America Behind Bars

Our nation has set a new record: The highest rate of incarceration in the world.  According to the Department of Justice, the U.S. prison and jail population grew by 2.7 percent last year, placing a record number of Americans (2,193,798) behind bars.  An unprecedented 7 million people—one in every 32 Americans—were either "behind bars, on probation, or on parole by the end of last year."  Furthermore, our over-worked justice system has become extremely costly as well. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, "federal, state, and local governments spent over $185 billion for police protection, corrections, and judicial and legal activities" in 2003.  This news is troubling, but the implications are even worse. 

Overall, the incarceration rate in the United States is four times (PDF) more than the world's average.  However, our country's relatively high crime rate does not account for the skyrocketing rates of incarceration.  In the past, it was believed that incarceration was an effective way to prevent crime, and since the early 1970s, there has been a tremendous growth in the U.S. prison population.  Yet crime rates have not decreased proportionately, probably due to the unintended consequences of imprisonment.  Indeed, the harsh conditions of prison actually contribute to criminal and violent behavior among the incarcerated, and also to higher rates of recidivism after prisoners are released.  In his paper, "Backfire: When Incarceration Increases Crime (PDF),"  Todd R. Clear, Ph.D., outlines the importance of understanding the effects of incarceration to understand the limits of using imprisonment as a crime prevention strategy.

Tough sentencing that began in the 1970s has meant that minorities continue to be very disproportionately incarcerated and drug offenders continue to account for the majority of new inmates entering the prison system.  But the near-tripling of the prison population has been responsible for only about one-fourth of the overall crime drop, according to The Crime Drop in America, edited by criminologist Alfred Blumstein and Joel Wallman. According to their research, "most of the responsibility for the crime drop rests with improvements in the economy, changes in the age structure, or other social factors."  Blumstein and fellow criminologist Allen Beck also insist that 88 percent of the growth in prison populations between 1980 and 1996 is due to changes in sentencing policies, and does not actually reflect the crime rate. 

So with our country's new record prison population, it might be time to reconsider our dependence on incarceration to reduce crime.  A series of blog posts in the coming weeks will highlight additional, alternative strategies such as prevention techniques, reentry programs, and restorative justice.  Afterall, what kind of record are we going for here?

Comments

[Matthew Bowen]

Interesting post. I agree that we need to look long and hard at how we're using prisons. However, according to Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner in _Freakonomics_, the increased use of prisons from in the 80s and 90s “accounts for roughly one-third of the drop in crime.” This contradicts your about “about one-fourth.” To play devil’s advocate, isn’t a 33% reduction in murder worth any amount of money?

[Steve Birdlebough]

I am convinced that we need to take a much more strategic approach to crime. My 30 years of experience with the administration of justice as a prosecutor, defense lawyer, and in dealing with legislation convince me that it is a serious mistake to put people in cages. There must be a better and less costly solution.

Prisons are incubators for gangs, and teach racism.

[madeline smith]

75% of those incarcerated don't have fathers. See invest in children-prevent crime organization for more information. My question, why isn't there more concerted efforts on early prevention? Taking good care of high risk children instead of cutting funding for early years.

[Brandon Bryn]

Thanks for your comments. I think there must be a better way to reduce crime than by continually relying on locking people up. A 33% decrease in crime is significant, for sure, but the question becomes whether or not that decrease in crime is worth the negative effects (and high costs) of incarceration. While the answer is still up for debate, I believe that we can come up with a more balanced combination of programs involving prevention, rehabilitation, and of course incarceration, in order to more effectively reduce crime and its associated costs.