...here's a juicy item from today's Sentencing Law and Policy:
The title of this post is the title of this intriguing little paper authored by Emily Fetsch for the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and now available via SSRN. Here is the abstract:There is a paragraph and a half following that squib in the SL&P entry, but I stopped right there, because there is a limit on how many brain cells I'm willing to kill by reading pure tripe.One in three Americans has a criminal record. Given the significant size of this population, the ability for these individuals to attain economic success after they leave prison has tremendous implications for our economy and economic mobility...
There are about 325,000,000 Americans. If one in three has a criminal record, that means a bit more than 108,000,000 Americans have such a record.
First, I seriously doubt that is true by any conceivable reckoning of the meaning of "criminal record." By far the most frequent recorded interaction between the police and citizens consists of traffic stops. But the huge majority of such stops are not for crimes at all but for infractions, such as speeding or failure to signal a change in lanes. If Ms. Fetsch is referring to something other than traffic stops for her bloated figure, I have no idea what it could be.
So I looked in Ms. Fetsch's article for some documentation for her "one in three" claim. What I found was this, with two footnotes to an article by the Sentencing Project:
Instead, let's think about this: When I was a boy, my father would warn me about deceptive commercials that proclaimed, "If you buy right now, you can get as much as fifty percent off!!!" He pointed out that "as much as" fifty percent off could mean as little as five percent off -- or zero percent off for that matter. That's the first thing I thought of when I read "as many as" 100 million Americans have criminal records.
Then you can do some elementary math. Even if it were true that 100 million Americans have criminal records, 100 million is not 108 million. Taken in its own terms, Ms. Fetsch's article misstates the number of persons with a criminal record by eight million.
But hey, look, a million here or a million there is good enough forgovernment criminal defense work.
Then there's the fact that the footnoted source, the Sentencing Project, is not a research center but an advocacy group. One must wonder why Ms. Fetsch used it as the justification for her number, rather than a neutral source.
One might speculate that it's because there is no neutral source, and it's all made up.
Still, moving right along in her discussion of people with criminal records, Ms. Fetsch writes, "the ability for these individuals to attain economic success after they leave prison..."
How's that? After they leave prison?
Notice the slick conflation of (1) people "with criminal records" with (2) people who "leave prison." In fact, these numbers, however they might be measured, are hardly the same, and no person working in the field could possibly think they're the same. The number of people who serve prison sentences is a very small fraction (I don't know the exact percentage) of people who have a "criminal record."
I'm only barely following the "fake news" controversy, but I guess I can nominate this "hundred-million-with-criminal-records" claim as being right up there.
First, I seriously doubt that is true by any conceivable reckoning of the meaning of "criminal record." By far the most frequent recorded interaction between the police and citizens consists of traffic stops. But the huge majority of such stops are not for crimes at all but for infractions, such as speeding or failure to signal a change in lanes. If Ms. Fetsch is referring to something other than traffic stops for her bloated figure, I have no idea what it could be.
So I looked in Ms. Fetsch's article for some documentation for her "one in three" claim. What I found was this, with two footnotes to an article by the Sentencing Project:
One in three adults has been arrested by the age of twenty-three years old, 2 and it is estimated that as many as 100 million Americans have criminal records. 3Let's put to one side for the moment the gauzy phrase, "it is estimated."
Instead, let's think about this: When I was a boy, my father would warn me about deceptive commercials that proclaimed, "If you buy right now, you can get as much as fifty percent off!!!" He pointed out that "as much as" fifty percent off could mean as little as five percent off -- or zero percent off for that matter. That's the first thing I thought of when I read "as many as" 100 million Americans have criminal records.
Then you can do some elementary math. Even if it were true that 100 million Americans have criminal records, 100 million is not 108 million. Taken in its own terms, Ms. Fetsch's article misstates the number of persons with a criminal record by eight million.
But hey, look, a million here or a million there is good enough for
Then there's the fact that the footnoted source, the Sentencing Project, is not a research center but an advocacy group. One must wonder why Ms. Fetsch used it as the justification for her number, rather than a neutral source.
One might speculate that it's because there is no neutral source, and it's all made up.
Still, moving right along in her discussion of people with criminal records, Ms. Fetsch writes, "the ability for these individuals to attain economic success after they leave prison..."
How's that? After they leave prison?
Notice the slick conflation of (1) people "with criminal records" with (2) people who "leave prison." In fact, these numbers, however they might be measured, are hardly the same, and no person working in the field could possibly think they're the same. The number of people who serve prison sentences is a very small fraction (I don't know the exact percentage) of people who have a "criminal record."
I'm only barely following the "fake news" controversy, but I guess I can nominate this "hundred-million-with-criminal-records" claim as being right up there.
Great number crunching here, Bill, but I wonder if you have proposed better number(s) for those of us who think being accurate here is very important.
Notably, here is a link to a 2015 WSJ article which reviews some (dated) research and talks to various "informed" folks to support this assertion: "Although all of the numbers are squishy, the researchers agree that, if not precisely accurate, 30% is a reasonable ballpark estimate of the number of American adults with an arrest."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-many-americans-have-a-police-record-probably-more-than-you-think-1438939802
One of many problems with specific numbers here is the critical reality that these data will be radically different if we break down demographic groups -- e.g., many more men than women have criminal records (and have spent time in prison or jail); older men are generally more likely to have a criminal record than younger ones because of having lived longer/done more to get a record; persons of color are generally more likely to have criminal justice encounters than others, and so on.
In other settings, I have stressed to you Bill that seeking to explain complex realities with simple numbers is fraught with problems. This posting leads me to think you agree with that basic sentiment. But, to the extent you still see virtues in simple/accurate data discussions concerning CJ systems, I am hopeful you provide your best "accurate" assessment of how many ADULT Americans (among the roughly 250 million in the US) have whatever you think it fair to call a "criminal record."
Thanks in advance, Bill, for seeking to bring some "real" news/data to a setting in which "fake" does too often dominate the discourse.
Doug --
The one sentence you quote from the WSJ says all that needs saying about the wiggle room -- approximately the diameter of the sun -- needed to get Ms. Fetsch's claim to within shouting distance of the truth.
Her leadoff claim in your SL&P entry, word-for-word, is: "One in three Americans has a criminal record." You voiced no question at all about this when you published it.
The WSJ sentence you quote now is (emphasis added): "Although all of the numbers are SQUISHY, the researchers agree that, IF NOT PRECISELY ACCURATE, 30% is a REASONABLE BALLPARK ESTIMATE of the number of American ADULTS with an arrest."
Where to start?
1. 30% is not one in three.
2. Squishy numbers are, by definition, not reliable numbers.
3. "Not precisely accurate" is a euphemism for "probably wrong."
4. "Reasonable ballpark estimate" could mean a park 500 feet in diameter, or 1000 feet, or whatever we want to imagine. It's a phrase designed precisely to have no discernible meaning.
5. "Americans" is not "American adults." "Americans" takes in at least 75 million more people than "American adults."
Then you pass right by the single most flagrantly dishonest part of her piece, to wit, the part that, astonishingly, conflates having a criminal record with having served prison time.
Did you think that was cute? She seems to have.
Follow both of your blogs but I am not in the legal or criminal justice fields. Just an interested reader of all viewpoints.
Question: How can an estimated one-third of Americans have criminal records when so few of the population has ever been arrested?
For me, that number does not make sense given that the total estimated arrests over this 20-year period is 269,418,914, which is less than the estimated population of the country in 2015 (320,220,000). And population growth has not even been accounted for.
The Census Bureau estimates there has been one birth every 8 seconds in this country over that time span, or roughly 31,536,000 per year. Add the roughly 630,000,000 people born in the U.S. between 1996-2015 to the 269,390,000 living population from 1996, and you're talking about almost 900 million Americans alive over a 20-year period. So 269,418,914 estimated arrests for 900 million estimated living population over the past 20 years is an arrest rate of just under 30%, at 29.94%.
A couple more notes that make me believe the one-third number is off: 1) An arrest may not result in a conviction; and 2) these numbers do not account for recidivism or persons arrested for multiple crimes. Both of which would drive the one-third figure lower.
Anyways, thanks for the always interesting posts!
Year--Estimated Arrests(1)--Estimated Population(2)--Percentage of Population Arrested
1996--15,168,100--269,390,000--5.63%
1997--15,284,300--272,650,000--5.61%
1998--14,528,300--275,850,000--5.27%
1999--14,031,070--279,040,000--5.03%
2000--13,980,297--282,160,000--4.95%
2001--13,699,254--284,970,000--4.81%
2002--13,741,438--287,630,000--4.78%
2003--13,639,479--290,110,000--4.70%
2004--13,938,071--292,810,000--4.76%
2005--14,094,186--295,520,000--4.77%
2006--14,380,370--298,380,000--4.82%
2007--14,209,365--301,230,000--4.72%
2008--14,005,615--304,090,000--4.61%
2009--13,687,241--306,770,000--4.46%
2010--13,120,947--308,110,000--4.26%
2011--12,408,899--310,500,000--4.00%
2012--12,196,959--312,860,000--3.90%
2013--11,302,102--315,180,000--3.59%
2014--11,205,833--317,680,000--3.53%
2015--10,797,088--320,220,000--3.37%
References:
(1) https://ucr.fbi.gov/ucr-publications
(2) http://www.multpl.com/united-states-population/table
There is so much erroneous information cited in that paper, I hardly know where to begin.
The most popular figure widely cited is that "1 in 3 before age 23", which seems to derive from an American Academy of Pediatrics sponsored study in 2010. But when you read their methodology, you see they deliberately overrepresent minority youth in the study. if young black males are perhaps 4% of the U S population, they were about 25% of those polled. I could find no explanation for this (It may be there somewhere, but I decided not to waste my time reviewing the entire paper for this explanation). Further, the study's authors make no mention of geographic variety or whether urban/rural populations were polled, an omission which leave much to the imagination about where the people were found for the survey.
The study actually cited in the post, by Fetsch, makes no claim of having surveyed or measured the numbers herself, but rather links to another paper. However, Fetsch does assert that "1 in 3 before age 23" without any reference to a source, which seems like a glaring error. Follow the link that was provided and you find a paper which also makes no claim of actual measurements, but instead, links to yet a third paper, this from Bureau of Justice Statistics .
The BJS study measured all records of arrests from 49 states, Guam, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico at about 105 million. However, that number includes duplications when any individual has records in more than one state (or Guam, etc). So, someone with arrests in X states will show as X number of individuals in the paper. It gets worse. Less than half of all law enforcement agencies which are the basis for the state totals actually provide fingerprints, which raises the obvious suggestion that even within a given state, there are undiscovered duplications, persons arrested with different names and DOB's which then get reported as multiples. Finally, there is no apparent mechanism for purging those arrestees who are dead. Remember, the reported totals are for records going back varying number of years depending on state, but which certainly include persons now deceased. For instance, Florida, presumably within this study, has automated records going back decades, to the mid '80's in memory serves. So, 30 years back anyway...
All of which simply indicates all those "1 in 3" and "30%" are speculative at best, or clearly erroneous.
By the way, this took about 10 minutes, maybe 15, to pull together.
JCC
Here are the links:
AAP study
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/early/2011/12/14/peds.2010-3710.full.pdf
The Fetsch study
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2878152
Where Fetsch says she got her numbers
http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Americans-with-Criminal-Records-Poverty-and-Opportunity-Profile.pdf
The BJS study which is cited as source material by the sentencing project,
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/249799.pdf
That's a tremendous amount of information. Thanks!
There are some things you know are false as soon as you read them, and the Fetsch claim was one of them. I continue to be amazed at what the pro-criminal think tank types think they can get away with. I guess they're so used to getting a pass from their equally biased peers that they don't care anymore.
Bill, I was not seeking to defend the Fetsch numbers/claims, and I complimented you for calling them out. (For the record, if I took the time to call out every bad number I saw in academic or media writings, I would not have time to do anything else.)
IN any event, my comment was seeking to have YOU provide YOUR assessment of a more accurate number of how many ADULT Americans (among the roughly 250 million in the US) have whatever you think it fair to call a "criminal record."
Elsewhere, you were pressing me to put a precise simple number on the contribution of increased incarceration to crime reduction. I told you that I thought a simple number for a complicated issue could not be readily assessed. Now we have another topic for number analysis: how many US adults have a criminal record. And I want to know if you think there is a viable simple number here (5%? 10%? 15%?20%?) that would be a sufficiently accurate single number for continued debate and discussion.
The spike in incarceration after roughly 1990 (there had been a less steep increase before then) accounted for 25% or a little more of the ensuing massive decrease in crime.
I don't know that on my own. I know it because it was found by well-regarded, responsible and neutral researchers acting independently (Levitt in Chicago and Spelman at Texas), and has been agreed with by other experts, namely Prof. James Q. Wilson, the eminent criminologist from UCLA, and John Malcolm (who favors sentencing reform) of Heritage.
I do not know how many people have criminal records, nor have I claimed any such knowledge. But it was obvious to me, as it seems to have been to you and our other commenters, that Ms. Fetsch's outlandish claim, taken from a biased source and only tepidly defended by Fetsch herself, is false.
I have no independent knowledge of what the correct figure is. I am not a statistician or a criminologist. But I know blatant fakery when I see it, and the Fetsch "report" was fake. (It was also pretty obviously intentionally dishonest, by its slick and seamless conflation of "those who have criminal records" with "those who served prison sentences").
Anyone can make a statistical error, but that last gambit was no error. It was an attempt to pull a fast one.
To my knowledge, there is no database or effort to actually determine how many living Americans have been arrested. Frankly, attempting such is a fool's errand.
We can see how the one attempt at a survey, via self-reporting responses to inquiry of about 10,000 people, with fewer respondents, worked out. As always, such surveys are at the mercy of the methodology, which seemed deeply flawed in that single survey attempt.
Even attempting to quantify prison populations is tough, despite having such persons, by definition, captive and eminently accessible. But this at least can be done. So one could attempt to draw some parallel between crime rates and prison populations. I'm not sure arrests as a raw number, with no data on convictions, releases, time of incarceration, etc have any meaningful significance anyway.
JCC