"We Can Ensure Public Safety And Still Reduce Incarceration"

The title of this post is the title of this new Law360 piece authored by Jeffrey Bellin.  The full piece is worth a full read (in part to see citations for various claims), and here are excerpts:

Between 1982 and 2010, the total amount spent by states on incarceration, including parole and probation, rose from $15 billion a year to $48.5 billion annually.  Between 1980 and 2013, annual federal corrections spending grew from under $1 billion to almost $7 billion.

That's why reducing jail and prison populations shouldn't be controversial.  It is mass incarceration that is the radical, expensive and unproven government policy.  And it is a policy that the country chose largely by accident.  In the early 1970s, this country's incarceration and crime rates were low and unremarkable. Then, a temporary crime spike spurred a new age of bipartisan penal severity....

There is, in fact, little correlation between violent crime and harsh or lenient criminal justice policies.  Understanding the past — and the unnecessary choices that this country made in response to the 1970s crime spike — is the best hope for a different future.

Sexual violence, armed robberies and murders were all serious crimes prior to the 1970s and were vigorously prosecuted.  But that's where the similarities between past and present end.  We didn't use to arrest, much less prosecute, so many drug offenders. We didn't use to hold so many people in jail prior to trial.  We used to sentence people to shorter prison terms.  And we relied on parole boards to let people out of prison, ensuring that prisons did not, as now, fill with the sick and elderly....

We used to be better at preventing violence and better at solving serious crimes, probably because that is where law enforcement focused its resources.  The people who suffer the brunt of violent crime typically embrace that focus — and their cooperation is a key factor in reducing crime.

When the police are viewed as working to solve and prevent serious violent crimes, the community turns out to support those efforts.  But if officers are viewed as arbitrary, incompetent and worse, the witnesses they rely on to help solve serious crimes become less likely to volunteer information.

While it is important to focus on reducing violent crime, there is no evidence that reembracing the policies that fueled mass incarceration will do that.  Those policies may even prove counterproductive.  For example, a December 2021 study from the Cato Institute found that certain prosecutions actually increased, rather than decreased, the likelihood of future crime.

We should put aside tough-on-crime rhetoric and focus on preventing violence in more promising ways, like those offered by the Council on Criminal Justice's Violent Crime Working Group to prevent gun violence before it happens.

The emerging resistance to criminal justice reforms illustrate not the merit of tough-on-crime policies, but the stubborn rhetorical appeal of the policies that fuel mass incarceration.  These policies are everywhere, the result of countless changes to local, state and federal laws and processes that emerged over decades.  A few of those changes targeted the violent crimes that grab the headlines, but most did not.

This complexity means that while there is no silver-bullet solution to our overreliance on incarceration, we can continue to reduce prison and jail populations without threatening public safety.

Our current incarceration rate — over 500 incarcerated per 100,000 people — still far exceeds our long-standing historical rate of around 100 per 100,000, as well as the incarceration rates of other, lower-crime countries, including England, France, Germany and Japan.  As our own history and the much lower incarceration rates around the world reveal, we do not need to choose between less violence and less incarceration.  We can have both.

UPDATE: Thanks to social media, I just saw that Keith Humphries authored a similar commentary just published in the Washington Monthly.  The full title of this new piece highlights its themes: "Violent Crime and Mass Incarceration Must be Tackled Together: Conservatives and liberals need to hear each other for us to become a low-crime, low-incarceration society. There are policies that can help." Here is the commentary's closing paragraph:

At the risk of sounding like I’m to break out into the chorus of Kumbaya, there is a rational way forward for both sides to move America into the low-crime, low-incarceration quadrant populated by most other developed nations.  This would require the tough-on-crime camp to give up on the idea that more incarceration will reduce violence and the anti-incarceration camp to stop minimizing violent crime in America.  (“It was worse in the 1980s,” a familiar refrain, is of no comfort to today’s grieving families of murder victims.)  Instead, both sides could rally around the range of health (e.g., expanding Medicaid), law enforcement (e.g., focused deterrence), and tax policies (e.g., raising the price of alcohol) that have good evidence of reducing violent crime, which in turn will reduce incarceration.  This policy agenda will require a broad coalition.  The first step towards that is for everyone in the debate to recognize that the people they’ve been yelling at have a good point, too.