Does America Imprison Too Many People? Becker

 

My discussion of this important subject will elaborate answers to the following questions:

1) Does imprisonment reduce crime? Yes.

2) Do many crimes cause considerable harm and hardships to victims? Yes.

3) Does America imprison too many people?  In light of my answers to 1) and 2) you might expect my answer to this question to be “no”, but it is a strong “yes”.

Imprisonment reduces crimes against the general public if only because of the incapacitation effect; that is, person in prison cannot commit crimes against the public-they can and do commit many crimes against other prisoners. For certain crimes, imprisonment also has a deterrent effect, so that potential offenders are deterred from committing crimes by the prospects of prison terms, especially when the probability of apprehension is not negligible.

This conclusion does not deny that imprisonment raises the likelihood that some prisoners will commit crimes when they are released because their skills at legal employment eroded while in prisons, or they learned in prison how to be better criminals, or they become blacklisted for certain jobs, or for other reasons. Nevertheless, Levitt’s study cited by Posner and other studies find that on balance imprisonment reduces crime. The main disagreement is over whether the whole effect of imprisonment on crimes comes from the incapacitation effect, or whether some is also due to deterrence. I believe deterrence is also at work.

That some crimes cause a large amount of both direct and indirect harm is obvious. In high crime neighborhoods, men, and especially women, are afraid to go out alone at night because of fears about being assaulted. Some men in these neighborhoods carry guns, knives, or other weapons as protection against crimes. Children cannot relax at school because they fear robberies, assaults, and bullying from gang members. Many decisions are made primarily with regard to concern and fears about the likelihood of becoming victims of crime. Economic studies confirm this conclusion since they show that property values are significantly lower when crime in a neighborhood is much larger.

Unquestionably, the decline in crime over time in the US has had a noticeable effect on wellbeing and behavior, especially in large cities that have had high crime rates. Crime was the main topic of discussion aside from intellectual subjects when I moved in 1970 to the Hyde Park neighborhood around the University of Chicago located on the South Side of Chicago. Nowadays residents seldom discuss crime, and people feel a lot freer, although not yet completely free, to walk around when it is dark, or to attend evening seminars.

Since I argued both that imprisonment reduces crime, and many crimes cause immense pain and other costs to victims, readers might expect me to conclude that America does not imprison too many offenders. But I believe just the opposite. For whatever reasons, such as higher school dropout rates or more dysfunctional families, the propensity to commit violent crimes is much greater in America than in Europe or Asia. As a result, it is rational for America to imprison a larger fraction of its population, especially for violent crimes. Unfortunately, American prison policies go beyond this point, and America imprisons far too many men and women for nonviolent crimes.

Imprisonment is the right policy for anyone committing heinous crimes like rape, assaults, robbery at gunpoint, and many other crimes where victims are badly harmed both physically and mentally. Imprisonment is the wrong punishment for crimes without victims, or where other punishments are more effective. The sale of drugs is the prime example of a “victimless” crime for understanding the data on imprisonment. Buyers of drugs for the most part enter into voluntary transactions with sellers. Yet almost one quarter of all persons in US prisons are there on drug-related charges. In addition, studies indicate that many others are there because they committed crimes to finance their expensive drug habits since drug prices are kept artificially high by US drug policy.

Elsewhere I have discuss why the US should decriminalize and legalize drugs (see, for example, my post on 3/20/2005 called “The Failure of the War on Drugs”). If the US were to do that, the prison population would eventually fall by over 30%. The imprisonment of blacks and women would fall by even larger percentages since these groups are more likely to be in prison on drug-related charges. Such a policy change would also release police and other resources that have been used to catch and punish drug dealers to concentrate on crimes where victims suffer great harm. These crimes would then fall, perhaps because more offenders would be caught and imprisoned. The US might still imprison a larger fraction of its population than peer countries, but the differences would become much smaller than at present.

Imprisonment should be rarely used also for other victimless crimes, for crimes that do not greatly harm victims, and for crimes where victims can be adequately compensated by fines and other monetary punishments. In these cases, punishment should consist of fines, probation, and other ways that do not require imprisonment. Eliminating imprisonment for drugs and other victimless crimes,and for many other crimes would cut greatly the US’ bloated prison population,reduce the spending on prisoners, and cut down the depreciation of the market skills of offenders who did not commit serious crimes.

 

Comments

[Jack]

Becker suggests:
"Elsewhere I have discuss why the US should decriminalize and legalize drugs (see, for example, my post on 3/20/2005 called “The Failure of the War on Drugs”). If the US were to do that, the prison population would eventually fall by over 30%."

Decriminalization in the case of MJ is likely the right approach, we did it in Alaska with seemingly few bad side effects. But! for harder drugs it's not politically or ethically right and with lesser or no penalties it would seem predictable that we'd have more addicts and a higher volume, though lower margin, drug business.

How about something in between?

Neither of our profs touched on what seems evident to any economist, that of ever dollar and "success" of the DEA and other enforcement efforts simply increasing the price spread between grower and "street price". It's just a perfect example of pure supply and demand as a prospective "mule" with a starving family to feed who turns down $10,000 for the risk/reward being unattractive need only wait a short time for P to increase and generate a $20,000 commish on the delivery. When the consumer price soars, all they are accomplishing is to force the addict to engage in more vices including that of becoming a small time dealer themselves.

Ha! the US KNOWS how to wreck a business and from time to time does so like a destroyer running down a small sailboat and never even noticing.

Here's the formula I presented a quarter century ago using well established economic principles:

1. Continue to interdict and make it a costly enterprise to transport and sell drugs.

2. Using intercepted drugs (tested of course) or other, to cheaply supply existing addicts who'll come in to a street front clinic (where they won't be treated as criminals) while gently encouraging them to enter drug treatment on demand programs.

Even in the unlikely case that this program doesn't lower the number of addicts we'll have stolen the consumer from the marketer and ruined his necessarily high margins and enjoy a much lower crime rate as the desperate addict "comes in" rather than going out stealing, selling drugs or engaging in prostitution, or god-forbid becoming a WS thief.

Next? In both urban and rural ghettos of high unemployment and dismal wages there has to be a public/private (or ANY) means of providing job training and jobs. The branch of econ that deals with real people and their motivations, or lack of such, would easily understand that corralling millions in urban or rural areas of 20% unemployment would easily predict that they aren't going to starve with a high percentage turning to crime.

[TANSTAAFL]

Would most children of drug users agree that drug possession is a "victimless" crime?

[Simon]

Oh come on! And the best way to protect those children is to incarcerate their parents? Besides, it's not the drug possession which harms them! Drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes or even drinking coffee during pregnancy may irreversibly harm the fetus, but does this ipso facto mean we should put all coffee drinkers to prison?

[TANSTAAFL]

There are arguments for not incarcerating drug user parents, but it distorts reality and the English language to suggest that children of drug users are not "victims." And it is a rhetorical evasion to say that drug possession by parents does not harm children; by the same logic, parents should be allowed to keep dynamite in the house unless there is a mishap and it blows up the kids.

[Jimbino]

It's hard to endure this pure utilitarian analysis of the Amerikan incarceration problem.

It is a question of liberty, not of cost-benefit.

I have to say that here, in Amerika, I feel like a concentration-camp intern, and I suspect that, after the coming revolution or liberation, I would work to free all drug users and see to it that our Himmlers, Eichmanns, Bormans, and Mengeles (most of whom are cops, prosecutors, judges and politicians) be dealt with harshly, with many no doubt suffering the extreme penalty.

I have the aptitude and training to serve as any of those oppressors, but I couldn't bring myself to do it, because I simply can't understand how any person could serve such a corrupt and racist system that so ruins the lives of so many over totally victimless crimes.

Am I the only Amerikan who feels this way?

I suggest that the extreme system of crime prosecution and incarceration we endure in Amerika has costs that neither Becker nor Posner has yet discussed, namely: it interferes with a person's choice of career and it will result in high costs to many in high positions after the revolution.

[nike shox sale]

I'm sure it's not me, but doesn't Kyle mention a penis in every post. The daily update is called Morning Wood for god's sake. Please, no more mentions of Roman helmets and sexting and dicks slapping against things.

[Ugg Classic Cardy cheap]

A society can be thought of as a collection of private and public systems. At present a number of these systems in American society are under stress: the medical system, the educational system (other than elite private schooling and elite university education), the political system (especially at the legislative level), the finance industry, the fiscal system (including taxation, borrowing, and spending at all levels of government), transportation infrastructure, the regulation and assimilation of immigrants, and perhaps others. In contrast, foreign affairs, the military (and national security generally), and industries such as retailing, the production of intellectual property, computer technology, and the production of pharmaceuticals and medical technology are areas of great national strength.

[Jack]

Tans..... agreed. And it is for "the kids" and other reasons like stoned folks on the job and highways that I stop short of decriminalizing, except for MJ, in my plan above your comment.

Here's the basis of the Ravin decision in Alaska where our Constitution has an even higher protection of privacy than that of the US:

As seems obvious in a world of alcohol, cigs, prescription and OTC drugs the "harm" of MJ was not found significant enough to overcome the privacy of one's castle or log cabin. In the case of heroin and other harder and clearly addictive drugs the "state's interest:" then overwhelms that of individual privacy.

Ha! Where we are now, is that a decade or so ago some idiot running for the Legislature and needing some "law 'n order" votes to pull it off campaigned on passing a law to recrim.... MJ.... which took place. But the law tends not to be enforced in the "personal use" quantities set out by the Ravin decision as such prosecution is likely to revisit Ravin and knock out the existing law. Thus...... we're not filling our prisons with those having an ounce of MJ at home.

[Cheap Moncler Sale]

Having higher numbers of occupants per existing structure doesn't bode well for selling off the homes having fallen or about to fall into the laps of bankers.All of the sci-fi stories pointed to a shorter work week, more leisure time and industries developing around increased leisure time coupled with the income to enjoy it. We have nothing like that in place or even in mind. Instead those desperate for any kind of job are to work longer hours for less pay and be appreciative for their opportunity.

[Cheap Air Max]

All of the sci-fi stories pointed to a shorter work week, more leisure time and industries developing around increased leisure time coupled with the income to enjoy it.

[Cheap Air Max]

All of the sci-fi stories pointed to a shorter work week, more leisure time and industries developing around increased leisure time coupled with the income to enjoy it.

[Air Force One]

We have nothing like that in place or even in mind. Instead those desperate for any kind of job are to work longer hours for less pay and be appreciative for their opportunity.

[Christian Louboutin UK]

The bitter truth is that the employment prospects for a recent college grad are far more grim, especially full-time employment in their field of study.

[Air Max 2011]

The Occupy Movement and everyone else worried about earnings inequality should be emphasizing the need to find ways to encourage more high school dropouts and high school graduates to get the required background and study habits so that they can, and want to, continue on for a college education.

[Monster Beats Dre]

There‘s always going to be people that hurt you so what you have to do is keep on trusting and just be more careful about who you trust next time around.

[Monster Beats Studio]

As compared to the post-World War II era, Americans with high school diplomas today are much less likely to find manufacturing jobs, because there are 2-3 billion people in emerging economies with similar skills who are willing to work more cheaply in order to have a shot at attaining a middle class standard of living.

[Cheap Scarf Online]

Global demographics instruct that manufacturing job growth in nations with emerging economies will continue to outpace manufacturing job growth in America.

[TANSTAAFL]

Thank you kindly, Jack. By the way, I find your idea for rationalizing drug crime policy persuasive, with one caveat. We would need to come up with some enforceable time limit on how long existing addicts could avail themselves of government-sponsored treatment programs.

[Jack]

Taans -- Yep. Like all programs dealing with human kind and particularly the problem cases, nothing approaching perfection is going to be the case.

There's two (or more) goals here: At some level of drug use people can still function in society and we'd rather not have them put their often manic energies into vice and "scoring". ie...... maintaining at low cost to society.

The other is that of rehabbing the individual, of great value to the individual and society. The prison/criminal program seems about the worst thing imaginable for either of these goals.

W/o careful controls and tight over sight there'd be risk of the well-meaning program becoming corrupted and sort of a semi-sanctioned drug industry of its own......... as is the case to some extent with prescription drugs.

Here in Anchorage with some number of homeless dying in the fierce cold each year, we're doing more to provide basic housing... amid flack of "coddling drunks" but at reasonable cost an old motel has been rehabbed with very small rooms and with certain rules.

(We've long had some other shelter and food programs)

I'm not sure how it turns out, but those who've fallen out of the "system" and through the fairly wide meshes of our tattered safety net, often have a tougher time finding a job, for not having a place to clean up, a simple phone contact, etc.

Ha! unless we've simply gotten a huge batch of "bad blood" we should be able to figure out A. how we once imprisoned a far lower percentage but had similar crime rates B. How nearly every other "advanced" nation manages to have a fifth of our percentage of lock-ups but enjoy similar rates of crime.

[d]

The US imprisons its poor and social deviants to limit their role in our society. This is a purposeful policy, though detrimental. There is a very large parasite economy built around the imprisonment and enslavement of our poverty class. It costs tax payers substantially, but it feeds the cancer bureacracy started by FDR.

[NEH]

One phenomena that all of this does not take into account is that of the fundamental philosophy of punishment. The use of incarceration is a fairly new approach to punishment. In the past, punishment was more "retributive". Such that public humilation, the use of the stocks, flogging, ostracizing, banishment (anyone remember "aqua et igni interdicto") and at the exterme level execution. This style of sentencing and its guidelines mitigated the numbers who were incarcerated and the subsequent cost for continued incarceration.

Perhaps from a purely "Cost" standpoint, we need to move from our "Reformist" (and use of incarceration) theory of Punishment and return to the use of a more "Retributivist" theory. This would clearly clean out the prisons and reduce budgetary expenditures.

[TANSTAAFL]

Apart from ostracization or exile (more or less the same thing), all forms of punishment amount to incarceration in the sense the criminal's volition is restricted.

[Jack]

Perhaps stocks, flogging, ostracizing, and banishment would be good in the case of WS thieves and corrupt politicians ... mebbe tattoo a scarlet letter on 'em too? Not execution, though, at least not before getting a decade or so of productive work out of 'em!

With much of our "prison problem" relating to various drug related crimes I doubt that given the anonymity possible in our cities and states that it would have the effect it might have had in colonial Salem. Nor does it seem that further degradation would be helpful for those pushed into various vices by their addictions. I'd worry too, with the way junk journalism works that we'd likely be enhancing starlet's film career or boost sales for a rapper. But then from a cost standpoint if we could tap the income stream putting badboy or girl "stars" in stocks? Well, we've commercialized about everything else, eh?

[Nike Shox R6 Shoes]

Kazouza sparkling tamarind drink (9 fl. oz., $1.29). This shop was previously Aintab Lahmejune, named for a city in present-day Turkey (now, officially, Gaziantep) and a Levantine flatbread. Until the early 20th century, Aintab reportedly had a sizable population of ethnic Armenians; the foods of their home country are a specialty of Massis. Even so, Kazouza is Lebanese.

[TANSTAAFL]

Jack -- consider the fact that Jeff Skilling, formerly of Enron, and Bernie Ebbers, formerly of Worldcom, both members of the supposed "one percent" in their heyday, are in prison. Just two examples of high level corporate crooks that were prosecuted, tried, and imprisoned by the Bush Adminstration, which you and others so despise.

So tell us -- who are the big corporate names that your buddy Obama has put in jail?