You Decide

“Is ‘lock ’em up’ good public policy?”

“Lock ’em Up” Is Good Public Policy

Most of the public, whatever their gender, race, or ethnic background, believe that violent and repeat offenders belong in prison. A group of academics and professionals representing such organizations as The Sentencing Project and the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, on the other hand, advocates the greater use of alternatives to imprisonment in some cases. According to John DiIulio, imprisonment is worth the cost. DiIulio and Anne Piehl analyzed prisoner self-report surveys that showed that the typical prisoner commits about twelve crimes a year. Crime depresses local business development and erodes local economic activity. According to some estimates, each street crime costs victims and society at least $2,300 in pain, suffering, and economic loss. At the average of twelve street crimes a year, that amounts to $27,600 per year. That means it is cheaper in most states to lock street criminals up than to allow them to be free on the street, according to DiIulio.

Moreover, imprisonment may also reduce crime, according to Patrick A. Langan, a statistician for the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Langan examined admissions and releases to U.S. prisons to explain the steep rise in prison populations. He found that the increase in mandatory sentencing laws and the rise in the crime-prone age group population of the baby-boom era only partially explained the rise. More than half the increase, Langan found, was due to the increased use of imprisonment by sentencing judges. He also noted a decrease in crimes measured by victim surveys during the same period. Langan concluded:

Whether rising incarceration rates have reduced crime... cannot be said with certainty. What is clear is that, since 1973, per capita prison incarceration rates have risen to their highest levels ever while crime rates measured in the National Crime Survey... have gradually fallen to their lowest levels ever. The changing age structure apparently does not explain most of the declines. Whatever the causes, in 1989, there were an estimated 66,000 fewer rapes, 323,000 fewer robberies, 380,000 fewer assaults, and 3.3 million fewer burglaries... between 1973 versus those of 1989. If only one-half or even one-fourth of the reductions were the result of rising incarceration rates, that would still leave prisons responsible for sizable reductions in crime. That possibility must be seriously weighed in debates about America’s prisons.⁹⁷

“Lock ’em Up” Is Bad Public Policy

The National Council on Crime and Delinquency examined the strategy to reduce crime by increasing the probability and the length of imprisonment, particularly for drug offenses. The research focused on Florida. According to researcher James Austin, “More than any state, Florida has dramatically followed this course of increasing the use of imprisonment for drug crimes.” Florida has increased the use of imprisonment most dramatically—by over 300 percent from 1980 to 1989. Despite the increase in both prison building and the number of prison admissions, the Florida prison system has released prisoners at an even greater rate during the same period. The result is shorter prison terms, dropping from an average of 24 months in 1980 to 9 months in 1989

According to the NCCD researchers:

Based on the theories of deterrence and incapacitation, the sharp and huge rise in imprisonment should have produced a reduction in the crime rate. Instead, the crime rate rose 5 percent during the period. In fact, the steepest rise in crime accompanied the greatest rise in imprisonment, namely, between 1986 and 1989. (Figure 14.10)

The war on drugs did not produce a reduction in drug offenses. Admissions to prison for drug offenses rose by 1,825 percent over the decade, compared with an overall admission increase of 381 percent. For female drug offenders, the rise was even greater—more than 3,000 percent. According to present data, the number of drug offenses continues to rise, not fall, despite the huge increase in prison admissions for drug offenses.

The explosion in the prison population creates a risk to public safety. Mandatory sentencing requires some prisoners to remain in prison, but it also forces the early release of ordinary prisoners. In one case, Charles Street, convicted of a violent crime, was released a year early. Following his early release, he murdered two Miami police officers. In another case, Robert and Harry Lebo were convicted for “molesting a crawfish trap.” After their release, they were convicted of lobster theft. Under the habitual offender law, correctional authorities had to release two prisoners to make room for the Lebos. According to the researchers, “It is the worst of both worlds when nonviolent petty offenders are sentenced inappropriately to prison while dangerous criminals are released early.”

Questions

1. What is the evidence for and against a tougher imprisonment policy?

2. Is the case for imprisonment stronger or weaker than the case against it, as presented here? Explain your answer.

3. Is it possible that both are correct? Is Florida perhaps an exception to the national data that Langan and DiIulio present? Defend your answer.