I've been debating for years the question whether prison is criminogenic, i.e., whether imprisonment increases crime. Doug Berman, among others, has consistently said that prison is indeed criminogenic; I take the opposite view. I think the evidence is overwhelming that imprisonment
decreases crime.
One of the things I like about Doug is that he'll do something most other defense-inclined bloggers won't -- post evidence contrary to his view. He has done so again today in
this entry (emphasis added):
Whether punishment promotes or deters future criminal activity by the convicted offender is a key public policy concern. Longer prison sentences further isolate offenders from the legitimate labor force and may promote the formation of criminal networks in prison. On the other hand, greater initial punishment may have a deterrence effect on the individual being punished, sometimes called "specific deterrence," through learning or the rehabilitative effect of prison.
We test the effect of prison sentence length on recidivism by exploiting a unique quasi-experimental design from adult sentences within a courthouse in Seattle, Washington. Offenders who plead guilty are randomly assigned to a sentencing judge, which leads to random differences in prison sentence length depending on the sentencing judge's proclivities. We find that one-month extra prison sentence reduces the rate of recidivism by about one percentage point, with possibly larger effects for those with limited criminal histories. However, the reduction in recidivism comes almost entirely in the first year of release, which we interpret as consistent with prison's rehabilitative role.
That's one item, but the argument that prison reduces crime is far more robust than that.
When I argue that prison reduces crime, I first point to the last fifty years of statistics (which strike me as an ample sample size, as well as one that captures the modern, due process-oriented version of criminal adjudication). Over that period, for the first 25 years (1965-1990) we had much less reliance on prison and a vastly smaller prison population than we do now. We also had an explosion in crime and crime rates; the country lost the valuable sense (and, relatively, the fact) of safety it had in the 1950's.
Over the most recent 25 years (1990-2015), the prison population has exploded, and crime rates are down by half. (I have put up the documentation for these facts so often I'm going to skip it this time, and they are not seriously contested in any event). With our increased use of prison, crime rates are at levels not seen since the Baby Boomers were in grade school.
The first response I get to this argument is the bromide that correlation does not mean causation. And that is true, up to a point. But when the correlation is this strong for this long -- a half a century -- then, sorry, it is indeed indicative of causation. To deny this is simply to blink reality.
But for however that may be, without correlation then, yes, causation becomes problematic to say the least. That is where Doug Berman's argument disintegrates.
The proposition that prison produces crime is empirical; it can be tested by experience: Over time, when we have more imprisonment, do we in fact have more crime?
The last quarter century shows unambiguously that the answer is no. When we have more prison, we have less crime, and less by a huge margin. Doug's argument about prison causing more crime therefore never makes it past the first question, to wit, is there even a positive correlation between more prison and more crime?
No, there is not. There is a strongly negative correlation.
I would say that's the end of the story, but there's one more thing to add, concerning a point made in Doug's blog post. The post notes that longer sentences reduce the incidence of repeat crime, probably because of rehabilitation and deterrence. I think both of those are true, but to a limited extent.
As I have previously written, rehab works to only a very, very
modest extent. I wish it were otherwise, but I do not run the world. By the time a person reaches legal adulthood, he has pretty much made up his mind how he wants to relate to his fellow creatures. Government programs, no matter how well-intended, are not going to change this.
Deterrence works to a degree, precisely because it takes root in human nature. The theory is that a person will find imprisonment a sufficiently unpleasant experience that he will go out of his way to avoid a repeat visit. He may even start to curb his temper, steer clear of artificially getting high, and think that working for a living isn't that bad after all. These are deterrence-related thoughts that essentially never get mentioned, and still less taken seriously, on defense blogs.
Still, in my view, the primary demonstrated benefit of the increased use of prison does not stem either from rehab or deterrence. It stems from incapacitation. A criminal sitting in his cell is a criminal not ransacking your house while you're at work, molesting your daughter or selling Ecstasy to your son. There is simply no fancy-dance academic "study" that can make this fact go away.
Just a seat-of-the-pants observation, but based on years of speaking with - literally - thousands of felons who were on the way to prison, coming out of prison, or almost certainly headed back to prison sooner or later due to lifestyle:
"the primary demonstrated benefit of the increased use of prison does not stem either from rehab or deterrence. It stems from incapacitation."
This could not be more true. There is something approaching zero chance of rehabilitation for (most - OK, I had to add this qualifier) prison inmates. They do tend to learn better criminal skills there, but that can't be helped, and certainly it has no effect on their pre-existing mindset that legitimate work is for idiots. It only refines - in their own minds - their chosen career path.
As for deterrence, there actually a certain cachet about spending time in prison, and some even look forward to the regimentation, the somewhat healthy lifestyle, the camaraderie, as perverted as that sounds. In any case, prison time is a occupational hazard accepted as inevitable and hardly a deterrent.
But a felon locked up is a felon who cannot, for instance, commit 2 burglaries a day, or 2 robberies a week, so preventing for their community, 700 burglaries annually, or 100 armed robberies, for every serial criminal so imprisoned. Multiply that by numbers in prison, and you can see how quickly crime numbers drop.
It's quite simple actually, and how successful police agencies fight crime. You target the repeat offenders and then chase them through the system, until they get sent away.
JCC
Bill, you seem to misunderstand just what I mean when I express concerns that prison may be criminogenic for some (perhaps many) persons. It is not a claim that "prison produces crime" in a general sense, nor is it a claim there is likely to be a significant correlation between more prison and more crime.
Rather, the concern I express in this setting is that, when considering what punishment to impose on a particular offender, we should consider the real possibility that for some offenders --- and perhaps for many and perhaps for the "average" offender --- punishing through prison (especially through long sentences) rather than through other means may make the offender MORE likely to commit future crimes (either in prison or once out or both).
I am eager to explore this important and refined point, and I agree that the study I referenced that you cite above gets to the issue that is my chief empirical concern. But all your talk about other aspects of the general relationship bewteen prison and crime --- especially when you leave out the crime that occurs while persons are in prison, which is left out of all the stats you frequently reference --- are not really at the heart of a serious discussion of whether prison may be criminogenic.
The reason this is an important concern is, in part, because of your correct view that prison can have an incapacitative benefit for the outside population, and that benefit might make any prison criminogenic problems/concerns worth enduring. But I have never meant to assert a general proposition that prison causes more crime. Rather, I have long meant to highlight, especially when you highlight high recidivism rates, that prison may make some (perhaps many) offenders MORE likely to commit future crime than if we had punished them some other way (or not punished them at all).
I hope you understand the importance nuances that I think are essential to having a useful conversation about whether prison is criminogenic in this setting.
i think it would be instructive to describe a typical defendant looking at prison time for an offense not requiring such imprisonment by statute (so, excluding, say, murder).
Anyway, our hypothetical defendant is not a first time offender, because first time offenders hardly ever face prison time unless their first conviction is for murder or something quite weighty.
So, first, a defendant probably has an extensive juvenile record of adjudications, first without any finding of guilt, then findings suspended, then eventually after a series of failed "second chances", finally some term of juvenile adjudication and probation, more findings of culpability with probation extended, and finally, assuming the defendant doesn't reach adult age first, some term of juvenile confinement.
Then the subject reaches emanicipation, and the clock resets to zero. First case, adjudication withheld. Second case, serious charges dismissed and plea to lessers, repeat. Finally, plea to probation. Susequent pleas or trials: probation extended. Additional findings of guilt: time served or time in the local jail. It's only after numerous convictions and multiple failed chances of probation that a defendant will actually be facing a sentence in a state prison. In other words, the average defendant facing prison is actually a serial offender, and prison the appropriate response.
The sense that prison is not a suitable response for some or many defendants is built into the system, in that the reality is that few defendants actually face a prison sentence for a first offense, unless that offense involves serious and lasting injury or loss of life.
JCC