As noted in Steve's post earlier today, at the Republican Presidential Debate last night, Carly Fiorina said, "We have the highest incarceration rates in the world. Two-thirds of the people in our prisons are there for non-violent offenses, mostly drug related." Whether this is a whopping falsehood or a misleading half-truth depends on what she meant by "our."
By "our prisons" did she mean the federal government's prisons or the nation's prisons as a whole? It makes a big difference.
Most people watching the debate probably thought she meant the nation's prisons as a whole. With that meaning of "our," the statement would be a whopper. It would deserve Four Pinocchios or a Pants On Fire or however a particular fact-checking site describes a peg-the-meter falsehood.
Coincidentally, the Bureau of Justice Statistics just released a new report today, Prisoners in 2014. Look at Tables 11 and 12, on pages 16 and 17.
There are nearly seven times as many prisoners in state prisons as in federal. So when we talk about the nation's prisoners we are mostly talking about state prisoners. A majority are in for violent offenses: murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, assault, and a small category of "other violent." Only 15.7% have drug offenses as their "most serious offense."
The notion that the nation's "incarceration rate" comes from locking up supposedly non-violent drug offenders is a pervasive yet patently false and dangerous myth. The proximity of the statement about "non-violent offenses, mostly drug related" to the statement about incarceration rate strongly implies that is what she meant.
A little bit earlier, the discussion was about federalism and drug laws. It is conceivable that by "our prisons" Ms. Fiorina meant the federal government's prisons. The picture there is far different because the jurisdiction is different, but that does not mean that the federal prisons are bursting with harmless, fuzzy teddy bears.
Comparatively few people are in federal prison for murder, robbery, and so forth because these are not generally federal offenses. Murder in D.C. is a federal offense, and so is robbery of a federally insured bank, but for the most part violent offenses are state offenses and punished in the state systems.
A very slim majority of inmates in federal prisons have drug offenses listed as the most serious offense. But what kind of drug offenders does the federal government go after? Certainly not personal use to any significant extent. Not the corner dealer either. The drug dealers that draw the attention of federal prosecutors tend to be the larger-scale operators. They are often in criminal organizations that frequently employ violence in their operation. Those violent crimes may be difficult to impossible to prove, as witnesses understandably do not want to testify against organized crime, but possession of large quantities of drugs is an easy case to prove if caught in the act. For a drug possession offense, the arresting officer and the lab tech may be the only witnesses needed.
People in federal prison for "drug offenses" are not necessarily, or even usually, harmless, non-violent people. They are often among the most dangerous and violent criminals we have.
What about people in federal prison for "immigration" offenses? Are those people who sneaked across the border to pick lettuce? No, hardly ever. Many will be people who reentered the United States after being deported for a violent offense. Others will be smugglers, a group notorious for abandoning people to their deaths in the desert when the going gets tough.
Another 15.8% percent are in for "weapons" offenses. What are those? Among the most common are the federal crimes of using guns in crimes of violence or for drug trafficking or of possessing a gun after conviction of a crime of violence. Are the people in federal prison for these crimes "non-violent"? Very often not.
The bottom line is that most of the people in prison in America deserve to be there. The idea that the national "incarceration rate" is the result of locking up harmless people who can be released with no danger to innocent people is a dangerous myth.
Update: This post is now cross-posted at the FedSoc Blog.
Most people watching the debate probably thought she meant the nation's prisons as a whole. With that meaning of "our," the statement would be a whopper. It would deserve Four Pinocchios or a Pants On Fire or however a particular fact-checking site describes a peg-the-meter falsehood.
Coincidentally, the Bureau of Justice Statistics just released a new report today, Prisoners in 2014. Look at Tables 11 and 12, on pages 16 and 17.
There are nearly seven times as many prisoners in state prisons as in federal. So when we talk about the nation's prisoners we are mostly talking about state prisoners. A majority are in for violent offenses: murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, assault, and a small category of "other violent." Only 15.7% have drug offenses as their "most serious offense."
The notion that the nation's "incarceration rate" comes from locking up supposedly non-violent drug offenders is a pervasive yet patently false and dangerous myth. The proximity of the statement about "non-violent offenses, mostly drug related" to the statement about incarceration rate strongly implies that is what she meant.
A little bit earlier, the discussion was about federalism and drug laws. It is conceivable that by "our prisons" Ms. Fiorina meant the federal government's prisons. The picture there is far different because the jurisdiction is different, but that does not mean that the federal prisons are bursting with harmless, fuzzy teddy bears.
Comparatively few people are in federal prison for murder, robbery, and so forth because these are not generally federal offenses. Murder in D.C. is a federal offense, and so is robbery of a federally insured bank, but for the most part violent offenses are state offenses and punished in the state systems.
A very slim majority of inmates in federal prisons have drug offenses listed as the most serious offense. But what kind of drug offenders does the federal government go after? Certainly not personal use to any significant extent. Not the corner dealer either. The drug dealers that draw the attention of federal prosecutors tend to be the larger-scale operators. They are often in criminal organizations that frequently employ violence in their operation. Those violent crimes may be difficult to impossible to prove, as witnesses understandably do not want to testify against organized crime, but possession of large quantities of drugs is an easy case to prove if caught in the act. For a drug possession offense, the arresting officer and the lab tech may be the only witnesses needed.
People in federal prison for "drug offenses" are not necessarily, or even usually, harmless, non-violent people. They are often among the most dangerous and violent criminals we have.
What about people in federal prison for "immigration" offenses? Are those people who sneaked across the border to pick lettuce? No, hardly ever. Many will be people who reentered the United States after being deported for a violent offense. Others will be smugglers, a group notorious for abandoning people to their deaths in the desert when the going gets tough.
Another 15.8% percent are in for "weapons" offenses. What are those? Among the most common are the federal crimes of using guns in crimes of violence or for drug trafficking or of possessing a gun after conviction of a crime of violence. Are the people in federal prison for these crimes "non-violent"? Very often not.
The bottom line is that most of the people in prison in America deserve to be there. The idea that the national "incarceration rate" is the result of locking up harmless people who can be released with no danger to innocent people is a dangerous myth.
Update: This post is now cross-posted at the FedSoc Blog.
Kent: I appreciate your efforts to bring factual accuracy to crime/punishment discussions and also to assail a GOP candidate for getting facts/rhetoric wrong on the campaign train. But I am troubled by your blanket contention that federal drug offenders "are often among the most dangerous and violent criminals we have."
The US Sentencing Commission has summary data on federal drug offenders sentenced in FY 2013 (available here: http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/quick-facts/Quick_Facts_Drug_Trafficking_2013.pdf). It reports, inter alia, that among those sentenced in federal court in FY2013 for drug offenses, (a) about "half (49.5%) ... had little or no prior criminal history," (b) only 1 of every 5 drug offenders were given a sentence increase for weapon possession, and (c) only 1 of every 14 offenders got a sentence increase for "having a leadership or supervisory role in the offense."
You are right that it would be a myth to assert or suggest that most federal drug offenders are "harmless people." But I contend it is also a myth, at least according to official data from the US Sentencing Commission, to assert or suggest that federal drug offenders are "often among the most dangerous and violent criminals we have."
Doug, the numbers you cite do not contradict my statement at all. "Often" does not mean "most of the time." It means "many times; frequently" (American Heritage Dictionary, 3d ed.), and my statement is indisputably true.
The fact that half do not have substantial prior convictions means that half do. Also, criminal history under the USSG means prior convictions. A person convicted for the first time may have committed numerous prior offenses for which he was not caught or which could not be proved.
The enhancement numbers are meaningless for this purpose. Do enhancements get imposed every time they are true? What percentage of sentences result from bargains? How often is dropping an enhancement part of the bargain? The numbers you cite say nothing about this.
My point is that the people going around saying or implying that every prisoner whose offense of conviction is a drug offense is necessarily "non-violent" and not dangerous are very wrong. I did not make the contrary assertion that they are always violent and dangerous.
Thanks for this helpful clarification, Kent, though I think your statement would be sounder if you said simply "some drug offenders in federal prison are very dangerous and violent criminals."
Further, I do not think it is fair to say that the USSC's "enhancement numbers are meaningless" in this setting. It is true that these numbers do not tell us everything we need to know about those imprisoned for federal drug offenses, but they tell us something. In nothing else, they strongly suggest that there likely are at least some (significant?) number of federal drug prisoners who are not violent and not dangerous.
I raise these matters because, as you and others know well, everyone who advocates in this space at times resorts to hyperbole and can get fuzzy with rhetoric and data. In a post (justifiably) criticizing a politician for being fuzzy with rhetoric and data, I think it valuable to try to be clear and crisp on all possible fronts.
Thanks again.
"...they strongly suggest that there likely are at least some (significant?) number of federal drug prisoners who are not violent and not dangerous."
Okay, but given that I did not say or imply otherwise, I don't see the relevance for this discussion.
Suppose I say, "On my commute home every day, I often see drivers following other vehicles too close." That is a true statement. Does it imply they all do? Of course not. Does it imply that most do? Of course not. Is it inconsistent with an observation that most do not? No, it is not.
My initial statement was not fuzzy. It was clear.
I am not eager to get bogged down in semantics, Kent, but I would be eager to know if you would agree that the following statement is accurate:
"A significant number of federal drug prisoners are not violent and not dangerous."
If you agree with this statement, then it is not really a "dangerous myth" to assert (as I do) that some signficant number of federal offenders are "harmless people who can be released with no danger to innocent people." (Even if only 5% of federal drug prisoners fit this description, that is 5,000 people who could be readily released.)
My main point here is an effort to explain my view, echoing what we here from the Right on Crime crowd, we ought to be working harder to try to ensure that we only inarcerate for long periods of time in federal (and state) prison "the most dangerous and violent criminals we have." And I see a number of current federal sentencing reform bills, all of which I perceive Bill is actively lobbying against, as an effort to focus federal resources on those repeat and violent offenders whom I think we both believe should be locked up for lengthy periods of time.
I (mis-read?) your prior statement as an asserion that federal prosecutors and judges currently do a very good job of sending to federal prisons only those federal drug offender who are "among the most dangerous and violent criminals we have." The data I put forward reinforces my view that, in fact, federal prosecutors and judges could do a better job in this regard, and that is why I support various sentencing reform bills that I think will move the law and practice in this direction.