Some "conservatives" have begun to push back against this movement for reform, using tired rhetoric, ipse dixit, and scare tactics; but no actual research or facts. A good example of this phenomenon is this article penned by Trump water carrier and friend of white supremacists Katie McHugh at Breitbart.
For proof that "criminal justice reform" has led or contributed to the rise in crime, the article relies exclusively on the testimony of the above-mentioned Green, and Georgetown Law professor Bill Otis. However, neither source provides anything even purporting to be a fact that shows correlation (much less causation) between the current push for criminal justice reform and a spike in crime. Instead, we are treated to spectacular non sequiturs and discourses on pop culture:
Adjunct Georgetown law professor and a contributor to the Crime and Consequences blog, Bill Otis, criticized the vague word "reform," saying it really means "reduction" in sentencing for convicted criminals. "For about 25 years after 1960, crime in this country exploded," he said
The crime spike was garishly displayed via Hollywoods products, especially its vigilante movies -- "Dirty Harry," in 1971, "Death Wish" in 1974, and Taxi Driver" in 1976. Crime reached such levels that the crime movies became cult-movies and science-fiction movies, such as "The Warriors" in 1979 and "Escape From New York" in 1981.
Mr. Wolf then notes: "As fascinating as this discourse into 1970s and 80s pop culture is, it does not substitute for any sort of actual evidence that longer sentences and/or higher incarceration rates lead to reduced crime. It certainly suggests that public perception believes this to be true; that does not equate to it actually being true."But by the 1980s, "we decided to do something about it: We adopted sterner and mandatory sentencing, and mandatory guidelines for judges," he said.
Hello!. I never said a word about 1970s and 1980s pop culture, even though it is made to appear that I did (to the exclusion of actual evidence, of course). I did say that in the 1980's, we decided to adopt mandatory sentencing as part of the solution to the crime wave of the previous two decades, sure.
More importantly, I did not say, I did not imply, and I have no basis to believe, that "'criminal justice reform' has led or contributed to the rise in crime" over the last several months. That is just made up.
I do know that a number of police officials have said that police feel "backed off," and are not as proactive as before, fearing they won't be supported, right or wrong. But this "Ferguson effect," as it has started to be known, is not the same as sentencing reform. Not once have I conflated these two things. Specifically, I have not conflated them in the more than 1000 entries I have put up on this blog (not one of which Mr. Wolf gives any evidence of having read, even while stating my opinions for me), and I did not conflate them in my interview with Ms. McHugh. Mr. Wolf is out of bounds in conflating them for me -- although it is a key step in his argument that conservatives like me are just doing absurd leaps of logic and fact-free ipse dixit.
3. I will make just one more point, for now, about the (very important) relationship between incarceration and crime. Mr. Wolf says:
The actual evidence indicates that there is no clear relation between incarceration rates/longer sentences and crime rates. This finding is especially surprising given that "locking the door and throwing away the key" has, as one of its benefits, the complete removal of someone who has shown the clear disposition to commit crime from society. Recent studies have also conclusively shown that reducing certain kinds of incarceration rates actually correlates with a drop in the crime rate.
The fairest reading of a complex (and by this point relatively fulsome) set of data would indicate that, when it comes to incarceration rates and sentence lengths, there's definitely a correlation up to a certain point, but then inevitably there comes a point of not only diminishing returns but actually negative returns.
I have started to see this claim in many places: That incarceration produces crime (or, as Doug Berman puts it, is "criminogenic").
The obvious question this narrative fails to answer is: Why, as we have incarcerated more and more over the last generation, has crime, virtually every year, become less and less? If Mr. Wolf were correct, then, as we continued extremely high incarceration rates over, say, the last 15 years, crime at some point would have increased (probably substantially, given the record-level prison population), not decreased. Incarceration after a certain point produces crime, remember?
So where is it? Where is the increased crime all this escalating incarceration is producing? I studied the facts Mr. Wolf says I ignore, and I couldn't find it.
Mr. Wolf is also incorrect in maintaining that actual evidence indicates "no clear relation" between incarceration rates and sentencing/imprisonment. Persons with at least as much expertise in criminal law as Mr. Wolf seem to take a different view. For example, the eminent criminologist Prof. James Q. Wilson wrote, in explaining why crime continued to fall (even during the Great Recession, when standard liberal theory says it should rise)(emphasis added):
One obvious answer is that many more people are in prison than in the past. Experts differ on the size of the effect, but I think that William Spelman and Steven Levitt have it right in believing that greater incarceration can explain one-quarter or more of the crime decline. Yes, many thoughtful observers think that we put too many offenders in prison for too long. For some criminals, such as low-level drug dealers and former inmates returned to prison for parole violations, that may be so. But it's true nevertheless that when prisoners are kept off the street, they can attack only one another, not you or your family.
Imprisonment's crime-reduction effect helps explain why the burglary, car-theft, and robbery rates are lower in the United States than in England. The difference results not from willingness to send convicted offenders to prison, which is about the same in both countries, but in how long America keeps them behind bars.
In addition, John Malcolm, an expert with the Heritage Foundation (which takes Mr. Wolf's side on sentencing reform), noted that increased incarceration accounts for between 25 and 35 percent of the reduction we have seen in crime. Take a look at John's honest and balanced presentation at the 7:35 point of this tape of his remarks before last November's Federalist Society Convention.
To sum up, contrary to Mr. Wolf, credible experts and the studies they cite maintain that there is a known, and substantial, inverse relationship between incarceration and crime rates. As is so often the case, the "sophisticated" view turns out to be little more than a word blizzard, while the common sense view is correct. When the malefactor is in jail, he's not ransacking your house, raping your daughter or doping up your son.
***********************************
Mr. Wolf goes on with a derisive discussion of what are said to be my views about the recent spate of attacks on the police. His general point is that I am "cherry picking" these incidents, which are overblown. In fact, he states, attacks on the police are no more numerous now than in the past, if not less.
I believe that complacent attitude is unhelpful in trying to understand the recent spike in violent crime in cities from coast to coast, and there is more to it than Mr. Wolf wants to believe. There is more than one way in which the country's present confusion about how to deal with crime manifests itself. But that will be the subject for a later post.
Leave a comment