These figures are from 2002. In 2003, the U.S. prison population outgrew Russia’s. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/2925973.stm Comprehensive and up-to-date statistics on the American “crime control industry” are available at http://www.prisonsucks.com/; according to this site, the U.S. prison population as of 2/24/05 is 2,139,445. A page of the Sentencing Project’s website – http://www.sentencingproject.org/issues_01.cfm – shows the prison population increase in graphic form.
What accounts for this disparity? Why are so many living behind bars in the Land of the Free? And why has the number climbed so quickly in the past 15 years? Possible explanations:
(1) Americans are more prone than people in other nations to commit serious crimes. Which raises the question, why?
(2) American police forces are more efficient and effective than those in other countries and leave fewer crimes unsolved, fewer perpetrators at large. This seems highly unlikely, but if anyone has any cites for that, please provide them. By the same token, American police forces would appear to be relatively inept at crime prevention; all they can do is clean up the mess afterwards.
(3) The American criminal justice system is harsher than those in other countries, handing out prison sentences in cases that, in other countries, would merit some other punishment. That raises the question, what sanctions do other countries use instead of incarceration? And what is the effect on those countries’ crime rates and recidivism rates?
The different rates of incarceration for men vs. women, and for different racial or ethnic groups, also merit discussion, but maybe in a different thread. Let’s try to stay focused on what makes America different from other countries – what makes us the world’s leader in incarceration, and what, if anything, we can or should do to change that.
Many countries use shorter sentences than the US. Drug-related offences in particular attract sentences in America that massively outstrip those of many other countries.
Small nitpick: China is widely belived to under-report their prison population figures, and probably has a higher incarceration rate then the U.S.
Of course, China’s incarceration rate is fairly easy to explain (totalitarian gov’t), while the U.S is less obvious, so your question is still a good one.
I don’t have any great answers, but your article claims that 57% (!!) of the U.S. prison population is there because of drug offenses, so I would think it’s a good guess that easier drug laws in other parts of the western world account for some of the disparity.
Foreigners are habitual criminals. They get more practice, and so are better at it, and don’t get caught at the same rate as Americans, who, being amateurs, aren’t as good at it and thus get caught more often.
This page supports the idea that the U.S. does not necessarily have more crimes per capita reported then other western countries, and so the reason is probably harsher sentences.
The other possibility is that the crimes commited by Americans are worse in nature then those commited in other countries. this seems to support the idea that we have more muders reported then other 1st world countries, though many poorer countries do have higher murder rates.
Doh!!, sorry. Does anyone have the total % of the U.S. population incarcerated for drug offenses.
Drug Crimes and Mandatory Minimums. This message is bought to you by your friendly US Congress.
More expansively (is that a word?) during the 80’s crack cocaine bought an explosion of crime due to it’s cheap high. The crimes were mostly turf wars, basically dealers fighting for a particular corner or blocks. Congress decided to get tough and instituted draconian Mandatrory Minimums, and asset forfeiture laws. The latter is important in that a large percentage seized assets go back into the police force investigating the crimes, thereby creating a profit motive for police forces.
Cites on request.
P.S. The US Supremes in a rare move against insanity has recently ruled that Congress Mandatory Minimums ar advisory rather than absolute, so we should see a sharp drop in the prison population over the next decade, as prisoners appeal their sentences and judges are back in control of judicial discretion.
P.S.S. To see a particulary onerous example of this insanity and how race and asset forfeiture plays into this check out what happened in Tulia, Texas.
Happy reading, if you manage to not thow up.
Does anyone know of any surveys that have been conducted comparing how the public perceives criminals in America compared to how other countries perceive them? It seems to me that popular culture is fascinated with sensationalized accounts of crime and criminals (consider: Law & Order; Law & Order: SVU, Law & Order: Crime & Punishment; Law & Order: Trial By Jury; Law & Order: Criminal Intent; CSI; CSI: Miami; CSI: New York; just about every locals news channel; several dozen other shows…)–are other countries as fascinated with it as we are? Does our fascination with sensational crimes contribute to a harsher view of criminals?
I’ve always wondered if a contributing factor is that you guys elect your prosecutor and judges, in some states. (I know that’s not the case federally.)
Whenever election season is on, I’m always bemused by adverts for lawyers running for DA and judgeships, proclaiming that they’ll be hard on crime. Does anyone ever run for either post on a campaign platform of being fair and balanced on crime? If not, doesn’t the electoral system select for prosecutors and judges who favour imprisonment?
One particular case that I saw on election night last November, in one of the cutaways to local news. The newsie was interviewing the successful candidate for DA in one district, and asked him something about alternatives to jail sentences and whether he would consider them. The new DA responded: “The only people who favour that are crooks on the street and my opponent in this race.”
Why so many Americans in prison? Because the politicians have learned that the US public will vote for the candidate who is “tougher on crime”, even when getting tougher on crime hurts the average citizen’s pocketbook.
It’s expensive as hell to warehouse all those people.
QtM, still hanging out in a Maximum Security prison. Except on my off days.
Which leads to the question: Why do the citizens vote for “tougher on crime”? Is it a cultural difference between Americans and other first-world countries? Is it because some parts of our legal system are very politicized?
Surely because they believe this will reduce crime. Btw, you don’t need to give a cite for the proposition that getting tough on crime reduces crime; its “common sense”. :rolleyes:
I think there’s more to it then that–if you asked some people from a Random Western European Country if harsher sentences would reduce crime, do you think most would say yes or no?
I’m WAG’ing like crazy here, but I think a majority would say “yes”–I’d be surprised if your averge first-worlder had a significantly better understanding of the relationship between sentencing and crime rates then the average American. In any case, it’d be an interesting poll.
Sense is never common. And the idea that “getting tough on crime reduces crime” is not actually very clearly demonstrated. In Wisconsin, the crime rate was already falling before we got “tough on crime” with Truth In Sentencing. This resulted in significantly longer sentences than previously had been handed out. Now the crime rate has fallen a bit more, but the drop has leveled off. We don’t know if the rate would have continued to decline under the former laws. But we’re locking up twice as many people as we were 10 years ago! At more than twice the cost!
Meanwhile in neighboring Minnesota, a state with a similar number of people, of similar ethnic background and similar socio-economic variation, had their crime rate fall to the same levels as Wisconsin’s did without getting into Truth in Sentencing, locks up fewer than half the people Wisconsin does, and spends less than half of what Wisconsin does to lock people up.
Why the difference? One notable fact: In Minnesota, the community from which the felon is convicted must bear the cost of their punishment, rather than the cost coming out of general state coffers. So they tend to be a bit less hurried to throw someone in jail when it costs over $20,000/year to keep them there. Drug rehab/community supervision is a lot cheaper for the community, and seems to lead to outcomes as good or better than locking them away for 10 years.
Enlightened self-interest at work in Minnesota? Maybe.
The more you educate a prisoner, the less likely they are to end up back in prison. I found all sorts of studies where the recidivism rate was slashed over 50% by simply allowing the prisoners to complete their college degrees.
And it’s way cheaper, in the long run, to school them while incarcerated than it is to lock them back up in a couple of years after they commit another crime.
Americans are concerned with not being victimized by bad guys, which is valid. What they don’t see is they’re being victimized every year around tax time. We spend 60 billion every year locking people up. A fraction of that could be used to educate them and keep most of them from ever going back to prison. :smack:
