Does America Imprison Too Many People? Posner

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. 

Another troubled American system is that of criminal justice, with particular emphasis on the astrounding growth and level of imprisonment. Some statistics: the incarceration rate had been 118 per 100,000 in 1950, and actually fell in 1972 to 93 per 100,00. By 2000 it had reached 469 and only since the advent of the economic crisis has it begun to decline as states try to reduce expenditures. Between 1950 and 2000 the white imprisonment rate increased by 184 percent and the black imprisonment rate by 355 percent; today 40 percent of prison and jail inmates are black, although blacks are only 13 percent of the overall population. Even though the U.S. crime rate fell by a third in the 1990s (and by two-thirds in many large cities)— the murder rate by more than 40 percent—the inmate population continued growing during this period, an increase that cannot be explained by population growth, since the population grew by much less than a third in the 1990s. 

The inmate population started its rapid growth in the early 1970s, largely in response to sharply rising crimes rates in the 1960s, a decade of domestic unrest. In 1960 the homicide rate was 4.6 per 100,000 persons; in 1970, 7.9; in 1980, 10.2; in 1990, 9.4—but by 2000 it had dropped 5.5 and it is about the same today, which is to say that it is almost back to where it was in 1960, before crime became a big issue. Crime rates are higher than they were in the 1950s but they are tolerable, yet the incarcerated percentage of the population remains much higher now than then. 

The economist Steven Levitt, after correcting for other factors that have been proposed as explanations for the decline in crime rates since 1980, has attributed the leveling of and then decline in those rates to the increase in the prison population, along with increases in the number of police, a decline (largely, it seems, independently of law enforcement) in the consumption of crack cocaine, and the legalization of abortion in the early 1970s. Legalization resulted (Levitt argues, though his statistical evidence has been questioned) in a decline in crime rates twenty years later; unwanted children are more likely to be neglected, brought up badly, and as a result get into trouble as young adults than wanted children. 

The striking thing is that although the criminal sentences are considerably more severe in the United States than in our peer countries, which one expect to have a substantial deterrent effect, the percentage of the American population that is incarcerated is the highest of any country in the world—at 2.3 million, it is about .8 percent (eight-tenths of 1 percent), which is 4 to 7 times the percentage of any of our peer countries—and our crime rates are generally no lower than in those countries and our murder rate is much higher. Although we have a larger black population than those countries, and our blacks are disproportionately engaged in crime, as noted earlier, even if their crime rate were no higher than that of the rest of the population our overall crime rate would still greatly exceed that of the other countries, because it would fall by only 27 percent from its present level, or to about 1.8 million, which is .6 percent of the population, compared to its current level of.8 percent. 

Long prison sentences should deter crime, or if not deter then incapacitate the criminals and thus prevent them from committing crimes (outside the prison itself) for a long period of time. We might therefore expect to have lower crime rates than our peer countries, and, given the deterrent effect of heavy sentences, lower rates of imprisonment. The fact that instead the U.S. imprison more persons in prison than foreign countries do, yet has no lower a crime rate, calls for explanation. If the demand for crime in the U.S. were no higher than in those countries, and the supply price no lower, we would expect the the United States to have a lower crime rate if it imprisons more persons. So the fact that our crime rate isn't lower requires investigation. The investigation might show for example that we criminalize more activity, which is the equivalent of increasing the demand for crime. If an activity is criminalized, this increases the amount of crime unless the criminalization of the activity drives its level to zero. 

There are a number of other possible explanations for the conjunction of a high rate of imprisonment with a high crime rate. One is not enough police, or intelligent enough police, to prevent and detect crime effectively. Another is a high elasticity of supply for criminal activity, so that discouraging or preventing one person from committing crimes induces someone else to enter the crime industry. Another (suggested above) is that we define crime too broadly, criminalizing activities that in other countries are lawful; our high rate of sexual offenses against minors is a function in part of a high age of consent (18). Or we may make too little use of fines, and of regulatory and private-litigation alternatives to criminal punishment. The prevalence of gun ownership may be a factor, along with the proximity to the United States of countries in Latin America that are large producers of illegal drugs. And finally crime rates are particularly high in the southern states of the United States, and that may have deep cultural roots. 

Reform is difficult when the causes of a problem are multiple or unknown. And because the direct monetary costs of the criminal justice system are not very great by current standards (only about $40 billion a year), and there is strong hostility among the general public to criminals (another cultural fact, perhaps), and because our huge prison system provides a great deal of employment, there is no pressure for reform. Yet the indirect costs of high levels of incarceration must be very great, in the form of the lost output of the large number of prisoners, most of whom are of working age.

Comments

[Noah Berkowitz]

Great idea of yours.
thanks for posting like this.

[Jack]

My first reaction is that of little mention of pervasive rates of high unemployment in both urban areas and rural pockets of grinding poverty. Surely when there's little hope for employment at all, much less a wage that pays the bills, coupled with a relatively high demand for various vices and both the imported drugs mentioned and the meth mfg'd here.

"Yet the indirect costs of high levels of incarceration must be very great, in the form of the lost output of the large number of prisoners, most of whom are of working age."

........... few politicians seem to mention that aspect of having 2 million locked up. Suppose there were better solutions for one million who might earn an average per capita income of $21,000 and that their product was at least equal to their wage that's another $21 billion to add to the costs....... assuming an economy that could provide jobs paying $100/day.

The "$40 billion" appears to be the direct $20,000 costs of imprisonment, but there are often costs of welfare for related family members.

In terms of "global competition" if we get to $100 billion of actual costs and losses that's "only" another $1,000 per US household to be added to paying 17% of GDP for H/C.

[David Friedman]

"Another is a high elasticity of supply for criminal activity, so that discouraging or preventing one person from committing crimes induces someone else to enter the crime industry."

I think you have that backwards.

If the supply is highly elastic, that means that quantity is very sensitive to price--a small increase in the cost to criminals of committing crimes (i.e. a decrease in the net benefit to them) results in a large decrease in quantity supplied.

[Robert Morris]

Thank you for posting on this important topic.

America definitely imprisons too many people. Professor Becker rightly points to the war on drugs as an unnecessary contributor to prison populations. I thinks he may understate the possible benefits of decriminalization however. Prisons manufacture criminals. Non-violent offenders are often brutalized in prison. They return to their neighborhoods with diminished potential for employment, angry, and with a much higher propensity to commit violent crime. It may take a generation, but if this cycle is stopped, prison populations may decline well beyond the 30% figure cited.

Deterrence is not a concept that applies to drug enforcement. For a system of deterrence to have an effect it must be perceived to function fairly. Our system of drug laws does not do that. The affluent suburb I was raised in was rife with illicit substance abuse, with very few consequences. In my work at the Washington DC courts I saw people facing life-shattering consequences for behaviors that my peers considered essential components of an evening out. This imbalance is obvious to those at the bottom of the income scale, though perhaps less so to the better-behaved among the privileged.

I have written about this issue, and others relating to the drug war, in this polemic. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B006D8FO22

[Jack]

High elasticity of supply would mean that supply would quickly respond to an increase in Price/Demand. With the fixed demand/price of what I think is Posner's point, he's pointing out that the arrest of one leaves a vacuum quickly filled by another.

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 drugs.

2. Using intercepted drugs (tested of course) or other, to supply existing addicts who'll come in to a street front clinic (where they won't be treated as criminals) very cheaply 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 engaging in crime.

[Rosalie]

Thanks for sharing such valuable information. Keep posting such great info for us, thanks.

[Jim]

You all make it sound like you think that every person is an equal social commodity in all respects. NOT! In our society we have no mental health system to help manage mental and emotional problems in part caused by the lack of family structure and meaning, a totally bureaucratic and ineffective urban school system, consequential unemployment and loss of hope and no second chances for the poor convicted of sometimes minor crimes. I agree with Jack (unusual). Please reread "Les Miserable". The poionts made about societal cost should be talen care of by simply subtracting the cost of crime and punishment from the GDP.

[Alternative Healing Methods]

I definitely see your point, the balance between justice and finance isn't one that's easily achieved.

[Jimbino]

Am I alone in thinking that cops saturate Amerikan life?

I spend months at my home in the mountains above Rio de Janeiro, where I never see a cop on my local street and only rarely one stopping drivers for speeding, etc.

Petty crime and mugging are supposedly common in Brazil, but, I have to say, I feel my liberty more threatened by Amerikan cops here in Texas than by Brazilian street crime. It seems that in Amerika, a person can be stopped, fined or locked up over car registration, inspection or insurance, for having a tail light out, or for "weaving" if the cop can't find another reason. I never see that in Brazil.

I don't think Amerikans realize what a fascist country we live in.

[Terry Bennett]

I'll just throw this out. I suspect our higher-than-our-peer-countries' crime rate stems at least in part from our diversity. In a culturally unified country, everybody comes from the same background and understands what is expected of them by the tribe and how to fit in. As our once-dominant culture erodes into minority status, we see not just an increase in the sort of crime we've always had, but terrifying non-WASPy-type crimes characteristic of various ethnic groups. Also, large chunks of the crime are contained within a sub-culture, e.g., Vietnamese-on-Vietnamese crime. This may be skewing the statistics upward, in terms of what actually to expect on Main Street.

Second, speaking as one who has never used tobacco, alcohol, or illegal drugs, I agree that we have addressed our drug problem with a blunt tool. Large numbers of people in this country have in fact integrated the apparent pleasures of illegal drugs into their lives without major negative consequences. Why should we deprive them? It seems a few problem substance abusers spoil it for all of you. A friend once told me, "I drink a lot of beer, but I get up and go to work the next day." A very large number of Americans, very well a majority, use alcohol. We've come up with some plausible restrictions on it - don't use before you are old enough to appreciate and accept the consequences, don't drive, etc. - and we've actually done a good job of bringing down the number of alcohol-induced traffic deaths (although that is of little consolation to individuals such as my best friend, killed by a drunk driver).

I represented a heroin user in court today. When I looked into her eyes, there was something missing. It made me think of the dementors in Harry Potter. She's one of the losers. The non-losers, we don't notice, and I suspect they are by far the majority. They do whatever they do with drugs, and they function more or less normally, and when I look in their eyes I don't notice anything missing - so I really don't care if they keep doing it, anymore than I sit in judgment of a guy in a lawn chair guzzling beer.

Habitual drug users probably have higher per capita health care costs, assuming they treat, and as we move that "system" toward socialism we may not want to encourage them lest we be the ones to bear those costs. However, exactly the same can be said for users of alcohol, tobacco, excessive prescriptions, meat, sugar, partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, and a host of other modern American staples. I stopped by the hospital today to see another friend, dying of alcoholism. I recognized the pickled-liver smell on his breath, from when my father died by the same method years ago. That broad generic problem is a topic for another day. At the moment, I think I'll go have a donut...maybe two...

[Cheap Moncler Sale]

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.

[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.

[Jack]

This brief article calls drug crimes "victimless" which we seem to agree is a stretch and given the source likely has some spin to it...... for example how does it handle property crimes perpetrated by an inebriate or drug user? Still, I imagine the percentages aren't far off.

We don't have a "prison problem" but a drug problem. A big one that is not responding to the silly, wasteful, punishment based system of the last half century.

Punishment? Something from our Puritanical past? Whack'em because they're "having fun" or had fun, are "slothful" and deviate from the norm?

Suppose we'd tackled TB, AIDS or cancer similarly "because lifestyle choices" played a role? Ludicrous? By now we know drugs exist, are readily available despite budget busting interdiction efforts and we know that many are drawn to try them and that of them some are more readily addicted than others and that some drug use and addiction is due to predatory enslavement.

Then what? Costly clinics for those of the incomes to afford them, but not much of anything for the rest until they run afoul of the law. Then perhaps a short, or inhumanely long prison sentence. Spin the roulette wheel to find out. Even incremental change such as "drug courts" that are better able to deal with what is more sickness than criminality move at a snail's pace.

Time for a change but even incremental changes such as "drug court" move at a snail's pace.

Perhaps we can quit thumping our chests about "American exceptionalism," in all things and look at what the seemingly more civilized nations are doing. I'll bet three things make the top ten list;

1. Poverty being more dire in our urban and rural ghettos low income and continually high unemployment.

2. That universal H/C provides some access to mental health and drug rehab.

3. A different and less punitive philosophy. In the early days of AIDS with the Reagans attending the funerals of a number of their Hollywood friends, Nancy begged him to better fund AIDS research, those of more sense than ideology, strongly recommended free needle exchange programs. Even when we found our hospital blood supply infected little was done. In Vancouver? there are nurses who reach out to exchange needles, distribute literature, and let addicts know where to come when they're ready.

And a fourth? I'll bet few of those nations have turned their prisons into a private industry replete with growth seeking lobbyists.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Victimless Crime Constitutes 86% of The Federal Prison Population
September 29, 2011
By michaelsuede

Some shocking prison statistics brought to you by Drug War Facts.org

The 2009 federal prison population consisted of:

Drugs 50.7%, Public-order 35.0%, Violent 7.9%, Property 5.8%, Other .7%

Drug offenses are self-explanatory, but the public-order offenses also fall under the victimless crimes category. Public order offenses include such things as immigration, weapons charges, public drunkenness, selling lemonade without a license, feeding the homeless without a permit etc..

The United States has the highest prison population rate in the world, 756 per 100,000 of the national population. The world population in 2008 is estimated at 6,750 million (United Nations); set against a world prison population of 9.8 million this produces a world prison population rate of 145 per 100,000 (158 per 100,000 if set against a world prison population of 10.65 million).

In 2008, according to the Department of Justice, there were 7,308,200 persons in the US corrections system, of whom 4,270,917 were on probation, 828,169 were on parole, 785,556 were in jails, and 1,518,559 were in state and federal prisons. This means that the US alone is responsible for holding roughly 15% of all the prisoners in the world.

http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/09/29/victimless-crime-constitutes-86-of-the-american-prison-population/

[True Religion Store]

I'm a caricature of what I think my company wants me to be. It's a part of your autosignature in Outlook to say "Thanks!" Guess what? Since you decided to include it in the 100 emails you send me a month, I'm actually deducting points every time I see it.

[cartoner]

its been almost six years since i came to america from spain, and it completely change my life.

[R.A.]

"There are a number of other possible explanations for the conjunction of a high rate of imprisonment with a high crime rate. One is not enough police, or intelligent enough police, to prevent and detect crime effectively."

In the big cities police officers are often chosen by lottery rather than a paper and pencil test. This is because all paper and pencil tests show racial disparities, and so in order not to have disparate impact police officers are chosen by lottery. There's actually been studies done showing that more affirmative action on a city's police force leads to higher crime.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=231100

[Jack]

RA: As crime rates fluctuate with it being difficult to identify the causes, I suspected it was pap. It occurred to me that the "black officers" might be more effective and make more arrests than the "white" officers, and perhaps the female officers were more prone to defusing a situation with diplomacy and not making an arrest.

Then I looked at the paper and seeing John Lott's name at the top I then knew it was pap. He hires himself out to produce pap for the NRA, haha! depicting our murder prone nation as being safer when even more guns are close at hand, despite gun banned NYC being the safest of mega cities and the slaughter rates of Canada, the EU, Japan being just 10-20% that of the US.

These guys routinely out themselves with statements like:

"When one looks at the problems with these bulbs, it becomes very understandable why people aren’t rushing to own them. Possibly people are a little smarter than the Democrat controlled congress that passed these rules."

......... is that the opposite of "Republic" controlled?

[R.A.]

Look at it this way. There is the hypothesis

A) pen and paper tests which correlate with IQ (i.e., all pen and paper tests) predict performance at work. That has mountains of data behind it.

Those who want affirmative action in hiring argue that A is overcome by the proposition that

B) Black police officers are better at working in black neighborhoods compared to white police officers with equal or better test scores

B may or may not be true, but those who think effect B outweighs consideration A need to prove it.

The main problem with affirmative action in policing is that it lowers standards for everybody. The Supreme Court says you cannot have quotas. So basically everyone is given a test and then people are picked at random to get racial balance. If you just had a quota, you would at least get the most competent of every race.

If you say proposition B makes affirmative action worth it, you have to basically argue that black officers are so much better than white officers with similar or better scores that the difference overcomes the advantage of selecting everyone meritocraticly.

Just as likely as B, one could hypothesize blacks make worse officers than whites with similar scores, because

C) other personality factors

D) black officers are more likely to have criminal friends and relatives and not want to crack down on those close to them

E) black officers might be less willing to use racial profiling for ideological reasons

C, D, and E are just as possible as B. A is the only thing that's been proved, and those who went to use nonobjectvie standards have the burden of proof on them.

[Jamie Boldman]

Is this a trick question?