« A long accounting of Justice Thomas' long disaffinity for his key vote in Almendarez-Torres | Main | Pew Research Center updates its accounting of "What the data says about crime in the U.S." »
April 29, 2024
"Electronic Prison: A Just Path to Decarceration"
The title of this post is the title of this new paper authored by Paul Robinson and Jeffrey Seaman now available via SSRN. Here is its abstract:
The decarceration movement enjoys enthusiastic support from many academics and activists who point out imprisonment’s failure to rehabilitate and its potential criminogenic effects. At the same time, many fiscal conservatives and taxpayer groups are critical of imprisonment’s high costs and supportive of finding cheaper alternatives. Yet, despite this widespread support, the decarceration movement has made little real progress at getting offenders out of prison, in large part because community views, and thus political officials, are strongly committed to the importance of doing justice — giving offenders the punishment they deserve — and decarceration is commonly seen as inconsistent with that nonnegotiable principle. Indeed, almost no one in the decarceration movement has attempted to formulate a large-scale decarceration plan that still provides for what the community would see as just punishment.
In this Article, we offer just such a plan by demonstrating that it is entirely possible to avoid the incarceration of most offenders through utilizing non-incarcerative sanctions that can carry a total punitive effect comparable to physical prison. New technologies allow for imposing “electronic prison” sentences where authorities can monitor, control, and punish offenders in a cheaper and less damaging way than physical prison while still doing justice. Further, the monitoring conditions provided in electronic prison allow for the imposition of a wide array of other non-incarcerative sanctions that were previously difficult or impossible to enforce. Even while it justly punishes, electronic prison can dramatically increase an offender’s opportunities for training, treatment, education, and rehabilitation while avoiding the problems of unsupported families, socialization to criminality, and problematic reentry after physical incarceration. And, from a public safety standpoint, electronic prison can reduce recidivism by eliminating the criminogenic effect of incarceration and also provides longer-term monitoring of offenders than an equivalently punitive shorter term of physical imprisonment. Of course, one can imagine a variety of objections to an electronic prison system, ranging from claims it violates an offender’s rights to fears it may widen the net of carceral control. The Article provides a response to each.
Electronic prison is one of those rare policy proposals that should garner support from across the political spectrum due to effectively addressing the complaints against America’s incarceration system lodged by voices on the left, right, and center. Whether one’s primary concern is decarcerating prisoners and providing offenders with needed treatment, training, counseling, and education, or one’s concern is reducing crime, imposing deserved punishment, or simply reducing government expenditures, implementing an electronic prison system would provide a dramatic improvement over America’s current incarceration policies.
April 29, 2024 at 05:46 PM | Permalink
Comments
You know a lefty is lying when he brags about “giving the just punishment they deserve,” or “total punitive effect comparable to physical prison.” Also, when his lips are moving.
We have been told ad nauseum that punishment is wrong, but they now seek it?
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Apr 29, 2024 8:36:59 PM
"... entirely possible to avoid the incarceration of most offenders through utilizing non-incarcerative sanctions that can carry a total punitive effect comparable to physical prison."
Wonderfully slick use of the word "comparable." Like saying that the Little League Saturday game is "comparable" to the World Series. Well, yes, the two can be compared.
What a bunch of shameless charlatans these people are.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 29, 2024 10:50:11 PM
Master Tarls and Bill: I surmise you do not realize that the authors of this article are the same authors of "'Mass Incarceration' Myths and Facts: Aiming Reform at the Real Problems" which I posted here a few months ago: https://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2024/01/mass-incarceration-myths-and-facts-aiming-reform-at-the-real-problems.html
In the comments to that prior post, you both appeared to praise these authors and their work.
Posted by: Doug B | Apr 30, 2024 8:06:33 AM
And in other news, the lawless judge in the NY case just violated the First Amendment by fining DJT. In a just world, this judge would spend the rest of his life in prison.
Posted by: federalist | Apr 30, 2024 10:24:35 AM
and not the electronic kind, rather in genpop.
Posted by: federalist | Apr 30, 2024 10:24:56 AM
https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/04/braggs-prosecution-of-trump-violates-new-york-states-constitution/
Doug, one would think that you would care about the restrictions on liberty stemming from such a flawed prosecution.
Posted by: federalist | Apr 30, 2024 12:30:32 PM
I always care about restrictions on liberty, federalist, but I try not make judgments (or comments) about matters I am not following all that closely.
Posted by: Doug B | Apr 30, 2024 1:09:25 PM
That jerk thug judge is now threatening Trump with jail and is actually ordering him to remove a post from his campaign website. Merchan, just for that, should spend the rest of his life in prison--in genpop.
Posted by: federalist | Apr 30, 2024 1:14:39 PM
Doug,
I’m capable of disagreeing with a person on a topic and agreeing on another. It’s called being an adult.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Apr 30, 2024 4:34:22 PM
Doug --
To follow up on what TarlsQtr said, what matters is not the author but the content. And you conspicuously do not disagree with my view that the content, in particular the use of the word "comparable," is misleading to the point of being sleazy.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 30, 2024 5:29:47 PM
Doug is a fan of sophistry when it comes to those justifying the soft on crime approach. Curious that Doug has zero to say about the egregious 34 felony stacking going on the Trump kangaroo court proceedings.
Posted by: federalist | Apr 30, 2024 5:42:27 PM
Master Tarls and Bill, I read your comments here to be about the authors. MT started his comment by saying "You know a lefty is lying ..."; Bill ended his complaining about "shameless charlatans." I thought it notable --- and something you might not have realized --- that you both previously praise these folks you now call lying lefties and shamless charlatans. Of course, adults can disagree with a person on one topic and agree on another. But it strikes me as childish to engage in certain types of namecalling seemingly without realizing who one is calling names. (Paul Robinson, among other aspects of his impressive professional background, was nominated in 1985 by President Ronald Reagan to serve as a member of the (then new) US Sentencing Commission and he was a federal prosecutor in the 1970s. I believe Jeffrey Seaman is a young (pre-law) research assistant.)
On substance, Bill, there are various authors who complain about home confinement and like alterantives because, in their view, it amounts to a "prison by another name." See https://thenewpress.com/books/prison-by-any-other-name. I do not find these assertions convincing, but I do not view the claims as "sleazy." Home confinement can deprive liberty in certain ways that can be comparable to some (low-security) prisons unless you think it critical that prison can and should carry significant additional harms beyond the deprivation of liberty. Perhaps, Bill, instead of just calling the authors "charlatans," you can detail what you consider to be the punitive effects of prison that you do not think could possibly be comparably achieved though 'electronic prison' sentences and other sanctions. Such an accounting might help me understand why you think the argument here is not just misguided but is, in your view, "misleading to the point of being sleazy."
Meanwhile, federalist, you are the sophistry king who makes constitutional claims while saying you cannot and need not ground your claims in any actual constitutional provision. You are good at expressing feelings, federalist, just not citing law. As for feelings, I do feel that many aspects of the NY State criminal prosecution of Donald Trump involves array of political considerations. So do many other examples of the exercise of prosecutorial powers. As we have discussed before, I am ever eager for more limits and checks on prosecutorial powers in all settings. Are you?
As for other aspects of Trump's NY trial, there seems to be (much) more than enough commentary coming from folks with a lot more time than me to follow the proceedings. Even in high-profile cases, I tend to pay attention only if/when a sentencing process in afoot.
Posted by: Doug B | Apr 30, 2024 10:22:44 PM
Doug --
Saying "comparable" when what you want slyly to imply is "roughly equivalent to" is sleazy. Home confinement (assuming it actually is confinement, which often (job, church, doctor, lawyer) it is not) is nothing like prison, as you certainly know. "Comparable" simply means "is capable of being compared to," so to say that the two are "comparable" is to simply to announce an empty tautology -- while wanting to nudge the casual reader toward embracing the false belief that they're pretty much the same. They aren't.
I had a career dealing with slick language stunts like that, and I'm on to it (as, truth be told, are you).
Posted by: Bill Otis | Apr 30, 2024 11:24:18 PM
Bill, I get that you do not believe home confinement and other sanctions can be punitive in ways that can be comparable to prison. And there are obvious differences that range from risks of rape and poor medical care and nutrition to state costs to communications with family and work opportunities. But do you view those differences of prison to be proper “punitive effects”? I am asking you to explain more fully what specific factors you think are the proper aspects of prison that might not be potentially replicated through an electronic prison?
Is this a sleazy inquiry? These authors explain why they seem to think an electronic prison and other sanctions can be comparable to prison. You do not engage the ideas, you just call the effort sleazy. But there is a big difference between unconvincing arguments and sleazy ones, and yet I do not see how you are using the label sleazy. If I view that label as wrong, does that make you sleazy?
Posted by: Doug B | May 1, 2024 1:07:18 AM
In one scenario, a guy can get laid every night, eat food he enjoys, watch what he wants on TV, and run his criminal enterprises.
How’s that comparable?
Was the COVID lockdown “comparable” to prison?
Posted by: TarlsQtr | May 1, 2024 2:58:19 AM
And, yes, comparing that scenario to prison is sleazy.
The kids at Columbia are “comparable” to MLK Jr.
I tried it. Yup. Sleazy.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | May 1, 2024 3:01:38 AM
Did you read the article, Bill and Master Tarls? Among other arguments, the authors suggest that the duration of any "comprable" term of electronic prison many need to be twice as long (or longer) than a traditional prison term, and could include "near-infinite tailoring of punitive restrictions on locational, social, and personal freedoms (prohibitions) enhanced by the ability to verify compliance with additional requirements (prescriptions) mandating the completion of a variety of other non-incarcerative tasks or penalties. Indeed, electronic monitoring enables a wider range of non-incarcerative sanctions..." The argument, as I read it, is that we could use technology to engineer more effective kinds of liberty deprivation for some given that, according to the authors, using traditional prisons "society pays around $100 billion a year to house, feed, and control criminal offenders, while training them for future lives of crime."
Again, you may not find the article convincing, but what makes it "sleazy"? I do not speak for the authors, so you would need to ask them whether they imagine electronic prisons that include "punitive restrictions" on sex, enjoyable food and media of choice. (They do discuss "preventing recreational use of electronic devices for gaming, movies, web-surfing, etc."). But if those are your key concerns for achieving "comparability," Master Tarls, I suspect the authors might claim they could be addressed. And, most critically, I do not think you are sleazy for questioning the authors' claims, nor do I think they are sleazy for making them.
As for COVID lockdowns, here is some research claiming "the experience of lockdown was either similar to, or even worse than, being in prison for the first-time." https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.578430/full
Here is other research discussing that "media sources have likened quarantine experiences to that of incarceration." https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0306624X221113537?icid=int.sj-full-text.citing-articles
Again, you many find a lot in these articles you disagree with, but does that make them "sleazy"? If so, I guess we have a different understanding of that word's meaning.
As for how to compare protestors, I do know which kind are more likely to engage in misguided namecalling while hiding their identity without even making an effort to understand what they are complaining about.
Posted by: Doug B | May 1, 2024 9:09:02 AM
Doug --
The way I play basketball is "comparable" to the way LeBron plays it. The way I sing is "comparable" to the way Enrico Caruso sang. The way I play tennis is "comparable" to the way Roger Federer plays it. Etcetera.
All that is literally true. But it's also laughable nonsense, and if used seriously to suggest any authentic similarity between what they do in those areas and what I do, is sleazy at best and more likely downright dishonest.
The authors were using "comparable" seriously to suggest authentic similarity, so the same thing goes for them.
That's as full an explanation as this topic needs or deserves.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 1, 2024 3:25:27 PM
Bill, I surmise you consider your answer to be comparable to a 30+ page law review article (which I surmise you have not bothered to read). So be it.
Posted by: Doug B | May 1, 2024 4:40:41 PM
Doug --
Your use of the word "comparable" in your response might have been intended as a sardonic dagger, but was actually wonderfully enlightening and illustrative. Thank you!!!
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 1, 2024 6:48:02 PM
You are, Bill, in so many ways, incomparable, which is only one of many reasons why I am always glad to have you engaging in these comments. (And I intend all sorts of stuff in my comments, even unintentionally.)
Posted by: Doug B | May 1, 2024 7:52:10 PM
Doug --
One of the things that keeps it amusing is that we each have the vocabulary of our school:
Princeton -- This tome is fat. Excellent.
Stanford -- This joint is fat. Groovy.
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 1, 2024 10:29:28 PM
Doug,
We have had a similar discussion before.
Everyone here knows, including the authors, that there will never be a restriction on sex for a guy living in his own home. We also know that there are no electronic means to monitor much of this. How do you keep a man from running his criminal enterprise from home? Ban him from speaking with his wife? They can’t put cameras in prison bathrooms. Do you actually believe it can be done in his home?
You can take a criminal’s privacy. I’m not sure you can do it to this degree in his home. You definitely cannot take his family’s privacy.
It’s a pipe dream and the authors know it.
Sleazy.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | May 2, 2024 1:47:49 AM
Doug,
I have read the article.
1. There is a lot of talk about the public’s perception of e-incarceration not being as punishing. Good luck changing that. It won’t change because they are right.
2. It talks about criminals being asked whether they would prefer two years under house arrest or six months in prison. I bet they weren’t asked the morning of their ride upstate. lol
3. The biggest hole. Not a word about the invasion of privacy on families.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | May 2, 2024 2:15:25 AM
Bill: I thought you went to UNC for undergrad, Stanford for law school. I went to Princeton for undergrad. I am not sure undergrad and law school experiences are really comparable. But I do not think you are sleazy for suggesting as much.
Master Tarls: you raise a lot of interesting points, and you ought to share them with the authors (they call this draft a "working draft" and I certainly noticed rough spots from a quick read). And/or you could write up a formal response that could be posted here and/or on SSRN. You have lots of relevant background and perspectives, and the academic dialogue about an academic idea is greatly enhanced by hearing a variety of views from a variety of thoughtful people.
It could be extremely valuable for you and/or Bill (and others) to write a formal response to this draft from another perspective. That writing could take any number of forms and lead to important advancement/refinements in discussion: eg, some might argue allowing a person to have sex on his terms at home rather than fear rape in a prison is a net positive --- this issue is being implicitly discussed now for the women who were raped by guards in FCI-Dublin; if a big challenge is invasion of privacy on families, perhaps there can be privacy waivers required to be eligible for the electronic prison (or limits on the alternative to single folks or to folks placed in halfway house facilities). And so on. As I see it, this is an important and productive academic dialogue about how an electronic prison might (or might not) be a sound alternative, not sleaze.
Notably, the claimed success of the CARES home confinement cohort is all but certain to produce ever more advocacy for the "home" form of prison alternatives. A couple examples:
https://www.booker.senate.gov/news/press/booker-releases-policy-brief-highlighting-success-of-cares-act-home-confinement-program
https://www.niskanencenter.org/safer-smarter-and-cheaper-the-promise-of-targeted-home-confinement-with-electronic-monitoring/
In addition, the US Sentencing Commission has repeatedly discussed alternatives to imprisonment as a policy priority. So this is a very "live" issues that, as I see it, still tends to be woefully underdiscussed, con and pro, in the academic literature. (And there are critical nuances that merit discussion --- eg, is trading off six months in prison for two years at home the same for the complete sentence as it would be for, say, someone given a three-year term who just gets to knock off the last six month? That's really the CARES cohort, which feel distinct to me from someone who served no time in traditional prison at all.)
As noted above, there is a least one book (as well as articles) asserting home confinement is too much like prison. Here is another example: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00328855211010410?journalCode=tpjd
I think the academic discussion would be greatly advanced by thoughtfully accountings of why home confinement is nothing like prison.
I know just from personal experiences that Professor Robinson can be receptive to constructive criticism --- eg, he welcomed a series of criticisms (to which I contributed) of a lead lecture/article he produced at Arizona State some years ago; he also helped curated a book with called "Criminal Law Conversations" for Oxford University Press which focused on a number of his ideas and criticisms thereof (including one I wrote).
I have often viewed Professor Robinson as wrong on various fronts --- including aspects of his work on the original US Sentencing Commission when I was still in high school --- but "sleazy" has never been a term I ever thought to associate with any of his scholarly efforts or advocacy. And the use of this term here is certainly less constructive than a continued (and perhaps more formal) substantive discussion of why you think his article is misguided.
Posted by: Doug B | May 2, 2024 9:03:52 AM
Also, Master Tarls, I think you misread or misunderstood the study cited discussing perceptions of two years under house arrest versus six months in prison. The article (cited in fn 37, though misreferenced elsewhere), which is now 30 year old, asked (only 44) New Jersey members of the public (not criminals) about their perceptions of these sanctions and a number of others. Here is a link where you can download the study: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=680745
Because that research is now quite dated and involved a very small (and biased?) sample of the public, I share your sense that it does not serve as sound evidence today on modern perceptions of an "electronic prison." But the fact that these 2024 authors are citing a 30-year-old (weak?) study --- and that you misunderstood that cite --- is for me further proof that there needs to be a lot more research in this space. Epsecially with recent COVID experiences AND modern technological advances, I would expect public perceptions of home confinement to be quite "modern" and variable -- eg, I suspect the public would have quite different views of home confinement with smart phone/internet access and without smart phone/internet (and streaming) access. (Or what if a person subject to home confinement could only "earn" internet access for an hour in the evenings after doing a certain number of hours of community service or vocational training?)
As always, lots of the devils are in lots of the details. (Then again, I guess the devil is a sleazy character.)
Posted by: Doug B | May 2, 2024 9:19:24 AM
Doug --
Yes, it was UNC undergrad. I was there before the era of dope. Stanford was later and far more dope-friendly, but, sure, they were "comparable" because anything is "comparable" to anything else, meaning that simply to note "comparability" is to say nothing whatever. What's sleazy is to imply that saying nothing whatever actually tells you something substantive. It doesn't.
P.S. Why did you go to all those cold places when (I'm sure) you could have gone to places where (as I did in my youth) you can play volleyball outside in January?
Posted by: Bill Otis | May 2, 2024 10:31:53 AM
Again, Bill, I think the authors believe they are saying something (not nothing) with their arguments and I would not label them (or you) "sleazy" or "shameless charlatans" simply because I do not find certain arguments convincing. But, as you know well, there is a sorry tradition in this forum (and many internet fora) for attacking people rather than ideas. So if that's how you want to engage, have at it. (And I am still wondering if you actually have read the paper.)
P.S. I always sense I enjoy good weather more when it is not a local given. That said, in my old age and while still located in Ohio, I keep waiting for more of that global warming I keep hearing all about.
Posted by: Doug B | May 2, 2024 10:47:27 AM
Doug,
That would be an interesting project. I’ve never done such a response and I don’t have the legal chops to pull it off. Recording families in their homes surely feels wrong and unconstitutional, but I definitely do not have any case law to share and support my assertions.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | May 2, 2024 5:45:52 PM
Master Tarls: There is so much important real-world research not being done in these spaces, though legal scholars generally lack the social science chops to do it well. And most legal academics rather talk theory than reality.
Posted by: Doug B | May 3, 2024 8:53:45 AM
Doug loves the sophistry of the soft-on-crime crowd.
Posted by: federalist | May 3, 2024 10:59:08 AM
Can you explain what you mean by "sophistry" here, federalist? Is it like making arguments claiming there are certain constitutional rights and then admitting that you cannot, and then claiming that you need not, seek to link those claimed rights to any actual provision of the Constitution?
Posted by: Doug B | May 3, 2024 12:05:04 PM