A pervasive myth in America today, one that we have denounced many times on this blog, is that our prisons are full of harmless people locked up for minor offenses who can be released with no danger to the public.
Hard data are hard to come by, especially at the state level. The information available is often aggregated into broad categories that make it very difficult to present the truth clearly. We know anecdotally that overall prosecutors are only seeking prison sentences and judges are only imposing them in cases where they are genuinely deserved, with exceptions being rare. Still, the myth has a firm hold and has fooled people who should know better.
CJLF has recently obtained data from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation that tallies up the state prisoner population by offense of commitment at the detailed level. Marissa Cohen, our Public Policy Director, has put the data into charts. The pie chart is to the left, and the bar chart is after the break. Click on the chart for a larger version.
On the pie chart, start at 12 o'clock and go clockwise. Homicide, robbery, assault, sex crimes, and kidnapping bring us all the way to 9 o'clock. Three-quarters of state prisoners are in for crimes of violence. Add in burglary of homes, and we are up to 10 o'clock -- five-sixths. Burglary of a home is a crime of psychological violence. The harm it inflicts goes far beyond the monetary damage from forced entry and theft. The drug offenders are mostly in for trafficking, not possession for personal use.
Hard data are hard to come by, especially at the state level. The information available is often aggregated into broad categories that make it very difficult to present the truth clearly. We know anecdotally that overall prosecutors are only seeking prison sentences and judges are only imposing them in cases where they are genuinely deserved, with exceptions being rare. Still, the myth has a firm hold and has fooled people who should know better.
CJLF has recently obtained data from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation that tallies up the state prisoner population by offense of commitment at the detailed level. Marissa Cohen, our Public Policy Director, has put the data into charts. The pie chart is to the left, and the bar chart is after the break. Click on the chart for a larger version.
On the pie chart, start at 12 o'clock and go clockwise. Homicide, robbery, assault, sex crimes, and kidnapping bring us all the way to 9 o'clock. Three-quarters of state prisoners are in for crimes of violence. Add in burglary of homes, and we are up to 10 o'clock -- five-sixths. Burglary of a home is a crime of psychological violence. The harm it inflicts goes far beyond the monetary damage from forced entry and theft. The drug offenders are mostly in for trafficking, not possession for personal use.
Everybody wants to grasp at easy solutions for difficult problems. The harmless prisoner myth is seductive because it offers an easy solution. Just let them out with no impact on public safety, no additional murders or rapes or burglaries. But it is a myth.
California, particularly, needs to bite the bullet and build additional prison space. As hard as that may be for people who want to cut government spending, there is no better alternative.
California, particularly, needs to bite the bullet and build additional prison space. As hard as that may be for people who want to cut government spending, there is no better alternative.
It will be interesting to see if Professor Berman decides to deal with this persuasive blog post.
The other issue--how much of California's crime problem is due to massive illegal immigration over the past decade and a half?
I largely agree, Kent and federalist, that it is a "myth" that most or even many prisoners are "harmless," especially those who have earned in state systems an extended stay at the grey-bar hotel. But I actually think this data shows the need to make society safer with better punishment options than modern, criminogenic prisons.
I find it VERY telling and significant that in January 2016 --- AFTER California has engaged in two (massive?) efforts to decarcerate from state prisons its least serious offenders through Reallignment and Prop 47 --- it remains the case that more than 18% of California state prisoners are currently confined for crimes less serious than a home burglary. In number terms, based on California's now roughly 112,000 prisonsers, that means that more than 20,000 offenders are in California state prison for crimes less serious than a home burglary.
What is so disconcerting about that reality is the fact that these 20K offenders are likely becoming more dangerous, not less, as a result of being confined to state prison for a couple of years or more for crimes less serious than a home burglary. Most of the factors that we know increases the likelihood of criminal offending --- e.g., low education/job training, low job prospects, low connection to family/healthy freinds, low respect for authority --- are aggravated by modern prison confinement.
Unless we are willing to keep these 20K offenders (all of whom are lower-level) in prison until they start aging out of their crime-prone years --- which means for many convicted in their teens or early 20s being incarcerated for a decade or longer --- their time in prison has likely made California and the rest of our society less safe rather than more safe. (This is especially true for the drug dealers, because the arrest of some just makes the black market that much more valuable for others.)
For the record, I will readily assert that even among this huge (20K) population of lower-level offenders in California, it is unlikely that most or even many are "harmless." But I think I could find one out of every 10 of those folks (i.e., 2,000) who could be safely released to save some money, especially if if saved tax dollars were spent on other proven public safety programs, like ignition locks for cars or treatment for their underlying drug/mental problems.
I could go on and on, but I just want to say I am grateful to see this valuable data. I find absolutely stunning that, even after Reallignment and Prop 47, California still has 20,000 offenders in its state prison for crimes less serious than a home burglary.
Doug, your assumption that everyone in the 10-12 o'clock segment of the circle is in for a crime less serious than home burglary is incorrect. Drug traffickers, for example, could well be in for something more serious. The "other" category necessarily includes a wide variety of crimes.
California judges have the authority to impose a non-prison sentence for most felonies. These people went to prison, in most if not all cases, because a case-specific determination was made that this was the appropriate sentence considering all the circumstances.
Fair point, Kent, and I would be eager based on your superior experience what percentage of the 20k+ prisoners in the 10-12 o'clock segment of the circle do you think were convicted of a crime less serious than home burglary: 75% 50% 25% 10%?
I am encouraged to hear that 100% of those in California prisons are there because a judge decided they should be there and for a period the judge thinks appropriate. (This is not always true in the federal system where federal prosecutors, using mandatory minimums, can be functionally the one to decide whether and for how long some offenders have to go to prison.) But, as you know, those judicial decisions from the 1990s to 2000s badly overcrowded California's prisons, and the only turn arounds have happened because the voters and federal courts demanded some decarceration/penalty-reduction.
All of this is not to say that it would be unwise for Californians to decide to build more prisons, but its representatives have had this option of decades and it seems they are not eager to do so. Of course, you and others could --- and perhaps should --- get on the ballot a voter initiative that would require the building of more prisons. Have you or others seriously considered that initiative option for more prisons, perhaps as a companion to your efforts to fix the death penalty in California via voter initiative?
I said "most if not all." If I had meant "all" I would have said "all." In addition, it was clear from context that I was referring to those in the last 1/6 of the pie chart, not all California prisoners. Finally, I said nothing about the length of the sentence. The base term for most felonies is limited to a choice of three.
I really am too busy to correct mischaracterizations of what I say, so I'm going to close this thread to comments now.