An implicit assumption in the outcry for releasing "nonviolent offenders" is that criminals specialize, and a person in prison for, say, burglary, is no more likely to commit a violent crime than regular law-abiding people are. Last month, California voters approved an initiative for releasing supposedly "nonviolent" criminals by a landslide even while they rejected an initiative to repeal the death penalty by a greater margin than they did four years ago. That indicates the extent to which the "nonviolent offender" myth has taken hold.
But it's a bunch of hooey. Today the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics released supplemental data on Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010.
How many prisoners released in 2005 were rearrested by 2010, and for what crimes?
For those committed for violent offenses, 33.1% were rearrested for another violent offense. For those whose most serious commitment offense was classified as a property offense, 28.5% were rearrested for a violent offense.
Is that a big difference? No, it is a small, bordering on trivial, difference. The premise that "nonviolent offenders" can be released without placing law-abiding people at increased risk of violent victimization is just plain wrong.
But it's a bunch of hooey. Today the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics released supplemental data on Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010.
How many prisoners released in 2005 were rearrested by 2010, and for what crimes?
For those committed for violent offenses, 33.1% were rearrested for another violent offense. For those whose most serious commitment offense was classified as a property offense, 28.5% were rearrested for a violent offense.
Is that a big difference? No, it is a small, bordering on trivial, difference. The premise that "nonviolent offenders" can be released without placing law-abiding people at increased risk of violent victimization is just plain wrong.
Our friends at BJS list in the "highlights":
Compared to inmates incarcerated for a property (28.5%), drug (24.8%), or public order offense (29.2%), a higher percentage of inmates incarcerated for a violent offense were arrested for another violent crime (33.1%) during the 5-year period.Higher, yes, but not much higher. Not nearly as much higher as is popularly believed.
I think that practical exposure to crime and criminals would suggest - no, insist - that most criminals exploit opportunity. While they may have small-scale preferred actions, they are generally omnivores (for lack of a better term). They are also indeed habitual, but will not pass up profit because a scenario might or might not involve violence.
There are exceptions, so perhaps people who have deliberately chosen to avoid crimes of violence for practical reasons, generally because there is lesser liability (for instance, for a conviction for auto theft vs. robbery) when caught. We did see this pattern when dealing with the more self-aware criminal.
Of course, criminals engaged in crimes which are typically non-violent may resort to violence as a means to consolidate or advance the criminal enterprise.
And, for instance, one of the most potentially dangerous criminals is the nighttime residential burglar. So a distinction between "property crime" and "violent crime" in an attempt to differentiate individuals is usually meaningless.
Criminals do what they can get away with, within their physical limitations.
I would add for certain commenters that the "drug offender" category is not exactly bathing in glory when it comes to committing violent acts after release either.
Anyone who has examined more than a few rap sheets knows that criminals are more generalists than specialists.There are few if any "conscientious objectors" who will not take advantage of a criminal opportunity if it involves guns or violence.
"most criminals exploit opportunity"
"non-violent [criminals] may resort to violence.. to.. advance the criminal enterprise"
~ So true. I recall that last decade in In Polk County, FL an established thief abruptly
stepped-up his wickedness to include pistol-whipping and duct-taping a pregnant
bank teller, for example.
I have had to be disabused of my own reliance on the fanciful
'violent/non-violent' dichotomy in criminal profiling. Consistent
experiences have driven this point home.
Kent, do you think this data and your point about it may provide some support for the claim by some CJ reformers that nonviolent offenders should never be incarcerated in the first instance because incarceration my harden them?
I have often feared that ugly post-prison recidivism numbers may show us, most fundamentally, why prison is criminogenic and thus produces more crime unless/until you cage offenders until they are too old to be significant criminals.