« Notable Washington Post "Abused by the badge" investigation includes notable data on sentencing outcomes | Main | US Sentencing Commission releases big report on "Methamphetamine Trafficking Offenses in the Federal Criminal Justice System" »
June 13, 2024
The Sentencing Project releases report titled "Incarceration and Crime: A Weak Relationship"
The Sentencing Project this morning released this new 18-page research brief titled “Incarceration & Crime: A Weak Relationship.” The report assembles a variety of data and research in keeping with the report's thesis that there is only a weak relationship between incarceration and crime. Here are a couple of passages from the body of the report:
Scholars examining state imprisonment trends during the period of extreme growth conclude that incarceration contributed only modestly to the crime drop. They find that in the 1990s mass incarceration accounted for as much as 35% or as little as 6% of the crime drop. These estimates depend on the type of crime under investigation as well as the methodology and assumptions used by analysts. Since the turn of the century, mass incarceration appears to have made almost no contribution to the crime drop. Reviewing the four-decade period when incarceration levels increased without any consistent relationship with crime rates, the National Research Council has concluded that “the increase in incarceration may have caused a decrease in crime, but the magnitude of the reduction is highly uncertain and the results of most studies suggest it was unlikely to have been large.”...
As some lawmakers pivot to widen the reach of the criminal legal system in response to public concern, recent state trends illustrate that less imprisonment often happens alongside improvements to community safety. Over a nine year period (2013-2022), 46 states reduced the footprint of their prison population while experiencing crime declines. In some states, these declines were substantial.
June 13, 2024 at 09:56 AM | Permalink
Comments
Sentences in the U.S. are, for the most part, dramatically longer than they need to be to secure society and punish criminals. In Veterans Treatment Court and Drug Court, the evidence is that a "short dip" of 6-7 days in jail as punishment for most violations that don't amount to a new crime is optimal to get the defendant's attention. Even sentences of 30 to 60 days, which have commonly been applied in the past are far too long (and expensive).
Posted by: Jim Gormley | Jun 13, 2024 12:28:17 PM
As a parent of a young person in prison for a non-violent drug offense, I can't agree more. But so what? No politician will champion shorter sentences. It's not in their favor, so they'll never do it even if it's good for society. My loved one has learned their lesson after even one year of pretrial release, half of which they spent on an ankle monitor while working and concealing their ankle monitor from the employer. Not an easy thing to do! They haven't been late to work even once, except having to take a day off when the ankle monitor went haywire and beeped continuously. Oh, and it would malfunction and send a signal that my LO was outside at night when they were fast asleep in their bed. And the officer would call and wake them up to ask why they are outside - which they were not. One time my LO was not fully awake when that happened and they didn't want to answer the call because they thought it was a prank call. And the ankle monitor was put on too tight so their ankle was black and blue and they couldn't move well.
The judge gave them 6 years while giving zero to the codefendant who snitched, citing the need to deter further crime by my Loved One and others. My Loved One would NEVER repeat their crime even after the pretrial, so the sentence for incarceration was unnecessary altogether especially such a long one. They are depressed, not able to get their antidepressant they were prescribed on the outside for the last two years because BOP decided not to prescribe it (too long to explain but nonsensical). All they want is to come back and work. But instead they are sitting thousands miles away from home because the BOP threw them in a prison across the entire country, doing nothing because there's no programming available to inmates and there's not enough spaces in the Residential Drugg Addiction Program (RDAP).
Like I said, this isn't about the good of the people and the country. It's about the politicians getting elected, and people's false sense of security induced by incarcerating people who do not represent any danger to society.
Posted by: Anon | Jun 13, 2024 4:03:41 PM
Here in Kentucky, we have 120 counties, the third largest number of any state. only Texas and Georgi have more counties than Kentucky does. A dirty little secret is that in most Kentucky counties the single largest expense for the Judge-Executive and Fiscal Court to pay for is the cost of operating the county jail! In 2010, 110 out of 120 counties had a jail. The other 10 counties sent their prisoners to jails in larger, adjacent counties and paid them a per diem (about $50 per day) for holding the inmates. Due to the ages of the jails, rapidly rising costs, including the healthcare of the inmates, and the unavailability of insurance to cover possible civil rights and healthcare lawsuits, jails have been closing at a rapid pace. Kentucky jails must self-insure the first $4 million of lawsuit exposure, but then they can purchase an excess policy thru the Ky. Assoc. of Counties (KACO) that covers exposure from $4 million to $20 million. As of June 2024, there are only 82 jails out of 120 counties. Even here in Lexington, the Government spends more than $40 million per year to operate the jail, which amounts to 14% of total county expenditures. Even though starting salaries have been raised to $50,000 per year, plus a $3,000 signing bonus, but 1/3 of staff jobs remain vacant.
Posted by: Jim Gormley | Jun 13, 2024 7:11:52 PM
I’d bet a mortgage payment you thought your LO would NEVER commit the first crime either.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jun 13, 2024 7:59:02 PM
Anon --
"As a parent of a young person in prison for a non-violent drug offense, I can't agree more. But so what? No politician will champion shorter sentences."
That last assertion is a point-blank lie.
I ordinarily wouldn't engage with a parent, but your claim is so blatantly false and you tone so aggressive that I'll make an exception.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 13, 2024 10:19:14 PM
Bill,
Exactly. An entire party has been screaming for “shorter sentences” for years. Our sitting VP was raising bail money for actual violent offenders.
Posted by: TarlsQtr | Jun 13, 2024 11:15:01 PM
Anon - I noticed you agree with a lot of my previous posts. I'm sorry your child is incarcerated. Brett Miler
Posted by: Brett Miler | Jun 14, 2024 4:41:51 PM
Criminal justice reform was somewhat popular from 2005-2020 mainly because of the expense of incarceration. Liberals argued to narrow the disparities between white and non-whites while conservatives pointed to the costs of incarcerating folks, particularly people convicted of non-violent felonies. Multiple states passed laws that saw declining prison populations, but the Covid Lockdown stopped that progress due to the spike in homicides. Politicians revived the "tough on crime" rhetoric and I think that played a role in the prison population increasing in 2022.
However, now that crime is dropping I think politicians will slowly revert to moderate reforms to lower the prison population. It is important that millions of people read these reports showing that mass incarceration doesn't lower crime. More so they need to know the costs of incarcerating folks and that their tax dollars are used for locking people up for 7-10 years for shoplifting.
Posted by: Anon | Jun 14, 2024 11:20:20 PM
Anon --
Can you link or cite to a story where someone was given 7 - 10 years just for shoplifting? I'm not talking about shoplifting as a third strike (or a tenth or a twentieth). I'm talking about just shoplifting.
Also, are you ready to acknowledge that your present tense claim that "No politician will champion shorter sentences" is false? Because it's not just false; it's preposterous, as you couldn't help knowing. Many, many politicians are advocating for shorter sentences and have been for decades.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 14, 2024 11:39:16 PM
Anon --
What, three days later and no answer? Caught in a lie so just disappear??
Well, you've got a lot of company.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 17, 2024 9:45:02 AM
