« Is "criminal justice reform" really now a "corporate priority"? | Main | "Intellectual Disability, Categorical Mitigation, and Punishment" »
September 12, 2023
CCJ publishes big new data resource, "The Footprint," which seeks to track the size of America's criminal justice system
The Council of Criminal Justice (CCJ) today published this notable new data resource titled "The Footprint: Tracking the Size of America's Criminal Justice System." Here is how the resource introduces the data it covers on its landing page:
The overall size, or “footprint,” of the American criminal justice system remains well above historical levels, but it has shrunk substantially in recent years. This series of interactive charts summarizes trends in crime, arrests, and correctional control (incarceration and community supervision), comparing current levels with their most recent peaks or valleys. Time periods vary due to data availability, and where reliable data are available, trends in race and sex are also presented.
COVID-19 resulted in significant changes in crime patterns and the operations of law enforcement agencies, courts, correctional agencies, and paroling authorities. Because of the unique influence of the pandemic across the system, analyses also examine the early effects of the pandemic on crime, arrests, and correctional control.
The first section provides a high-level overview of crime, arrest, and incarceration trends in recent decades. The following sections take a closer look at trends in each area, broken down by age, crime type, race, and sex.
The data assembled here, which provides historical national data trends based on already reported public data, are great to have in one place. Sentencing fans may be especially interested in the data trends regarding probation, parole, jails, state prisons and federal prisons, but all the data is really fascinating in all sorts of particulars.
September 12, 2023 at 01:44 PM | Permalink
Comments
Here's one for you Doug: https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2023/09/12/maryland-claims-a-decrease-in-youth-crime-rates-with-one-notable-exception-n577379
Posted by: federalist | Sep 12, 2023 5:30:11 PM
Interesting, federalist, especially because i just saw this new piece by a person noted in the article: https://lithub.com/parole-for-pay-how-americas-criminal-justice-system-was-slowly-privatized/
There are so many ways to slice all the data, and yet we still know far less about crime than we know about most MLB pitcher tendencies.
Posted by: Doug B | Sep 12, 2023 6:06:51 PM
We know that incapacitation works.
Still nothing about the racist Oakland DA?
Posted by: federalist | Sep 13, 2023 8:59:18 AM
Yep, federalist, if we imprisoned all the DAs, none of them could be biased in their prosecutorial practices. But, speaking of incapacitation, we should not forget people still commit (many?) crimes in prison, which is often ignored in data collection about crime rates and recidivism. People in prison are also the victims of crime, which also often is not captured by traditional crime data.
Data issues aside, I tend not to follow stories around the work of individual local prosecutors closely unless/until they become broader sentencing story or they have announced formal sentencing policies that seem especially interesting or important. But, as always, you are welcome to detail what you think is especially notable in Oakland, ideally as it related to sentencing issues.
Posted by: Doug B | Sep 13, 2023 9:25:55 AM
Doug --
"But, as always, you are welcome to detail what you think is especially notable in Oakland, ideally as it related to sentencing issues."
What's notable is that the radical Oakland DA has said openly and explicitly that whites should be given stiffer sentences than blacks for the same crimes. I covered it here: https://ringsideatthereckoning.substack.com/p/white-people-stink-part-eight-zillion
Openly racist and anti-white sentencing directives by a big city district attorney ought, by any sensible standard, to be big news in the world of sentencing law and policy.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 15, 2023 9:57:17 AM
From your post, Bill, based on what you quote from an article that is paywalled from me, it seems the Oakland DA has a directive with sentencing guidance that claims to seek to avoid "disparate racial impact” and that creates a prosecutorial presumption against pursuing enhanced sentences that would “result in disparate racial impact.” That seems quite different from, as your assert, saying "openly and explicitly that whites should be given stiffer sentences than blacks for the same crimes."
But perhaps you are referencing some other statements or documents or have seen that the document at issue says more. Can you provide a link or source for the claim that the Oakland DA has "said openly and explicitly that whites should be given stiffer sentences than blacks for the same crimes"? Have you gotten access and read the DA's directive and is it the sole basis for your claim?
My understanding of EP law is that it would be unconstitutional for a prosecutor or a judge to explicitly seek or secure stiffer sentences based on race. So if that is what the DA is doing (and if she has been getting away with it for many months), that would be "big news." Also, I would hope we could get some discovery from the DA's office on her practices if she was in fact aggravating disparate racial impact, but US v. Armstrong would seem to create real problems. Would you join me in seeking Armstrong's reversal so we can dig into this "big" issue in Oakland and elsewhere?
Posted by: Doug B | Sep 15, 2023 1:47:18 PM
Doug --
I'm sure you know that reducing "disparate racial impact" is just code for "from now on giving blacks softer sentences than whites for the same conduct." It's the same Leftist BS that, in academia, is behind "We just want diversity," when what that actually means is that blacks get in with less, and often much less, measurable qualifications than whites or Asians. The fact that racial discrimination gets hidden behind a word-salad smokescreen does change the fact that it's racial discrimination. Fortunately, SCOTUS wasn't fooled, and ruled against this disgraceful, inconstitutional practice as employed by both our alma maters.
"Would you join me in seeking Armstrong's reversal so we can dig into this "big" issue in Oakland and elsewhere?"
No, because Armstrong is not the problem. The black supremacist DA in Oakland is the problem. Would you join me in seeking her recall? It happened across the Bay to the crime-loving Ghesa Boudin, so it could happen in Oakland, too.
P.S. Armstrong was decided 8-1, with only Stevens dissenting. Even Ginsberg went along in toto with Rehnquist's majority opinion. But she was a rightwing freak, no?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 15, 2023 5:44:40 PM
Bill, what I know is that in another recent thread you preached about the importance of lawyers telling the truth. But then, in this thread, you decided to lie by stating that the "Oakland DA has said openly and explicitly that whites should be given stiffer sentences than blacks for the same crimes." Are you now willing to tell the truth by stating that your prior statement was a false assertion --- and that you had "good reason to believe that such a statement is false" --- concerning what the "Oakland DA has said openly and explicitly"?
As for what may be "just code" for something you dislike, I would like to first actually read the document in question. Have you read it or are you claiming it is "code" without actually having seen the document? I think you are giving meaning to "pre-judging" element of prejudice.
And, of course, SCOTUS could rule on colleges' practices because there was robust discovery about how they exercised their admission discretion. Unless Armstrong is reversed, we will never get to know if/when prosecutors are exercising their discretion unconstitutionally. If you sincerely believe some DAs are acting in racist ways that violate the US Constitution, why not support pursuit of that truth through discovery? Is protecting potentially racist prosecutors (many of whom are not subject to recall) more important than protecting constitutional rights in Oakland and elsewhere?
Posted by: Doug B | Sep 15, 2023 8:49:07 PM
Doug --
Same old, same old with you -- except nastier. You used to be able to refrain from calling me a liar, but it would seem those days are over. Well, that's unfortunate, but you make your choices and I'll make mine.
What is constant with you is an ironclad determination to go on offense as a way of avoiding the problem.
Yes, I'm not fond of using code to try to hide anti-white discrimination, but that's not because anti-white discrimination is merely "something I dislike," in your absurdly dismissive phrase. It's something that's morally wrong and illegal. That's a little more serious than just my likes and dislikes, wouldn't you say?
"... I would like to first actually read the document in question."
Then go read it. Of course the fact that you haven't read it doesn't stop you from claiming that I'm lying about it. How would you know that when you haven't read it? You claim I'm lying because you know its contents through...............what? Telepathy? Isn't that the way Donald Trump declassified documents?
"Unless Armstrong is reversed, we will never get to know if/when prosecutors are exercising their discretion unconstitutionally."
What complete nonsense. You can get to know what the Oakland DA is doing by reading her own words, words she voluntarily -- nay, eagerly -- puts out there to demonstrate how complete is her disdain for whites. Discovery wasn't and isn't needed. You're just veering off about Armstrong to be diversionary.
"If you sincerely believe some DAs are acting in racist ways that violate the US Constitution, why not support pursuit of that truth through discovery?"
Why not get rid of the offending DAs, as the electorate of San Francisco did? The electoral process provides plenty of "discovery." It's called a campaign.
As to Armstrong: I pointed out that your side lost it 8-1, including Ginsburg and all the other liberals except Stevens, and you just walk right past it. This is because, as is increasingly clear, you're just never willing to admit you're wrong. Armstrong goes against you, but the Court is wrong and you're right. The lopsided majority in Watts is wrong but you're right. The unanimous refusal to take cert in McClinton is wrong but you're right. The unanimous judgment of the courts of appeals that sentencing appeal waivers are proper is wrong but you're right. The unanimous judgment granting prosecutorial immunity in Imbler v. Pachtman is wrong but you're right.
You used to have a claim to being center-left, but with an implacably arrogant attitude like that, we can forget the "center" part.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 15, 2023 11:02:01 PM
Doug,
I would love to know how you can eliminate “disparate racial impact,” without making decisions based on race rather than law.
Bill’s assertion seems more than fair and accurate.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Sep 16, 2023 3:03:22 AM
Bill: I said you lied because you've provided no support for your assertion that the "Oakland DA has said openly and explicitly that whites should be given stiffer sentences than blacks for the same crimes." I will say I was wrong if you can provide any support to back up your assertion about what the "Oakland DA has said openly and explicitly." Can you?
You claim to care about lawyers being truthful, but I see nothing truthful about your assertion. I reviewed your RR post and have looked for documents or statements by the Oakland DA to support your assertion that she "has said openly and explicitly that whites should be given stiffer sentences than blacks for the same crimes." I found nothing to support your assertion. That's why I asked if you could "provide a link or source for the claim." So far you have not, and so I still consider your assertion a lie and will again urge you to be truthful about your seemingly false claim about what the "Oakland DA has said openly and explicitly." Can you be truthful here about your misrepresentation?
Critically, at issue here is not politics or attitudes, but just whether you can be truthful here. Can you?
Master Tarls: Bill said that the "Oakland DA has said openly and explicitly that whites should be given stiffer sentences than blacks for the same crimes." Can you point me to any such open and explicit statement?
You (or Bill) might sincerely view the DA's actual statements about seeking to address “gross racial disparities" to be misguided or unjustified. (I quote from the Oakland DA's FAQ about the special directive here: https://www.alcoda.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/SPECIAL-DIRECTIVE-23-01-FAQ.04142023.pdf). Fine, you and Bill can explain your view that the Oakland DA is taking the wrong approach to these matters. But your views on the DA's policies does not make it accurate to assert that the "Oakland DA has said openly and explicitly that whites should be given stiffer sentences than blacks for the same crimes" when she has not openly and explicitly said that. Do the words "said openly and explicitly" have any real meaning?
Bill did not complain that the Oakland DA is going to be "making decisions based on race rather than law." Bill asserted that the "Oakland DA has said openly and explicitly that whites should be given stiffer sentences than blacks for the same crimes." Absent any support for that factual assertion, it seems false, not accurate to me.
Posted by: Doug B | Sep 16, 2023 11:42:41 AM
Doug,
You didn’t answer my question.
How can the Oakland DA address those “disparate racial impacts” other than by giving stiffer sentences to whites?
Unless you can come up with a reasonable answer, Bill is correct.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Sep 16, 2023 1:47:10 PM
TarlsQtr --
Just so.
The Oakland DA was quite clear that she had a policy of charging aggravators against whites but not blacks, even if blacks on the same evidence could equally be charged, and doing so in order to help even out the representation of the races in prison. Charging decisions based on race are racial discrimination pure and simple.
It's impossible to believe that Doug doesn't see this. But there it is.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 16, 2023 2:01:18 PM
Doug --
I stated the Oakland DA's policy, originally and just now to TarlsQtr, truthfully and fairly. It's anti-white racial discrimination in a pure form. There is no way you don't see this, but apparently for ideological reasons refuse to deal with it. Instead you want to maintain, falsely, that I have misrepresented her policy.
Suppose I wrote, "Doug Berman has said openly and explicitly that he opposes acquitted conduct sentencing." Now it's true that you might not have said verbatim, "I oppose acquitted conduct sentencing." But whether you used those exact words in that exact order is irrelevant -- indeed, worse than irrelevant; it's niggling nonsense. It's a truthful and fair statement of your position and that's what counts, as you full well know. Tellingly, you don't even claim that that the Oakland DA's policy is anything different from what I said it is.
Again, you are continuing your recent detour into going ad hominem against commenters who dissent from the liberal line (by repeatedly speaking down to federalist, for example). This is bad enough in itself, and hardly adds to quality or appeal of the blog. You have plenty of yellow-belly "anon" commenters to go ad hominem. Just leave it to them.
And in truth and in fact, you don't believe your accusation that I'm a liar. Do you?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 16, 2023 2:25:38 PM
TarlsQtr --
Right again! In order to avoid having to deal with the ugly, racist REALITY of the Oakland DA's explicitly anti-white policy -- in other words, to avoid substance -- Doug wants to play grammar school word games with me. As I just noted to him, his consternation with me about my description of her policy has exactly the merit it would have if I wrote, "Doug Berman has said openly and explicitly that he opposes acquitted conduct sentencing."
He knows that is true in any sense worth talking about and everyone who reads this blog knows it's true. The rest is diversionary nonsense, nothing more.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 16, 2023 2:43:49 PM
Can we address whether Bill has made a factual statement or not? Bill stated that the "Oakland DA has said openly and explicitly that whites should be given stiffer sentences than blacks for the same crimes." I have been unable to find any place anywhere anything like that being said "openly and explicitly" by the Oakland DA. That is why I view this statement to be false -- though, again, perhaps a cite or quote or link could show she has made such an open and explicit statement. So, I will ask again, can either of you provide to any factual basis for what Bill asserted?
From the documents I have seen, the DA's policy directive calls for sentence enhancements generally to be used far less frequently for everyone. Though I do not know all the local particulars, my understanding is that the DA believed that these enhancements generally provide for excessive punishment AND generally contribute to unwarranted racial disparities because they are applied disproportionately against black persons. That may be a contestable judgment, but it is quite different from stating "openly and explicitly that whites should be given stiffer sentences than blacks for the same crimes."
I have seen no statement that the DA seeks to give "stiffer sentences to whites," and the directive to apply sentence enhancements less frequently appears to be a race-neutral general policy (indeed, if openly and explicitly race-based, it would be unconstitutional). Perhaps Bill has seen an "open and explicit" statement that the DA wishes to embrace a "policy of charging aggravators against whites but not blacks." If so, I would like to see that. None of the official documents I have found about the enhancement policy/directive says anything like that.
You may both see covert and implicit racism in the DA's seemingly race-neutral directive. Lots of folks believe lots of prosecutors are covertly and implicitly racist in how they apply criminal laws. But Bill asserted that the "Oakland DA has said openly and explicitly that whites should be given stiffer sentences than blacks for the same crimes." I am still looking for any support for that assertion. Do you have any?
I want to believe words and truth have meaning and importance, but perhaps it's naive to expect that even from those who want to preach about the importance of being truthful.
Posted by: Doug B | Sep 16, 2023 2:58:04 PM
I will add, though I fear it may lead you to attack the US Attorney General for having an "explicitly anti-white policy," that AG Garland issued a similar directive to federal prosecutors in Dec 2022 when saying "prosecutors should advocate for a sentence consistent with the guidelines for powder cocaine rather than crack cocaine." https://www.justice.gov/media/1265321/dl?inline (see pp. 4-5).
In this directive, the AG explained his view (citing DOJ testimony), that enhanced crack sentencing provisions produce excessive sentences and are "responsible for unwarranted racial disparities." Id. That sounds very much like the same essential rationales given by the Oakland DA for her charging directive. As I see it, the AG Garland charging/sentencing memo --- citing concern for excessive sentencing and "racial disparities" --- to be comparable to the Oakland DA's sentence/charging enhancement memo: in both cases, prosecutors are openly and explicitly stating that they wish to advance justice NOT by punishing one race more than another, but rather by trying to make ensure no races are subject to over-punishment.
I suspect you dislike the AG's crack sentencing directive. But do you claim AG Garland has, though his Dec 2022 directive, adopted an "explicitly anti-white policy" which serves as "anti-white racial discrimination in a pure form" and amounts to "racial discrimination pure and simple"?
I am happy to talk about the substance of these matters, but I first need to understand if words and truth means something in this context. If not, such a substantive discussion will likely not be worth anyone's time.
Posted by: Doug B | Sep 16, 2023 3:11:02 PM
Doug --
If I had used QUOTATION MARKS in recounting the DA's position, you'd have a point. But I deliberately didn't. That's for a specific reason: It wasn't a quotation.
This is really quite easy. Suppose I read your amicus brief supporting a cert grant in McClinton. After reading it, I wrote here: "Doug Berman has said openly and explicitly that he opposes acquitted conduct sentencing" even though the brief does not contain any specific sentence saying, "I-openly-and-explicitly-oppose-acquitted-conduct-sentencing." Would you say that my recounting was a lie?
Well, you might if you'd had a really bad day or maybe a couple of bourbons too many. But otherwise you wouldn't. My recounting of what you "say" in your brief would be nothing more than a truthful CONDENSATION of exactly what you elaborated for 30 (or maybe 40 or 50) pages. But it would be, not only true and fair, but obvious. You openly and explicitly oppose acquitted conduct sentencing and you said exactly that, not in one sentence, but over many pages. Indeed that's the whole purpose of the brief.
As long as it's done honestly and truthfully, condensation is not a vice. It's a virtue. Lawyers should do it more often.
You bend over backward to give the DA's anti-white policies a neutral spin, but your earnest efforts just don't get it done. Her written policies just reek of racism and you ought, not to accept them, but deplore them.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 16, 2023 5:37:12 PM
I agree, Bill, that if done "done honestly and truthfully," condensation is not a vice. But your condensation is neither honest nor truthful. The Oakland DA April 2023 directive, like AG Garland's Dec 2022 memo, does not state "openly and explicitly that whites should be given stiffer sentences than blacks for the same crimes." You cannot provide any quotes or citations or anything else to support your claims because you are not "condensing," you are making a dishonest and untruthful misrepresentation about the directive.
I am not "bend[ing] over backward" to give "anti-white policies a neutral spin." I am honestly and truthfully focused on the explicit words set forth by a DA (and an AG). You, instead, seen keen to misrepresent them by claiming they "said openly and explicitly that whites should be given stiffer sentences than blacks for the same crimes." Plainly words and truth mean something very different to you than they do to me. I guess you have your own version of the truth, kind of like Donald Trump.
Posted by: Doug B | Sep 16, 2023 8:40:45 PM
Master Tarls, just in case this discussion has not adequately addressed your queries, I can provide some additional examples. Suppose a prosecutor reviewed the sentences given in stash-house stings and concluded they were often too long AND applied almost always to black defendants. That prosecutor could decide to no longer pursue stash-house stings prosecutions in order to, inter alia, address “disparate racial impacts.” Doing so would not involve "giving stiffer sentences to whites," but just involve no longer giving what the prosecutor has decided were excessive sentences applied disparately.
That is how I read the work of both the Oakland DA and the US AG in their directives to apply certain aggravating sentencing provisions less. Notably, sentencing is not like college admissions where there is a kind of zero-sum reality to who gets admitted to an elite institution. Rather, prosecutors can pursue less extreme sentences for all (or some) groups without seeking to increase sentences for others.
If you want yet another real-world example, consider the US Sentencing Commission's recent decision to make its new criminal history sentencing guideline reduction retroactive. One USSC Commissioner indicated he voted for retroactive with a eye toward "remedying a racial disparity that's been baked into our criminal justice system." But the retroactive reduction of federal sentences through this new guideline does not in any way, directly or indirectly, involve "giving stiffer sentences to whites."
(Marijuana legalization could provide yet another example. Many who support legalization are troubled by data that blacks have been subject, according to ACLU data, to roughly 4 times as many arrests for marijuana possession. Supporting a remedy to this racial disparity via legalization (or decriminalization) does not involve arresting more whites. Rather, it call for no arrests, in part to address racial disparity.)
I hope that addresses your questions.
Posted by: Doug B | Sep 16, 2023 9:04:19 PM
Doug --
"But your condensation is neither honest nor truthful."
You're entitled to your opinion. The DA's aim is partly to reduce criminals' accountability across the board, yes; but also -- in passages you can't possibly fail to understand are racist -- to intentionally decline to authorize provable aggravators against blacks SOLELY because of their race while being open to still charging them against whites on the same facts. That is racial discrimination pure and simple. This "disparity" dodge she uses is the same race-huckstering in only slightly different language as the "diversity" cover for anti-white and anti-Asian discrimination in academia. It's all disgusting, vicious and toxic, and if you think it's OK, you need to think again.
Do you think it's OK?
"Plainly words and truth mean something very different to you than they do to me."
Well, I agree with that in a sense. When I say (along with all the circuits (and your new friend Merrick Garland while we're at it)) that appeal waivers are proper, that's a truth you claim isn't so. When I say (along with SCOTUS) that prosecutorial immunity is proper, you think I'm being sleazy there too. When I say that using acquitted conduct at sentencing is proper, that too is false according to you (but not according to SCOTUS or the lower federal courts).
As I say, you are entitled to your view. Mine, and my character, were tested for a couple of decades in federal court. I will let my record there speak for itself. The courts are neutral. You aren't. There's nothing wrong with that -- being an advocate is largely what this profession is about -- but it says important things about the slant in your perspective.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Sep 16, 2023 10:01:42 PM
Thanks, Bill, I think we are making progress because it seems you are now saying that the DA never actually "said openly and explicitly that whites should be given stiffer sentences than blacks." Rather, you just believe that is her "aim." As I see it, asserting somebody said something "openly and explicitly" is quite different than making a (contestable) claim about her true "aim."
You base your claim about the DA's "aim" on "passages [I] can't possibly fail to understand are racist." But that's where we started --- I asked you to point me to the statement or passages that you think support your claims. I am still waiting. It would be VERY helpful for you to quote or cite what passages you mean. There are folk who assert words like "merit" or "law-abiding" are really just racist code. Is "disparity" now one of those words that I am suppose to assume reflects only racism and not any reality? I sincerely hope to better understand what passages you think are obviously "racist."
I ask because, as I noted for Tarls, there are many past and present examples of sentencing reforms and advocacy with the same words ("disparity") and claimed goals (avoiding excessive incarceration) as the DA discusses in her directive and FAQ --- eg, AG Garland's Dec 2022 crack memo; USSG guideline reductions for crack, drugs, criminal history; reforms to 3-strikes law and other MM drug laws; marijuana reforms, and many more. Do all these cases involve "racial discrimination pure and simple" or is it only when the Oakland DA sets forth these points (because you know the "aim" lurking behind the words this time)?
Again, maybe the Oakland DA has used distinct claims/lingo so that it is fair to call race-neutral points "racist." Gosh knows folks on the left are constantly telling me stuff is racist that does not look racist to me. In this context, this is why I have kept asking, over and over and over, for you (or Tarls) to cite or quote what passages you are referencing. I called your "condensation" neither honest nor truthful because you have not cited any support for it. Can you? I feel like I have asked for support of your assertion many times, but I will ask again because maybe there is something that I missed. (Or maybe you have a special code book explaining what secret words used by prosecutors are "really" racist lingo.)
Your repeated distracting "shake-and-jive" with other issues can highlight how off you are here. I have never said, eg, "Bill Otis has said openly and explicitly that he knows I am right about appeal waivers." That would be a lie, and it would still be a lie even if I insisted that the fact you keep bringing up the issue shows you must knows you are on the wrong side. Or worse, "Bill Otis has said openly and explicitly that as many blacks as possible should be given LWOP sentences." That would also be a lie, and it would still be a lie even if I insisted that anyone who criticizes the Oakland DA's policy must have as his "aim" to see more and more LWOP sentences for blacks.
In other words and to keep this simple, the problem is not that YOU BELIEVE the DA (and/or her policy) is racist --- that's your view and you can express it. The problem is you did not express your beliefs on what she said or her "aim," rather you falsely represented what she "said openly and explicitly." But if that is your norm for truth-telling, so be it.
Posted by: Doug B | Sep 17, 2023 4:06:11 PM
