The Real Cost of Prisons Weblog

This growth in imprisonment is largely due not to rising crime rates but to changes in sentencing policy that led to dramatic increases in the numbers of felony convictions. This resulted in more prison sentences and increasing the length of the prison stays themselves. The report cites extensive research suggesting there is little relationship between fluctuations in crime rates and incarceration rates. The study highlights that minorities are more likely to be imprisoned than whites, noting that incarceration rates for blacks and Latinos are six times higher than for whites. If incarceration rates were race neutral, prison populations would drop by half.

“The number of people incarcerated has skyrocketed over the past three decades and yet there is little if any scientific evidence of a causal relationship between crime rates and incarceration rates," said James Austin, president of the JFA Institute and report co-author. "A major reason for the rise in prison populations is longer prison terms. But there is no evidence that keeping people in prison longer makes us any safer. The report provides a practical roadmap for reducing prison populations and more effectively addressing crime by adopting sentencing policies that are now being used in a number of red and blue states."

The report finds that putting more people in prison is financially wasteful, disproportionately burdens the poor and minorities, and has limited impact on recidivism and crime rates. In response, it calls for reducing prison sentences and eliminating prison terms for people who violate the terms of their probation or parole without committing new crimes.

"People who break the law must be held accountable, but many of those currently incarcerated should receive alternative forms of punishment, and those who are sent to prison must spend a shorter period incarcerated before coming home to our communities," the report says.

Released by the JFA Institute, a Washington-based nonprofit organization focused on research-based solutions to criminal justice issues, the report also calls for decriminalizing the possession and sale of recreational drugs. The researchers say that widespread incarceration of people involved in the drug market has only fueled more violence and has not reduced the demand for drugs.

The authors of the report are convinced that the United States needs a different strategy for justice reform. Approximately 2.2 million people are now in jail or prison. The number serving sentences in state and federal prisons has grown from 196,000 in 1972 to more than 1.4 million today. An additional 750,000 people are in local jails awaiting trial or serving time for less-serious crimes. The number is growing and shows no signs of leveling off.

"Our criminal laws and criminal justice policies and practices exacerbate the crime problem, unnecessarily damage the lives of millions of people, and worsen living conditions in low-income neighborhoods of American cities," the report states.

The case of California

The situation in California mirrors these finding directly. Unlocking America is not the first report to call for substantial sentencing reform. For almost two decades, multiple reports have called for substantial reform of the prison system in California, and most suggest that sentencing reform is a critical first step. Beginning with the 1990 Blue Ribbon Commission on Inmate Population Management, the State of California has not lacked for recommendations for improving the irrational state of sentencing and prison policy. In 1992, The Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 33 Commission on Female and Parolee Issues (1994) established to study issues affecting female inmates and parolees and found that policies designed for male offenders were often counterproductive when applied to women.

Most notably, the Little Hoover Commission has a long track record of drawing attention to these issues. In 1994, the report, Putting Violence Behind Bars: Redefining the Role of California’s Prisons called for a sentencing commission to revise the byzantine sentencing structure that serves no rational purpose. In 1998, the Little Hoover Commission again called for correctional reform in the report, Beyond Bars: Correctional Reforms to Lower Prison Costs and Reduce Crime. Five years later, the Commission described the need for more rational parole policies, and like Unlocking America, noted that the prison population was artificially inflated due to the unrealistic parole violation polices of the then California Depart of Corrections. More recently, the Little Hoover Communions turned its attention to the plight of women offenders. In 2004, Breaking the Barriers for Women on Parole described the problem of crime, violence and substance abuse among female offenders in the California corrections system. This report paralleled findings and recommendations made a decade earlier by the then-CDC investigations. The Little Hoover Commission found that addressing the challenges of female offenders and their re-entry into communities is a productive approach to being “smart on crime.” This year, the Little Hoover Commission examined the correctional crisis in California from a fiscal point of view (Solving California’s Corrections Crisis: Time is Running Out (2007).

Recommendations

Unlocking America calls for improving prison conditions by reducing overcrowding and expanding access to health care, academic and vocational programs for incarcerated people to help them succeed in life after prison and increase public health and safety. A final recommendation calls on states to ease the transition from prison to free society by lifting barriers to employment and restoring voting rights so that people coming out of prison can be productive members of the workforce and society.

The report's recommendations, if implemented nationally, would gradually and safely reduce the nation's prison and jail populations by half and generate annual savings of $20 billion, money that could be reinvested in more promising crime-prevention strategies.

For many prisoners now sent to prison, reducing time served would mean probation or a short jail sentence. For others it would mean less time spent in prison, as well as less time on parole.

Imprisonment can legitimately satisfy a social and personal need for retribution toward those who violate society’s laws. At the same time, excessive punishment can exacerbate social tensions and widen divisions. It can corrode a nation’s political culture, and obstruct efforts to deal constructively with social problems, including crime.

The following three key recommendations which have been adopted in various states would serve to reduce the prison population by over 50% without jeopardizing public safety.

I. REDUCE TIME SERVED IN PRISON

There is little if any correlation between length of stay in prison and the recidivism rate. Reducing time served means shortening probation periods and jail sentences for many people now being incarcerated for misdemeanors; for others, it would mean less time spent in prison, as well as less time on parole.

II. ELIMINATE THE USE OF PRISON FOR TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS OF PAROLE OR PROBATION

Today anywhere from 50-65 percent of the 650,000 prisoners admitted to state prison each year are men and women who have failed to comply with the terms of probation or parole. Of those who have failed probation or parole, about half are being sent to prison for what are known as technical violations – behavior one cannot be sentenced to prison for. Returning people to prison for violating parole or probation conditions is an example of a punishment not fitting the crime. These violations are not serious enough to justify incarceration for months or years. In addition, there is no evidence that incarcerating people for non-compliance with the terms of probation or parole prevents more serious crimes.

III. REDUCE THE LENGTH OF PAROLE AND PROBATION SUPERVISION PERIODS

Currently, people placed on probation and parole remain in this status for extended periods of time, often three years or more. There is little evidence that lengthy parole and probation terms decrease crime and there is new research indicating that parole supervision is largely ineffective with respect to reducing recidivism. A number of studies have found that individuals released with no parole supervision return to prison at a significantly lower rate than those released on parole and that there is no relationship between the time on supervision and parole success.

Conclusion

The solution to the crisis in California is not a mystery. Unlocking America is the latest report that outlines a rational approach to correctional reform in a clear and accessible way.

Instead of building prisons, we should increase funding to create stronger civil society institutions such as academic and technical education, job training, healthcare, affordable housing, or other social services that assist people in getting a foot in the door to a better life.

Mass incarceration is an ineffective and damaging way to deal with crime. A policy of decarceration would reduce the social costs of incarceration without loss of effectiveness in crime prevention, and free up a portion of the tens of billions of dollars now being wasted for reinvestment in the families and communities now devastated by crime and imprisonment.

Barbara Owen is among the nine co-authors of this report. She is a nationally-known expert in the areas of girls, women and crime, women-centered policy and women’s prison culture. A Professor of Criminology at California State University, Fresno, she received her Ph.D. in Sociology from UC Berkeley in 1984. She has written extensively on issues confronting women enmeshed in the justice system.

Unlocking America: Why and How to Reduce America's Prison Population, can be found at:http://www.jfa-associates.com/publications/srs/UnlockingAmerica.pdf

The report's authors are: James Austin, president, the JFA Institute; Todd Clear, professor, John Jay College of Criminal Justice; Troy Duster, professor, New York University; David F. Greenberg, professor, New York University; John Irwin, professor emeritus, San Francisco State University; Candace McCoy, professor, City University of New York; Alan Mobley, assistant professor, San Diego State University; Barbara Owen, professor, California State University, Fresno; and Joshua Page, assistant professor, University of Minnesota.
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/12/post_48.html