US prison population soars in 2003-04

[scule]

In the Washington Post today was an article that goes by the title of this thread. It speaks of the increase in the US prison population over the past couple of years, despite decreasing crime rates:

While the U.S. crime rate has fallen over the past decade, the number of people in prison and jail is outpacing the number of inmates released, the government reports.

The population of the nation’s prisons and jails has grown by about 900 inmates each week between mid-2003 and mid-2004, according to figures released Sunday by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. By last June 30 the system held 2.1 million people, or one in every 138 U.S. residents.

Link to the article here

This is apparently the highest rate in the world:

According to the Justice Policy Institute, which advocates a more lenient system of punishment, the United States has a higher rate of incarceration than any other country, followed by Britain, China, France, Japan and Nigeria.

There is also significant minority representation in prisons:

In 2004, 61 percent of prison and jail inmates were of racial or ethnic minorities, the government said. An estimated 12.6 percent of all black men in their late 20s were in jails or prisons, as were 3.6 percent of Hispanic men and 1.7 percent of white men in that age group, the report said.

Malcolm Young, who’s the executive director of the Sentencing Project, was interviewed for the article:

He said many of those incarcerated are not serious or violent offenders, but are low-level drug offenders. Young said the prison population could be lowered by introducing drug treatment programs that offer effective ways of changing behavior and by providing appropriate assistance for the mentally ill.

His group works on alternatives to sentencing.

The article states that much of the increase can be attributed to tougher sentencing laws, like those Three Strikes rules. So here’s the debate:

If crime rates are dropping, yet prison populations are rising, can it be said that the crime rate is dropping in response to the threat of prison time? Somehow I doubt this, as it would seem to me that once crime rates begin dropping, incarceration rates will eventually level off and then decline as well.

Further, are rules like Three Strikes, mandatory drug sentences, and “truth in sentencing” as mentioned in the article useful tools for protecting people? Or are they stop-gap responses that generate political points but don’t actually solve anything?

And further, what of the huge minority representation? Is it fair to say that this is just a natural result of the prevalence of criminal activity in the US among various racial groups? Or is it possible that minorities face racism in the legal system and are paying the price?

I bet it lies somewhere in the middle for all the questions above, but as for minorities, something’s fishy there. If that many are going to prison, so completely disproportionate from the demographics of the nation, then either their just bad people in general (which I think we all know is not the case), or they face significant social and economic problems which lead to lives of crime. So what say you all?

[Metacom]

@scule

I bet it lies somewhere in the middle for all the questions above, but as for minorities, something’s fishy there. If that many are going to prison, so completely disproportionate from the demographics of the nation, then either their just bad people in general (which I think we all know is not the case), or they face significant social and economic problems which lead to lives of crime. So what say you all?

If they face significant social and economic problems that lead to lives of crime, then isn’t the problem not that minorities are overrepresented but that there exist classes of people (of all colors) that have sufficient social and economic problems to make crime attractive?

[Evil_Captor]

My suspicion is that conservatives are now significantly using harsh drug laws to systematically imprison and disenfranchise low-income folks who would likely vote Democratic. It’s a culture war thing. No amount of rational debate will work, because the real reasons for the rising incarceration rates won’t be admitted to by their conservative supporters.

[scule]

@Metacom

If they face significant social and economic problems that lead to lives of crime, then isn’t the problem not that minorities are overrepresented but that there exist classes of people (of all colors) that have sufficient social and economic problems to make crime attractive?

Well that’s part of the question I’m asking. Sorry if I didn’t phrase it well.

[scule]

@Evil Captor

My suspicion is that conservatives are now significantly using harsh drug laws to systematically imprison and disenfranchise low-income folks who would likely vote Democratic. It’s a culture war thing. No amount of rational debate will work, because the real reasons for the rising incarceration rates won’t be admitted to by their conservative supporters.

I suppose this is possible, but isn’t that a bit on the tin-foil hat side?

[modernhamlet]

Don’t forget that the judical-penal industry is a multi-billion dollar industry with an immensely powerful lobby in Washington. As long as there continues to be money to be made keeping people locked away in prison, then chances are people will continue to be locked away in prison, regardless of whether or not the policies that put those people behind bars are based on concepts of fairness, justice, or even intelligent fiscal and social policy.

Follow the money. It will almost always lead you to the answer.

[PatriotX]

@modernhamlet

Don’t forget that the judical-penal industry is a multi-billion dollar industry with an immensely powerful lobby in Washington. As long as there continues to be money to be made keeping people locked away in prison, then chances are people will continue to be locked away in prison, regardless of whether or not the policies that put those people behind bars are based on concepts of fairness, justice, or even intelligent fiscal and social policy.

Follow the money. It will almost always lead you to the answer.

Yet another example of “Rational Ignorance” at work. Artifical persons should not be alowed to lobby our legislatures (let alone write bills). Nor should they be alowed to contribute to election campaigns. It’s the Achilles heel of democracies, The Greatest Threat to Our Republic (no matter what elucidator says).

[David_Simmons]

@PatriotX

Yet another example of “Rational Ignorance” at work. Artifical persons should not be alowed to lobby our legislatures (let alone write bills). Nor should they be alowed to contribute to election campaigns. It’s the Achilles heel of democracies, The Greatest Threat to Our Republic (no matter what elucidator says).

Agreed. I think that the famous Mr. Justice Holmes’ decision that a corporation is an artificial person was one of the worst on record.

And if you think the prison population is high now just wait 'til the “artificial persons” complete their bankruptcy reform by bring back debtors prisons.

[even_sven]

I think it’s a good policy for a country to never benefit off of it’s prisoners. A country should have no incentive to imprison people.

However, a huge number- perhaps even the majority- of prisons are private, and there is a huge incentive to imprison people.

[aahala]

“The population of the nation’s prisons and jails has grown by about 900 inmates each week between mid-2003 and mid-2004, according to figures released Sunday by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.”

The OP did accurately quote the referenced news article as above. The actual news article however did NOT report the BoJ release accurately. Nothing in the
BoJ press release said anything about weekly figures – it reported the head count
on June 30, 2004 as 2,131,180 – an increased of 48,452 from June 30, 2003.

From the account we don’t know what the average population was, only the count on the specific days exactly one year apart.

Actually, the count on June 30, 2003 also seems to be in question. In the press release for that figure, it stated it was 2,078,570 – but a year later the June 30,2003 was indirectly reported as 2,082,728(2,130,180 less increase of 48,452).

Where did we lose or gain 4,158 for June 30, 2003?

[Metacom]

@even sven

However, a huge number- perhaps even the majority- of prisons are private, and there is a huge incentive to imprison people.

Cite?

[manhattan]

@The AP article carried in the Washington Post

While the U.S. crime rate has fallen over the past decade, the number of people in prison and jail is outpacing the number of inmates released, the government reports.

Hee. This is one of my favorite instances of the media not “getting it.” It is largely because the number of people in prisons and jails is increasing that the crime rate is falling. Basically, a bad guy in prison is less likely to commit a crime than one who is not.

@even sven

However, a huge number- perhaps even the majority- of prisons are private, and there is a huge incentive to imprison people.

According to the report, available here, 6.6% of inmates are held in privately-run facilities. Also, note that whilst the private prisons are paid a mix of a facilities fee and a fee per inmate, the payor is the government and on a snap-shot basis of prison costs alone has a powerful financial incentive to reduce the number of inmates held. Thankfully, this is not the only incentive working on the governments and the demand of citizens for safer streets overwhelms that short-term incentive.

[elucidator]

@PatriotX

Yet another example of “Rational Ignorance” at work. Artifical persons should not be alowed to lobby our legislatures (let alone write bills). Nor should they be alowed to contribute to election campaigns. It’s the Achilles heel of democracies, The Greatest Threat to Our Republic (no matter what elucidator says).

Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!

While it can hardly be denied that such “rational ignorance” as you (rightly!) disdain has a corruptive effect on our nation, it remains a function of rationality, it is a choice made from reason, however faulty such reasoning may be. Cognitive Dissonance is a fundamental disruption, the victim of CD can, for instance, see GeeDubya as a champion of liberty and a staunch defender of the nation despite a record that would embarass Dudley Do-Right, he is incapable of registering the stark dissonance that would dissuade a reasonable person, demanding rational debate from a victim of CD is akin to challenging Steven Hawkings to a game of hop-scotch.

In the interest of limiting hi-jacks to the barest minimum, I will not further belabor the obvious. “Go, and sin no more” is sufficient. Needless to say, when your CD volunteer comes calling, I naturally expect a generous donation. (Be advised that registered Republicans, such as yourself, are allowed special dispensation for anonymous donation, for reasons obvious to the meanest intelligence.)

[erislover]

Well, there’s the fairly obvious possibility that crime rates have dropped because criminals are not out and about to commit crimes. I believe that would require higher-than-reported recidivism rates to be true, along with some ideas about intrinsic evil that I don’t hold, but I would like to get it out of the way.

As far as the three-strikes rule goes, I strongly dislike it. The ability to take a one-size-fits-all law and determine the appropriateness of the fit is a job for juries and judges. Justice may be blind but she isn’t deaf or retarded. This goes double for mandatory sentencing. Crap like this will only encourage juries to nullify or prosecuters to cut deals or apply lesser charges in order to bypass that kind of nonsensical behavior, which will only make a vocal minority have less faith in the justice system to push more legislation removing power from the people. Short-sighted idiots, every last one of them.

Or is it possible that minorities face racism in the legal system and are paying the price?

Probably unconscious racism, selection bias, that kind of thing. I’ve never been pulled over for a burnt-out tail light, even when I knew I had one, but watch the show Cops when they patrol an area “known for drugs”… which just happens to be a poor area. As if heroin use among middle-class suburbanites hasn’t seen a marked rise. Bah.

[Odesio]

@scule

If crime rates are dropping, yet prison populations are rising, can it be said that the crime rate is dropping in response to the threat of prison time? Somehow I doubt this, as it would seem to me that once crime rates begin dropping, incarceration rates will eventually level off and then decline as well.

Or it could mean that we’re incarcerating those who would be otherwise offending if they were free. I’m not entirely convinced but it’s certainly a possibility.

Further, are rules like Three Strikes, mandatory drug sentences, and “truth in sentencing” as mentioned in the article useful tools for protecting people? Or are they stop-gap responses that generate political points but don’t actually solve anything?

I don’t believe mandatory drug sentences help the population at whole. In fact I think the whole war on drugs increases the risk of assaults, murder, thefts, and corruption in the United States. I’m unfamiliar with truth in sentencing and I have mixed feelings about three strike laws. On one hand I find it hard to sympathize with someone who gets put away after their third strike. On the other hand I’m not so sure it’s wise to prevent judges and juries from being able to use their own discretion.

And further, what of the huge minority representation? Is it fair to say that this is just a natural result of the prevalence of criminal activity in the US among various racial groups? Or is it possible that minorities face racism in the legal system and are paying the price?

I think black drug users are more likely to be picked up then white drug users. Look how they went after crack in 1985 vs. how they’d been going after regular cocaine since the 70’s. It’s easier to catch people selling crack on the streets rather then hitting trendy parties and busting people for selling coke behind doors.

Marc

[manhattan]

@MGibson

I think black drug users are more likely to be picked up then white drug users. Look how they went after crack in 1985 vs. how they’d been going after regular cocaine since the 70’s. It’s easier to catch people selling crack on the streets rather then hitting trendy parties and busting people for selling coke behind doors.

In particular, look at the ages of the people in prison solely for a drug offense. They tend to be in their late teens or early twenties. During those years, urban whites are far more likely to be attending college, often as a campus resident. Campus police in many instances go to almost comical ends to avoid bringing the town’s cops into “their” affairs. I think if a graduate student were to study the statistics, s/he could earn a PhD with a paper that basically says that a white youth’s stupid drug experiment ends with at worst an expulsion whereas a black youth’s same experiment ends with prison.

[Metacom]

@manhattan

Hee. This is one of my favorite instances of the media not “getting it.” It is largely because the number of people in prisons and jails is increasing that the crime rate is falling. Basically, a bad guy in prison is less likely to commit a crime than one who is not.

Actually, the decrease in crime is due to legalizing abortion.

Now, I’m not sure I believe that, but I’ve got a cite for it.

More seriously:

@manhattan

Thankfully, this is not the only incentive working on the governments and the demand of citizens for safer streets overwhelms that short-term incentive.

I certainly don’t believe that the increasing rate of imprisonment is a Republican plot to disenfranchise liberals, but I do think there are more reasons for our abnormally high prison population then simply a demand for safer streets.

The “prison industry” is very real: take a look at California, where the “California Correctional Peace Officers Association” (the prison guard’s union) is a very influential lobbying group that has used its money and influence to fight initiatives that would have mandated drug treatment instead of jail. I don’t think the most influential groups lobbying for more prisons and prisoners are private prisons but rather the organizations that benefit from them: the guards that work them, the communities that support them (prisons are often placed in less populated areas where the prison is the industry), the companies that supply them, etc.

Now, that’s really not that different then just about any other market segment that gets fed primarily by the government (the military springs to mind; you can even draw parallels between towns dependent on military bases and towns dependent on prisons), but what makes the prison industry so scary is that it’s ultimately based on the exploitation of human lives.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@Evil Captor

My suspicion is that conservatives are now significantly using harsh drug laws to systematically imprison and disenfranchise low-income folks who would likely vote Democratic. It’s a culture war thing. No amount of rational debate will work, because the real reasons for the rising incarceration rates won’t be admitted to by their conservative supporters.

'Cause, you know how drug laws were liberalized and enforcement relaxed during the last eight year period when we had a Democrat in office. :rolleyes:

modernhamlet hit it on the head, but to expand his statement, many police departments and law enforcement organizations receive significant funding from property siezed via asset forfeititure (which doesn’t even require conviction or proof, just suspicion). Also many people, notably Bill Bennett, et al have built careers around the exaggerated and often groundless claims of harm from drugs like marijuana; to reverse or even weaken federal laws would be giving lie to his whole justification for his job.

A better question might be why we aren’t putting more effort into rehabilitation or permenant incarceration of violent and predatory offenders; you know, murderers, rapists, paedophiles, and the like? It’s no hyperbole to say that you can spend far more time behind bars for carrying a brick of weed than you can for molesting a bunch of little kids.

Stranger

[scule]

[QUOTE=manhattan]
Hee. This is one of my favorite instances of the media not “getting it.” It is largely because the number of people in prisons and jails is increasing that the crime rate is falling. Basically, a bad guy in prison is less likely to commit a crime than one who is not.QUOTE]

You seem to be taking this as a given. Any evidence to support this notion? I just don’t see it. Why aren’t crime rates higher in countries with lower prison populations? Are there less “bad people” in those countries? If that’s true, what does that say about the US? Fortunately, I don’t believe that is the case, so I’m sure there’s something deeper to it.

From what I have read and seen (and admittedly I’m far from an expert), the War on Drugs ™ in the US is probably the worst offender (pun not intended) in this situation. Drugs may be a negative thing, but incarceration and punitive moralising have not solved the problem in any way. The burden of punishment seems to have fallen most heavily on the poorest and most disenfranchised of the citizenry, creating a serious social divide. These problems don’t exist in other countries necessarily to the same degree as in the US. Murder rates are far lower in most western countries, and violent crime as well. I am unsure on robberies and burglaries, but regardless, other parts of the world have taken a different approach that hasn’t netted tons of inmates and they seem to be doing ok. So is it possible that this is closer to the reason?

[Lissa]

@Metacom

The “prison industry” is very real: take a look at California, where the “California Correctional Peace Officers Association” (the prison guard’s union) is a very influential lobbying group that has used its money and influence to fight initiatives that would have mandated drug treatment instead of jail. I don’t think the most influential groups lobbying for more prisons and prisoners are private prisons but rather the organizations that benefit from them: the guards that work them, the communities that support them (prisons are often placed in less populated areas where the prison is the industry), the companies that supply them, etc.

My husband works in an executive capacity for the “prison industry.” I can state unequivocably that he would fall to his kness and shout for joy if half of the inmates in our state were released tomorrow. (Well, you know what I mean.)

I don’t know how it is in California, but in our state, the budget is not figured per inmate. In fact, the population at the prison in which my husband works is over 250% and they’ve cut the budget, not increased it. With the population increasing, the state closed several prisons in the last few years, and there may be more to come.

There is no vested interest in collecting more inmates-- it doesn’t increase funding and it makes the prison less safe for staff and inmates alike. Nor is anyone worried about “job securiity”. There will always be prisons and you’ll always need people to staff them. I think most most prison employees would tell you they would prefer it if the institutions were less crowded.

Most of the costs running an institution are fixed and do not change according to population. They do not hire more staff because there are more inmates, for example. The main expenses do not change much: utilities, maintenance and staff. (Clothing and feeding the inmates are cheap and an increase in the population doesn’t really affect the budget.)