There is little bipartisan agreement in Washington these days, except for wide condemnation of Donald Trump’s dismissal of Sen. John McCain’s military service and time as prisoner of war in North Vietnam, saying McCain is no war hero.

Another issue finding rare bipartisan support in Washington is sentencing reform and reducing the world-leading incarceration rate of the United States.

In recent years, attention has focused on the fact that the United States has just 5 percent of the world’s population, yet houses 25 percent of the world’s prisoners. That’s 2.3 million people behind bars.

Imprisonment in the United States has grown more than 600 percent since the 1970s. During the early 1980s, Americans were shocked by some high-profile cases of parolees committing violent crimes. Fear of crime was widespread. So, politicians ran tough-on-crime campaigns to win elections.

The general fear of crime and political support from prison guard unions that saw more prisoners creating more union jobs led to “three strikes” rules being passed by state legislatures. Combined with mandatory minimum sentences, which took discretion away from judges, prison populations surged.

The result of three-strikes and mandatory minimum sentencing is that hundreds of thousands of nonviolent criminals are serving prison sentences that are years or decades long.

Outdated and ineffective drug laws, part of the failed “war on drugs,” are another reason so many nonviolent criminals are serving long prison sentences.

From the 1980s to the early 2000s, growing incarceration rates wasn’t news. In fact, lower crime was thought to be the result of being tough on crime.

But in the past decade, demographics is seen as a factor and questions are being asked about the costs — for state budgets as well as the human costs.

Taxpayers’ cost to keep a person in prison and also treat their medical issues is estimated at $68,000 a year, according to an article in The Economist magazine, titled “Jailhouse Nation: Justice in America.”

Taxpayers see that there are less expensive ways to deal with non-violent criminals, including drug courts and GPS-enabled electronic monitoring that keep offenders out of prison. There also are renewed efforts at job training and other programs to reduce recidivism.

Beyond the financial costs, there are the human costs, the impact on families, particularly minorities, who struggle with a parent in prison.

Examination of sentencing laws have revealed inequities such as harsher sentences for blacks and hispanics than whites convicted of the same crimes.

Solid conservatives, such as columnist George Will, have condemned mass incarceration in the United States. Will wrote recently that the 80,000 inmates held in solitary confinement amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, and often produces dangerous threats to society that would not exist without the overly harsh prison treatment.

Leading Democrats and Republicans are now talking about sentencing reform, both in Washington and in state capitals.

In Pennsylvania, a statewide panel is looking at sentencing and prison reforms. The group is expected to make recommendations by early next year. The last time the state’s sentencing guidelines were revised was in 1984.

Building more prisons to house more prisoners is not working — not for soceity, not for taxpayers and not for those convicted of nonviolent crimes. National political attention — and change — is overdue when it comes to incarceration rates, the costs of housing prisoners and the impact on families and society caused by harsh tough-on-crime laws and illogical and inflexible mandatory sentencing.

Sentencing reform and efforts to reduce prison populations should be coming from Washington and Harrisburg. Several states, including New York and California, are leading the way. It’s time for the rest of the country to get on board to create a system that is more effective, less costly and more fair.