We often hear that Congress should enact sentencing "reform" because it has been shown to work in the states. The example most frequently given is Texas, which is said to be enjoying lower crime even as it thins out its prison population.
I am not sufficiently familiar with the Lone Star State to say whether crime is in fact decreasing; I will assume for purposes of this post that it has been, at least in the years for which statistics are presently available. The problem is that this would hardly prove that sentencing reform helps bring down crime.
As I've often noted, numerous factors have helped suppress crime -- for example, more police and more pro-active policing. Increased use of incarceration accounts for roughly a quarter of the crime decrease over the past generation. Thus, as long as a state persists with its other crime-suppressing measures, crime is likely to continue to decrease, but at a slower rate as sentencing "reformed" inmates hit the streets earlier. That is what has been happening in Texas.
But if the pro-criminal effects of massively reduced sentences become too strong, it's possible that, at some point, they will overwhelm the other three-quarters of the factors helping to bring down crime.
Those urging complacency on account of the Texas experience thus might want to pay particular attention to this alarming story from the state's largest city.
Leave a comment