4 ms·
tl;dr: verbatim from the linked pdf Decades of stable incarceration ended suddenly in the mid-1970s, as the U.S. prison population soared from about 300,000 to
by luso_brazilian 11y ago
tl;dr: verbatim from the linked pdf
Decades of stable incarceration ended suddenly in the mid-1970s, as the U.S. prison population soared from about 300,000 to 1.6 million inmates, and the incarceration rate from 100 per 100,000 to over 500 per 100,000. (...) [T]he United States is now the world’s largest
jailer, both in absolute numbers and in rate
Table 1B: various offenses’ contribution to state prison growth, 1980–1990, 1990–2009
1980 1990 2009 % 1980-1990 %1990-2009
Total 294,000 681,400 1,362,000
Violent 173,300 316,600 724,300 36% 60%
Property 89,300 173,700 261,200 22% 13%
Drug 19,000 148,600 242,200 33% 14%
Other 12,400 45,500 134,500 9% 13%
Drug offenses are still not the dominant contributor to prison growth, even during the first stage of rising incarceration, but their role in the 1980s is on a par with the locking up of violent offenders.
When the crime drop begins, however — which is when one might expect drug offenses to become more important, since they are more discretionary — the importance of drug offenses declines precipitously, and the incarceration of violent offenders dominates.
In other words, whatever the historical importance of drug offenses to prison growth, the incarceration of drug offenders is not a central causal factor today.
And in the conclusion, also verbatim:
(...) [i]f legislators decide that reducing drug enforcement is still a net social good, regardless of its impact on prison populations, the tools at their disposal are limited.
Criminal justice enforcement in the United States is highly disaggregated across a wide range of institutions operating relatively independently of each other. At least right now, prison growth is driven by prosecutorial aggressiveness, and legislatures have little control over locally elected, locally funded prosecutorial offices.
Legislative success may require unconventional yet viable approaches, such as adopting charging or pleading guidelines or making efforts to push the cost of felony incarceration onto county budgets
- slasaus 11y agoDon't like the 10 vs. 20 year jump there, it would have been nice if they had added statistics for 2000 as well.
- astazangasta 11y agoThe other two columns are percentages, so the interval size doesn't matter. In addition, 1990 is an important point because of the notable shift in overall crime rates that occurred there (crime went up until 1991, then declined dramatically and continued falling as the prison population increased).
- peterwwillis 11y agoSigh. Here's what's really fucked up about this paper: the title. That "the war on drugs" is not responsible for the rise in prison population. But it's explicitly the policies, increased enforcement and increase in prosecutorial aggressiveness that is the direct result of the war on drugs that is increasing the incidence of violent crime, and hence, the prison population. Illegal drugs are the reason people commit more violent crime, and the reason more people get locked up for it is due to the prison industrial complex as a new form of cotton field. There is an entire class of people in this country who are born and bred to go to prison, and it is due to illegal drugs. It's also due to a lack of jobs and education, but again, that's due to the government's war on anything drug-related. I really hope i'm missing something about this paper. But it seems like a blatant white-washing of the government's role in the mass encarceration of and continued racial discrimination of the victims of the war on drugs.
- tptacek 11y agoDid you actually read the paper? It's hard to imagine how anyone who did could come away with the conclusion that it's white-washing mass incarceration.
- peterwwillis 11y ago> white-washing mass incarceration ....of the victims of the war on drugs. Specifically. Yes.
- tptacek 11y agoCould you be more specific about this claim so I can be sure that we're talking about the same paper? Because in the paper I'm reading, the author returns again and again to the need for radical legislative solutions to the problem of mass incarceration, and specifically to the need for oversight over prosecutors, who are charging more people even as the crime rate falls. The paper is also at pains to point out that ending the drug war could have other benefits besides decreasing prison populations.