people can be convicted for crimes and how many more prisons need to be built to accommodate the increasing number of people who are being convicted. While it is obviously of considerable consequence to lie to federal officers while under oath, inasmuch as the entire criminal justice system depends on the “truth and nothing but the truth,” what purpose is served by incarcerating an individual for committing such an offense?

Presidential elections are supposed to enable candidates to identify and frame problems that cry out for solutions. Rather than telling us about “hope” and the need for “change,” I pray that the candidates will tackle a problem that is costing the American taxpayers billions, taking young mothers away from their children, and making women who could be productive members of society a burden instead. The candidates owe us their thoughts about this problem.