By Tom Kando
(First written and posted on 12/16/08)
This responds to a letter by Michael Rushford, President of the
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. Michael Rushford predicts that
releasing prisoners will cause crime to increase. True, some of the
released prisoners may recidivate.
However, the fundamental issue regarding crime and punishment in America - particularly in California - is that we lock up far too many people:
Our rate of incarceration is about 800 people per 100,000. This is by
far the highest rate in the world. Other post-industrial countries -
Canada, Japan, Europe - lock up between 35 and 120 people per 100,000.
One tenth our rate!The
relationship between crime and imprisonment is murky. It isn’t clear
what is cause and what is effect. The primary cause of the sharp
increase in crime during the 60s and 70s was demographic, not (just)
permissiveness. Southern states (Texas, etc.) punish the most, yet
they have the most crime. True, they may have to punish more because
they have more crime, but this is only a small part of the reason for
their exorbitant rates of incarceration.
One thing is certain: prisons make as much a contribution to
crime as to its reduction. This is especially so in places like
California, where a large majority of inmates consists of (1)
non-violent (drug) offenders and (2) parole violators whose recidivism
is often perfunctory (e.g. it consists of offenses like failing to
notify their P.O. before traveling).
Reducing our prison
population should have happened long ago, based on moral grounds and on
plain common-sense. Now, the state’s disastrous deficit ($40 billion
over the next 18 months) adds an even more compelling reason to do it.
Every single service in the state is under the gun, from health and
education to unemployment compensation and public safety. Yet, the Dept.
of Corrections’ budget remains sacrosanct.
Not only that,
but there is also the court-ordered additional $8 billion expenditure
which prison czar Clark Kelso is demanding to improve the inmates’
medical treatment facilities. Most of this money would be for “medical
space” for about 10,000 inmates. That’s $600,000 per inmate! Insanity is
the only word I have, for a proposal to spend more than twice as much
on one inmate as the cost of the average California house, while the
state is already descending into bankruptcy without this additional
extravagance!
Assuming that the authorities release the most
low-risk inmates, California will be better off with fewer prisoners,
whether this is done in order to reduce the deficit, or for humanitarian
reasons.
© Tom Kando 2014
leave comment here
I have never understood the rationale behind our prison system. I agree that we spend too much money on people locked up in prison, who are not a threat to society. We need a criminal justice system that categorizes crime based on type of offense. Then, we need to rehabilitate people who demonstrate good citizenship but have had a rough life (prisoners who were raised in impoverished communities, very few role models, few social resources, etc,.). I believe that a good portion of prisoners are good people who just got caught up with the wrong person(s) or circumstance(s) at that particular time.
ReplyDeleteDon’t get me wrong, I don’t want the Charles Mansons of our society released from prison. Some people are not able to act civil towards others no matter how much rehabilitative services you provide to them. However, we need to separate the bad apples from the apples that just need to be cleaned and perhaps scrubbed before releasing them back into society.
I believe that our social system is partially to blame for encouraging certain deviant behaviors. In our current economy, would it be morally disgraceful for a father and/ or mother to steal a piece of food to feed their child? According to our laws, we look more at the act and not the reasons behind the act. I think that all the millions of dollars spent on housing prisoners should be redirected towards prevention programs like head start and community partnerships that foster positive solutions to the dire conditions that many families contend. Personal and social responsibility goes hand in hand.
December 16, 2008
Tom
ReplyDeleteAgain, you want to make an invalid comparison with other countries. Most other nations are much more homogeneous, static societies with narrower variances in income. I believe those nation's staticism and homogeneity lead to much greater acceptance of one's ordained place in the society, whereas our more open dynamic society with greater opportunites leads to greater resentment on the part of those who fail in their pursuits, and that resentment leads to more crime.
December 17, 2008
This country made two major mistakes that now impact our crime rates and the cost of incarcerating those crimminals:
ReplyDelete1) Importing slaves - now we live with the consequnces of 10% of the population contributing 50% of the inmates.
2)Giving women the right to vote - their votes, based on emotion rather than logic, lead to the election of bleeding heart liberals, tolerance of deviation, and the suppresion of corporal punishment in the discipline of juveniles and retributive violence in the treatment of prisoners and other reprobates.
December 17, 2008
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
ReplyDeleteDecember 18, 2008
Brian makes an important point. To paraphrase him, America is uniquely diverse and free. Yes, to some extent, our high rates of crime and deviance are the price we pay for being exceptionally dynamic, mobile,free and multi-cultural. This interpretation is corroborated by the fact that - within the US - the more vibrant "sunshine" states (the South, the Southwest, the West) have always had more crime than the old,more sedate "rustbelt" states in the East. But wouldn't you rather live in Houston or in California than in Cleveland or in Pennsylvania, even so?
ReplyDeleteHowever, being the number one incarcerator in the world is nothing to be proud of either. And it wasn't always so. There is no doubt that our astronomical rates of imprisonment are also driven by factors other than just the crime rate. After all, crime in America has been declining for many years, and yet incarceration rates have not. Some of this has to do with politics and economics. The prison-industrial complex provides jobs and other benefits to hundreds of thousands of people. The social control of deviant behavior (which includes not only the criminal justice system, but also the helping professions, for example sociologists) is a huge, self-perpetuating industry.
"Anonymous" provokes, with his two "hypotheses." Based on everything I have ever read and learned, based on empirical evidence accumulated over more than a century, these hypotheses are false, although I welcome "anonymous" to further test them.
But hey guys, let me conclude with a "conservative" idea which has some merit: Where is it written that it is the business of prisons to rehabilitate? If we agree that the primary function of prisons is the protect law-abiding citizens(called "incapacitation"), then we shouldn't worry about the fact that they tend to criminalize inmates,rather than to rehabiliate them.
December 18, 2008
Here's some "empirical evidence" you must have missed:
ReplyDeleteThe incarceration rate in state or federal prison or jail for men was 1,384 per 100,000 residents, for women 134 per 100,000 residents. The rate for white men was 736 per 100,000, for black men 4,789 per 100,000, for Hispanic men 1,862 per 100,000. The rate for white women was 94 per 100,000, for black women 358 per 100,000, and for Hispanic women 152 per 100,000.
Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, Minton, Todd D., and Harrison, Paige M., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2006 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, June 2007), NCJ217675, p. 9, Table 14.
Blacks are commiting crimes and being incarcerated at almost 6-7 times the rate of whites. If we had never brought slaves over and if we had built a fence(Mexicans being 2.5 the rate of whites), our incarceration rate would be a lot lower. Now let me see your so called centuries worth of "empirical evidence" that disproves that.
December 20, 2008
Answer to anonymous’ latest comment:
ReplyDeleteBoy, anonymous is becoming huffy. Still, it’s good to have a conversation (up to a point). So here goes:
Yes, I am aware of the enormous ethnic (and gender) differences in incarceration rates.
For now, I won’t quote specific sources for three reasons: (1) I am not questioning your numbers. I know them to be true. I merely question your interpretations (2) I am thoroughly familiar with hundreds of such sources, having researched, taught and published in the field of criminology for over 30 years. (3) Most of the time when I mention numbers and facts, that is precisely what they are, well-known facts which don’t need to be referenced, just like the fact that the earth is round, or that there is global warming.
Also, you must understand that I am not pulling rank on you or anything like that. I find hiding behind rank and “sources” repugnant. But since you are now referencing some of your facts
in order to give your arguments a more scientific air, I have to indicate that I really know my stuff, trust me.
So, since we are now beginning to quote sources in order to impress, let me just mention a few sources with which I have been familiar for decades, out of the myriad which I have long used and subscribed to: The annual “Uniform Crime Reports of the FBI,” published by the US Dept. Of Justice, the annual “Crime Victimization Survey of the Bureau of Justice Statistics,” also published by the US Dept. Of Justice, the annual “Statistical Abstract of the United States,” published by the US Department of Commerce. All of these contain extensive demographic data on the racial, gender, age, urban-rural and socioeconomic distributions of crime and punishment. Also check out Samuel Walker’s “Sense and Nonsense about Crime and Drugs” (Wadsworth Publishers), my own book “Readings in Criminology” ((Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.), etc.,etc.etc.
* * * * *
Now as to the substance of your argument. You are wrong, and it’s hard to know where to begin: Just a few points, out of many:
1) When you control for socioeconomic status, The entire black-white difference in crime rates evaporates. In fact, middle-class blacks have a (slightly) lower crime rate than comparable whites.
2) Blacks were not always the most criminal group. Historically, other ethnicities have been at the top - the Irish in the middle of the 19th century, Italian-Americans later on, etc. No doubt some new group will be number one in the future - maybe Puerto Ricans, maybe Russians, maybe Laotians, who knows. A group’s crime rate has everything to do with socioeconomics, immigration, the group’s historical experience, etc, and nothing to do with race.
3) The discrimination factor: Here, I do not subscribe to the liberal party line, which attributes all of the enormous black over-representation in prison to police racism and criminal justice discrimination (e.g. profiling, etc.). I do agree that blacks have, for many decades now, committed more crimes - at least street crimes, not white collar crimes like 50 billion-dollar ponzi schemes - than other ethnic groups.
However, there is no doubt that part of the over representation of African-Americans in the criminal justice system is due to racism: For example, the discrepancy between black and white arrests is greater than the discrepancy between black and white convictions. This is because the courts are more liberal than the police, and blacks (sometimes) get a better deal in court than on the street.
Also, black death row inmates are more successful in prolonging their appeal than white inmates. Why? Because the charges against them are often more flimsy, in fact sometimes entirely false...
4) it was shown years ago already that the crimes blacks commit tend to be punished more harshly than those committed by whites - prime example were the penalties for crack vs. powder cocaine.
Of course, you’ll probably stick to your guns, and claim that my erudition has taught me nothing. That’s your privilege.
Tom Kando
December 21, 2008
OK, let’s review the bidding:
ReplyDelete1)You write that “we lock up far too many people”, far more than any other nation.
2)To which, I responded that we wouldn’t be locking up as many people if we had never imported black slaves.
3)To which, you responded “based on empirical evidence accumulated over more than a century” this hypothesis is “false” without providing any of that empirical evidence to disprove the hypothesis.
4)To which, I responded with empirical evidence: “The incarceration rate in state or federal prison or jail for men was 1,384 per 100,000 residents… The rate for white men was 736 per 100,000, for black men 4,789 per 100,000, for Hispanic men 1,862 per 100,000.”
5)To which, you responded “You are wrong” and then obfuscate with appeals to authority and irrelevant or inconsequential data that does nothing to invalidate the hypothesis.
6)So, let me restate the hypothesis and give a simple proof:
Hypothesis:
If we hadn’t imported slaves, we would have zero or few blacks as a percent of our population (only those that could arrive after the liberalization of immigration laws in 1965), and therefore the overall US incarceration rate would be lower.
Proof:
1) Current US incarceration rate with whites, blacks, and Hispanics = 1384 per 100,000,
2) Now, assume a white only population (for the sake of this proof, we will consider Asians, the model minority, as “honorary white”), then the US incarceration rate would be 736 per 100,000.
3) Since 736/100000<1384/100000, the US incarceration rate would almost be halved if there were no blacks or Hispanics and therefore the hypothesis is proved. Q.E.D.
December 23, 2008
1. You wrote that importing slaves was one of the two major causes of our current high rate of imprisonment. (I assume that your
ReplyDelete2nd hypothesis - about the 19th amendment - is a joke).
2. You documented the well-known fact that African-Americans are over-represented in prison.
3. You conclude therefore that your “hypothesis” is correct.
Let’s be very clear about what you are saying: IT WAS THE INTRODUCTION OF AFRICAN SLAVES HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO WHICH IS THE CAUSE OF OUR HIGH INCARCERATION RATE TODAY.
My arguments:
1. Your statistics do not prove your hypothesis.
2. There are far better alternative hypotheses to explain the high current rates of black incarceration, and there is vast research which supports them. If you want “relevant” references, let me put it this way: 95% of all Sociology and Criminology Research done in the United States between 1950 and 2008.
3. Different ethnic groups have different crime rates at different times. The black crime rate rose sharply in the 20th century (For a study of antebellum black crime, see Ryan Morse’s student project, class of ‘04). So your argument leads to the absurd logic that the cause of the high (black) crime rate was EMANCIPATION.
4. Today’s high black crime and incarceration rates are NOT because blacks are black, and NOT because they were brought here as slaves, but because of a variety of other reasons, namely:
A) socio-economics:
If being brought here in slavery were a cause of crime, then why are Hispanics the 2nd most criminal group?
Here is simple empirical evidence for you: The two groups which commit the most street crimes - Hispanics and African-Americans - are the poorest. Those which do it the least (whites and Asians) are the richest. Guess what this means?
B) laws and policies which punish poor man’s crimes more severely than rich man’s crimes.
C) Racism. For example, the National Institute of Drug Abuse estimates that while 12 percent of drug users are black, they make up nearly 50 percent of all drug possession arrests in the U.S. (The Black and White of Justice, Freedom Magazine, Volume 128)
5. even our white incarceration rate of over 700 per 100,000 is far higher than that of the rest of the industrialized world (Canada, Japan, Australia, Europe), where the rates are usually around 100. Your biggest mistake is when you write that “if we had zero or few blacks” we would have fewer prisoners. BUT SOCIETIES WITH ZERO OR FEW BLACKS ARE PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF FINDING OTHER GROUPS TO FILL THEIR PRISONS, as we have seen throughout history.
Importing slaves was a tragic error, but it cannot be undone. What CAN be undone is the compounding of our problem, by continuing to lock up excessively, which causes two things to happen (1) it causes more crime and (2) it breaks the bank.
My previous response was not an appeal to authority. It was a detailed answer to the substance of your arguments. You should read that which you try to rebut.
December 23, 2008
I don’t have as much time as you to continue this nor do I have the ability to withdraw and rewrite poorly written responses, as you have done with your initially posted response of yesterday afternoon, so here is a quick response to your 7 empirical evidence points from your withdrawn posting:
ReplyDelete1) During their first two hundred years, they “were not very criminal”? Obviously, their entire population was either literally or figuratively “incarcerated” in chains on the plantation, and if they did do something wrong they were whipped – which wouldn’t be so bad to readopt in our prisons. Does not disprove the hypothesis.
2) I agree Hispanics and Blacks commit more street crimes than white and Asians. Supports the hypothesis.
3) No they didn’t come over as slaves, but I did include them earlier “..if we had built a fence(Mexicans being 2.5 the rate of whites), our incarceration rate would be … lower…”. Supports the hypothesis of restricting immigration.
4) Unfortunately, some of the recent increased white criminality is due to the “dumbing down of deviancy” and the adoption of the hip-hop “gangsta” culture by “wigger” wannabes. However, this just supports the hypothesis - there would have been no hip-hop gangsta culture if we hadn’t brought them here.
5) We have more gun ownership, so naturally there are going to be more murders here. We need the guns to protect ourselves from the others. Does not disprove the hypothesis.
6) What can I say - the Dutch, the residents of New Orleans, and anyone who live below sea level have no common sense, and giving 7 years to murdering terrorists just proves it. Does not disprove the hypothesis.
7) Yes, I rounded down, but unfortunately miscegenation and the one drop rule are driving up the population and incarceration percentage. Does not disprove the hypothesis.
December 24, 2008
“If there are footprints in the sand then someone walked on the beach” is not the same as saying “footprints in the sand caused someone to walk on the beach”. Go back and reread my hypothesis. I never said “A caused B”, what I said was “If NOT(A) Then NOT(B)” where of course we understand A=”Importing Slaves” and B=”High Incarceration Rate”. Therefore, the hypothesis remains proven.
ReplyDeleteDecember 25, 2008
It is without question that social and economic factors among other life course variables affect criminal behavior. Poor Anglo-Saxons who have similar socio-demographic profiles and life biographies participate in crime at comparable rates to poor Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, etc.,. Attributing high prison population rates to the importing of slaves and increased migration of Hispanics to the U.S. is a very weak explanation in comparison to more empirically sound responses to the hypotheses that Anonymous stated. However, the Anonymous person’s argument is a function of their mindedness. I understand the simplistic nature of the person’s argument. It’s an easy one that reminds me of a basic way of approaching social problems and all that’s wrong with our world. However, I challenge this anonymous person to consider other rival explanations to their hypotheses. Unless this person is willing to consider how historical factors as well as current social and economic systems impinge upon the experiences of various cultural groups, I am afraid that their argument will remain simplistic. Simplistic arguments are not to be discarded. They are the building blocks to human inquiry which enables us to develop empirically sound explanations, closer to the truth of the foci under investigation.
ReplyDeleteDecember 26, 2008
Anonymous says that his hypothesis is not “A (= “Importing slaves”) caused B (= “High Incarceration Rate”)," but: “If not A” (= “If we had not imported slaves”) “Then not B” (=”There would not be a high incarceration rate.”).
ReplyDeleteHe uses this analogy: “If there are footprints in the sand, someone walked on the beach” is not the same thing as saying “footprints in the sand caused someone to walk on the beach.”
But this analogy is not applicable because Cause A must PRECEDE effect B.
In the statements “If Importing slaves, then high incarceration rate,” and “If not importing slaves, then no high incarceration rate,” A precedes B. The assumption of A being the cause of B makes sense.
But in the statements “if footprints in the sand, then someone walked on the beach,” and “if no footprints in the sand, then no one walked on the beach.” A follows B. A cannot be the cause of B. Anonymous confuses cause and effect. When he says that without the introduction of slaves, there would not be as many prisoners today, it is reasonable to assume that the former is the cause of the latter. What other relationship could he be implying? Of course, it is also possible that there is no relationship between the two factors - which is what I am saying.
Also, the statement “If not A, then not B” assumes that A is a NECESSARY condition of B. A necessary condition is one without which the effect cannot occur, as “it is necessary to breathe in order to stay alive.” Saying “if no slavery, then no high incarceration rate” is like saying “if no breathing, then no survival.”
But it is probable that even without past slavery, America would have a high rate of incarceration. At best, slavery is one of many contributing factors, as, say, exercising contributes to health and survival, even though it isn’t necessary. Condition B (high incarceration) is the result of X,Y and Z. So the hypothesis “If not A, then not B” is untrue.
December 28, 2008