Prof. Doug Berman, author of Sentencing Law and Policy, today writes a post that (unintentionally, I think) spills the beans on what will happen if, as the SRCA would have it, we start releasing more federal felons earlier.
We'll get more crime faster.
How do we know that? Because, as Doug's entry discloses, half (49.3%, to be exact) of released federal inmates recidivate (or so says the US Sentencing Commission). Most do so within the first two years after being put back on the street.
The Commission also reports that most re-arrest offenses were for non-violent crimes. That is, of course, what we should expect: The bulk of the those convicted of federal crimes were in for consensual drug trafficking, immigration offenses or fraud; such is the nature of federal criminal jurisdiction. But to say that the re-arrest offenses were not violent is scarcely to say that they were not harmful (although that is often misleadingly implied). Trafficking in hard drugs is one of the most harmful enterprises going on in this country. Even when not accompanied by violence in any given transaction, it is rooted in violence, begets violence, and grossly aggravates the already appalling epidemic of heroin overdose deaths.
I'll note only two more things for now. First, having half of released inmates recidivate is shocking. It puts the lie to the idea that attempted rehabilitation can be counted upon. Second, the actual recidivist crime figure is certain to be significantly higher, since most crime -- and certainly most drug transactions -- never even get reported.
Want more crime faster? No problem. Enact the SRCA.
Apparently, only those technical violations of supervision that resulted in a return to prison were counted as recidivists. I can advise from past experience that violations of release in the federal system are met with a graduated system of sanctions with incarceration being a very last resort. Accordingly, many releasees who use drugs, are unemployed, etc. etc. are not considered recidivists by this standard although their anti-social behavior has undeniable consequences to the community.
My goal, Bill, is to present information and encourage thoughtful reflection on what that information suggests for improved public policy. Ergo, my post was not about "spilling beans" either intentionally or unintentionally, it was about conveying important data to inform an important on-going dialogue.
Especially peculiar, Bill, is that you link to my post rather than the USSC report/website. I am anything but the reporter of record on these matters, though I suppose I am flattered you seem to treat me as if I was.
One more point, Bill, as I start to dig into the USSC data. This report demonstrates a point made often by another commentor when complaining about your use of a BJS report on state recidivism rates when discussing federal prisoners: namely that federal prisoner recidivism rates are much lower. Here is what the USSC report says on this front:
"Compared to a cohort of state prisoners released into the community in 2005 and tracked by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, federal offenders had a lower recidivism rate. BJS found that 76.6 percent of offenders released from state prison were rearrested within five years. The Commission, using a comparable five year follow-up period and including only federal offenders released from prison (i.e., excluding those sentenced to probation or a fine-only), found the recidivism rate for these federal offenders was 44.9 percent."
"Using reconviction as the measure of recidivism, BJS found that 55.4 percent of state offenders had an arrest within five years that led to a conviction. The reconviction rate for federal offenders over the same length of time was 26.0 percent. When recidivism is measured by reincarceration, BJS found a 28.2 recidivism rate for state offenders within five years that led to an incarceration, compared to 20.7 percent of the federal offenders in the Commission’s study."
"Especially peculiar, Bill, is that you link to my post rather than the USSC report/website. I am anything but the reporter of record on these matters, though I suppose I am flattered you seem to treat me as if I was."
I found the news by reading your post, so I referenced it (which contains a link to the USSC study). Why is that peculiar?
I treat you and your site as worth reading, which I have always said they are. If that is flattering, that's fine.
"This report demonstrates a point made often by another commentor when complaining about your use of a BJS report on state recidivism rates when discussing federal prisoners: namely that federal prisoner recidivism rates are much lower."
First, I have consistently identified the DOJ study for what it is, and often linked to it so readers could see for themselves. That's not what you do when you're trying to fool people.
Second, the fact that state recidivism rates are flabbergasting does not in any way diminish the fact that federal recidivism rates are awful. (Or, if you want to say "merely awful," I would go along with that, too).
The idea that we're going to be "just as safe" if we start doing early release of people ONE HALF OF WHOM will return to crime is, uh, bizarre. Tell the two little girls who were sliced to death by early-released Wendell Callahan that they're "just as safe."
Third, in fact it's far more than one half who return to crime. As I keep noting, and you keep whistling past, a huge amount of crime goes unreported. This is especially so for drug trafficking, which is what many, many federal inmates are in for.
What that means is that the Sentencing Commission's figure, while I'm willing to assume as accurate for reported crime, is inaccurate, and a significant understatement, of actual crime. But actual crime is what our citizens are interested in, and what Congress SHOULD be interested in.
If we should be interested in "actual" federal drug crimes, Bill, Colorado and Washington and Oregon and soon Alaska surely have the largest actual federal crime rates thanks to marijuana legalization there. And, notably, I hear few citizens urging massive investment in stopping federal crimes in those states. (Future Trump AG Chris Christie did talk about that, but did not get many votes on his own.). So when focused on actual crimes, especially drug trafficking, we need to bring in some important nuance.
Also, note that recidivism rates go up the longer federal inmates are incarcerated. This supports my long standing concern that prison time is criminogenic and why I think we ought to have a strong presumption against the application of any mandatory minimum for any nonviolent first offense, and why we should use prison as a last resort, not a first resort, for most crimes.
-- Virtually no one in the federal prison population is there for simple possession of pot. That's a diversion, as is your reference to Trump and Christie.
-- The reason recidivism rates are high for inmates with long sentences is -- ready now -- that such inmates TEND TO BE HARDENED AND/OR HABITUAL CRIMINALS who have high criminal history scores because CRIME IS WHAT THEY DO.
-- If prison is the reason for crime, what accounts for first offenders who have never been to prison?
-- If prison is the reason for crime, why do have so much less crime now that we have so much more prison?
-- Will there ever come a time when you'll acknowledge that an adult for-profit drug dealer is responsible for his own behavior, rather than trying to lay the responsibility off on something else?
1. Bill, I stressed the "huge amount of [marijuana] crime goes unreported [involving] drug trafficking," because you asserted that "actual crime is what our citizens are interested in." My point is only that what you call "actual crime" and "drug trafficking" is a much more nuanced concept. (Indeed, one reason I am an advocate for marijuana reform is so we do not have such a huge amount of federal crimes being ignored in so many states nationwide.)
2. Well over 1/3 of the folks sent to federal prison have ZERO criminal history, and these folks are fairly evenly distributed among various lower lengths of prison stay, and the ones who stay longer the USSC data show are statistically more likely to recidivate. This does not mean --- and it is foolish for you to suggest I mean --- that prison "is the reason for crime." What is does mean is that there is significant evidence to support the claim by many sentencing reformers that greater use of alternatives to imprisonment and/or shorter prison terms for a significant percentage of federal offenders likely will help reduce recidivisms rates.
3. Nobody seriously asserts "prison is the reason for crime." Rather, the claim is that modern prisons, especially those that are overcrowded and lack evidence-based recidivism reduction programming, may increase the likelihood that certain offenders will, after release, go back to crime rather than seek to be better citizens.
4. As we both know, lots and lots of factors have contributed to the modern crime decline, and I do not discount that mass imprisonment has played a role. That is why I do not favor abolishing prisons, rather I want them used less when the evidence strongly suggests their use in some cases --- i.e., for lower-level, first offenders --- actually makes us less safe. It is really that simple.
5. I have never suggested an adult for-profit drug dealer is not responsible for his own behavior, and the tens of thousands of such for-profit marijuana dealers nationwide certainly will claim responsibility for all the taxes they are able to pay into state coffers. Disappointingly, Bill, you again are quick and eager to convert my effort to have a nuanced conversation about data into a silly misrepresentation of my effort to add needed insight into your sound-bite rhetoric.
I'm just happy that we can all now agree on what reported federal recidivism rates are. Hopefully, this means we won't be seeing the 77% state figure cited here anymore in posts about the federal system. That was my one and only goal all along. (It's a shame every time I pointed it out I was met with accusations of being the #1 fan of criminals.) -Jim
Douglas stated: "4. As we both know, lots and lots of factors have contributed to the modern crime decline, and I do not discount that mass imprisonment has played a role. That is why I do not favor abolishing prisons, rather I want them used less when the evidence strongly suggests their use in some cases --- i.e., for lower-level, first offenders --- actually makes us less safe. It is really that simple."
Could you expand your answer to include EXACTLY what crimes would get the "Get out of jail" free card?
What percentage of Federal inmates do these people make up?
What is the recidivism rate for these people in total?
What are the recidivism rates of the class of felons (who you would not imprison if the law was changed) who were sentenced to less than prison compared to those sentenced to prison? Comparing the recidivists in each group, which is more likely to graduate to higher level crimes?
Will you be going by the charged crime or plea bargained result, the latter often not nearly resembling the crime committed?
What studies have been done to compare the price of incarceration for your low level offenders versus the cost of crime on society? Do they put a price on lives lost to murder, psychological trauma caused by rape, etc. in addition to strict monetary numbers? What are these values?
Do you agree that all of these things should be honestly answered BEFORE moving towards less incarceration? Why or why not?
Jim --
1. "I'm just happy that we can all now agree on what reported federal recidivism rates are."
And they're higher than you have ever previously acknowledged, not so? If I'm recalling correctly, you had previously maintained that the correct federal figure was the low 40's. In one analysis, didn't you say that the rate of reported breaches in supervised release was 11%, and that was the most telling figure? You put up an 11% figure somewhere in this context, I'm sure of that.
Can we now agree that (1) the federal recidivism rate is half, (2) half is shocking and unacceptable, and (3) a rate that high essentially guarantees that early release of federal inmates will mean more crime faster?
2. "Hopefully, this means we won't be seeing the 77% state figure cited here anymore in posts about the federal system."
You'll be seeing the 77% rated cited wherever it's relevant, which is going to in many places. The huge majority (over 85%) of prisoners are in state facilities. When the recidivism rate for the great bulk of prisoners is 77%, that figure is going to appear quite a lot in my discussions.
3. "That was my one and only goal all along. (It's a shame every time I pointed it out I was met with accusations of being the #1 fan of criminals.)"
Shouldn't our goal be to state the ACTUAL recidivism rate? Why should any of us pretend that the reported rate faithfully reflects the actual rate when we know it doesn't? Isn't is the ACTUAL rate that afflicts our citizens?
And when I asked you before about the (undisputed) fact that the actual rate significantly exceeds the reported rate, you simply refused to discuss it, isn't that correct? Will you admit now that the actual recidivism rate, both state and federal, is significantly higher than the reported rate?
4. Both Kent and I recently have had to take action because commenters insisted on misrepresenting what we had said. You do the same here.
At absolutely no point did I accuse you "of being the #1 fan of criminals," and I very much doubt you are (you can find better candidates on the comment board at SL&P). What I have said, and will say again, is that those who consistently and unambiguously take the side of criminals are fairly called pro-criminal.
When you have consistently taken the side of criminals by minimizing the recidivism rate (as noted, you have never to my memory acknowledged that the federal rate is half), you are, in fact, taking the side of criminals. Saying so is scarcely controversial; indeed, it comes closer to being a truism.
5. Still, while we're on the subject of wild exaggeration, here's what you have said about me in another forum: "I'm going to go ahead and predict that Bill will say that DOJ didn't appeal the ruling because it is fervently 'pro-criminal' -- his standard refrain about anyone who disputes anything he says."
The statement that I brand as "pro-criminal" ANYONE who disputes ANYTHING I say is preposterous, isn't it? And you knew it was preposterous when you wrote it, didn't you?
Yes, you did. But you felt like saying it anyway, true or not, and that was that.
From now on, when you want to present my position, QUOTE IT. Quote it word-for-word and in context. That's the honest and fair-minded thing to do, as you can't help knowing.
1. Yes, they're higher than I previously acknowledged for the simple reason that the new numbers came out yesterday. Sadly, I cannot predict what future studies will find, so I quoted the best available data at the time. The rate I consistently quoted, incidentally, was about 30 percent. The 11 percent figure was probably a BOP study of drug offenders that I myself questioned when referencing it.
2. Good! I'm glad you'll be using it "whenever it's relevant." It's not relevant for the federal system, so I'll be thrilled not to read it in that context.
3. I can't pretend to know what the actual recidivism rate is, so I won't try. But of course it is higher than the reported rate. Who said otherwise? Not me.
4. So sorry your feelings were hurt. But I don't believe I've misrepresented anything in the way you treat those who challenge you. I've only pointed out that you incorrectly used state data in a federal context. And you've consistently responded to that by calling me "pro-criminal." I don't believe that pointing to accurate data is "taking the side of criminals by minimizing the recidivism rate." I would have pointed to the same federal data even if it had shown a HIGHER federal recidivism rate.
5. Am I on the stand? The cross-examination is frightening!
-Jim
Tarls, you ask a lot of questions and I will try to answer them collectively with one simple statement: I think there are lots and lots of mechanisms that can and will reduce certain crimes at lower costs than significant terms of incarceration, and I also think there are lots of things now called federal crimes that ought not be called crimes at all.
The two crimes I am especially eager to stress in this setting are drunk driving and marijuana distribution. Evidence from many states suggests ignition locks work much better than incarceration at reducing drunk driving, and I think Colorado and other states are wise to legalize and regulate marijuana distribution. And since these are arguably the two most widely committed ACTUAL significant crimes regularly committed in the US (with illegal gun possession likely third), I would be VERY VERY eager to get folks to give us a good empirical analysis
"compar[ing] the price of incarceration for your low level [drunk driving, marijuana and gun possession] offenders versus the cost of [their] crime on society?" And I would hope that "they put a price on lives lost to murder, psychological trauma caused by rape, etc. in addition to strict monetary numbers?"
Would you agree that it makes most sense to start this analysis with the most widely ACTUAL federal and state crimes in the US? With the help of good number crunchers and adequate funding, I would be very eager to inform our sentencing/incarceration debate over these ACTUAL crimes with real hard cost-benefit data. I hope you and Bill and others will help me.
Jim --
"So sorry your feelings were hurt. But I don't believe I've misrepresented anything in the way you treat those who challenge you."
1. You're not sorry.
2. They weren't hurt.
3. The subject is not my feelings.
4. The subject is the truthfulness of your claims.
5. Your claim that I've called you "the #1 fan of criminals" is false.
6. Your claim that I've labelled every opponent as "pro-criminal" is also false.
7. Your attempt to bully me off saying that some people are "pro-criminal" will fail.
8. That's because some people are in fact pro-criminal, something too obvious to need elaboration.
The Commission's Report does not necessarily guarantee more crime faster if sentencing reform occurs, but does provide important data in considering how to structure those reforms.
The 49.3% number for rearrests was not just for felonies and misdemeanors, but included "technical violations" of the conditions of supervision as well.
The commission found that 69.8% of those with a criminal history category one were not re arrested in the eight years following their release. This breaks down to 9,514 of the 13,631 individuals not being re-arrested.
Less than 15% of the crimes involved homicide, rape, or drug trafficking offenses whereas 7.2% were for mere drug possession.
Individuals with a higher criminal history category had much higher rearrest numbers (Up to 81.5%), and those that received a weapon sentencing enhancement also had higher rearrest numbers.
Clearly, sentencing reform including individuals with significant criminal histories (like Callahan) will result in more crime. It is, however, less clear that sentencing reform applied to those with zero to insignificant criminal histories will increase crime or that the increase is justified when considering the financial costs of continued incarceration and the detriment to society from incapacitating those that can safely re-enter society.
Melissa --
-- Do you disagree that crime is grossly under-reported, and that therefore the Commission's recidivism statistics understate, probably substantially, the actual amount of repeat crime?
-- Do you disagree that having half of federal releasees recidivate is alarming and unacceptable? What does that figure say about so-called "rehabilitation?"
-- "Less than 15% of the crimes involved homicide, rape, or drug trafficking offenses..."
Well gosh, that sure is comforting!
-- Wendell Callahan was released under the 2010 version of federal sentencing reform because (1) his defense lawyer falsely claimed Callahan would not be a danger to the community, (2) the USAO, out of corruption, stupidity or laziness, went along with it, and (3) the judge fecklessly accepted it. Three people are dead as a result. The most generous thing all this can be called is a "mistake."
Will you give us your word that there will be no similar "mistake" if the broader version of sentencing reform now on the table becomes law?
If you will not give us your word, why should society accept the risk (indeed, to be realistic, the inevitability) of more sliced-up children simply so that felons can get early release from legal sentences?
Tarls --
Doug took me to task for refusing his "nuanced" analysis in favor of "sound-bite rhetoric."
You then attempted the nuanced discussion Doug certainly seemed to want by asking him ten specific and insightful questions.
Instead of answering any of them, as one might expect from a person devoted to "nuance," Doug says he will "try to answer them collectively with one simple statement."
He follows this with two short paragraphs that divert the discussion to drunk driving and pot, which together account for a tiny fraction of the federal prison population. But that, and the population's recidivism, is -- as only a few will remember through the haze of diversion -- what this entry is about.
Anyway, Doug -- a smart man legitimately regarded as an expert in the field -- seems to want detail and nuance when it suits the purpose at hand, but "one simple statement" otherwise.
Far out!
- I don't disagree or agree with the assertion that "crime is grossly under-reported...." Data indicates that more people self identify as victims of crime than people that report crimes. Sometimes this is an indication that not all "crimes" warrant state involvement, which I happen to agree with. To the extent that individuals are not reporting crimes I don't think it is appropriate to speculate that the unreported crimes are attributable to recently released individuals or in other cases an individual may have committed multiple crimes but was only re-arrested for one. In those cases, the unreported crimes do not offer insight into the extent of recidivism for all recently released prisoners (although it may provide insight on the gravity of recidivism risk posed by particular offenders).
-I don't find that nearly half of federal prisoners commit another offense or technical violation of their supervised conditions alarming. I find it concerning and would like to find ways to both improve rehabilitation efforts (which are largely non-existent since the hard on crime movement) and find ways to prevent recidivism for those that present the greatest threat.
*Clearly, when it comes to recidivism concerns the government should not be focused on CH I releasees (~30% recidivism) but on those with higher CH categories (~70 to 81% recidivism).
That 15% of the crimes comprising re-arrests included serious offense (note that 11.5% of that number is for drug trafficking) was not meant to be comforting. It was meant to demonstrate that some of the instances of recidivism do not necessarily warrant hysteria. I doubt people are that concerned that someone released from prison was charged with drug possession at some point 8 years after their release.
Callahan--Callahan even prior to sentencing reform was not given a life sentence, he would have gotten out and according to this Report recidivism was highly probable. Offenders like Callahan (with high criminal histories and usage of firearms) will be released at some point and they present a distinct problem that likely warrants supervision reforms.
-I don't believe reforming the sentencing disparities for crack-cocaine was a mistake. Should Callahan have been given the opportunity to murder while on release? No. But refusing to institute reforms for a general population comprised of more than just Callahans is bad policy in my mind. The Report shows that over 9,000 of its participants followed their conditions of release and were not arrested 8 years after their release. If low level offenders can safely re-enter society, we should examine means to implement a policy that allows for their early release while incapacitating those likely to be a danger upon re-entering society.
My word is irrelevant. I can no more guarantee the absence of crime than you can. You can't promise that incarcerating certain groups at a high rate for significant time will not cause future crimes. Also, you ignore that the law currently on the table could have kept Callahan in prison longer than the pre-reform drug laws you complain about.
I have an entirely different viewpoint on the cost benefit analysis of sentencing reform than you do. Society should accept whatever policy it determines best balances those costs and benefits. I think your position overestimates the risks by not taking into account factors that can mitigate the risk of recidivism and the benefits of sentencing reform. This study demonstrates that there are thousands of federal prisoners who can be released and safely re-enter society. There is a benefit to society in their early release: these people can return or create a new family, work, volunteer, and the government won't be paying to house them.
Bill, if you do us the benefit of starting a new post with all of Tarls questions (ideally, one per post), I will try to provide a nuanced answer to each of those questions. But, in an effort to quickly respond at the end of a long commentary thread, I tried to provide my collective view to further explain my view questioned my Tarls, namely that "I want [prison] used less when the evidence strongly suggests their use in some cases --- i.e., for lower-level, first offenders --- actually makes us less safe."
Tarls asks: Could you expand your answer to include EXACTLY what crimes would get the "Get out of jail" free card? My first response would be all offenses of marijuana distribution, all first offenses of drunk driving and illegal gun possession, and then lots of other nonviolent first offenses [drug dealing, white-collar, regulatory offenses] if/when other risk-assessment factors suggested a low risk of recidivism.
Tarls asks: What percentage of Federal inmates do these people make up? Probably about 10-15%, but this is a guess based on the fact that roughly 1/3 entering federal prison have no criminal history.
Tarls asks: What is the recidivism rate for these people in total? What are the recidivism rates of the class of felons (who you would not imprison if the law was changed) who were sentenced to less than prison compared to those sentenced to prison? Comparing the recidivists in each group, which is more likely to graduate to higher level crimes?
Good/hard questions, but as Melissa highlights, the vast majority of persons without criminal history when they enter federal prisons do not get rearrested, and I think/hope this number would go down ever further if they are not subject to criminogenic experiences.
Tarls asks: Will you be going by the charged crime or plea bargained result, the latter often not nearly resembling the crime committed? I always at sentencing care about crime of conviction, I do not think sentencing should be done by allegation (or acquitted conduct or uncharged conduct)
Tarls asks: What studies have been done to compare the price of incarceration for your low level offenders versus the cost of crime on society? Do they put a price on lives lost to murder, psychological trauma caused by rape, etc. in addition to strict monetary numbers? What are these values?
As suggested above, I am always trying to find more data on these fronts on the most common ACTUAL US crimes, marijuana distribution and drunk driving. I hope you can point me to addition evidence on these fronts.
Tarls asks: Do you agree that all of these things should be honestly answered BEFORE moving towards less incarceration? Why or why not?
Absolutely, but as I mentioned, I think we should start with the most widespread of current crimes, and then move to others.
Sorry I did not do all this before, but again this is not a great forum for this type of back in forth. I sincerely hope, Bill, if you want fuller answers to the Tarls questions here that you will do separate posts do I can go into more detail and provide even more nuance --- e.g., the drunk driving issues turns a lot of levels of drunkenness and age of offense, and the gun possession issue is especially dynamic.
Better?
Doug,
I think Bill articulated almost exactly what my response would be, so I will only add another point.
The last questions were the most important. They were: "Do you agree that all of these things should be honestly answered BEFORE moving towards less incarceration? Why or why not?"
You are in academia in this field. Aren't the questions I asked previously the topics you and your colleagues should be finding answers to BEFORE looking to overhaul a system that even you (if I am not mistaken) say has reduced crime?
Doesn't an "evidence based" approach mean actually searching for the evidence whether it supports your thesis or not? Again, is this not your job to some extent?
Tarls: the academy has been working real hard to answer all these questions with a lot of evidence, Tarls, and I have been running my blog for a decade seeking to add more light than heat on these fronts. But, even on crime/punishment questions seemingly much simplier than those you posed to me --- e.g., do executions reduce murders, do mandatory prison terms deter gun crimes, does race impact sentencing outcomes --- the empirical evidence is often very mixed and can be influenced by lots of confounding factors (like the weather, which likely best explains why murders are much lower in northern US states without the death penalty than in southern US state with the death penalty).
I am constantly looking for "easy" answers to your questions, based on history and consistent data. So, for example, history has led me to conclude that alcohol Prohibition contributed greatky to violent crime; that is the reason I favor ending marijuana prohibition. Strong modern data show ignition locks greatly reduce drunk driving offenses; ergo, I want to use them as an alternative to incarceration for first drunk driving offenses. Strong data show folks with a college degree and and no prior criminal history are the most unlikely to recidivate, so I see no good justification for putting such folks in prison for less serious offenses much at all (and especially not for long periods of time). And so on....
In other words, I want to act (mostly to tweak the system via the SCRA, not to do a massive overhaul), based on what we already know pretty well. Though I will also admit that I am influenced by my core libertarian thesis that government is generally inefficient and tends to keep growing despite such inefficiencies. Ergo, I look for data-informed ways to try to reduce the costs and inefficiency of big government use of incarceration.
In contrast, it seems, you --- like many who support the big government growth --- do not want to even entertain arguments that big government has any fat that can be cut until there is proof that we can "afford" to do without more big government growth. I know when Mitt Romney talking about cutting federal funding to PBS, lots of similar fans of big government were quick to assert that all federal funds are essential here. Similarly, when Prez Trump ties to get rid of the Dept of Ed, I am sure many will say we should not even consider this until we get proof it will not hurt education. And, similarly, you do not want to even consider less incarceration because you are not convinced we can do better with less government.
Doug --
Sorry, I didn't get to the blog until just now today. At this point, I think your discussion with TarlsQtr is so far along that I couldn't profitably start a new thread for it, but I'm sure many of these same issues will surface soon in the future.
Batting things back and forth with TarlsQtr is always enlightening and is the kind of debate C&C aims to encourage. He's extremely bright, focused and analytical.
I'm not going to get into the debate at this point except to say that prison has helped dramatically reduce crime; protection from crime is a core and proper function of government; and the people who should bear the risks of sentencing error (too much vs. too little) are the criminals who make their own choices, not the victims who have no choice and no voice.
Thanks, Bill, though I do think the question Tarls stresses and my concerns about continued big government growth merit a separate post to highlight that true libertarians/fiscal conservatives ought to be on my side of this debate over whether we should try to trim back historically big government growth in the use of incarceration over the last 40 years. (Of course, it is already the case that most leading libertarians/fiscal conservatives are singing my tune: e.g., Grover Norquist, the Kochs, Rand Paul, Mike Lee.)
I bring this up because what you say to justify big federal prisons can and will be also said about federal involvement in healthcare: expanding healthcare, many liberals would say, "has helped dramatically reduce crime; protection from crime is a core and proper function of government; and the people who should bear the risks of too little healthcare (too much vs. too little) should not be sick people who have no choice and no voice.
Doug --
Long threads tend to lose readership over time and turn into just two-way or three-way conversations (which is, BTW, one reason it will be a good thing when a new thread re-visits some of these same core issues, as inevitably will happen).
Recognizing the limited value of long threads, I will make only two brief points.
First, you don't deny the truth of any part my last rebuttal: Prison has been effective in reducing crime; crime fighting is a core function of government; and, in a world where error is inevitable, the only choice we realistically have is to decide who among the parties more justly should bear the risks and burdens of error.
Second, you say that my argument can be aped by liberals advocating for health care. But the aping is just that, and can be done linguistically by anyone for anything.
In this case, just to take the easy marks: Healthcare has nothing approaching the historical pedigree and consensus that exists supporting the government's role is fighting crime; the relationship between healthcare and less crime is debatable at best (e.g., I have never seen more healthcare listed among the top seven reasons for crime reduction, whereas more incarceration makes it every time); and, while sickness is very seldom a choice, the lifestyles that lead to sickness (overweight, no exercise, drug use, risky behaviors) are more commonly chosen than having someone belt you over the head to take your purse.
Doug,
A couple of points.
One, finding answers to my questions would make a much more precise argument than an inference based on a policy from 100 years ago. You do not really answer WHY you (academicians) would not put the time and money into answering my questions. It would not be difficult in terms of "interpreting" data. Some people interested in finding the answers would just have to go knee deep into the data and find it. Personally, I do not think it gets done because academia does not want precision in this case.
Obfuscation is your only chance of success.
You stated: "In contrast, it seems, you --- like many who support the big government growth --- do not want to even entertain arguments that big government has any fat that can be cut until there is proof that we can "afford" to do without more big government growth. I know when Mitt Romney talking about cutting federal funding to PBS, lots of similar fans of big government were quick to assert that all federal funds are essential here. Similarly, when Prez Trump ties to get rid of the Dept of Ed, I am sure many will say we should not even consider this until we get proof it will not hurt education. And, similarly, you do not want to even consider less incarceration because you are not convinced we can do better with less government."
Nonsense.
I would hope that you can see the difference between "growing" the core functions of government and growing government involvement in areas like limiting the size of soft drinks, funding PBS, or the Department of Education.
You stated: "Similarly, when Prez Trump ties to get rid of the Dept of Ed, I am sure many will say we should not even consider this until we get proof it will not hurt education."
We have that proof. The Department of Education began in 1979. We have test scores pre-DoE and scores post-DoE. A lot more money spent but the results are no better.
http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2015/mar/02/dave-brat/brat-us-school-spending-375-percent-over-30-years-/
Tarls (and Doug) --
Tarls illustrates once more why he's not a person you want to start a debate with. It shouldn't really need production of a lot of data for anyone to know that education in the United States is at best treading water from where we were before feds entered the field. Indeed, if I'm remembering correctly, we were somewhat down the list of countries in educational attainment 40 years ago, and we're just as far down now.
This is progress?
By contrast, every serious person acknowledges that we've made huge strides against crime in the last generation and that increased incarceration is part of the reason.
Doug repeats something we have seen many times before: That if you favor just maintaining the tiny percentage of the federal budget that goes for incarceration, you must be an undifferentiated fan of "big government."
The proposition is so bizarre as to be self-refuting. So it's not that the proposition even needs a response. No, the noteworthy thing is that Doug keeps saying it ostensibly just to annoy pro-law enforcement conservatives like Tarls and me..
The irony is that, after two dozen repetitions or so, it loses even its annoyance value.
If you're a non-ideological pragmatist, you do what works. Prison works. For people who want to avoid it, easy: Change your behavior, for your neighbor's benefit and for yours.
1. Bill, I agree long threads lose readership, which is why I am encouraging you to start a new post which poses the central questions/issues we have arrived at here: Is the massive growth in state and federal imprisonment/spending on corrections over the last 40 years (1) a uniquely valuable form of domestic big government growth/spending that ought not be viewed skeptically and subject to serious reform/reduction because it has obviously reduced crime OR is it (2) have features similar to other domestic big government growth/spending in which government employees working in the system are quick to claim that all the growth/spending has been worth it, but lots of objective evidence suggests otherwise?
Of particular note here, drawing on Tarls reference to the DoE, is to think about domestic big government growth/spending on the drug war: in 1980 we had just over 40,000 persons in prisons and jails for drug offenses, as of 2014 we have well over 400,000 (a 10x increase). The federal growth here is especially stunning, from under 4,800 drug prisoners in federal facilities to just under 100,000 in 2014 (a 20x increase). That is a lot more money spent but it seems, as Tarls puts it, "the results are no better."
2. Notably, you and Tarls are quick to assert that "crime fighting is a core function of government." I would agree with respect to violent crime AND state governments, but what the SCRA is mostly about is reducing the growth of federal government efforts to fight drug crimes. Arguably, limiting adult use of intoxicants is no more a core [federal] government than limiting adult consumption of sugary sodas. Notably, we thought alcohol Prohibition required a constitutional amendment to make it part of the work of the federal government, and struggle to see how you can say keeping people from using marijuana to treat their ailments is any more a core [federal] government concern than seeking to education children or providing health care to the sick so that they can be knowledgeable/healthy to participate in self-government through democracy.
3. I sense that lifestyle choices are VERY much involved in lots of crime, and not just obviously drug crimes. Many (perhaps most) crime victims have chosen to hang out with dangerous/risky people and/or dangerous/risky areas. And certainly access to health-care for the mentally ill and otherwise disadvantaged plainly has a very link to drug and property crimes (and that may in large part explain why European crime rates are so low without large use of imprisonment). It also might help explain why crime kept going down throughout the US after 2009 even though that is when our incarceration rate peeked.
4. Tarls seems to fail to appreciate that many academics have devoted many careers to answering these issues, but I suspect you do not like much the leading conclusions. See NAS report here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18613/the-growth-of-incarceration-in-the-united-states-exploring-causes:
"The Growth of Incarceration in the United States examines research and analysis of the dramatic rise of incarceration rates and its affects. This study makes the case that the United States has gone far past the point where the numbers of people in prison can be justified by social benefits and has reached a level where these high rates of incarceration themselves constitute a source of injustice and social harm.
"The Growth of Incarceration in the United States recommends changes in sentencing policy, prison policy, and social policy to reduce the nation's reliance on incarceration. The report also identifies important research questions that must be answered to provide a firmer basis for policy. The study assesses the evidence and its implications for public policy to inform an extensive and thoughtful public debate about and reconsideration of policies."
5. In other words, to return to where we started, lots and lots of modern data support my libertarian views here: namely that the massive growth in state and federal imprisonment/spending on corrections over the last 40 years --- especially with respect to drugs --- have features similar to other domestic big government growth/spending in which government employees working in the system are quick to claim that all the growth/spending has been worth it, but lots of objective evidence suggests otherwise. I think the evidence of ig government waste in this space is now particularly compelling with respect to marijuana prohibition, and that is why I am advocating that we start federal and state criminal justice reforms there. I would be grateful, Bill, if you'd do a post on that topic in particular, asking whether and why true conservatives support blanket federal marijuana prohibtion when it is now hard to find any non-government employee who supports continued wasteful government spending in this space.
Your wish is my command.
http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2016/03/a-thoughtful-discussion-of-the.html
Thanks for the new post, Bill, but I will wrap up here by making clear that there is very limited evidence to support the idea that FEDERAL prison "works" especially with respect to reducing federal DRUG crimes, and that is why I especially favor very significant FEDERAL DRUG sentencing reform. After we get that --- which, thanks in part to your effortcontinues to be very hard to achieve --- I will turn to advocating reforms in other areas in which there is very limited evidence of efficacy. Candidly, that includes most areas of federal growth, and I am especialy concerned I am not going to have any real libertarian-minded choice among the serious Prez candidates.
(That said, if we get a Hillary/Donald choice, I am going to root for folks starting to take Gary Johnson seriously as a libertarian option. At the very least, I would hope he would get to be part of a debate so libertarian ideas --- mike marijuana reform --- are set forth for Hillary/Donald to have to respond to.)
I would just like to conclude my participation in this thread by noting that Doug never really answered my questions.
What did I fail to answer Tarls? I want the best and most complete cost-benefit data possible before making significant criminal justice changes. But this data is extremely challenging to assemble with indisputable accuracy for even seemingly simple CJ issues like should we execute murderers or just imprison them for a long time. In light of these empirical realities, we often have to make the best efforts based on imperfect data while continuing to study to try to keep learning and improving.