Growth in US incarceration has been fueled by criminal justice policies
May 3, 2016 8:02 AM Subscribe
Two weeks ago the White House released a report by the Council of Economic Advisors entitled, "Economic Perspectives on Incarceration and the Criminal Justice System." (pdf) The report is a wonkish bombshell, concluding among other things that "if prison admission rates and average time served in prison remained the same as they were in 1984, research suggests that State imprisonment rates would have actually declined by 7 percent by 2004, given falling crime rates. Instead, State prison rates increased by over 125 percent." The CEA also found that "given the total costs, some criminal justice policies, including increased incarceration, fail a
cost-benefit test." But the goal is to explain and fix this chart.
OK, that was lazy. But the data all looks so self-evident, that to ignore it must be willful.
posted by wenestvedt at 9:02 AM on May 3, 2016
posted by wenestvedt at 9:02 AM on May 3, 2016
It's not that people are ignoring so much as justifying it because racism and corporate profits. And "saving" money by cutting social support budgets.
posted by rtha at 9:48 AM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by rtha at 9:48 AM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
There is some good news. Due to national efforts like the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative and other local efforts, there has been a steady decline in juvenile incarceration. Some national data here.
Here in Maryland, we've had to grapple as an agency with what it means to have less than half the number of kids in the system as a decade ago. A good problem to have.
posted by jetsetsc at 10:05 AM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
Here in Maryland, we've had to grapple as an agency with what it means to have less than half the number of kids in the system as a decade ago. A good problem to have.
posted by jetsetsc at 10:05 AM on May 3, 2016 [5 favorites]
An analysis of private prison contracts from across the United States reveals that state and local governments commonly enter into agreements that require them to keep prisons filled or pay for unused, empty beds.
In the Public Interest (ITPI), a Washington, D.C.-based research and policy group on public services, reported in September 2013 that it found so-called bed guarantees in around 65% of the more than 60 private prison contracts it analyzed, including contracts from Texas, Ohio, Colorado and Florida. The bed guarantees, or “lockup quotas,” ranged from 70% minimum occupancy in at least one California facility to 100% occupancy at three Arizona prisons. The most common bed guarantee was 90%.
The state guarantees a certain number of prisoners so the private party can make a large enough profit for their purposes and to fund their donations to the state.
The state guarantees a certain number of prisoners. Crime rates are falling. What is the state to do?
Prisons-for-profit should be illegal in almost all cases.
posted by 2manyusernames at 10:29 AM on May 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
In the Public Interest (ITPI), a Washington, D.C.-based research and policy group on public services, reported in September 2013 that it found so-called bed guarantees in around 65% of the more than 60 private prison contracts it analyzed, including contracts from Texas, Ohio, Colorado and Florida. The bed guarantees, or “lockup quotas,” ranged from 70% minimum occupancy in at least one California facility to 100% occupancy at three Arizona prisons. The most common bed guarantee was 90%.
The state guarantees a certain number of prisoners so the private party can make a large enough profit for their purposes and to fund their donations to the state.
The state guarantees a certain number of prisoners. Crime rates are falling. What is the state to do?
Prisons-for-profit should be illegal in almost all cases.
posted by 2manyusernames at 10:29 AM on May 3, 2016 [11 favorites]
wish-eponysterical was true
posted by lalochezia at 10:42 AM on May 3, 2016
posted by lalochezia at 10:42 AM on May 3, 2016
On the other hand, if US crime rates today were the same as in 1984, there'd be an extra 11,000 murders every year.
posted by Hatashran at 10:47 AM on May 3, 2016
posted by Hatashran at 10:47 AM on May 3, 2016
The state guarantees a certain number of prisoners. Crime rates are falling. What is the state to do?
Close public prisons? There are so few private prisons that this worry seems overblown. The vast majority of racialized mass incarceration was done by completely public institutions, and the emphasis on private prisons seems like a massive deflection. WE did this; not the evil corporations, but us evil citizens and our evil representatives.
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:16 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Close public prisons? There are so few private prisons that this worry seems overblown. The vast majority of racialized mass incarceration was done by completely public institutions, and the emphasis on private prisons seems like a massive deflection. WE did this; not the evil corporations, but us evil citizens and our evil representatives.
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:16 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
This is an honest question-has anyone done a study/analysis/whatever to see if the higher incarceration rates have played a role in the lower crime rate? (I am aware of both the abortion and the lead theories about reduced crime rate and think both have played a role-and the evidence for lead reduction being the major one).
From what I understand, there is a certain % of any population that is prone to criminality (1-3% is what I remember) so if you lock them up wouldn't that reduce the crime rate?
(NONE of these questions are meant to deny we lock up too many people and we do an especially bad job of giving a chance to former criminals who have 'paid their debt' to society, I am sincerely asking the above question, not using the Socratic method here).
posted by bartonlong at 1:48 PM on May 3, 2016
From what I understand, there is a certain % of any population that is prone to criminality (1-3% is what I remember) so if you lock them up wouldn't that reduce the crime rate?
(NONE of these questions are meant to deny we lock up too many people and we do an especially bad job of giving a chance to former criminals who have 'paid their debt' to society, I am sincerely asking the above question, not using the Socratic method here).
posted by bartonlong at 1:48 PM on May 3, 2016
This is an honest question-has anyone done a study/analysis/whatever to see if the higher incarceration rates have played a role in the lower crime rate?
The CEA study assumes that incarceration can reduce the crime rate, but that this has diminishing returns, and that the cost of additional incarceration is now higher than the benefits. (They propose more policing and social investment instead.)
Here's one study that's often cited on this theme: THE CRIME-CONTROL EFFECT OF INCARCERATION: DOES SCALE MATTER?
There are two case studies in the background: Italy's mass amnesty and California's response to prison overpopulation. Italy saw a massive increase in crime; California saw a very small increase in property crime and almost no effect on violent crime. So the evidence is mixed in a way that seems to support the idea that while some incarceration may be crime reducing, it certainly isn't crime reducing at anything like current rates.
That said, I don't think we know enough about the causes of the 90s crime wave to know if there might have been an enhancing effect of incarceration as well. It was just too sui generis and we can't go back in time and run experiments with different responses. It matters that there were 8x as many murders in NYC in 1990 as in 2015. But we really don't have any good reason to believe that the crime rate would be the same in NYC today if we released half of all prisoners. And without a plausible causal story there's room for the idea that the interaction between incarceration and drug markets was to destabilize territorial control by gangs and *create* violence. Check out Felbab-Brown's work on the drug/violence nexus.
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:31 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
The CEA study assumes that incarceration can reduce the crime rate, but that this has diminishing returns, and that the cost of additional incarceration is now higher than the benefits. (They propose more policing and social investment instead.)
Here's one study that's often cited on this theme: THE CRIME-CONTROL EFFECT OF INCARCERATION: DOES SCALE MATTER?
There are two case studies in the background: Italy's mass amnesty and California's response to prison overpopulation. Italy saw a massive increase in crime; California saw a very small increase in property crime and almost no effect on violent crime. So the evidence is mixed in a way that seems to support the idea that while some incarceration may be crime reducing, it certainly isn't crime reducing at anything like current rates.
That said, I don't think we know enough about the causes of the 90s crime wave to know if there might have been an enhancing effect of incarceration as well. It was just too sui generis and we can't go back in time and run experiments with different responses. It matters that there were 8x as many murders in NYC in 1990 as in 2015. But we really don't have any good reason to believe that the crime rate would be the same in NYC today if we released half of all prisoners. And without a plausible causal story there's room for the idea that the interaction between incarceration and drug markets was to destabilize territorial control by gangs and *create* violence. Check out Felbab-Brown's work on the drug/violence nexus.
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:31 PM on May 3, 2016 [2 favorites]
But the goal is to explain and fix this chart.
Well, eliminating what appears to be a completely counterproductive 125% increase in the prison population and dialing that back to a 7% decrease instead would be a good start on that.
Even at that, we would still be higher than all of the other countries on that chart, but we would be more like at the top of the chart instead of on a completely different chart of our own, unrelated to any other.
posted by flug at 3:15 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
Well, eliminating what appears to be a completely counterproductive 125% increase in the prison population and dialing that back to a 7% decrease instead would be a good start on that.
Even at that, we would still be higher than all of the other countries on that chart, but we would be more like at the top of the chart instead of on a completely different chart of our own, unrelated to any other.
posted by flug at 3:15 PM on May 3, 2016 [3 favorites]
It's hard to use a chart against the trifecta of racism, fear, and corporate lobbying.
posted by mccarty.tim at 5:02 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by mccarty.tim at 5:02 PM on May 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Well, eliminating what appears to be a completely counterproductive 125% increase in the prison population and dialing that back to a 7% decrease instead would be a good start on that.
Yeah. We have about seven times as many prisoners as the global average, so I think we ought to be working to get back to (statistically) normal. This would largely involve major changes in the amount of punishment we dole out for violent crimes, though it wouldn't hurt to end the drug war.
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:09 PM on May 3, 2016
Yeah. We have about seven times as many prisoners as the global average, so I think we ought to be working to get back to (statistically) normal. This would largely involve major changes in the amount of punishment we dole out for violent crimes, though it wouldn't hurt to end the drug war.
posted by anotherpanacea at 5:09 PM on May 3, 2016
« Older Comedian W. Kamau Bell arranges a special meeting... | “Everybody wants to own the end of the world.” Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by wenestvedt at 9:00 AM on May 3, 2016