As I recently read an interesting article, “Reconsidering Incarceration”, published by Vera Institute of Justice in January 2007, I would like to bring up a few points for consideration.
In 1990, America saw a rapid drop in crime rate and a continued decrease for more than a decade. However, in the past couple of years, crime rate appeared to rise again. This shift in the crime rate may call for tougher and longer sentences. This actually will transform our prisons in human beings warehouses. Our already crowded prisons will become even more crowded, absorbing enormous resources. It costs tax payers annually $40,000 and up to incarcerated one inmate, depending of the type of prison.
We all know that in 1970 America began one of the largest experiments in the world, mass incarceration. From 1970 until 2005 our prison population grew by 628 percent. By the year 2000, 5.6 million Americans spent some time in a state or a federal prison. These huge numbers urged the scholars in the field to analyze if imprisonment is the most effective way to reduce crime. The result of these researches showed that incarceration was responsible for only 25% in the crime drop, registered between 1992 and 1997, and the remaining 75% was due to factors other than incarceration. Some of these factors were policing, education and employment. One study estimate for NY City shows that 24.3 billion dollars can be saved by investing in policing and not in incarceration to achieve the same level of public safety.
Incarceration is used to reduce crime by incapacitating active offenders and deterring “future” offenders. However, massive incarceration of drug offenders may reduce the effectiveness of prison. Most drugs offenders are non-violent offenders. So, by incarcerating these types of offenders and crowding our prisons, we prevent the incarceration of offenders that commit serious crimes. Incarceration is a reactive measure that responds to crime. Incarceration does not take into consideration the causes of crime. In the past 20 years, correction budget increases by 202 percent. All the other factors that seemed to have such a high impact on crime were mostly ignored. For example, in the same time frame, higher education grew by only 3 percent.
My question is: If there are so many other factors that can increase our public safety and save tax payers money, with all the studies done in the field, why policymakers still put emphasis on incarceration as the only measure to reduce crime?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Great post! These issues tend to get me extremely frustrated, so I've tried to keep my ranting to a minimum!
People like to hear that criminals are being locked up. It makes us feel safer, it gives politicians numbers to flaunt, and let’s face it, the numbers are impressive. No one likes to look at the latent, unintended, or intended, consequences of mass incarceration. People just like to know that the criminals are going away, and nobody was thinking about what happens when they (because they will) come back. (I sort of stole that line from President Travis’ book “But They All Come Back,” which I strongly recommend, also, Joan Petersilia’s “When Prisoners Come Home”). The public lost faith in “rehabilitative” models. They wanted incapacitation. You’re right- mass incarceration was a reaction. Now that reactive period is over, and we may be thinking more rationally, how do we set this mistake right? We cannot start releasing people and we cannot have more lenient laws. Yes, alternatives can increase public safety and cost taxpayers less, but I do not know of a solution that will gain enough public support to effect policy change; not many people are interested in alternatives to mass incarceration, because they immediately assume that criminals are going to get all sorts of privileges and services- privileges and services that maybe they do not “deserve.” I think the problem is that all of the alternatives come off sounding as though we want to go “easy” on criminals.
If you couldn’t tell, I believe public support is crucial for policy change- especially when it comes to criminal justice issues.
Although I would like to, it is hard to discuss this topic of incarceration and not talk about the racial factor of the prison population as an inherent problem to our government’s lethargical approach to finding alternative measures for reducing crime. The United States, as highlighted by the current presidential election, is still unfortunately a racially divided country. The disproportionate representation of Blacks in the US judicial system is stifling. Blacks comprise 13% of the national population, yet 75% of the prison population consist of Blacks, essentially constituting more than half of prison admissions. The racial disparities in incarceration is astounding and can be credited to such law as the Rockefeller drug laws, which can be credited for sentencing disparities between Blacks and Whites for drugs like crack, used mostly by Blacks and powder cocaine, used by Whites. According to a research done by Human Rights Watch, Blacks prison population exceeds Whites in EVERY state. I refuse to believe this is coincidental. Unfortunately, with the majority of blacks going to prison, many daughters and especially sons, who tend to emulate their fathers, are growing up without a father. This has caused a destabilization within black families, leaving many now single mothers to carry the responsibilities of both parents in an already racially bias and prejudicial environment. As a result the cycle continues for young black men who see their future as bleak.
In other countries such as Canada, community base alternative is emphasized upon and as a result their prison population is comparatively low when compared to the US. By the way, there are more guns per capita in Canada than is in the US, yet the US crime rate far exceeds that of Canada. Another country we can compare the US to is France. France police officers do not carry guns, but has recently been considering giving their police officers stun guns; still a strong concern for public safety and their crime rate again is far lower than the US.
I believe that because of the racially divisiveness, which is so prevalent in the US and which derived from slavery, the US government does not feel a commitment to truly find substantive solutions and alternatives to solve our overly populated prisons, after all, they are filled with mostly minorities, primarily Blacks. But Martin Luther King’s words, which still ring true today, suggest that the United States destiny is tied up with Black people, therefore failure to protect all US citizens, including black citizens is ultimately a failure for the prosperity of the US.
I think that our system of incarceration encompasses many things uniquely American. It reflects our inability to overcome racism, our unwillingness to grant "criminals" "privlages", and our inaction in instituting programs that have been scientifically proven to work (or atleast work better and cost less when compared to prison. Overall, it reflects our inability to agree on a solution and come together to implement it.
Alternatives to incarceration show better outcomes than prison in practically ALL models (whether they reduce recidivism in the long tern is inconsequential; they definately DELAY incarceration and ALWAYS COST LESS!)
Since we have not talked about this yet this semester, I would like to suggest the legalization of certain drugs. Many of our offenders serve sentences for predicate, non-violent drug crimes... legalizing certain drugs would reduce the population eligable for incarceration. As we have seen in other countries, this is not impossible.
Obviously, this is not a cure-all solution (nothing is, unfortunately)and just a fraction of the problem. Marijuana has been decriminalized in some states, but I doubt this reduces incarceration rates. Instead, this only creates confusion... it is legal to smoke in the home, legal to possess (in certian amounts), but illegal to sell and buy... some policy. Other drugs that have been legalized in other countires (certain hallucinogens)hold manslaughter charges in the United States.
I think that legalizing certian drugs would lead to a spike in drug use for a short period, but in the long run will lead to decreased use (especially among teens, who often just use drugs because they're illegal), and decreased burden on prisons.
P.S. I do not mean to take away from Octavia's post... but so applicable to our discussion last week is Beyonce's new song "If I Were a Boy"...
The reason we do not change our current policies of mass incarceration is becuase the prison is America's method of mantaining control over minorities, mainly the poor. It is no coincidence that more than seventy percent of our prison population is either Black or Latino. It is also no coincidence that many of these men and women belong to the poorest class in America.
We have to remember that it is all about power and control. Just like some feminist theories state that the fear of rape is used to mantain power and control over women and their movement. I view the American prisons in the same way. Think of it, how many suburban men are worried about being pulled over when they are walking home late or hanging out.
Octavia, you speak of other alternatives that will work such as policing, education and employment. These alternatives are true answers to many injustices. However, let us go back to the main aim of our criminal justice system which is to CONTROL crime not ERADICATE crime. Urban and impoverished areas are testing grounds to contain the crime from spilling over into middle-class neighborhoods and rich-America.
Eventhough, we have statisitcs on the disadvantages of our current incarceration policy, there is no number on the advantages of such policies. One advantage is, the power equation remains intact. If we can't legally in law call for discrimination against the poor and minorities, against the individual then turn your focus to the social enviornment where these people live. The power equation is such that somewhere and somehow the poor in this country will entrap themselves criminally or be affected by it in unconcrete and concrete ways.
What can I say that everyone else hasn't already covered! I agree with Maureen and Octavia's solutions of legalizing drugs and increasing policing, education, and employment but how many people will agree to release a larger percent of offenders instead of locking them up? Society as a whole looks to jails as a safety blanket, knowing that the criminals of the world are locked up. I think education for the rest of society, making them more aware of life after prison or many of the extenuating circumstances that force the offenders into the lifestyle that leads them into prison will help increase the chances that society will accept incarceration alternatives. Without educating society about the negative aspects of incarceration and showing them all of the above listed statistics, no one will believe that there are better choices out there than incarceration.
Hi everyone! I'm back from my trip to Texas and happy to see so much interesting discussion on the blog. I also heard about the class discussion and am so sorry that I missed out on it!!
The topic of this blog and our recent discussions on "stakeholders" brought to mind a documentary called "Yes In My Backyard." Here's the description:
YES, IN MY BACKYARD
Produced by Tracy Huling / Galloping Girls Productions, Inc.
Project Description:
For many years prison officials faced the "NIMBY" problem: when communities heard about plans for a new prison the outcry was "Not In My Backyard!" Times have changed. Financially-strapped communities are now begging for prisons to be built in their backyards. With plundering agribusiness, military-base closings and major industry relocation, incarceration is seen as the salvation of rural communities. Through the eyes of one farming-community-turned-prison-town, this hour documentary explores the increasing and multi-layered dependence of rural America on prison industries and subtly probes the profound implications of this dependence for both the keepers and the kept, and for our society's understanding of and response to crime.
(end of description)
(Back to Prof Waterston comments): The film highlights the ways in which the emergence of the "prison industrial complex" in the context of shifting economics, results in systemic change, and the reproduction of social policies that are draconian and not cost-effective: These small community "stakeholders" (and there are lots of such small communities so together they make up a large constituency) have a vested interest in bigger and more prisons. They lobby the state, etc. So their interests (and the interests of members of their own communities) and the interests of other municipalities and their constitutents in some ways "fit" and "don't fit," and these can be analyzed along class lines that are also racialized.
These issues are also explored in a book titled "Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment" published by the Sentencing Project (link is below). It's such a small world: In addition to Tracy Huling (the producer of the film), the edited volume has chapters by JJ President Jeremy Travis, AND Paul Farmer, the author of the text for this week's reading.
http://www.sentencingproject.org/PublicationDetails.aspx?PublicationID=318
It's Professor Waterston again. I'm not sure this is the right place to put this, but wanted to share with you that my son just produced a short documentary (9 minutes) for Partners In Health, Paul Farmer's social action group. Below is the email Matthew distributed with a link to the film. It would be great if you could take a look before class tomorrow. Thanks so much! Prof. W.:
October 10, 2008
Friends,
Berry and I certainly don't want to get into the mass e-mail business – but this one is important.
We have produced a short film, Haitian Hope, which you can see here: http://bzfilms.com/haitian-hope/
A few weeks ago, Berry and I traveled to Haiti. We didn't know exactly what was ahead of us, just that we wanted to shoot a film that could help raise awareness about the devastation from the most recent disaster to hit Haiti, and through our efforts, inspire you to donate to a very worthy organization, Partners In Health (http://pih.org). Our journey, though short, was both moving and heart breaking.
Over the course of four weeks in August and September, Haiti was ravaged by four hurricanes. These storms left an already impoverished country in an unimaginable condition.
However, we also learned that Haitian's are strong people. They fight to live another day. They believe. And most of all, they hope for a brighter future.
Partners In Health, which is known as Zanmi Lasante in Haiti is doing its part. For the last 25 years they have been focused on one mission, "to do whatever it takes." And in this time of disaster, they have been forced to go beyond their role as health care providers, educators, and advocates against poverty and inequality. They truly are doing whatever it takes.
Everyone can help. Just watching this video helps. Passing it on and educating others, helps. And of course donating to Partners In Health helps.
Thank you,
Matt
bzfilms.com
I had the privilege of meeting Ashanti Alston and he told me about the work his wife was doing (she's a sociologist) regarding the link between incarceration & slavery. I wish I could remember her name!
I think the simplistic answer to the question you pose Octavia is money. Economics.
The prison *industry is huge- and the job of businesses are to make money.
The beginning of slavery in the United States was based on religion- not race. Non- Christians could be enslaved, though it was against Christian Law to enslave a person for life. Black and white individuals were released from a period of bondage and in turn, were given land and they too owned slaves: both black and white. The story of Anthony Johnson shows an early historical account of an enslaved African man turned slaveholder.
The shift from religious slavery to lifelong slavery based on skin color was a result of the huge economic benefit for those in power. (Anthony Johnson's family lost their land during this time because of their skin color)
I don't think anything has changed. I think overall we can see the United States economy doing exactly what a capitalist economy is supposed to do: maximize profit and minimize costs. Of course this comes at the expense of those who work in the factories that make our clothes, those who grow our food, and those who work for $1. and change an hour in our prisons etc etc...
Every time I hear such horrifying statistics I don’t really know how to react. We are the most jailing society in the world. But, I wonder where this really originated? Perhaps, along with the Puritan work ethic, have we also adopted the Puritan conservatism and need for moral wholesomeness? Also, our infrastructure and money has facilitated our ability to continue jailing. Society seems more comfortable with locking up millions of Americans than by offering them other opportunities and alternatives to incarceration.
Post a Comment