I’ve just read on Andrew Sullivan about a new study that shows that the US has by far the highest incarceration rates in the world:
What are we to make of this? Especially given the fact that, in spite of our incarceration rates, the US still has a higher violent crime rate than most of our peers. What are we doing that’s so different from other countries – and what should we be doing?
Does it? Can you provide references for which ‘peers’ you are referring to here? A quick scan of various sources via Google suggests that the US has very average rates of violent crime compared to western Europe and Japan generally, and much lower than countries such as England, The Netherlands or Australia.
As a nitpick, China is widely belived to underreport it’s incarceration figures, and a lot of people think it may have a higher rate then the US. From a rather dated Straight dope column
The same column points out that N. Korea almost certainly has a higher incarceration rate, which I have no trouble beliving.
Still, the US almost certainly has a much higher incarceration rate then any country that isn’t a totalitarian state, which reamins rather embarassing.
Prisoners per capita Useful site, nationmaster.
Speaking as someone who works in a maximum security prison, my opinion is that we’re locking up waaaay too many people, especially for non-violent drug offenses where it’s been shown that treatment combined with limited confinement (home monitoring or halfway-house settings) is both cheaper and more effective in combatting recidivisim than putting them in prison settings for years.
“Punishing those bad people” has become quite a popular way for politicians to get both contributions and re-elected to office. Our local pols harp on and on about making their constituents “safe” and are willing to spend more tax $ to do it.
I’d better stop now before I really start ranting.
Actually violent crime and nearly all crime have been dropping for years.Privatization of prisons is a big part of the problem.Once you are in ,profit is being made, so the incentive to jail exists. When a kid gets in the tank ,they will claim bad behavior to keep him for the maximum.It 's capitalism again.
Earlier GD thread on same topic: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=304071
The jails there are seen as a cure. When people commit crimes there, it’s seen as a societal flaw. In the beginning of a term, it’s pretty restrictive, but then, as people come forth and say “Hey, Juan wasn’t such a bad guy. He’s been under a lot of pressure and shit’s just really bad in Juanville right now”, he gets more privileges. Cuba’s jail system is purely for rehabilitative purposes and points to places in which people have societal flaws or, in which society has personal flaws (your choice) and works to fix them. Here, in America, they’re a holding pen for minorities and classrooms for violence. Cuba’s penal system points to the government and society as places where it’s failed the people. America’s system points to the perpetrator as the sole failure.
I don’t say that society causes all flaws. Like most things, I believe the truth to be in the middle somewhere. We can learn from other systems and actually rehabilitate in prison and work some people into useful citizens again. Then again, if we did that, we’d cut down on repeat offenders and the near slave wage labor that risons have bunches of because of it.
The jails there are seen as a cure. When people commit crimes there, it’s seen as a societal flaw. In the beginning of a term, it’s pretty restrictive, but then, as people come forth and say “Hey, Juan wasn’t such a bad guy. He’s been under a lot of pressure and shit’s just really bad in Juanville right now”, he gets more privileges. Cuba’s jail system is purely for rehabilitative purposes and points to places in which people have societal flaws or, in which society has personal flaws (your choice) and works to fix them. Here, in America, they’re a holding pen for minorities and classrooms for violence. Cuba’s penal system points to the government and society as places where it’s failed the people. America’s system points to the perpetrator as the sole failure.
I don’t say that society causes all flaws. Like most things, I believe the truth to be in the middle somewhere. We can learn from other systems and actually rehabilitate in prison and work some people into useful citizens again. Then again, if we did that, we’d cut down on repeat offenders and the near slave wage labor that risons have bunches of because of it.
Source: Cuba, A Revolution in Motion, by Isaac Saney.
I recommend it. It’s rather eye opening in some places.
So, how does that work out, in terms of rehabilitation and recidivism? Are Cuban ex-cons more or less likely than Americans to re-offend?
Then I guess all those white guys in prison will be glad to hear that they’re free to go.
Measuring crime is even more of a headache than measuring prisoners. Firstly, if something isn’t reported as a crime (even if it’s as serious as a shooting, stabbing, burglary, blackmailing, rape…) how does it get counted? Secondly, if someone walks down a street and smashed every window, is it one crime (i.e. one perpetrator on one occassion), or dozens of crimes (i.e. dozens of victims)?
Freakanomics suggests due to availability of abortion the rate of ALL crime has been on a steady decline. We put them in jail to make money. Computer crime, white collar crime ,identity theft and adminustration crimes are on the upswing.
Mostly the result of policies starting with Reagan’s War on Drugs.
That’s not my impression. I thought that the US had higher rates of violent crime, average rates of nonviolent crime, and high murder rates.
Here’s an excerpt from an Excel file I saved in 2002, detailing nationwide crime surveys. Note that a survey of the general population will typically not pick up uncommon crimes such as murder in a statistically reliable manner:
all nonviolent violent
crimes property crimes
US=100 crimes
canada
1988 97.2 88.6 76.3
1991 108.8 98.2 115.3
1995 104.1 100.3 83.2
england &
1988 67.1 60.0 31.4
1991 115.7 109.6 82.4
1995 127.7 124.1 97.9
finland
1988 55.0 41.9 34.7
1991 81.2 57.5 107.1
1995 78.1 59.8 74.7
netherlan
1988 92.7 83.8 56.8
1991 119.9 113.0 84.7
1995 130.2 132.6 86.3
usa
1988 100.0 100.0 100.0
1991 100.0 100.0 100.0
1995 100.0 100.0 100.0
Admittedly, this data is a little stale. Still, the last collumn “violent crimes” shows lots of numbers less than 100 (the US value) with a few exceptions.
You need to be a bit carfeul when looking at statitsics such as these. “lots of numbers less than 100” doesn’t allow you to conclude that lots of countries actually have crime rates less than the US. You need to take into account the enormous annual and regional variation inherent within those figures. Without even bothering to do the tests I can tell you that with a sample that small when the difference between treatmenst is less than the variation within treatments it isn’t going to be significant.
canada= 83.2, england & = 97.9, finland = 74.7, netherlan = 86.3.
The largest discrepancy between nations is only 25%, while the average annual variation within nations is C35%.
Based on the figures you provided there is no significant difference between the rates of violent crime for the US and the rates for any other industrialised nation.
Just to expand on Blakes point, there is an annual ritual in the UK when the crime figures are released. If they are better than they were the previous year, or under the previous government, there is much self-congratulatory political backslapping and ‘tough on crime’ noises.
If they are worse than they were the previous year, or under the previous government, then it’s invariably due to ‘better reporting of crimes by the public’, ‘changes in how the statistics are collected’, ‘new definitions’, ‘higher standards and expectations’ or whatever to explain that the new figures bear no relation whatsoever to the old ones and are not comparable in any way. If, say, robberies are up and rapes are down, you can see both circus acts taking place simultaneously.
I am going to flex my cyniciscm muscle and assume that the situation is similar in other countries, and that therefore national crime figures have some use for tracking crime patterns within a given country (with many caveats), but should be treated with a good deal of suspicion for international crime comparisons. The data just isn’t robust enough.
To get a truly accurate picture you’d need to give an army of researchers a set of common definitions and then let them trawl through the original crime reports. For instance under English law cutting off your ex’s ponytail counts as Actual Bodily Harm, equivalent in law to breaking somebody’s nose in a fight. The chances of crimes like this being categorised exactly the same in different countries is pretty low, so everything would have to be re-categorised to make te data comparable. It is unlikely anyone is going to spend that kind of money just to deprive politicians of wriggle-room.
I saw the interview on tv with the woman whose hair was removed, and typical of the crappy UK newspapers, there is a lot more detail to the story than has been publicised.
She was in a violent relationship, he had physically abused her, he also practiced mental cruelty(according to the psychiatrist who was sitting right next to her) and the removal of her hair was not a game, it was a violent expression of power, and whilst not akin to rape, it certainly has its source, the same type of personality that wishes to dominate in the unacceptable way that rapists are often diagnosed as undertaking.
Of course - the press in the UK usually can’t be arsed to give a proper account. But that’s irrelevant to the main issue, namely how do you categorise a crime like that? Is it violent or nonviolent? How violent? Is it more or less serious a crime than punching a stranger in the face, or slapping a teacher, or pushing your kid down the stairs? How would it have been recorded two years ago and how would it be recorded in another country?
If there are two ponytail incidents plus a burglary in England versus one hot-coffee-thrown-in-face incident plus one stamping-on-policemans-toes incident plus a pickpocketing in the US, which country is more violent and which has more crime? Since there is no common way of measuring crime, any debate like this tends to get lost in an endless round of apples versus oranges.
Let’s look at murder rates. They have the advantage of being generally most violent of violent crimes and probably of being better reported. Here is the breakdown (per million people):
U.S.: 42.8
France: 17.3
Canada: 14.9
UK: 14.1
Italy: 12.8
Germany: 11.6
Japan: 5.0
Now, there are countries with much higher rates (Eastern European ones, Russia, South Africa, Colombia [#1 at a whopping 618!] , and Mexico) but not among the Western industrialized nations.
I do agree that if you look at all violent crime, it would probably be more even. E.g., my general impression of the U.K. is that it is a pretty violent society in terms of assaults. It may be that the use of guns as the weapon of choice in the U.S. means that a lot of situations that would have led to assaults in other countries lead to murders here.