only two fifths of those convicted of felonies in state courts are actually sentenced to prison. Of the rest, about half receive no incarceration (mainly probation) and half are sentenced to a short term in a local jail. Indeed, at any one time there are more than twice as many convicted offenders on probation or parole—that is, not incarcerated—as there are in the nation’s prisons or jails.
Read the whole thing. It is a review of two books that reject the comfortable progressive/libertarian narrative that our jails are filled with harmless folks who took the wrong recreational drugs in the wrong place. The books argue that in order to reduce incarceration you have to do less imprisonment of violent offenders, and they are not afraid to advocate for that.
I have no expertise in this area whatsoever. My thoughts.
1. Prison seems quite inhumane. I can understand why people would like to see less imprisonment.
2. But releasing violent offenders may not be such a great approach. It would seem likely to me that they would wind up in high-crime neighborhoods, where they help neither themselves or the neighborhood.
3. I am curious about what the books say about alternatives to imprisonment and how well they work. The review does not touch on that topic.
4. It is easy to imagine something like a “virtual parole officer” inside a smart phone that a convict is required to have with him or her at all times. It could send alarms to police based on indications of the convict’s degree of agitation or somesuch.
Possibly related: Alex Tabarrok writes,
Using these new estimates of the effect of police and crime along with estimates of the social cost of crime they conclude (as I have argued before) that U.S. cities are substantially under-policed.
3. I am curious about what the books say about alternatives to imprisonment and how well they work. The review does not touch on that topic.
you might like Kleiman’s When Brute Force Fails which advocates convincingly for a version of your smartphone idea (though he oddly rejects the implication of many more people ending up under this system than in jail
I read an argument according to which, even though most are convicted for drug-related offenses, they are in fact often violent criminals. However, it is much easier to convict them for nonviolent drug offenses than for violent crimes. Thus, technically speaking it is true that they are in prison for nonviolent crimes, but in fact (says the author) they are violent and should remain in prison.
The latter statement leads directly to the truth of the former.
The fundamental problem is that the data one gets indirectly by looking at what the criminal justice system reports and does is very uncorrelated with the facts of crime on the ground. Progressives are quick to point this out in, say, the case of sexual assault, but then mysteriously forget that logic when discussing other crimes.
One thing that might help a little is to prohibit charge dropping or lowering in plea bargains. You can get less time for admitting guilt, but you can’t have the prosecutor drop a felony (or violent) charge from a preferment in exchange for admission regarding a misdemeanor. The choice for a prosecutor would be to drop them on his own from the very beginning or go all the way to the end with what was originally charged (though there are various ways to get another bite at the apple that would have be blocked too.) That would limit the coercive value of pleas in general, since more defendants would decide to take their chances at trial if they can’t get out of a very serious charge on their record by negotiating it away.
Where is the proof of this statement ” even though most are convicted for drug-related offenses, they are in fact often violent criminals. However, it is much easier to convict them for nonviolent drug offenses than for violent crimes. ”
I disagree if they committed violent crimes they are more likely to be convicted by a prosecutor than a drug offense which by the way is a unlawful charge. NO VICTIM NO CRIME. PERIOD
No. https://politicsandprosperity.com/2014/11/11/crime-revisited/
The rise in the incarceration rate coincided with a fall in mental institutionalization, so our overall rate of institutionalization as a society is actually lower than it was in the first half of the twentieth century.
If one assumes that this is more than coincidence, then it’s possible that an alternative to having so many people in prison is having them in insane asylums instead. Is that really what we want?
The graph in your link casts it in an entirely different light however. The decline in mental institutionalization begins in earnest around 1960, and it falls by ~67% by ~1973 which is when the prison population starts increasing in earnest.
Basically this IS a coincidence, the mental incarceration rate falls as major new drugs and therapies were introduced, the prison rate starts to jump as the war on drugs is picking up (Nixon calls drug use public enemy #1 in 1971), and not even a particularly close coincidence time wise.
Baconbacon-your interpretation of the sequence of events sounds plausible, but it can’t explain why, if drug policy is driving rising incarceration, so few of those incarcerated are actually in for drug crimes.
Here’s a narrative that sounds at least equally plausible to me, in light of other evidence. Falling mental institutionalization lead to more violent mentally ill people on the streets and drove the increased violent crime rates of the 60s, 70s, & 80s. The response to this rise in crime rates was to by various means, increase the % of the population incarcerated for violent crimes. Thus we have our current low-crime high-incarceration equilibrium.
Al Capone ended up in prison for income tax evasion, so should we conclude that his incarceration was not at all due to prohibition?
Making something illegal pushes all related activities into criminal territory. If your corner store is robbed you can report it to the police, if your corner weed growing operation is robbed you will either have to ignore it or go through some illegal channel. When you make an action illegal it is probably going to concentrate in shadier areas, areas with limited effectiveness for law enforcement, areas where you are more likely to carry a weapon for protection and areas where disputes are likely to be settled with violence because there less violent methods are limited by the law.
Your interpretation of events opens quite a few questions. First is that your murder graph shows the murder rate dropping by about 50% from some point in the 90s through today, however it hit that high point of ~10 per 100,000 pre 1980 which is right around when the the incarceration rate starts to rise.
In other words the story the graphs tell together is that violent crime jumps and then levels off around 1980 (eyeballing the range looks like between 8 and 11 murders per 100,000 from the late 70s through the mid 90s) before falling very quickly in the 90s. The incarceration graph shows increased incarceration starting in the mid 70s and continuing through ~1998 at a steady pace (it rises through 2006 though at a much slower rate from 98-06). So the incarceration rate goes from ~100 per 100,000 to 300 per 100,000 without effecting the violent crime rate at all, and maybe as high as 450 per 100,000 depending on the underlying data on the murder graph, then the violent crime rate absolutely plummets with only a modest (relative to the previous run up) increase in the incarceration rate.
Baconbacon-You raise a good point about violent offenses being potentially indirectly related to the drug war. I’m not sure if there’s any data which can resolve just how much of a factor that is.
I guess the test would be, if we ended the drug war, would the incarceration rate start to fall? This is a test I’m all for.
As for the exact timing of changes in the homicide rate, it’s harder to read unfortunately because the x axis is more compressed. However I would not expect a simple one-to-one relationship. Actually, if anything I would expect crime rates to be roughly proportional to the first derivative of the incarceration/institutionalization rate.
the mental incarceration fell when Reagan cut the federal budget for mental healthcare sharply, claiming that state and local government would take over. Of course they didn’t.
Yes, it’s because of Reagan that we don’t see federal mental institutions anymore.
Mental hospitals were always run by the states, and de-institutionalization of the mentally got going before Reagan became president.
Reagan was president in 1960? Check out Andrew_FL’s link, it shows 80%+ of the decline happening between 1960 and 1980.
This is a relatively common left-wing urban myth. The ACLU is still proud of ensuring the involuntarily committed were released out of the “institutions”. That was in the 60s and 70s, before Reagan was President. You can’t blame him for being governor of CA, either, as the number of patients in State mental hospitals went from 37,500 to 22,000 in the years before he took office.
Complain to the ACLU and the academic psychiatrists who influenced the courts and the bureaucracy in the 60s and 70s to get them all out of mental hospitals.
Andrew makes a great point. I do not think that there is any question to reduce homelessness, you must increase the mental hospital incarceration rate.
A law student’s perspective:
The use of alternatives to incarceration is the exception. While a few states have mental health courts, addiction treatment programs, etc., the vast majority of criminal statutes provide for imprisonment and/or fines. Judges are rarely at liberty to order alternatives. Thus, the basic questions at a criminal trial are 1) guilty or not? and 2) if yes, how many years?
Your second observation is a major issue. There are also research suggesting that prison has a criminogenic effect: if you keep someone cooped up with only convicted criminals to associate with for a couple of years and then return them to society in the same situation they were in before, but maybe without a job, less money, etc., what impact does that have? What impact does that have on families of convicts?
It’s also worth considering the amount of unconvicted criminals. There are a number of ways for people to get away with criminal acts: the prosecution might not have enough evidence; the police or the prosecution might use their discretion to focus on others (their time and funds are limited); a sympathetic jury might let someone off for various reasons.
Another observation: Mandatory sentencing and other “tough on crime” policies actually made conviction rates go down. Imagine a society where petty larceny is punished by execution (they take property rights very seriously). How does that affect whether the police go after every thief versus looking the other way? Especially when the thief is the neighbor’s kid, etc. Enforcement of marijuana laws in poor neighborhoods versus on university campuses shows how much of an effect these non-legal factors come into play.
The goal should be to reduce recidivism
E.g. read this: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/magazine/the-radical-humaneness-of-norways-halden-prison.html
We’ve got ankle monitor now, and they’re kind of a joke. One criminal near me had one, yet still had two active warrants for his arrest, stole two cars, went on a police chase, and was ultimately killed by police.
Ankle monitors are a joke.
About alternatives to prison and your suggestion of “virtual parole officer” technology, a major question with existing technology is “what happens when they refuse to use it?” Here’s an amusing article about an existing technology:
It’s unclear if she ever got any time in jail or prison for this, but given that she’s done it eight times and she’s 26 years old, it must not have lasted very long. She owes the county 2,500$ for the lost equipment and “supervision fees” but, as with other financial penalties, the question is how does the state enforce collection? “My money is used for drugs,” she said. “It’s not to pay (the county’s) justice sanctions.”
Turns out many units end up “unreturned” and the county loses a lot of money when that happens, each unit costs 800$.
But they will suffer some penalty, a judge tells us:
http://www.govtech.com/public-safety/GPS-Ankle-Bracelet-Monitoring-of-Low-Risk-Offenders-Costs-More-than-Anticipated.html
You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink, and, for the underclass, you can confine them behind bars, but it’s close to impossible to make them act reasonably when they are let out.
REALLY THE COUNTY LOOSES NO YOU AND I DO WAAAAAAKE UUUP PEOPLE WHY ARE WE SPENDING MONEY ON THIS CRAP. LET THE PEOPLE DO DRUGS IF THATS WHAT THEY WANT TO DO FREEEEEDOM MEANS JUST THAT NOT FARFROM FREEDOM! EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO DO WHTEVER THEY CHOOSE AS LONG AS THEY DONT TREAD ON ANOTHER.PEEEEEERIOOOOOOD!
over-incarcerate, void Judgements! Lets get to the truth our prisons are full and 70%
of the prisoners are in there for victimless crimes. You have to intentionally harm someone or their property to lawfully be a criminal act. The original constitution has been amended so much and almost all of it is repugnant to the original so it is Void on its face. We the People Are being enslaved because of ignorance of our GOD Given Rights Which no Man, Judge, COP, can take from us. Wake up people NO VICTIM NO CRIME CASE DISMISSED!!! AND FILE FALSE ARREST CIVIL SUIT WITH THE FEDS 42 USC 1983 PUT THE PEACE BACK IN OFFICER AND TAKE AWAY THE UNLAWFUL STATUTE ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. WE OUT NUMBER THESE TYRANTS WHERE IS YOURMORALS MY CHILDREN SHALL NOT BE SLAVES TO THE TYRANICAL GOVERNMENT OF ANY STATE. THIS IS OUR COUNTRY AND IF WE DONT PETITION TOGETHER SOON IT WILL BE THEIRS. god bless America.
A COUNTRY THAT IS SCARED OF ITS GOVERNMENT ARE SLAVES
A GOVERNMENT SCARED OF ITS COUNTRY PROTECTS LIBERTY
As a Muslim, I like the idea of lashing people.
Today, you throw someone in prison and it costs society $50-70k a year to keep them locked up. And then many return to crime when they get out. Not to mention the cost of apprehending them in the first place and the cost to keep the legal system running.
But lashing has a certain appeal to it. You lash a person in the morning, and they can be back to work in the afternoon. It’s very cheap for society, and it also means that people aren’t separated from their families. Also, because lashing, when done right hurts a lot, the recidivism rate is very low.
In my mind, prison is a double injustice. The idea that I have to feed and house someone who tried steal my wealth, means that they took my wealth from me by another means. When they win, I lose. And when they lose, I lose. There is no upside for me. They get my wealth either way.
Also, the money we save by not putting people in prison can be used to help poor people so they don’t turn to crime in the first place.
I assume that an attempt to establish flogging as a judicial penalty anywhere in the U.S. would meet a pretty serious 8th Amendment challenge. Which seems odd, because I suspect that many of us, given the choice of a Singapore-style caning or a stint in jail, would opt to get it over with in a day or two rather than enduring a weeks- or months-long disruption of our lives.
Ahmed brings up the cost of feeding and housing prisoners. But this isn’t the only burden on the taxpayer, who often must provide for the prisoner’s dependents as well. At least some fraction of the criminal population might be able to feed and house their own offspring if they weren’t behind bars.
Of course, one wonders how strong the deterrent effect of flogging would be. Tattooing and piercing don’t sound like the most pleasant of experiences, but lots of people go through with them, possibly to prove that they can take the pain. Might judicial flogging become an initiation rite into thug society?
I wonder, what if we simply allowed the convicted the option to take corporeal punishment instead of prison time? How can a punishment be cruel and unusual when the punished prefers it to the alternative punishment that is accepted as not cruel or unusual?
Not too sure about the lashing part but I agree with everything else you said I still stand if there’s no victim there’s no crime but somebody trying to steal your money definitely you’re a victim definitely they should have a punishment and pay back to society what they tried to steal or the equivalent thereof. I still stand no victim no crime Lotta people in prison and they have done no harm to anyone and we’re paying for them to be housed and fed it’s ridiculous. Meanwhile the crime rate goes up they hire more cops to process and prosecutors to prosecute victimless crime’s. But the true victim of a victimless crime is us the taxpayers. So just when you think the police are really good group of guys. Maybe that used to be, now they enforce unjust and unlawful statutes to get money from the people in form of fines court cost. restitution and tax money from everyone else.All government is the biggest criminal organization in the world and they get protection
Because we the PEOPLE ARE TO blind to see that soon they will have all our rights twisted to their benefit and it will be to late to cry about it. You have to act now and petition together. As a people united we can reinstitute a Republic again. Along with Donald Trump our countries Leader who if we help him, will , and is making America Great Again. It’s all those congressional Fucktards that have their own special agendas and secret funding that are screwing this once great land
And passing it back to Europes Grand Empire.
“Prison seems quite inhumane. I can understand why people would like to see less imprisonment.”
Forgive my bluntness, but isn’t this statement just empty virtue-signaling? Nobody views imprisonment as a positive good (except perhaps sadistic nuts and the prison guard unions). Like war and the maintenance of the means for war, it is an unpleasant evil that is forced upon us by unpleasant facts about the human condition. The question is the extent to which reality forces it upon us. The notion that we can adequately deter violent crime with alternatives to imprisonment strikes me as delusionally optimistic (see Jason Bayz above), but what do I know.
It is nice of the authors of the books under review to be honest enough to admit that they want less incarceration even though the people in our prisons are not harmless, guileless souls who were caught lighting up joints outside rock concerts. In other words, they don’t camouflage their ideological motives with intellectual dishonesty, a la Barack Obama.
True there are many people in prison that deserve to be there forever murderers rapists and pedophiles armed robbers kidnappers home invaders identity Steelers Ponzi scheme or’s etc. There are also many many people in jail due to the governments legislative abuse and repugnant statues to the original constitution of the republic of America,and many states of America. Any repugnant law statute, legislative act,bill is void from its face the fact that they have made many victimless crime’s jailable whether it be one night, which they get paid for or one year or one life. It is all a bunch of bureaucratic bullshit If you’ve ever spent a night in jail for something that was victimless or not even a crime in their statutes. You might change your freaking attitude about over filling our prisons with joint smoking hippies and cocaine snorting businessman, driving under revocation. Not paying the tax extorsion is all kinds of victimless crime’s people. Over half the population is in there for victimless crime’s If you have the right to face your accuser? Who might that be if they caught you driving 75 in a 40 on a backcountry road no victim no accident the state cannot be your accuser they cannot put the boundaries of any state inside the courthouse and the prosecutor represents the state where is their agreement contract for the prosecutor to represent the state, there isn’t one. There is a whole lot of prisoners that are in prison and did not get to face their accuser. They either pled guilty and then they deserved to be there if they did that or they didn’t have a good attorney, well is there a good attorney ?I think not because all of our legislators except for Donald Trump are attorneys. All of our judges are Bar members as well. All of our prosecutors we all know are bar members. And your defense attorney is a bar member as well as an officer of the court sounds like a big conspiracy donut because it is !!!!!!! People are getting killed because they’re standing up for the rights to the police every day in this country and the police are getting acquitted of murder in the 1st° because it’s a conspiracy martial law is on its way and in fact it’s already here if you’re not a bar member or a Marshall you are under the law and going to be enslaved by the system that you support with your votes but they don’t support you with their decisions. I could keep on a soapbox for hours and hours all I have to say is people the time is come to stand up for your rights for your children and your children’s children as well as yourself because if we don’t we are all going to be serving slaves to the tea radical government whom we gave the privilege to protect us And as part of their guys in protecting us there slowly sucking are right out of the cup with the biggest draw ever in soon before you know it they’ll fill the cup back up in the Strahl be gone Bill seal the lid and everybody in it will drowned from oh press of kings of the world you want to be in Medeival times keep letting that government locomotive steamroll over your ass it’s hard to stop a train but by God you can derail it and get it back on the tracks in the right direction if you have a Knouff we the people in order to form a more perfect union inherited with in alienable rights from our Creator the right to life the right to liberty, and the right to pursue happiness well if we have a right to liberty how can they put so many innocent and victimless crime wrongdoers in jail and take their liberty victimless crime’s are not jailable you have to stand up for your rights we have to stand up for everybody’s rights but every body is too busy concerned with their New car new house they’re not out there helping their neighbor or their family even for some people you got to stand up for your rights because we’re not gonna have any so are you people that say I don’t know what we do without prisons well we’re not going to do without him but we need to stop filling them up with nonsense taking away peoples rights and thrown in jail does suck their family and us out of money to pay for their stay there let them out let them work let them pay their own way that’s America God bless it and God bless you idiot who have this soft hearted thought that the government your friend they are there to knock you down just wait your turn is coming if you haven’t had it. Sorry for the rant everybody but it just gets my goat when people don’t understand that we are paying every time they put somebody in there who had some drugs or date whatever the case maybe if there’s nobody that got hurt in intentionally or their property got hurt intentionally they shouldn’t be in jail we shouldn’t be paying for them to stay and have three hot meals in a roof over their head Sorry if there’s any grammar errors I use voice type and I am not going to check this one for errors because it’s too long and I’m too upset about all the people that think that well everybody in jail is got to be a bad person that’s all bunch of shit all propaganda from the government who is putting her thumb on you you just haven’t felt the pressure yet good day in regards God bless all of you God bless America and freedom
Just a heads up. If you want people to read you, use paragraphs and proper punctuation. Don’t go on and on. And don’t use ALL CAPS.
[violates our comment policy] –ed.