Description
I have attached the articles down below, read the required pages and answer the questions down below.
“Escaping From the Standard Story: Why the Conventional Wisdom on Prison Growth is Wrong, And Where We Can Go From Here†(Pages 3-17)
Stephanos Bibas, “The Truth about Mass Incarceration,†pp. 1-8
Jonathan Rothwell, “Drug Offenders in American Prisons: The Critical Distinction Between Stock and Flow,†pp. 1-5
William J. Wilson, “The Other Side of Black Lives Matter,†pp. 1-3
Question
1. The following questions relate to the
Pfaff article
. In each response, use signal phrases and correct MLA citations. Be sure to keep your notes for all of the readings handy on your computer or on paper copies.
- What is Pfaff’s main claim?
- What key points support this claim? (List three.)
- Identify two points you find compelling, persuasive, or that you would concede to from this article and explain why.
- Identify two points you find unconvincing, less convincing, or problematic from this article and explain why.
Question
2. The following questions relate to the
Bibas article
. In each response, use signal phrases and correct MLA citations. Be sure to keep your notes for all of the readings handy on your computer or on paper copies.
- What is Bibas’s main claim?
- What key points support this claim? (List three.)
- Identify two points you find compelling, persuasive, or that you would concede to from this article and explain why.
- Identify two points you find unconvincing, less convincing, or problematic from this article and explain why.
Question 3. The following questions relate to the
Rothwell article
. In each response, use signal phrases and correct MLA citations. Be sure to keep your notes for all of the readings handy on your computer or on paper copies.
- What is Rothwell’s main claim?
- What key points support this claim? (List three.)
- Identify one point you find compelling, persuasive, or that you would concede to from this article and explain why.
- Identify one point you find unconvincing, less convincing, or problematic from this article and explain why.
Question 4. The following questions relate to the
Wilson article
. In each response, use signal phrases and correct MLA citations. Be sure to keep your notes for all of the readings handy on your computer or on paper copies.
- What is Wilson’s main claim?
- What key points support this claim? (List three.)
- Identify one pointe you find compelling, persuasive, or that you would concede to from this article and explain why.
- Identify one point you find unconvincing, less convincing, or problematic from this article and explain why.
2/24/2018
The other side of Black Lives Matter
ocial Moilit Memo
The Other Side of lack Live Matter
William J. Wilon Monda, Decemer 14, 2015
W
illiam Julius Wilson has been appointed a Nonresident Senior Fellow at
Brookings. This is his first piece for us in his new capacity.
Several decades ago I spoke with a grieving mother living in one of the
poorest inner-city neighborhoods on Chicago’s South Side. A stray bullet from a gang fight
had killed her son, who was not a gang member. She lamented that his death was not
reported in any of the Chicago newspapers or in the Chicago electronic media.
I have been thinking about that mother a good deal recently, as the Black Lives Matter
movement has dramatically called attention to violent police encounters with blacks,
especially young black males. Aided by smart phones and social media, Americans have
now become more aware of these incidents, which very likely have occurred at similar
levels in previous decades, but were “under the radar.â€
This is good, of course. But it is not enough. We need to expand the focus of the
movement to include groups not usually referenced when we discuss “Black Lives Matter,â€
including that boy in Chicago, who would by now be a grown man, perhaps with children
of his own.
Segregation by income amplifies segregation by race, leaving low-income blacks clustered
in neighborhoods that feature disadvantages along several dimensions, including
exposure to violent crime. As a result, the divide within the black community has widened
sharply. In 1978, poor blacks aged twelve and over were only marginally more likely than
affluent blacks to be violent crime victims—around forty-five and thirty-eight per 1000
individuals respectively. However, by 2008, poor blacks were far more likely to be violent
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/12/14/the-other-side-of-black-lives-matter/
1/3
2/24/2018
The other side of Black Lives Matter
crime victims—about seventy-five per 1000—while affluent blacks were far less likely to be
victims of violent crime—about twenty-three per 1000, according to Hochschild and
Weaver:
Violent crime can in fact reach extraordinary levels in the poorest inner-city black
neighborhoods. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where 46 percent of African Americans live in
high poverty neighborhoods—those with poverty rates of at least 40 percent—blacks are
nearly 20 times more likely to get shot than whites, and nine times more likely to be
murdered.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/12/14/the-other-side-of-black-lives-matter/
2/3
2/24/2018
The other side of Black Lives Matter
As Leon Neyfakh points out, some people are reluctant to talk about the high murder rate
in cities like Milwaukee because (1) it might distract attention from the vital discussions
about police violence against blacks, and (2) it runs the risk of providing ammunition to
those who resist criminal justice reform efforts regarding policing and sentencing policy.
These are legitimate concerns, of course.
On the other hand, it is vital to draw more attention to the low priority placed on solving
the high murder rates in poor inner-city neighborhoods, reflected in the woefully
inadequate resources provided to homicide detectives struggling to solve killings in those
areas. As Jill Leovy, a writer at Los Angeles Times asserts in her 2014 book Ghettoside, this
represents one of the great moral failings of our criminal justice system and indeed of our
whole society. The thousands of poor grieving African American families whose loved ones
have been killed tend to be disregarded or ignored, including by the media.
The nation’s consciousness has been raised by the repeated acts of police brutality against
blacks. But the problem of public space violence—seen in the extraordinary distress,
trauma and pain many poor inner-city families experience following the killing of a family
member or close relative—also deserves our special attention. These losses represent
another social and political imperative, described to me by sociologist Loïc Wacquant in
the following terms: “The Other Side of Black Lives Matter.†They do indeed.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/12/14/the-other-side-of-black-lives-matter/
3/3
2/24/2018
Drug offenders in American prisons: The critical distinction between stock and flow
ocial Moilit Memo
Drug offender in American prion: The critical ditinction
etween tock and flow
Jonathan Rothwell Wedneda, Novemer 25, 2015
T
here is now widespread, bipartisan agreement that mass incarceration is a huge
problem in the United States. The rates and levels of imprisonment are destroying
families and communities, and widening opportunity gaps—especially in terms of
race.
But there is a growing dispute over how far imprisonment for drug offenses is to blame.
Michelle Alexander, a legal scholar, published a powerful and influential critique of the
U.S. criminal justice system in 2012, showing how the war on drugs has disproportionately
and unfairly harmed African Americans.
Recent scholarship has challenged Alexander’s claim. John Pfaff, a Fordham law professor
and crime statistics expert, argues that Alexander exaggerates the importance of drug
crimes. Pfaff points out that the proportion of state prisoners whose primary crime was a
drug offense “rises sharply from 1980 to 1990, when it peaks at 22 percent. But that’s only
22 percent: nearly four-fifths of all state prisoners in 1990 were not drug offenders.†By
2010 the number had dropped to 17 percent. “Reducing the admissions of drug offenders
will not meaningfully reduce prison populations,†he concludes.
Other scholars, including Stephanos Bibas of the University of Pennsylvania, and some
researchers at the Urban Institute, have made similar points in recent months: since only a
minority of prisoners have been jailed for drug offenses, only modest gains against mass
incarceration can be made here.
Stock versus flow
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/11/25/drug-offenders-in-american-prisons-the-critical-distinction-between-stock-and-flow/
1/5
2/24/2018
Drug offenders in American prisons: The critical distinction between stock and flow
There is no disputing that incarceration for property and violent crimes is of huge
importance to America’s prison population, but the standard analysis—including
Alexander’s critics—fails to distinguish between the stock and flow of drug crime-related
incarceration. In fact, there are two ways of looking at the prison population as it relates
to drug crimes:
1. How many people experience incarceration as a result of a drug-related crime over a
certain time period?
2. What proportion of the prison population at a particular moment in time was
imprisoned for a drug-related crime?
The answers will differ because the length of sentences varies by the kind of crime
committed. As of 2009, the median incarceration time at state facilities for drug offenses
was 14 months, exactly half the time for violent crimes. Those convicted of murder served
terms of roughly 10 times greater length.
Drug crimes are the main driver of imprisonment
The picture is clear: Drug crimes have been the predominant reason for new admissions
into state and federal prisons in recent decades. In every year from 1993 to 2009, more
people were admitted for drug crimes than violent crimes. In the 2000s, the flow of
incarceration for drug crimes exceeded admissions for property crimes each year. Nearly
one-third of total prison admissions over this period were for drug crimes:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/11/25/drug-offenders-in-american-prisons-the-critical-distinction-between-stock-and-flow/
2/5
2/24/2018
Drug offenders in American prisons: The critical distinction between stock and flow
Snapshot pictures of prison populations tell a misleading story
Violent crimes account for nearly half the prison population at any given time; and drug
crimes only one fifth. But drug crimes account for more of the total number of admissions
in recent years—almost one third (31 percent), while violent crimes account for one
quarter:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/11/25/drug-offenders-in-american-prisons-the-critical-distinction-between-stock-and-flow/
3/5
2/24/2018
Drug offenders in American prisons: The critical distinction between stock and flow
Rothwell 1125002
Being imprisoned and being in prison: The wider picture
So, as Michelle Alexander argued, drug prosecution is a big part of the mass incarceration
story. To be clear, rolling back the war on drugs would not, as Pfaff and Urban Institute
scholars maintain, totally solve the problem of mass incarceration, but it could help a
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/11/25/drug-offenders-in-american-prisons-the-critical-distinction-between-stock-and-flow/
4/5
2/24/2018
Drug offenders in American prisons: The critical distinction between stock and flow
great deal, by reducing exposure to prison. In other work, Pfaff provides grounds for
believing that the aggressive behavior of local prosecutors in confronting all types of
crime is an overlooked factor in the rise of mass incarceration.
More broadly, it is clear that the effect of the failed war on drugs has been devastating,
especially for black Americans. As I’ve shown in a previous piece, blacks are 3 to 4 times
more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, even though they are no more likely than whites
to use or sell drugs. Worse still, blacks are roughly nine times more likely to be admitted
into state prison for a drug offense.
During the period from 1993 to 2011, there were three million admissions into federal and
state prisons for drug offenses. Over the same period, there were 30 million arrests for
drug crimes, 24 million of which were for possession. Some of these were repeat offenders,
of course. But these figures show how largely this problem looms over the lives of many
Americans, and especially black Americans. A dangerous combination of approaches to
policing, prosecution, sentencing, criminal justice, and incarceration is resulting in higher
costs for taxpayers, less opportunity for affected individuals, and deep damage to hopes
for racial equality.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2015/11/25/drug-offenders-in-american-prisons-the-critical-distinction-between-stock-and-flow/
5/5
The Truth about Mass Incarceration
By STEPHANOS BIBAS September 16, 2015 8:00 AM
National Review
(Illustration: Roman Genn)
America has the highest incarceration rate in the world, outstripping even Russia,
Cuba, Rwanda, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. Though America is home to only about onetwentieth of the world’s population, we house almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners.
Since the mid 1970s, American prison populations have boomed, multiplying sevenfold
while the population has increased by only 50 percent. Why?
Liberals blame* racism and the “War on Drugs,†in particular long sentences for
nonviolent drug crimes. This past July, in a speech to the NAACP, President Obama insisted
that “the real reason our prison population is so high†is that “over the last few decades,
we’ve also locked up more and more nonviolent drug offenders than ever before, for longer
than ever before.†The War on Drugs, he suggested, is just a continuation of America’s “long
history of inequity in the criminal-justice system,†which has disproportionately harmed
minorities.
[This is me, your teacher, interjecting to say that I identified the political leanings of the
articles, on the Cavas page in the interests of full disclosure. In our work, we need to move
beyond party politics, however, and approach topics with open minds, drawing the best
conclusions based on available evidence. Because the political climate in the US is so split
and divisive, saying things like, “Liberals blame…†is inflammatory – like name-calling.
Focus on facts, not on political parties in your essays.]
Two days later, Obama became the first sitting president to visit a prison. Speaking
immediately after his visit, the president blamed mandatory drug sentencing as a “primary
driver of this mass-incarceration phenomenon.†To underscore that point, he met with half
a dozen inmates at the prison, all of whom had been convicted of nonviolent drug offenses.
Three days earlier, he had commuted the federal prison terms of 46 nonviolent drug
offenders, most of whom had been sentenced to at least 20 years’ imprisonment.
1
The president is echoing what liberal criminologists and lawyers have long charged.
They blame our prison boom on punitive, ever-longer sentences tainted by racism,
particularly for drug crimes. Criminologists coined the term “mass incarceration†or “mass
imprisonment†a few decades ago, as if police were arresting and herding suspects en
masse into cattle cars bound for prison. Many blame this phenomenon on structural racism,
as manifested in the War on Drugs.
No one has captured and fueled this zeitgeist better than Michelle Alexander, an
ACLU lawyer turned Ohio State law professor. Her 2010 book, The New Jim Crow: Mass
Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, is, as Cornel West put it, “the secular bible for a
new social movement in early twenty-first-century America.†She condemns “mass
incarceration . . . as a stunningly comprehensive and well-disguised system of racialized
social control that functions in a manner strikingly similar to Jim Crow.†Ex-felons, like
victims of Jim Crow, are a stigmatized underclass, excluded from voting, juries, jobs,
housing, education, and public benefits. This phenomenon “is not — as many argue — just
a symptom of poverty or poor choices, but rather evidence of a new racial caste system at
work,†like Jim Crow and slavery before it. She even implies that this system is just the
latest manifestation of whites’ ongoing racist conspiracy to subjugate blacks, pointing to
the CIA’s support of Nicaraguan contras who supplied cocaine to black neighborhoods in
the U.S.
Like President Obama, Alexander blames mass incarceration on the racially tinged
War on Drugs. “In less than thirty years, the U.S. penal population exploded from around
300,000 to more than 2 million, with drug convictions accounting for the majority of the
increase.†And the War on Drugs was supposedly driven by coded racial appeals, in which
elite whites galvanized poor whites to vote Republican by scapegoating black drug addicts.
The fault, she insists, does not lie with criminals or violence. “Violent crime is not
responsible for the prison boom. . . . The uncomfortable reality is that convictions for drug
offenses — not violent crime — are the single most important cause of the prison boom in
the United States,†and minorities are disproportionately convicted of drug crimes.
Alexander’s critique is catnip to liberals. The New Jim Crow stayed on the New York
Times best-seller list for more than a year and remains Amazon’s best-selling book in
criminology. And it dovetailed with liberal and libertarian pundits’ calls to legalize or
decriminalize drugs, or at least marijuana, as the cure for burgeoning prisons.
President Obama’s and Alexander’s well-known narrative, however, doesn’t fit the
facts. Prison growth has been driven mainly by violent and property crime, not drugs. As
Fordham law professor John Pfaff has shown, more than half of the extra prisoners added
in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s were imprisoned for violent crimes; two thirds were in for
2
violent or property crimes. Only about a fifth of prison inmates are incarcerated for drug
offenses, and only a sliver of those are in for marijuana. Moreover, many of these
incarcerated drug offenders have prior convictions for violent crimes. The median state
prisoner serves roughly two years before being released; three quarters are released
within roughly six years.
For the last several decades, arrest rates as a percentage of crimes — including drug
arrests — have been basically flat, as have sentence lengths. What has driven prison
populations, Pfaff proves convincingly, is that arrests are far more likely to result in felony
charges: Twenty years ago, only three eighths of arrests resulted in felony charges, but
today more than half do. Over the past few decades, prosecutors have grown tougher and
more consistent.
Nor is law enforcement simply a tool of white supremacy to oppress blacks. As
several prominent black scholars have emphasized, law-abiding blacks often want more
and better law enforcement, not less. Harvard law professor Randall Kennedy emphasized
that “blacks have suffered more from being left unprotected or underprotected by law
enforcement authorities than from being mistreated as suspects or defendants,†though the
latter claims often get more attention. Most crime is intra-racial, so black victims suffer
disproportionately at the hands of black criminals. Yale law professors Tracey Meares and
James Forman Jr. have observed that minority-neighborhood residents often want tough
enforcement of drug and other laws to ensure their safety and protect their property
values. The black community is far from monolithic; many fear becoming crime victims and
identify more with them than they do with victims of police mistreatment.
There is no racist conspiracy, nor are we locking everyone up and throwing away
the key. Most prisoners are guilty of violent or property crimes that no orderly society can
excuse.
Black Democrats, responding to their constituents’ understandable fears, have
played leading roles in toughening the nation’s drug laws. In New York, black activists in
Harlem, the NAACP Citizens’ Mobilization Against Crime, and New York’s leading black
newspaper, the Amsterdam News, advocated what in the 1970s became the Rockefeller
drug laws, with their stiff mandatory minimum sentences. At the federal level, liberal black
Democrats representing black New York City neighborhoods supported tough crackcocaine penalties. Representative Charles Rangel, from Harlem, chaired the House Select
Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control when Congress enacted crack-cocaine
sentences that were much higher than those for powder cocaine. Though many have come
to regret it, the War on Drugs was bipartisan and cross-racial.
More fundamentally, The New Jim Crow wrongly absolves criminals of responsibility
for their “poor choices.†Alexander opens her book by analogizing the disenfranchisement
of Jarvious Cotton, a felon on parole, to that of his great-great-grandfather (for being a
slave), his great-grandfather (beaten to death by the Ku Klux Klan for trying to vote), his
grandfather (intimidated by the Klan into not voting), and his father (by poll taxes and
literacy tests).
But Cotton’s ancestors were disenfranchised through violence and coercion solely
because of their race. Cotton is being judged not by the color of his skin, but by the content
of his choices. He chose to commit a felony, and Alexander omits that his felony was not a
nonviolent drug crime, but murdering 17-year-old Robert Irby during an armed robbery.
All adults of sound mind know the difference between right and wrong. Poverty and racism
are no excuses for choosing to break the law; most people, regardless of their poverty or
3
race, resist the temptation to commit crimes. Cotton is not a helpless victim just like his
ancestors, and it demeans the free will of poor black men to suggest otherwise.
So the stock liberal charges against “mass incarceration†simply don’t hold water.
There is no racist conspiracy, nor are we locking everyone up and throwing away the key.
Most prisoners are guilty of violent or property crimes that no orderly society can excuse.
Even those convicted of drug crimes have often been implicated in violence, as well as
promoting addiction that destroys neighborhoods and lives.
But just because liberals are wrong does not mean the status quo is right.
Conservatives cannot reflexively jump from critiquing the Left’s preferred narrative to
defending our astronomical incarceration rate and permanent second-class status for excons. The criminal-justice system and prisons are big-government institutions. They are
often manipulated by special interests such as prison guards’ unions, and they consume
huge shares of most states’ budgets. And cities’ avarice tempts police to arrest and jail too
many people in order to collect fines, fees, tickets, and the like. As the Department of Justice
found in its report following the Michael Brown shooting in Missouri, “Ferguson’s law
enforcement practices are shaped by the City’s focus on revenue rather than by public
safety needs.†That approach poisons the legitimacy of law enforcement, particularly in the
eyes of poor and minority communities.
Conservatives also need to care more about ways to hold wrongdoers accountable
while minimizing the damage punishment does to families and communities. Punishment is
coercion by the state, and it disrupts not only defendants’ lives but also their families and
neighborhoods. Contrary to the liberal critique, we need to punish and condemn crimes
unequivocally, without excusing criminals or treating them as victims. But we should be
careful to do so in ways that reinforce rather than undercut conservative values, such as
strengthening families and communities.
Conservatives cannot reflexively jump from critiquing the Left’s preferred narrative
to defending our astronomical incarceration rate and permanent second-class status for excons.
Historically, colonial America punished crimes swiftly but temporarily. Only a few
convicts were hanged, exiled, or mutilated. Most paid a fine, were shamed in the town
square, sat in the stocks or pillory, or were whipped; all of these punishments were brief.
Having condemned the crime, the colonists then forgave the criminal, who had paid his
debt to society and the victim.
4
That was in keeping with the colonists’ Christian faith in forgiveness, and it meant
there was no permanent underclass of ex-cons. Preachers stressed that any of us could
have committed such crimes, and we all needed to steel ourselves against the same
temptations; the message was “There but for the grace of God go I.†The point of criminal
punishment was to condemn the wrong, humble the wrongdoer, induce him to make
amends and learn his lesson, and then welcome him back as a brother in Christ. The
punishment fell on the criminal, not on his family or friends, and he went right back to
work.
Two centuries ago, the shift from shaming and corporal punishments to
imprisonment made punishment an enduring status. Reformers had hoped that isolation
and Bible reading in prison would induce repentance and law-abiding work habits, but it
didn’t turn out that way. Now we warehouse large numbers of criminals, in idleness and at
great expense. By exiling them, often far away, prison severs them from their
responsibilities to their families and communities, not to mention separating them from
opportunities for gainful work. This approach is hugely disruptive, especially when it
passes a tipping point in some communities and exacerbates the number of fatherless
families. And much of the burden falls on innocent women and children, who lose a
husband, boyfriend, or father as well as a breadwinner.
Even though wrongdoers may deserve to have the book thrown at them, it is not
always wise to exact the full measure of justice. There is evidence that prison turns people
into career criminals. On the one hand, it cuts prisoners off from families, friends, and
neighbors, who give them reasons to follow the law. Responsibilities as husbands and
fathers are key factors that tame young men’s wildness and encourage them to settle down:
One longitudinal study found that marriage may reduce reoffending by 35 percent. But
prison makes it difficult to maintain families and friendships; visiting in person is difficult
and time-consuming, prisons are often far away, and telephone calls are horrifically
expensive.
On the other hand, prison does much to draw inmates away from lawful work. In the
month before their arrest, roughly three quarters of inmates were employed, earning the
bulk of their income lawfully. Many were not only taking care of their children but helping
to pay for rent, groceries, utilities, and health care. But prison destroys their earning
potential. Prisoners lose their jobs on the outside. Felony convictions also disqualify excons from certain jobs, housing, student loans, and voting. Michigan economics professor
Michael Mueller-Smith finds that spending a year or more in prison reduces the odds of
post-prison employment by 24 percent and increases the odds of living on food stamps by
5 percent.
Conversely, prisons are breeding grounds for crime. Instead of working to support
their own families and their victims, most prisoners are forced to remain idle. Instead of
having to learn vocational skills, they have too much free time to hone criminal skills and
connections. And instead of removing wrongdoers from criminogenic environments, prison
clusters together neophytes and experienced recidivists, breeding gangs, criminal
networks, and more crime. Thus, Mueller-Smith finds, long sentences on average breed
much more crime after release than they prevent during the sentence. Any benefit from
locking criminals up temporarily is more than offset by the crime increase caused when
prison turns small-timers into career criminals. So conservatives’ emphasis on retribution
and responsibility, even when morally warranted, can quickly become counterproductive.
5
Another justification for prison is that the threat of punishment deters crime. The
problem with deterrence, however, is that we overestimate prospective criminals’ foresight
and self-discipline. At its root, crime is generally a failure of self-discipline. Conservative
criminologists such as the late James Q. Wilson and Richard Herrnstein pin primary blame
for crime on criminals’ impulsively satisfying their immediate desires. They are shortsighted gamblers; who else would risk getting shot or arrested in order to steal $300 and a
six-pack of beer from a convenience store?
Impulsiveness, short-sightedness, and risk-taking are even more pronounced among
the very many wrongdoers whose crimes are fueled by some combination of drugs, alcohol,
and mental illness. But those very qualities make it hard to deter them. We naïvely expect
to deter these same short-sighted gamblers by threatening a chance of getting caught,
convicted, and sent to prison for years far off in the future. Of course, optimistic, intoxicated
risk-takers think they will not be caught. And if they have cycled through the juvenilejustice system and received meaningless probation for early convictions, the system has
taught them exactly the wrong lessons.
To deter crime effectively, punishment must speak to the same short-sighted
wrongdoers who commit crime — not primarily through threats of long punishment far off
in the future, but more through swift, certain sanctions that pay back victims while knitting
wrongdoers back into the social fabric. If we make punishments immediate and
predictable, yet modest, even drug addicts respond to them. Hawaii’s Opportunity
Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) is an intensive-probation program that has the
hardest-core drug users face random urinalysis one day each week; violators immediately
go off to a weekend in jail. Though the Left paints drug addiction as a disease requiring
costly medical intervention, drug addicts can in fact choose to stop using drugs. Under
HOPE, even habitual drug users usually go clean on their own when faced with the
immediate threat of two days in jail. Well over 80 percent stop using drugs right away and
remain clean, without any further treatment.
The contrast with ordinary probation is stark. Probation officers juggle hundreds of
cases, rarely see their clients, and routinely ignore multiple violations until they
unpredictably send a client back to prison at some point in the future. Probation thus
teaches probationers exactly the wrong lesson: that they are likely to get away with
violations. It is no wonder that HOPE succeeds where ordinary probation fails.
Applying the same insight to prisons could revolutionize them. UCLA professor
Mark Kleiman notes that most inmates could be released early and watched round the
clock with webcams, drug and alcohol testing, and electronic ankle bracelets via GPS. They
6
could live in government-rented apartments, see their families, and work at public-service
jobs, all at much less expense than prison. These surveillance methods could enforce rules
such as strict curfews, location limits, and bans on drug and alcohol use, with swift
penalties for noncompliance. But the Left hates the idea, in part because its critics blame
crime on society rather than on wrongdoers who need to be held accountable, disciplined,
and taught structure and self-control.
The more that punishment exacerbates the breakdown of families and communities,
the more the overweening state and its social services and law enforcement grow to fill the
resulting void.
States like Texas and Georgia have already been experimenting with alternatives to
endlessly building more prison cells. They have dramatically expanded inpatient and
outpatient drug treatment as well as drug courts, diverted more minor offenders out of
prison, kept juveniles out of state prison, and set up cheaper diversion beds for inmates
who do not need to be in regular prison. For instance, Texas has begun creating special
substance-abuse cells, so that repeat drunk drivers can get treatment instead of being
housed with murderers and rapists. Risk-assessment tools can help to identify the sliver of
recidivists and predators who pose the greatest danger and need long-term confinement.
Most of all, the government needs to work on reweaving the frayed but still extant
fabric of criminals’ families and communities. Both excessive crime and excessive
punishment rend communal bonds, further atomizing society. The more that punishment
exacerbates the breakdown of families and communities, the more the overweening state
and its social services and law enforcement grow to fill the resulting void.
The cornerstone of a conservative criminal-justice agenda should be strengthening
families. More than half of America’s inmates have minor children, more than 1.7 million in
all; most of these inmates were living with minor children right before their arrest or
incarceration. Inmates should meet with their families often. They should be incarcerated
as close to home as possible, not deliberately sent to the other end of the state. Visitation
rules and hours need to be eased, and extortionate collect-call telephone rates should come
down to actual cost.
We should also pay more attention to the victims of crime. Victims are often friends,
neighbors, or relatives of the wrongdoers who must go back to living among them. Though
victims want to see justice done — including appropriate punishment — that does not
generally mean the maximum possible sentence. In surveys, victims care much more about
receiving restitution and apologies. So prison-based programs should encourage
wrongdoers to meet with their victims if the victims are willing, to listen to their stories,
apologize, and seek their forgiveness. Having to apologize and make amends makes most
wrongdoers uncomfortable, teaching them lessons that they must learn.
Over-imprisonment is wrong because state coercion excessively disrupts work,
families, and communities, the building blocks of society, with too little benefit to show for
it.
Another important component of punishment should be work. It is madness that
prisoners spend years in state-sponsored idleness punctuated by sporadic brutality. It is
time to repeal Depression-era protectionist laws that ban prison-made goods from
interstate commerce and require payment of prevailing-wage rates to prisoners (making
prison industries unprofitable). All able-bodied prisoners should have to complete their
educations and work, learning good work habits as well as marketable skills. One could
even experiment with sending able-bodied prisoners without serious violent tendencies to
7
enlist in the military, as used to be routine (think of the movie The Dirty Dozen). Some of
prisoners’ wages could go to support their families, cover some costs of incarceration, and
make restitution to their victims.
Finally, inmates need religion and the religious communities that come with it.*
Most prisoners are eventually released, and we do almost nothing to help them reenter
society, simply providing a bus ticket and perhaps $20. But faith-based programs like
Prison Fellowship Ministries can transform cell blocks from wards of idleness or violence
to orderly places of prayer, repentance, education, and work. After inmates are released,
these faith-based groups can also perform much of the oversight, community reintegration,
fellowship, and prayer that returning inmates need. Inmates must accept their
responsibility, vow to mend their ways, and have fellow believers to hold them to those
promises. Having a job, an apartment, and a congregation waiting for them after release
from prison offers ex-cons a law-abiding alternative to returning to lives of crime.
[Me again. As you know, we want to avoid religious arguments. Instead, we want to
challenge our thinking to focus on ideas we can all argue about. In the next paragraph, the
author refers to morality. Morals are shared principles that exist in particular communities.
While there are religious forms of community that share very particular principles, there
are other forms of community that can help ground or provide roots for those leaving
prison. Schools are examples of such communities. It’s okay to use religious community as
an example of an environment that might help an ex-prisoner transition, but then use it as
only one example among others.]
American criminal justice has drifted away from its moral roots. The Left has
forgotten how to blame and punish, and too often the Right has forgotten how to forgive.
Over-imprisonment is wrong, but not because wrongdoers are blameless victims of a
white-supremacist conspiracy. It is wrong because state coercion excessively disrupts
work, families, and communities, the building blocks of society, with too little benefit to
show for it. Our strategies for deterring crime not only fail to work on short-sighted,
impulsive criminals, but harden them into careerists. Criminals deserve punishment, but it
is wise as well as humane to temper justice with mercy.
0
— Stephanos Bibas, a University of Pennsylvania professor of law and criminology and a
former federal prosecutor, is the author of The Machinery of Criminal Justice (Oxford). This
article originally appeared in the September 21, 2015, issue of National Review.
8
Escaping  from  the  Standard  Story: Â
Why  The  Conventional  Wisdom  on Â
Prison  Growth  Is  Wrong,  And Â
Where  We  Can  Go  From  Here Â
Â
John  F.  Pfaff* Â
Â
Abstract Â
Â
Whether  as  a  result  of  low  crime  rates,  the  financial  pressures Â
of  the  2008  credit  crunch,  or  other  factors,  policymakers  on Â
both  sides  of  the  aisle  are  trying  to  rein  or  even  reduce  the  US Â
incarceration  rate  after  an  unprecedented  forty-Ââ€year  expan-Ââ€
sion.  Unfortunately,  reforms  are  hampered  by  the  fact  that Â
we  do  not  have  a  solid  empirical  understanding  of  what Â
caused  the  explosion  in  the  first  place.  In  fact,  the  “Standard Â
Story† of  prison  growth  generally  overemphasizes  less  im-Ââ€
portant  factors  and  overlooks  more  important  ones.  This  es-Ââ€
say  thus  does  two  things.  First,  it  points  out  the  flaws  in  five Â
key  aspects  of  the  Standard  Story:  its  argument  that  the  War Â
on  Drugs  is  of  central  importance,  that  trends  in  violent  and Â
property  crimes  are  relatively  unimportant,  that  longer  sen-Ââ€
tence  lengths  drive  growth,  that  the  “criminal  justice  system†Â
is  a  fairly  coherent  entity  advancing  specific  goals,  and  that Â
the  “politics  of  crime  control† is  uniquely  dysfunctional.  And Â
second,  it  argues  that  an  increased  willingness  of  the  part  of Â
prosecutors  to  file  charges—a  causal  factor  almost  complete-Ââ€
ly  overlooked  by  the  Standard  Story—is  likely  the  most  im-Ââ€
portant  force  behind  prison  growth,  at  least  for  the  past  two Â
decades. Â
*
 Professor  of  Law,  Fordham  Law  School. Â
Â
1 Â
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2414596
Â
Key  words:  Incarceration,  Incarceration  Rates,  Sentencing, Â
Criminal  Justice,  Crime,  Crime  and  Punishment,  Prosecutors Â
Â
The  past  four  decades  have  witnessed  an  unprecedented  surge  in Â
the  US  incarceration  rate.  Stable  for  nearly  fifty  years  at  about  100  per Â
100,000,  it  started  surging  in  the  mid-Ââ€1970s  to  nearly  500  per  100,000 Â
today.  It  is  an  explosion  unprecedented  here  or  abroad:  with  only  5%  of Â
the  world’s  population,  the  US  is  now  home  to  more  than  20%  of  its Â
prisoners. Â
But  relatively  low  crime  rates  and  tight  state  budgets  have  led  to  a Â
fairly  bipartisan  desire  to  reduce  the  scale  of  US  incarceration.  Reform Â
efforts,  however,  are  hampered  by  a  serious  limitation,  namely  that  we Â
don’t  really  understand  what  caused  this  growth  in  the  first  place.  Actu-Ââ€
ally,  the  problem  is  worse:  policymakers,  journalists,  academics,  and  the Â
wider  public  all  generally  accept  a  conventional  wisdom—what  I  will  call Â
the  “Standard  Storyâ€â€”that  is  simply  incorrect.  It  is  a  situation  worse Â
than  ignorance. Â
In  this  short  essay  I  want  to  correct  several  of  the  more  durable Â
myths  or  misconceptions  that  are  at  the  heart  of  the  Standard  Story, Â
focusing  on  five  problematic  claims  in  particular:  (1)  the  War  on  Drugs Â
drives  prison  growth,  (2)  trends  in  violent  and  property  crimes  are  rela-Ââ€
tively  unimportant,  (3)  longer  sentences  drive  prison  growth,  (4)  the Â
“criminal  justice  system† is  a  fairly  coherent  entity  with  identifiable Â
goals,  and  (5)  the  politics  of  crime  are  uniquely  dysfunctional.  There  are Â
other  aspects  of  the  Standard  Story  that  are  also  empirically  problemat-Ââ€
ic—such  as  claims  tying  prison  growth  to  private  prisons  or  to  increased Â
parole  violations  (particularly  technical  violations)  1—but  these  five  are Â
1
 According  to  Bureau  of  Justice  Statistics,  only  about  8%  of  state  prisoners  are Â
held  in  private  prisons.  And  while  parole  violations  have  gone  up,  so  too  have Â
parole  releases,  thanks  to  rising  prison  populations.  Parole  releases  and  parole Â
Â
2 Â
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2414596
among  the  most  important  claims,  and  my  space  here  is  limited.  After Â
pointing  out  the  deep  flaws  with  these  five  claims,  I  will  highlight  some Â
of  the  more  empirically  plausible  explanations,  emphasizing  in  particular Â
the  importance  of  prosecutors  and  their  willingness  to  file  felony  charg-Ââ€
es. Â
Â
Five  Problematic  Explanations  of  Prison  Growth Â
Â
The  Standard  Story  comes  in  many  different  forms,  but  across  a Â
wide  range  of  commentators  a  fairly  consistent—and  flawed—story Â
emerges.  Here  I  consider  five  common,  incorrect  aspects  of  that  Story. Â
Â
The  War  on  Drugs.  This  is  perhaps  the  most  common  and  durable Â
explanation.  It  is  also  easy  to  dismantle.  Figure  1  plots  the  percent  of Â
state  prisoners  over  time  whose  primary  offense  was  a  drug  crime.2  Yes, Â
the  percent  rises  sharply  from  1980  to  1990,  when  it  peaks  at  22%.  But Â
that’s  only  22%:  nearly  four-Ââ€fifths  of  all  state  prisoners  in  1990  were  not Â
drug  offenders.3  By  2010  the  percent  of  state  prisoners  serving  time  for Â
drug  offenses  was  down  to  just  over  17%.  Â
violations  move  in  relative  sync  (with  states  releasing  more  than  they  violate Â
back),  suggesting  that  parole  violations  are  less  the  cause  of  but  more  the Â
symptom  of  prison  growth.  See  John  F.  Pfaff,  The  Myths  and  Realities  of  Correc-Ââ€
tional  Severity:  Evidence  from  the  National  Corrections  Reporting  Program,  13 Â
AM. Â L. Â & Â ECON. Â REV. Â 491 Â (2011). Â
2
 The  national  statistics  on  imprisonment  prioritize  offenses,  ranking  violent Â
ahead  of  property  and  property  ahead  of  drugs.  So  someone  sentenced  for Â
arson  and  drug  possession  would  appear  just  as  a  “violent  offender.†Â
3
 About  half  of  all  federal  prisoners  are  serving  time  for  drug  offenses  due  to Â
the  federal  system’s  limited  jurisdiction,  but  only  about  12%  of  all  prisoners  are Â
federal  inmates.  So  adding  in  the  federal  system  raises  the  percentages  by Â
about  five  percentage  points,  not  enough  to  change  the  qualitative  story  here. Â
Â
3 Â
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2414596
Fig. 1: Percent of Prisoners Serving Drug Sentences
.05
.1
Percent
.15
.2
.25
1980 – 2008
1980
1990
2000
2010
Year
Note: Data from the National Prisoner Statistics
Â
The  relative  unimportance  of  drug  incarcerations  can  be  illuminated Â
even  more  strikingly.  Between  1980  and  2009,  state  prisons  added Â
1,086,200  prisoners,  as  the  prison  population  rose  from  294,000  to Â
1,380,200.  This  increase  consisted  of  551,000  more  violent  offenders, Â
171,900  more  property  offenders,  and  only  223,000  more  drug  offend-Ââ€
ers  (with  the  rest  committing  public-Ââ€order  and  other  miscellaneous Â
crimes).  In  other  words,  the  increase  in  drug  incarcerations  explains  on-Ââ€
ly  21%  of  the  growth  in  state  prison  populations.4  The  increase  in  violent Â
offenders  alone  explains  51%—more  than  half—of  the  overall  growth, Â
and  that  in  violent  and  property  offenders  explains  67%.  When  some-Ââ€
one  like  Michelle  Alexander  argues  in  The  New  Jim  Crow  that  drugs  in-Ââ€
4
Â
 223,000  is  21%  of  1,086,200. Â
4 Â
carcerations  are  the  primary  source  of  prison  growth  she  is  simply,  cat-Ââ€
egorically  wrong.5 Â
That  said,  it  is  possible  that  the  war  on  drugs  could  have  important Â
indirect  effects.  First,  drug  arrests  may  not  result  in  incarceration,  but Â
they  can  disrupt  the  offender’s  life  (relationships,  employment,  etc.)  in Â
ways  that  may  lead  to  future  criminality:  a  future  burglary  or  aggravated Â
assault  could  be  the  product  in  part  of  the  social  disruption  from  a  prior Â
drug  arrest.  Second,  drug  arrests  and  convictions  increase  a  defendant’s Â
criminal  history,  resulting  in  tougher  sanctions  or  treatment  for  future Â
non-Ââ€drug  offenses.6  Third,  prohibition  itself  can  lead  to  violence  and Â
other  crimes,  whether  by  destabilizing  drug  markets,  by  increasing  the Â
returns  on  illegal  activity,  by  making  it  harder  to  treat  drug  addiction  as Â
a  public  health  problem  instead  of  a  criminal  one,  etc.  Â
The  policy  implications  here  are  clear.  Reducing  the  admissions  of Â
drug  offenders  will  not  meaningfully  reduce  prison  populations.  Ad-Ââ€
dressing  the  collateral  costs  of  the  war  on  drugs—such  as  longer  crimi-Ââ€
nal  records  or  the  social  destabilization  of  arrest—may  be  more  produc-Ââ€
tive.  But  it  is  much  more  likely  that  meaningful  reform  must  look  at  how Â
we  treat  violent  and  property  offenders,  to  whom  I  turn  now.  Â
Â
The  Importance  of  Violent  and  Property  Crimes.  One  surprising  as-Ââ€
pect  of  the  Standard  Story  is  that  it  downplays  the  impact  of  violent  and Â
property  crime  trends  on  incarceration  rates.  Its  insistence  that  the  war Â
5
 This  is  not  a  strawman  argument,  nor  an  overstatement  of  what  she  says: Â
“The  impact  of  the  drug  war  has  been  astounding.  In  less  than  thirty  years,  the Â
U.S.  penal  population  exploded  from  around  300,000  to  more  than  2  million, Â
with  drug  convictions  accounting  for  a  majority  of  the  increase.† Michelle  Alex-Ââ€
ander,  The  New  Jim  Crow  6  (2012)  (emphasis  added).  It  should  be  clear  by  now Â
that  this  assertion  is  fundamentally,  indeed  distressingly,  incorrect. Â
6
 Some  preliminary  results  from  the  1997  and  2004  waves  of  the  National  Sur-Ââ€
vey  of  Inmates  in  State  and  Federal  Correctional  Institutions,  however,  cautions Â
against  putting  too  much  weight  on  this  theory  as  well. Â
Â
5 Â
on  drugs  is  the  primary  engine  of  prison  growth  surely  explains  this  to Â
some  extent.  Yet  this  is  a  serious  error  in  the  Standard  Story’s  account. Â
Figure  2  plots  violent  and  property  crime  rates  since  1960.  Between Â
1960  and  1991,  violent  crime  grows  by  371%  and  property  crime  by Â
198%  (from  a  baseline  ten  times  as  high).  Like  the  subsequent  expan-Ââ€
sion  in  prison  populations,  this  was  an  historically  unprecedented  explo-Ââ€
sion  in  crime.  Such  soaring  criminality  surely  changed  people’s  attitudes Â
towards  punishment,  but  it  also  likely  had  a  direct  impact  on  incarcera-Ââ€
tion  level.  Empirically  estimating  the  impact  of  crime  on  incarceration  is Â
actually  quite  tricky,  7  but  one  of  the  more  sophisticated—albeit  still Â
quite  problematic—estimates  suggests  that  a  1%  increase  in  crime  may Â
lead  to  an  approximately  1%  increase  in  incarceration. 8  If  so,  rising Â
crime  explains  half  the  prison  growth  up  through  1991.  Of  course,  that Â
means  other  factors  explain  the  other  half,  but  these  results  nonethe-Ââ€
less  place  changes  in  violent  and  property  crime  at  the  heart  of  changes Â
in  incarceration. Â
7
 Perhaps  another  reason  the  Standard  Story  downplays  the  role  of  violent  and Â
property  crime  comes  from  the  trends  in  Figure  2.  Prison  populations  grew Â
when  crime  rates  were  rising  (1960  to  1980,  1984  to  1991),  falling  (1991  to  the Â
present),  and  flat  (1980  -† 1984),  suggesting  that  prison  populations  grew  inde-Ââ€
pendently  of  crime  rates.  Yet  simple  correlations  like  these  can  be  deceptive. Â
8
 Yair  Listokin,  Does  More  Crime  Mean  More  Prisoners?  An  Instrumental  Varia-Ââ€
ble  Approach,  46  J.  L.  &  ECON.  181  (2003).  The  concerns  with  Listokin’s  results Â
are  technical  in  nature:  Listokin  uses  abortion  as  an  instrument  for  crime,  which Â
requires  abortion  to  be  otherwise  uncorrelated  with  incarceration.  This  is  likely Â
not  true  since,  for  example,  increased  abortion  could  free  up  female  labor  sup-Ââ€
ply  leading  to  higher  tax  returns,  higher  state  revenue,  and  thus  an  increased Â
willingness  to  incarcerate.  The  likely  absence  of  strict  exogeneity  dictates  that Â
we  treat  these  results  with  some  caution. Â
Â
6 Â
Fig. 2: Violent and Property Crime Rates
200
2000
Violent Crime
400
600
3000 4000 5000
Property Crime
800
6000
1960 – 2010
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Year
Violent Crime
Property Crime
Note: Data from the Uniform Crime Report and National Prisoner Statistics
Â
In  fact,  Figure  2  may  actually  undersell  the  psychological  impact  of Â
the  crime  boom  of  1960  to  1991.  Figure  3  provides  an  alternate  version Â
of  the  US  incarceration  rate,  not  in  terms  of  prisoners  per  person,  but  in Â
terms  of  prisoners  per  crime;  call  this  the  “effective† incarceration  rate. Â
What  is  striking  is  the  significant  decline  in  the  effective  incarceration Â
rate  from  1960  to  1980:  as  crime  rates  soared,  the  incarceration  rate—
and  in  some  years  the  absolute  number  of  prisoners—fell  or  stayed  flat. Â
Â
7 Â
Fig. 3: Viol. and Prop. Crime Rates Per 1,000 Prisoners
0
200
400
50
100
150
Property Crime
200
Violent Crime
600
800 1000 1200
1960 – 2010
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Year
Violent Crime
Property Crime
Note: Data from the Uniform Crime Report and National Prisoner Statistics
Â
Whether  the  decline  in  effective  incarceration  was  good  policy  is Â
immaterial.  It  could  be  that  an  increase  in  effective  incarceration  would Â
have  led  to  more  crime,  or  that  no  reasonable  increase  in  incarceration Â
could  counteract  the  broad  social  and  demographic  upheavals  that Â
pushed  up  crime  in  the  1960s.  But  what  may  really  matter  is  that  the Â
Baby  Boomers—a  large,  politically  powerful  bloc  of  voters—saw  crime Â
soar  while  prison  populations  fell  and  thought  a  causal  connection  ex-Ââ€
isted.  And  this  perception,  whatever  the  true  causal  relationship,  likely Â
influences  the  politics  of  punishment  to  this  day. Â
Â
The  (un)importance  of  longer  sentences.  Another  core  argument  of Â
the  Standard  Story  is  that  longer  sentences  have  driven  up  prison  popu-Ââ€
lations.  We  are,  according  to  some  leading  criminologists,  in  a  “throw Â
away  the  key† era.  Yet  despite  anecdotes  of  bracingly  long  sentences  for Â
relatively  minor  offenses,  the  evidence  suggests  that  time  served  has Â
remained  relatively  stable  over  many  years.  In  fact,  not  only  is  time Â
Â
8 Â
served  stable,  but  at  least  for  many  Northern  states  (which  provide Â
more  reliable  data),  it  is  surprisingly  short:  median  sentence  lengths  are Â
on  the  order  of  two  to  four  years,  with  three-Ââ€fourths  of  all  inmates  re-Ââ€
leased  in  about  six  to  eight  years.  Two  or  six  years  in  a  state  prison  is  a Â
serious  sanction,  but  such  sentences  are  not  throw-Ââ€away-Ââ€the-Ââ€key  long. Â
Figure  4  provides  intuitive  evidence  that  sentence  length  has  not Â
grown  noticeably  over  time.  All  Figure  4  plots  is  the  total  annual  number Â
of  admissions  to  and  releases  from  state  prisons.  Were  sentence  lengths Â
growing  systematically  tougher,  we  should  expect  releases  to  grow  at Â
an  increasingly  flatter  rate  relative  to  admissions.  And  while  there  is Â
some  such  flattening  in  the  early  1980s,  over  the  rest  of  the  period  the Â
two  lines  track  each  other  closely—and  they  even  converge  in  the Â
2000s.  More  rigorous  studies  using  various  forms  of  inmate-† and  state-Ââ€
level  data  appear  to  confirm  this  intuition.9 Â
9
 Pfaff,  The  Myths  and  Realities  of  Correctional  Severity,  supra  note  1;  John  F. Â
Pfaff,  The  Durability  of  Prison  Populations,  2010  U.  CHI.  LEGAL  F.  73  (2010);  and Â
John  F.  Pfaff,  The  Centrality  of  Prosecutors  to  Prison  Growth:  An  Empirical  Anal-Ââ€
ysis  (unpublished  manuscript,  2014). Â
Â
9 Â
Fig. 4: Admissions and Releases from State Prisons
0
200000 400000 600000 800000
1977 – 2009
1970
1980
1990
Year
Admission
2000
2010
Releases
Note: Data from the National Prisoner Statistics
Â
This  is  an  admittedly  bold  claim,  and  I  want  to  note  a  few  reserva-Ââ€
tions.  First,  that  time  served  has  been  stable  does  not  mean  tougher Â
sentencing  laws  are  irrelevant.  As  I  will  discuss  below,  at  least  since  the Â
early  1990s  the  primary  engine  of  prison  growth  has  been  an  increased Â
willingness  on  the  part  of  prosecutors  to  file  felony  charges.  By  giving Â
prosecutors  bigger  hammers  to  wield  during  the  plea  bargaining  pro-Ââ€
cess,  tougher  sentencing  laws  may  enable  prosecutors  to  extract  guilty Â
pleas  more  quickly  from  defendants  (by  offering  not  to  use  the  tougher Â
law).  Thus  convicted  defendants  may  serve  the  same  amount  of  time  as Â
before,  but  more  defendants  plead  out  (rather  than,  say,  risking  a  trial Â
or  having  their  cases  dismissed  or  knocked  down  to  a  misdemeanor). Â
Second,  admissions  have  been  rising  during  a  time  of  declining Â
crime,  which  means  that  states  must  be  admitting  increasingly  marginal Â
offenders.  If  so,  perhaps  we  should  have  expected  time  served  to  fall, Â
not  stay  flat.  That  time  served  has  remained  stable  could  reflect  that  we Â
are  imposing  harsher  sentences  on  less-Ââ€serious  offenders  than  before. Â
Â
10 Â
Tests  for  this  effect  seem  to  confirm  that  it  is  present,  but  not  necessari-Ââ€
ly  that  it  is  particularly  strong. Â
Â
The  criminal  justice  system  is  not  a  system.  The  Standard  Story  also Â
treats  the  criminal  justice  system  like  some  sort  of  coherent  entity  with Â
defined  goals;  at  the  very  least,  it  posits  that  those  at  the  top  of  the  po-Ââ€
litical  hierarchy—governors,  presidents,  political  parties—use  “the  sys-Ââ€
tem† to  accomplish  certain  objectives,  such  as  reducing  crime  or  regu-Ââ€
lating  and  controlling  minority  populations.  In  fact,  this  is  a  common Â
view  of  criminal  justice  in  many  areas  of  research  and  policy.  But  it  is  a Â
deeply  flawed  one. Â
The  criminal  justice  system  is  not  a  “system† at  all,  and  treating  it  as Â
such  can  lead  analysts  to  overlook  important  causes  of  prison  growth. Â
This  alleged  “system† is  actually  a  poorly  thought  out,  sprawling  mé-Ââ€
lange  of  competing  institutions  with  different  constituencies  and  incen-Ââ€
tives,  and  which  at  times  do  not  work  well  together.  It  consists  of  local Â
police,  county  district  attorneys,  county  or  state  judges  (who  are  either Â
appointed  or  elected,  and  if  elected  are  chosen  in  partisan  or  non-Ââ€
partisan  elections),  state-Ââ€level  governors  and  parole  boards,  and  hybrid Â
state  legislators  (who  hold  state-Ââ€level  office  but  often  represent  hyper-Ââ€
local  districts),  not  to  mention  various  federal  bureaucracies,  county Â
sheriffs,  regional  task  forces,  state  sentencing  commissions,  and  so  on. Â
And  not  only  is  authority  divided  across  these  actors,  but  there  is  often Â
no  clear  logic  to  why  authority  is  divided  the  way  it  is. Â
Consider  one  clear  example  of  a  poorly-Ââ€reasoned  allocation  of  au-Ââ€
thority  and  its  costs.  Jails  and  probation  offices  are  funded  by  counties, Â
prisons  by  states.  This  creates  a  significant  moral  hazard  problem  for Â
county  prosecutors:  their  constituents  don’t  pay  the  full  cost  of  the  fel-Ââ€
ony  convictions  they  secure,  although  the  prosecutors  reap  the  full Â
tough-Ââ€on-Ââ€crime  political  benefits.  In  fact,  prosecutors  are  incentivized  to Â
charge  borderline  cases  as  felonies,  since  misdemeanors  resulting  in  jail Â
or  probation  accrue  less  political  benefit  and  increase  county  costs.  A Â
Â
11 Â
model  that  treats  the  criminal  justice  system  as  a  coherent  entity  will Â
miss  such  moral  hazard  issues—which  is  exactly  the  trap  into  which  the Â
Standard  Story  falls. Â
By  ignoring  these  institutional  factors,  the  Standard  Story  fails  to Â
identify  who  is  driving  prison  growth:  are  police  arresting  more  offend-Ââ€
ers,  district  attorneys  charging  more,  judges  convicting  and  sentencing Â
more,  judges  (or  legislators)  sentencing  them  to  longer  sentences,  or, Â
say,  parole  officers  restricting  releases?  The  Standard  Story  glosses  over Â
these  questions  and  generally  relies  on  broad  state-† or  federal-Ââ€level  dis-Ââ€
cussions.  This  oversight  imposes  two  serious  costs. Â
First,  and  more  technically,  non-Ââ€institutional  empirical  models  yield Â
relatively  uninformative  results,  even  if  the  models  are  methodological-Ââ€
ly  sound  (which  they  almost  never  are).10  What  does  it  mean  if  a  study Â
reports  that  a  1%  increase  in  young  black  men  in  a  state  leads  to  a  1.2% Â
increase  in  the  prison  population?  Is  it  because  police  are  biased?  DAs? Â
judges?  And  in  urban  counties?  rural  ones?  or  high-Ââ€crime  rural  or  low-Ââ€
crime  urban?  A  state-Ââ€level  model  that  does  not  account  for  the  various Â
institutional  actors  involved  simply  yields  an  uninterpretable  average  of Â
all  sorts  of  local  effects,  and  there  is  absolutely  no  reason  to  assume Â
that  the  effect  is  the  same  across  all  institutions,  or  across  all  types  of Â
counties. Â
Second,  and  more  significantly,  non-Ââ€institutional  models  provide  lit-Ââ€
tle  insight  into  where  to  target  reforms.  For  example,  without  under-Ââ€
standing  who  is  driving  prison  growth,  it  is  unclear  how  important  it  is  to Â
revise  state  sentencing  laws.  Consider  the  recent  history  of  punishment Â
in  New  York  State.  The  Rockefeller  Drug  Laws  (RDLs)  were  passed  in Â
1973,  yet  the  percent  of  drug  offenders  in  New  York  State  prisons  re-Ââ€
mained  flat  or  fell  until  1984.  County  DAs  simply  ignored  the  RDLs  for Â
10
 I  point  out  the  substantial  methodological  flaws  with  almost  all  empirical Â
papers  on  prison  growth  in  John  F.  Pfaff,  The  Empirics  of  Prison  Growth:  A  Criti-Ââ€
cal  Review  and  Path  Forward,  98  J.  CRIM.  L.  &  CRIMINOLOGY  547  (2008). Â
Â
12 Â
over  a  decade,  since  whatever  national-Ââ€level  politics  inspired  Nelson Â
Rockefeller  to  advocate  for  them  didn’t  matter  at  their  local  level.  And Â
then  drug  incarcerations  started  to  decline  steady  from  1997  on,  even Â
though  the  legislature  did  not  amend  the  RDLs  until  2004  (weakly)  and Â
2009  (more  seriously).  In  other  words,  the  county  DAs  also  stopped  rely-Ââ€
ing  on  the  RDLs  well  before  Albany  got  around  to  modifying  them.11  Â
In  fact,  in  a  recent  paper  I  demonstrate  that  at  least  since  1994,  the Â
primary  force  behind  prison  expansion  has  been  an  increased  willing-Ââ€
ness  on  the  part  of  district  attorneys  to  file  felony  charges:  crime  is Â
down,  arrests  per  crime  are  generally  flat  or  falling,  prison  admissions Â
per  felony  case  are  flat,  as  is  time  served,  but  filings  per  arrest  have Â
soared.12  These  results  indicate,  then,  that  reforms  targeting  prosecu-Ââ€
tors  are  more  important  than  those  looking  at  legislators,  or  at  least Â
that  legislative  reforms  are  important  only  insofar  as  they  alter  how Â
prosecutors—over  whom  legislators  have  no  direct  authority—
behave.13 Â
Moreover,  this  institutional  approach  demonstrates  that  we  need  to Â
study  punishment  at  the  county  level,  not  the  state  or  federal,  since  Â
district  attorneys  are  county  officials  who  respond  to  county  incentives. Â
And  once  we  start  looking  at  counties,  interesting  features  that  the Â
Standard  Story  simply  cannot  detect  emerge.  One,  obviously,  is  the Â
moral  hazard  problem  noted  above.  Another  is  that  counties  can  differ Â
in  systematic  ways.  New  York  State,  for  example,  has  witnessed  a  long-Ââ€
running  decline  in  both  its  overall  prison  population  and  the  percent  of Â
11
 To  be  clear,  the  RDLs  were  not  immaterial:  local  DAs  could  not  have  been  as Â
harsh  in  the  1980s  and  1990s  had  the  legislature  not  given  them  that  option. Â
12
 Pfaff,  The  Centrality  of  Prosecutors  to  Prison  Growth,  supra  note  9. Â
13
 Other  examples  of  these  sorts  of  agency  problems  abound.  Dan  Richman,  for Â
example,  pointed  out  that  the  New  Orleans  Police  Department  effectively Â
thwarted  the  New  Orleans’  DA’s  efforts  to  avoid  pleading  out  cases  by  refusing Â
to  improve  the  quality  of  the  its  investigations,  and  thus  the  quality  of  the  cases Â
the  DA’s  office  could  mount.  See  Daniel  Richman,  Institutional  Coordination Â
and  Sentencing  Reform,  84  TEX.  L.  REV.  2055  (2006). Â
Â
13 Â
inmates  serving  time  for  drug  offenses.  Both  declines  are  due  primarily Â
to  New  York  City:  while  the  City’s  five  counties  have  been  sending  fewer Â
total  people  and  relatively  fewer  drug  offenders  to  prison,  the  less-Ââ€
urban  counties  of  the  state  have  been  doing  the  opposite.  Other  studies Â
have  yielded  similar  rural-Ââ€urban  distinctions.  These  results  raise  inter-Ââ€
esting  questions  about  how  to  structure  and  design  reforms  that  state-Ââ€
level  analyses  cannot  help  but  miss. Â
Of  course,  we  don’t  want  to  overstate  the  disaggregate  nature  of Â
criminal  justice  in  the  US.  While  police  chiefs,  district  attorneys,  judges, Â
and  governors  are  all  relatively  autonomous  and  responsive  to  different Â
constituencies,  they  also  all  still  read  the  same  op-Ââ€eds  in  the  same  pa-Ââ€
pers  and  are  buffeted  by  the  same  broad  cultural  winds.  Thus  they  are Â
all  likely  influenced  by,  say,  the  rise  of  the  “nothing  works† attitude  in Â
the  1970s  or  the  increased  interest  in  re-Ââ€entry  or  problem-Ââ€solving  ap-Ââ€
proaches  today.  At  the  same  time,  they  likely  respond  to  these  changes Â
differently,  and  any  model  of  criminal  justice  outcomes  that  fails  to  ac-Ââ€
count  for  the  diffuse  nature  of  authority  and  responsibility  will  miss  im-Ââ€
portant  explanations  for  what  is  happening.  Â
Â
The  “politics† of  crime  are  not  that  unique.  The  final  erroneous  as-Ââ€
pect  of  the  Standard  Story  that  I  want  to  address  is  its  broad  assertion Â
that  the  politics  of  criminal  justice  are  uniquely  dysfunctional.  It  is  an Â
admittedly  intuitive  claim:  while  most  policy  issues  have  clearly  defined Â
antagonistic  sides—labor  vs.  management,  greens  vs.  industry,  pro-Ââ€life Â
vs.  pro-Ââ€choice—there  does  not  appear  to  be  anyone  to  counter  the Â
“tough  on  crime† side.  Furthermore,  numerous  criminologists  and  soci-Ââ€
ologists  have  argued  that  crime  control  is  a  uniquely  effective  election-Ââ€
eering  topic  in  today’s  political  environment,  leading  politicians  to  focus Â
Â
14 Â
on  it  to  a  disproportionate  degree.14  Taken  together,  these  observations Â
suggest  we  should  see  a  one-Ââ€way  ratchet  of  ever-Ââ€tougher  crime  policies. Â
And  it  is  true  that  politicians  have  generally  not  rolled  back  criminal Â
statutes  or  weakened  sentencing  laws.  Yet  the  story  is  more  complicat-Ââ€
ed  than  that.  Consider  Figure  5,  which  plots  correctional  spending  as  a Â
share  of  state  budget  outlays.  Correction’s  share  of  the  budget  rises Â
from  the  1970s  through  the  early  1990s—which  coincides  with  the Â
crime  boom—but  then  remains  relatively  flat  during  from  the  mid-Ââ€
1990s  onward.  In  other  words,  once  crime  leveled  out  in  the  early Â
1990s,  so  too  did  relative  correctional  spending.  Â
Fig. 5: Correctional Share of State Budgets
.02
.04
.06
.08
.1
1952 – 2008
1940
1960
1980
Year
% of Total Spending
% of Discretionary 2
2000
2020
% of Discretionary 1
Notes: Data from the Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of Government Finances. Discretionary 1
and Discretionary 2 refer to two seaprate ways of calculating state discretionary spending. More
details are available in John F. Pfaff, The Micro and Macro Causes of Prison Growth, 28 Ga. St.
L. Rev. 1239 (2011).
Â
14
 Surprisingly,  these  researchers  rarely  explain  why  crime  has  been  such  a Â
powerful  electoral  topic,  or  at  least  why  politicians  have  favored  it  over  other Â
potential  issues.  A  likely  explanation  is  that  our  high  rates  of  crime  itself  made Â
crime  control  a  salient  political  issue,  but  as  noted  above  the  Standard  Story Â
generally  downplays  the  violent  and  property  crime  surge  that  started  in  the Â
1960s. Â
Â
15 Â
It  is  true  that  absolute  correctional  spending  rose  steadily  during Â
the  1990s  and  2000s,  from  almost  $20  billion  in  1991  to  nearly  $50  bil-Ââ€
lion  in  2008  (a  159%  nominal  increase,  although  only  a  63%  real  in-Ââ€
crease,  and  only  a  35%  real  increase  per  capita).  But  look  at  Figure  6, Â
which  plots  real  per-Ââ€capita  state  revenues  and  expenditures  from  1952 Â
to  2008:  state  fiscal  capacity  grew  steadily  over  that  time,  and  spending Â
moved  in  lockstep  with  revenues.  States  were  spending  more  on  every-Ââ€
thing,  including  corrections.  In  fact,  for  all  the  talk  of  “crowding  out,†Â
correctional  spending  is  generally  positively  correlated  with  spending  on Â
welfare, Â education, Â transportation, Â etc.15 Â
Fig. 6: Real Per Capita State Revenues and Expenditures
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
1952 – 2008
1940
1960
1980
Year
Revenues
2000
2020
Expenditures
Note: Data from the Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of Government Finances.
Â
In  other  words,  spending  on  corrections  ultimately  does  not  appear Â
to  be  as  exceptional  as  it  seems  at  first  blush.  Once  crime  began  falling Â
15
 Of  course,  there  is  crowding  out  on  the  margin:  perhaps  educational  budgets Â
would  have  grown  even  faster  had  states  spent  less  on  corrections.  But  all Â
budget  lines  have  tended  to  grow  with  rising  state  budgetary  power. Â
Â
16 Â
in  1991,  spending  on  corrections  simply  maintained  pace  with  growing Â
overall  spending.  Of  course,  that  the  percent  of  the  budget  given  over Â
to  corrections  stayed  flat—rather  than  fell—during  a  time  of  falling Â
crime  is  perhaps  somewhat  surprising,  and  it  suggests  that  correctional Â
systems  have  been  effective  at  staving  off  budget  cuts.16  Yet  it  seems Â
likely  that  many  government  agencies,  not  just  departments  of  correc-Ââ€
tion,  are  able  to  fight  off  retrenchment  in  situations  like  these. Â
That  the  relative  size  of  prison  budgets  remained  fairly  stable  since Â
1991  actually  is  not  that  surprising,  since  the  Standard  Story’s  claim  that Â
tough-Ââ€on-Ââ€crime  policies  face  no  meaningful  opposition  mischaracterizes Â
the  nature  of  state  budgetary  politics.  State  budgets  are  much  more Â
restricted  than  the  federal  budget,  since  states  are  often  subject  to  bal-Ââ€
anced-Ââ€budget  provisions  (of  varying  degrees  of  effectiveness),  must  bor-Ââ€
row  money  at  less  favorable  rates,  and  cannot  print  their  own  money.  In Â
short,  state  budgeting  is  much  more  a  zero-Ââ€sum  game  than  federal Â
budgeting,  creating  clear  antagonists  to  tough-Ââ€on-Ââ€crime  policies:  not Â
“soft  on  crime† groups,  but  schools,  hospitals,  departments  of  transpor-Ââ€
tation,  and  everyone  else  clamoring  for  a  piece  of  a  fixed  pool  of  money. Â
Every  dollar  that  goes  to  a  prison  doesn’t  go  to  a  school,  and  at  the  state Â
level,  lobbies  like  the  National  Education  Association  are  quite  powerful. Â
In  light  of  these  political  realities,  we  should  be  concerned  that  the Â
Standard  Story  overemphasizes  the  extent  to  which  “crime  is  different.†Â
Â
Where  Do  We  Go  From  Here? Â
Â
16
 New  York  State,  for  example,  has  seen  its  prison  population  drop  steadily  by Â
about  1%  per  year  for  over  a  decade,  yet  until  very  recently  it  has  had  a  hard Â
time  closing  prisons  that  are  almost  entirely  empty  now.  See Â
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/nyregion/17about.html Â
and Â
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/28/nyregion/closed-Ââ€new-Ââ€york-Ââ€prisons-Ââ€
prove-Ââ€hard-Ââ€to-Ââ€sell.html. Â
Â
17 Â
It  is  relatively  straight-Ââ€forward  to  summarize  the  Standard  Story’s Â
core  assertions:  prison  populations  have  been  pushed  up  by  a  relatively Â
coherent  and  politically  powerful  criminal  justice  system  that  has  cho-Ââ€
sen  to  target  drug  offenders  and  to  rely  on  increasingly  long  sentences. Â
And  while  none  of  these  claims  is  necessarily  wrong,  as  shown  above Â
each  has  profound  weaknesses  and,  taken  together,  provide  a  highly Â
misleading  account  of  prison  growth.  The  path  forward,  however, Â
should  be  fairly  clear  as  well.  A  few  quick,  representative  suggestions: Â
Â
1.  Focus  less  on  drug  inmates  and  more  on  violent  and  property Â
offenders.  That  a  majority  of  prison  growth  since  1980  has  come  from Â
locking  up  violent  offenders  does  not  mean  our  prisons  are  overflowing Â
with  murderers  and  arsonists:  many  of  these  violent  offenders  may  be Â
guilty  of  low-Ââ€level  acts  of  violence  that  would  have  resulted  in  probation Â
ten  or  fifteen  years  ago,  and  who  may  not  pose  serious  public  safety Â
risks.  But  the  politics  of  dialing  back  enforcement  against  violent  of-Ââ€
fenders  is  qualitatively  different  than  that  looking  at  drug  offenders. Â
Â
2.  Focus  less  on  sentence  length  and  more  on  admissions.  At  one Â
level,  the  distinction  here  may  be  slight:  any  new  admission  can  be Â
thought  of  as  raising  the  time  served  from  zero  to  non-Ââ€zero.  A  new Â
mandatory  minimum  could  be  seen  as  both  a  time  served-Ââ€side  and  an Â
admission-Ââ€side  policy.  That  said,  it  should  be  clear  that  our  attention Â
should  be  on  figuring  out  what  is  driving  up  felony  filings  and  thus  ad-Ââ€
missions:  is  this  simply  a  change  in  prosecutorial  attitudes;  is  it  due  to Â
(short)  mandatory  minimums  denying  probation  to  defendants  without Â
making  them  serve  much  time;  is  it  that  prosecutors  use  massively Â
longer  sentences  as  effective  hammers  to  bang  out  pleas;  or  something Â
else? Â
Â
3.  Develop  richer  institutional  accounts.  It  seems  likely  that  prison Â
growth  is  less  the  product  of  some  coherent  plan  and  more  the  unin-Ââ€
Â
18 Â
tended  result  of  actions  taken  by  numerous,  relatively  autonomous  bu-Ââ€
reaucracies,  many  situated  in  relatively  small  geographic  areas  such  as Â
cities  and  counties  (which  should  only  emphasize  the  uncoordinated Â
nature  of  growth).  It  is  impossible  to  explain  how  growth  has  occurred—
and  thus  how  to  adjust  it—without  understanding  the  interaction  of Â
various  agencies’  decisions.  Unfortunately,  we  have  very  little  data  on Â
these  interactions  yet  at  this  point,  since  widespread  adherence  to  the Â
Standard  Story  has  caused  most  social  scientists  to  design  only  state-†Â
and  federal-Ââ€level  models. Â
Â
Reforming  penal  practices  in  the  United  States  is  impossible  without Â
a  solid,  rigorous  understanding  of  the  key  forces  at  play.  Unfortunately, Â
we  are  currently  saddled  with  a  conventional  wisdom  that  is  truly  inad-Ââ€
equate.  Hopefully  we  will  be  able  to  move  beyond  it  before  the  oppor-Ââ€
tunity  for  meaningful  reform  passes. Â
Â
Â
19 Â
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
We offer the bestcustom writing paper services. We have done this question before, we can also do it for you.
Why Choose Us
- 100% non-plagiarized Papers
- 24/7 /365 Service Available
- Affordable Prices
- Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
- Will complete your papers in 6 hours
- On-time Delivery
- Money-back and Privacy guarantees
- Unlimited Amendments upon request
- Satisfaction guarantee
How it Works
- Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
- Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
- Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
- Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
- From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.