14 ms·

Mass incarceration: A new theory for why so many Americans are in prison

115 points by po 11y ago

lotsofcows 11y ago
Do you still have "3 minor crimes" == "prison time"? Are prisoners still forced to provide cheap "American" goods that would otherwise come from China? Do "Christian" groups still push for the highest technically possible sentence against the public interest? An odd thing to say about a slate article, but I think they're overthinking it.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  The habitual offender sentencing laws generally only apply when at least 1 of the crimes is a violent felony. Which isn't to say I think they are a good idea, but they don't really target minor crimes.
  - downandout 11y ago
    Not true in Nevada and a handful of other states. Any third felony can mean a sentence of up to 20 years, and any fourth felony can mean life without the possibility of parole [1]. What's worse is that many cases contain multiple counts. Under Nevada law, these are considered separate felony convictions if they occurred on different days. For example, someone that pleads guilty to three counts of car theft that occurred over the course of a few months, serves their time, and is released, is now eligible for a life-without-parole sentence if they are convicted of any felony in the future - despite having only been arrested and convicted once before. As you might expect with such a draconian law, approximately 1 in 5 prisoners in Nevada are serving a life sentence. [1] http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2010/title15/chapter207/nrs207-010.html http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2010/title15/chapter207/n...
    - wtbob 11y ago
      The original question asked about minor crimes, which felonies are not.
      - downandout 11y ago
        You'd be surprised what constitutes a felony. In some states a theft or destruction of an item valued at over $100 is a felony. In fact the crux of this article is that the prison population has risen so dramatically due to the decision by prosecutors to file dramatically more felony charges than they they had previously filed: "What appears to happen during this time—the years I look at are 1994 to 2008, just based on the data that’s available—is that the probability that a district attorney files a felony charge against an arrestee goes from about 1 in 3, to 2 in 3. So over the course of the ’90s and 2000s, district attorneys just got much more aggressive in how they filed charges. Defendants who they would not have filed felony charges against before, they now are charging with felonies. I can’t tell you why they’re doing that. No one’s really got an answer to that yet. But it does seem that the number of felony cases filed shoots up very strongly, even as the number of arrests goes down."
      - BrandonM 11y ago
        Failing to comply with a police order is a felony in many jurisdictions.
        wtbob 11y ago
        Which is a huge problem: there are felonies which should not be felonies. Felonies are supposed to be major crimes, crimes for which death is warranted (but which, for various reasons, modern society punishes with over a year in prison). 'Failing to comply with a police order' on its own should probably carry a small fine.
- humanrebar 11y ago
  > Do "Christian" groups still push for the highest technically possible sentence against the public interest? I've never heard that. On the contrary, many churches have jail and prison outreach ministries (here's one I just found on google: http://www.theriversidechurchny.org/socialjustice/?prison http://www.theriversidechurchny.org/socialjustice/?prison). One of them, Prison Fellowship (and its founder Chuck Colson) is quite large and widely respected and supported in the Christian community (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_Fellowship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_Fellowship). Justice Fellowship spun off of Prison Fellowship, which specifically fights to reform the American justice system (http://www.justicefellowship.org/issues http://www.justicefellowship.org/issues).
  - spacemanmatt 11y ago
    It's easy to find self-described Christians who are extremely right-wing and favor harsh sentences for "lawbreakers" because they see themselves as the good people who will never break a law, and therefore never experience or otherwise have to think about proportionality.
    - LesZedCB 11y ago
      Quite frankly, I think it's possible to find that in almost any group that is middle class or higher. Reducing it to a religious problem is pretty simplistic, especially since it's already pretty well understood to be a race problem and an economic/class problem.
    - adrusi 11y ago
      Yeah but that's more tied with the "right wing" than the "Christian". Sure there's overlap between those groups, but you won't find more left-wing Christian groups pressing for harsher sentencing, and you will find right-wing non-christian (non-religious) groups pushing for harsher sentencing, so I think referring to them as " Christian is really a misidentification.
    - humanrebar 11y ago
      Sure. And from a Christian perspective, they ignore Christ's teachings when they do so: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:35-40 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:35... Christ always had a special place for the people in the worst circumstances, even if they deserve their problems.
- kondor6c 11y ago
  I don't believe the prison work programs are forced at all, I think they have a choice to do it. Instead it's a chance for them to get work experience/vocation education that they might not have received.
  - BrandonM 11y ago
    I spent four hours in a county court room one morning. You can do it, too. I regularly heard the judge dole out terms like "5 years in state prison, with a month of credit for every 3 months of work." Convicts were literally being told to work in exchange for their freedom, like modern day indentured servitude.
    - xaqfox 11y ago
      Supporters of this may believe that giving inmates jobs is a better rehabilitation device than playing basketball, working out, watching TV, or sitting in a cell all day. Instead, being taught to do things that most members of society have to do to survive. Work credits could be seen as getting a shorter sentence by showing that you can behave like members of society (i.e. displaying evidence of your rehabilitation). They normally give credits like this for general good behavior, too (again, evidence for behaving in society, at large).
      - BrandonM 11y ago
        I would be in full support, too, if inmates received more than $0.21-1.23 per hour: http://drc.ohio.gov/web/drc_policies/documents/25-OPI-11.pdf http://drc.ohio.gov/web/drc_policies/documents/25-OPI-11.pdf
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  >Are prisoners still forced to provide cheap "American" goods that would otherwise come from China? It's worse than that. One prison rents their inmates to a company which has them cold calls people and pretend to be a charity in order to sell them overpriced crap "American Helping Hands" http://www.americanhelpinghands.org/Products.aspx http://www.americanhelpinghands.org/Products.aspx >An odd thing to say about a slate article, but I think they're overthinking it. I've seen this same trope going around recently that drug law reform won't help us control the prison population, usually as an excuse not to reform drug laws. If you get caught with drugs, you may well be breaking other laws that allow police or D.A.'s to charge you as a violent or higher level offender. Caught with drugs and a gun? Your gun possession may have been legal in absence of the drugs but now you may be on the hook for a/another felony. Did you "resist arrest"? They love this stuff because they think it makes them look more effective.
- irixusr 11y ago
  The problem with the word "Christians" is that it is a very vague term. For baptists, the term would include the likes MLK and Jimmy Carter but also the Westboro church (which is irrelevantly small, but gets a lot of publicity). It also includes Catholicism and mainline protestants who are appalled at the US' prison system and have been very vocal working to change it.
jordigh 11y ago
Huh, this article has nothing to do with how prisons are run as a for-profit business. The prison boom began in the 1980s when Reagan and Bush privatised them: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-united-states-big-business-or-a-new-form-of-slavery/8289 http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-unit... Isn't that our smoking gun? People are being sent to prison because someone is making a pretty penny?
- PuffinBlue 11y ago
  Oh wow, that is fascinating and depressing reading. It really does seem that such a system would lead to invested parties pushing for more incarceration so they retain their financial gains. Wouldn't any business try to maximise it's profits and push for conditions where making those profits becomes easier? That's the nature of a business isn't it, one run solely for profit anyway?
- calibraxis 11y ago
  Yes, the article says nothing, because some things are just "politically incorrect": prison is a continuation of slavery. The drug war attacks certain cultures. Some make money off cheap labor and government prison funding. A country that ravages people outside the country in war, will ravage people inside the country too. Prison is a tool to maintain a status quo by reducing many people's freedom to resist. If the article talked about China or Russia, it wouldn't talk about regulating lawyers. It'd talk about the systematic incentives that make everyone (not just lawyers) act so zealously to imprison their populace.
  - jordigh 11y ago
    Please don't use the political correctness strawman. Nobody is refusing to talk about privatisation of prisons because of it. Many people talk about it, and there's no evidence that the Slate article refused to talk about privatisation from fear of offending anyone.
    - spacemanmatt 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
PuffinBlue 11y ago
It always struck me (as a Brit) that the plea bargaining system in the US seemed to encourage prison time. There seems to be a lot of incentive for the DA's to 'get their conviction' and a lot of pressure on those accused to accept a bargain that might see them do 2 years instead of 20 or some arbitrary high number. Is this an accurate view? Do these plea bargain happen regularly? I also understand that the prison system was privatised in the US. The combination of aggressive DA's, plea bargains and financial incentives to incarcerate seem, from the outside at least, to have created a perfect storm that's sort of feeding itself. I'd love to hear from anyone with thought on this!
- allencoin 11y ago
  Partially privatized. According to a 2012 source [1], there are 1.6 million prisoners in the US and roughly 8% of them are in privately-owned prisons. That number, however, unfortunately keeps growing. [1] http://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-the-u.s.s-growing-for-profit-detention-industry http://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-the-u.s.s-g...
  - jordigh 11y ago
    Huh, I was under the impression that most prisoners in the US were in privatised prisons. If that is not the case, then this does not seem to explain either the prison boom.
    - Shivetya 11y ago
      Prison boom is easy to explain. Politicians like to be seen doing something. Punishing bad people is easy. Building prisons is the cost but politicians don't pay this cost and people don't understand the financial cost of the prisons nor the cost it inflicts on those imprisoned and their families. Politicians also like to control people. You do this through laws and regulations. Combined with punitive measures you coerce people into thinking and behaving as you need them. Those who don't or are less desirable; poor who don't fund campaigns and such; are easy targets. Politicians also want to put groups against each other, distracting both sides from all the other activities that the politician may be engaged in. TL;DR Politicians crave power and money, it is simple to "protect" the people by making it easier to put people in jail claiming a problem solved.
mtreis86 11y ago
I think the line between criminals and civilians has blurred. Too many people live their daily lives while technically committing crimes.
- atom-morgan 11y ago
  The only difference between me and many criminals is they were caught in the act. Even Obama is an example of this [1]. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/world/americas/24iht-dems.3272493.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/world/americas/24iht-dems....
rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
A common refrain you hear from law enforcement is "ignorance of the law is no protection from breaking it." But what if it was? As Harvey Silverglate details in his book, "3 Felonies a Day,[1]" it is absurdly easy to accidentally commit a federal crime and serve prison time. The idea behind vindictive punishment is to make it so bad that you won't commit a crime, but if people aren't aware of the liabilities, how can people truly know their risk? Often intent has to be proven, but if it's in the interest of the prosecutor and their career to get a conviction, they'll get a conviction. I think to reduce the "arrest/convict, ask questions later" approach is to give every officer and prosecutor a publicly available scorecard that shows their record of rightful arrests and convictions versus wrongful ones, as well as excessive punishment sought and applied in wrongful cases. There is a scene at the end of the hilarious murder trial film, My Cousin Vinny, when the defense's expert witness completely shatters the prosecution's case, and the prosecutor immediately moves to dismiss all charges. I wonder if that would happen today? 1. http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.asp...
- anon4 11y ago
  You reminded me of something I heard the other day regarding minimum sentencing laws -- they (partly) don't work because people aren't law experts and don't know about them. It's like that joke "I bought a book on livestock breeding but the cows can't read it". Maybe better education of the consequences would help. Or not. I don't know.
- adekok 11y ago
  > A common refrain you hear from law enforcement is "ignorance of the law is no protection from breaking it." > > But what if it was? It is for police and judges. See what happens if a policeman gives you a bogus ticket. Or a judge makes a decision counter to the law. The onus is on you to prove they're wrong. And there is no punishment or negative feedback on them for breaking the law. If the police and judges aren't required to know the law, I don't see why anyone else needs to know it, either.
  - splat 11y ago
abloodywar 11y ago
Prison industrial complex (private prisons), debtors prison and war on drugs are three things I can come up with off the top of my head.
interesting_att 11y ago
The professor interviewed in this article argues that the rise in prison population can only partly be explained by the common theories (an actual crime wave in the 80s, drug criminalization, and mandatory minimums). He argues that one of the biggest factors of the prison boom is with the DA having to be 'tough on crime' to further future political ambitions. I don't think anyone can argue with this, as historically being 'tough on crime' has been a vote getter. A few other factors I think are worthy of considering: 1) The financial incentives of the for profit prison system (which includes for profit prisons, prison guard unions, bail bond industry) which advocates for harsher sentences. 2) The political incentives of having a larger prison population. Many congressmen fight to have a prison in their district for two main reasons. First, it brings jobs to their community. Second, and more importantly, it increases the count of people who they 'represent' even though the felons are not allowed to vote! 3) The criminalization of mental illness- We used to heavily fund mental hospitals. This has been chipped away dramatically starting in the 1980s. 4) Average lifespan of prisoners increasing- I would assume that the average prisoner's lifespan is increasing, hence a bigger prison population. No real evidence to back this up. 5) Drug criminalization leads to more criminals- The professor argues that the population who are in prison for drugs alone is only a small percentage, and that the rest are due violent crimes and property crimes. This is misleading as drug criminalization naturally leads to more criminal activities in other fields. By pushing drugs underground, a group of people will be inevitably become comfortable with the underground. Secondly, drug criminalization leads to higher drug prices, which leads to more property crimes to fuel addiction. Lastly, drug criminalization means people are less likely to get help for their drug problems, increasing the chances they will become socially maladaptive and more likely to develop violent behaviors. 6) The gutting of public defenders- Tied to what the professor argued but surprisingly not really mentioned. Public defenders are extremely underfunded, hence a high likelihood of losing your court case. This in turn leads to a higher prison population. 7) Discrimination against prisoners- As our economy gets more and more competitive, and as background information becomes easier to obtain, it is getting harder and harder for prisoners to get a job. Tied to point #5, a person who would be arrested for drugs could have his future economic career ruined. He has a higher likelihood of reverting back to crime, hence a higher prison population. 8) The removal and policing of public space- One thing I noticed is that public spaces (i.e. parks, stoops, etc) have been routinely removed to make space for private retail. It's way easier to call the cops when you are angering the property owner than if you are on public property. And in those public spaces, you are subject to way more laws (i.e. public intoxication). So it should be no surprise that we have a higher prison population if we're systematically policing more and more areas. Many of these problems stem back to Reagan in the 1980s with America took a decidedly right-wing turn. Glad to see society is finally changing what it thinks about the over-criminalization of society.
cheez 11y ago
Finally. I was unfortunately victim to this (not in the US, but in Canada) where objectively, it should have been dropped, but the prosecutor wanted to make an example of me. The case was unbelievably flimsy, but you have no idea the pressure you're under when you're facing opponents who have financial and social incentives to punish you. The morning of my trial (I refused to accept anything before then), the prosecutor was losing her shit because she could lose, screaming and yelling at me. I literally laughed in her face, then accepted the least possible thing that resulted in no conviction or record without a trial. The witnesses had financial incentives to lie and I did not have the resources to go through an appeal. Things I heard throughout this ordeal: 1. If you were white, this never would have happened. 2. I cannot believe how much $witness is lying, yet you can't prove it. Since this problem, I've seen the same prosecutor try and catch other people in the same bullshit law to the point where it has been in the news. I've countered with my own silent battle, getting politicians to talk to me and I can say that this has directly resulted in some changes, which I'm happy about. One of them told actually told me that he wishes I would have won so that he could use me as an example. Can you believe it? I gotta tell you, it's frustrating as anything I have ever experienced in my life. But living well is the best revenge and I've got a great life. Oh, I posted bail? I'm out this motherfucker? I could go? Oh, fuck y'all, aye, fuck the judge Fuck the motherfuckin' District Attorney, the prosecutor And fuck you motherfuckers in the jury box Fuck all y'all 'cause I'm out on motherfuckin' bail Y'all ain't never gonna see me in this motherfucker again Drop that shit 'em Let these old punk ass bitches know how we runnin' this shit Niggaz ain't going back to court you stank ass bitches I understand Tupac better now.
happyscrappy 11y ago
>Well, the real growth in the prison population comes from county-level district attorneys sending violent people to prison.
- LesZedCB 11y ago
  Except it never answered why the DA's are sending more people to prison. That sort of begs the question, right? The best conclusion the author came up with was: > Maybe it’s that next election they’re looking at, that they remain tough on crime because they want to become attorney general or governor. There’s no clear data on this. which is a super weak answer. As jordigh said above, it's because prisons are now largely run for profit. Most people who were already aware of the large prison population already knew that for-profit prisons was the reason this phenomenon occurred. Honestly, this article sounds like a propaganda piece to serve as a red herring for the for-profit prison industry to keep chugging along.
  - happyscrappy 11y ago
    I know people don't want to hear it but private prisons are only 8%, but keep on believing what you need to.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
      - happyscrappy 11y ago
        Did you just add two separate percentages together? Facepalm. Edit: LesZedCB just deleted his comment where he indignantly told me that 6% of state prisoners plus 16% of federal prisoners equals 22% of all prisoners.
        LesZedCB 11y ago
        I redacted it because I realized it was bad math. Sorry for the indignance, it was misinformed on my own part.
gozmike 11y ago
Did anyone else notice the URL of this article? http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/02/mass_incarceration_a_provocative_new_theory_for_why_so_many_americans_are.single.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/0... In case you missed it, the HTML file linked to is "A provocative new theory for why so many americans are single" It may be early morning, but I find that amusing :)
T3RMINATED 11y ago
do you need a theory - its BUSINESS and they are CHEAP LABOR
voxadam 11y ago
One avenue for improvement that I see is the elimination of mandatory minimums. Mandatory minimums are, in my ever so humble opinion, a blaten violation of the spirit of the United States Constitution re separation of powers, and the elimination of such sentencing requirements giving way, once again, to true judicial discretion would go a long way toward remedying things.
Nursie 11y ago
>> The fact of the matter is in today’s state prisons, which hold about 90 percent of all of our prisoners, only 17 percent of the inmates are there primarily for drug charges. And about two-thirds are there for either property or violent crimes. Hmmm. This is unsatisfying. How many are there for crimes that were committed to feed drug habits? How many for crimes related to but not directly involving drugs (turf wars, drug-money related offences etc)? Sure, these are crimes and we should definitely still bring people committing these to justice, but I wonder how many just would not have happened without the WoD? Clearly it's not the whole picture, but it might be a little more complex than the article makes out.
- iamzultan 11y ago
  >only 17 percent of the inmates are there primarily for drug charges. This is either false or misleading because of how it is worded. The percentage of people serving time in state prison for drug offenses is ~53% http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs#sthash.eHLcf6VP.dpbs http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs#sthash.eHL...
  - rayiner 11y ago
    You're reading that source wrong (understandable because the wording is awkward). 53% is for violent crime.
  - JackFr 11y ago
    From your source: Almost 16% of state prisoners were convicted drug offenders (208,000 inmates), including 24% of all females in state prison (22,000 inmates) and 15% of all males in state prison (186,000 inmates).
- swalsh 11y ago
  I'd guess most of these records are open to the public. Maybe it would be possible to use some AI to read the records, and collect better data?
  - Nursie 11y ago
chim3 11y ago
"new theory"
- happyscrappy 11y ago
  FTA: >Well, the real growth in the prison population comes from county-level district attorneys sending violent people to prison.
Bjartr 11y ago
In the discussions here I keep seeing 8% mentioned as the proportion of prisoners held by private prisons. I wanted a little more context for that number so I found the absolute numbers. Total US Prison Population[0]: 2,400,000 Private US Prison Population: 200,000 [0] As of 2008, if someone has more recent numbers please comment.
norea-armozel 11y ago
I can definitely say that DAs are the biggest factor in the prison population boom. For example, I was arrested for threatening my dad many years ago. I could've easily gone to prison for some time but the DA was given leeway to drop the charges entirely (with the assumption I wouldn't cause trouble for quite some time). If a DA's office can drop charges with little consequences then it's obvious they can press on with the silliest of notions of meting out justice for all of them (which they do). I think there needs to be a complete overhaul of how criminal prosecution is done in this country.
dsummerlin 11y ago
There are so many complicated variables in this, but one thing that is crucial to point out is that he keeps referring to state prisons, which is intentionally misleading because many many drug offenders end up in federal prisons, where they make up 48.4% (https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offen...) of the population. That alone makes a lot of this guy's commentary suspect, and since he didn't even mention race or private prisons as a possible factor it really tanks the smell test on this new theory of his.
- danielvf 11y ago
  Federal prisons make up less than 10% of the US prison population. It's almost irrelevant in terms of the total prison population.
danielvf 11y ago
I was surprised that almost everything that I'd heard about prisons in the US was wrong. (I went digging into source documents to confirm the below.) - US prison population is declining in both absolute and relative numbers, even as the population is growing. [1] - The prison population skews strongly toward violence. I totaled up the numbers from my own state's prisons[2]: 51% - HOMICIDE, SEXUAL ASSAULT, ROBBERY, ASSAULT, KIDNAPPING 21% - BURGLARY, LARCENY, STOLEN VEHICLE, FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY, FORGERY/COUNTERFEITING 17% - DRUGS 11% - Other - The violent offender percentage is increasing over time, while the drug related charges are decreasing. - Federal prisons make up less than 10% of the US prison population, and have a very different composition, and legal pathway for getting there. Any statistic you see that is about only "Federal" prisons or prisoners is next to meaningless in the context of the US prison population. - The percentage of US incarcerated that are in privately owned prisons is actual lower than the quoted 8%, and is actually somewhere around 5-6%. (Both TFA and Wikipedia make the mistake of thinking that Federal Prisons + State prisons equals all US prisoners. The are forgetting about local jails, which account for roughly 25% of US prisoners.) - Prisons contain far more convicted murderers than you could think possible. People with lesser charges leave soon, and people with murder convictions stay for a long time. 15% of my state's prison population is in with either life or more than 30 years.[3] 50% of my state's prisoners are serving more than a ten year term.[3] But at the same time the intake numbers look entirely different - most people arriving have less than a 2 year term and only 1.3% of arrivals last year had a 30 year or more sentence. [4] [1] http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf [2] http://www.doc.sc.gov/pubweb/research/InmatePopulationStatsTrend/ASOFTrendMSOFY11-15.pdf http://www.doc.sc.gov/pubweb/research/InmatePopulationStatsT... [3] http://www.doc.sc.gov/pubweb/research/InmatePopulationStatsTrend/ASOFTrendSentenceLengthDistributionFY11-15.pdf http://www.doc.sc.gov/pubweb/research/InmatePopulationStatsT... [4] http://www.doc.sc.gov/pubweb/research/AdmissionsTrend/AdmissionTrendSentenceLengthDistributionFY11-15.pdf http://www.doc.sc.gov/pubweb/research/AdmissionsTrend/Admiss...
- brohee 11y ago
  What makes a convicted murderer doesn't always implies killing anyone, as in the case of the burglars charged and condemned for murder after the death of their accomplice, killed by a homeowner... Numbers on "murderers" who didn't kill anyone would be interresting.
skwirl 11y ago
In summary: The theory is that from the mid 70s to the early 90s the prison population increased due to a real increase in crime, but after that, it increased due to prosecutors doubling the percentage of arrestees that they charge with a felony. I wonder if the simple explanation is that over decades the size of the prosecutorial bureaucracy increased to deal with an actual increased work load, but after that work load started to go down naturally, that bureaucracy had to find a way to keep itself in business, and that was by charging arrestees who would have been previously released. A DA's office where people are sitting on their hands is an office that will see budget cuts and staff reductions. We know from both government and the private industry that almost no department will voluntarily take a budget or staff cut, even if it is warranted. Maybe we should try reducing the DA's budgets in some states/counties and see what happens to crime and incarceration rates.
- happyscrappy 11y ago
  FTFA: >Well, the real growth in the prison population comes from county-level district attorneys sending violent people to prison. If the article's conclusion was the title it would not even be on HN.
jb613 11y ago
TLDR: it wasn't the crime waves, it wasn't longer prison sentences, it wasn't the declared war on drugs - it's that the probability that a district attorney files a felony charge against an arrestee goes from about 1 in 3, to 2 in 3
- jb613 11y ago
  Professor John Pfaff prescribes as the solution: "What makes it very hard is that the person we really need to target now—whose behavior we need to regulate—is the district attorney, and the district attorney is a very politically independent figure. He’s directly elected, and he’s directly elected at the county level. So there’s no big centralized fix. You can’t necessarily go to Washington and say, ‘Here’s the law that’s going to control what the DAs do,’ because they don’t have to listen to the federal government at all." However, this is not only anti-democratic but anti to the entire American system of decentralized government.
kijin 11y ago
> And if we focused on cutting back sentence lengths, maybe that would weaken DAs’ bargaining power at plea bargaining, but since people aren’t serving the massively long sentences anyway, it probably won’t have that big an effect on prison population either. So Mr. Pfaff believes that overzealous DAs have caused the prison population to skyrocket, but quickly dismisses the one proposal that could actually help solve the problem. This seems like a classic case of "My answer, and only my answer, is correct. All other answers are wrong, even if they are compatible with my answer." > You can’t necessarily go to Washington and say, ‘Here’s the law that’s going to control what the DAs do,’ because they don’t have to listen to the federal government at all." Yes, you can. Getting rid of ridiculously long mandatory sentences will make a DA sound a lot less convincing when he threatens the defendant to accept a plea bargain or else. If fewer defendants accept plea bargains, the DA will have to go to trial more often, which costs a lot of time and money. This gives DAs a strong incentive not to charge too many people. There is no justice in a legal system where one side is free to threaten the other side to waive their Constitutional right to a day in court. I don't think we will ever achieve perfect equality of bargaining power between the state and an individual citizen, but tweaking the incentive structure in this way would be a promising first step toward reducing that gap.
twic 11y ago
The article tentatively points the finger at the fact that prosecutors are elected, and that being a prosecutor is a step towards higher elected office. The fact that the US elects prosecutors, and judges, is incredibly strange. Surely it could only possibly be a terrible, catastrophic idea? You want prosecutors and judges to be professional, impartial, and independent, which is exactly what elected politicians aren't. Are there any other countries which elect their judges or prosecutors? How did the US get like this? Are Americans aware of how odd this is? The Economist has some funny stories about it: http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21613276-theyre-not-politicians-so-they-shouldnt-act-them-trouble-electing-judges http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21613276-theyre-...

115 points by po 11y ago

Do you still have "3 minor crimes" == "prison time"? Are prisoners still forced to provide cheap "American" goods that would otherwise come from China? Do "Christian" groups still push for the highest technically possible sentence against the public interest? An odd thing to say about a slate article, but I think they're overthinking it.

maxerickson 11y ago
The habitual offender sentencing laws generally only apply when at least 1 of the crimes is a violent felony. Which isn't to say I think they are a good idea, but they don't really target minor crimes.
- downandout 11y ago
  Not true in Nevada and a handful of other states. Any third felony can mean a sentence of up to 20 years, and any fourth felony can mean life without the possibility of parole [1]. What's worse is that many cases contain multiple counts. Under Nevada law, these are considered separate felony convictions if they occurred on different days. For example, someone that pleads guilty to three counts of car theft that occurred over the course of a few months, serves their time, and is released, is now eligible for a life-without-parole sentence if they are convicted of any felony in the future - despite having only been arrested and convicted once before. As you might expect with such a draconian law, approximately 1 in 5 prisoners in Nevada are serving a life sentence. [1] http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2010/title15/chapter207/nrs207-010.html http://law.justia.com/codes/nevada/2010/title15/chapter207/n...
  - wtbob 11y ago
    The original question asked about minor crimes, which felonies are not.
    - downandout 11y ago
      You'd be surprised what constitutes a felony. In some states a theft or destruction of an item valued at over $100 is a felony. In fact the crux of this article is that the prison population has risen so dramatically due to the decision by prosecutors to file dramatically more felony charges than they they had previously filed: "What appears to happen during this time—the years I look at are 1994 to 2008, just based on the data that’s available—is that the probability that a district attorney files a felony charge against an arrestee goes from about 1 in 3, to 2 in 3. So over the course of the ’90s and 2000s, district attorneys just got much more aggressive in how they filed charges. Defendants who they would not have filed felony charges against before, they now are charging with felonies. I can’t tell you why they’re doing that. No one’s really got an answer to that yet. But it does seem that the number of felony cases filed shoots up very strongly, even as the number of arrests goes down."
    - BrandonM 11y ago
      Failing to comply with a police order is a felony in many jurisdictions.
      - wtbob 11y ago
        Which is a huge problem: there are felonies which should not be felonies. Felonies are supposed to be major crimes, crimes for which death is warranted (but which, for various reasons, modern society punishes with over a year in prison). 'Failing to comply with a police order' on its own should probably carry a small fine.
humanrebar 11y ago
> Do "Christian" groups still push for the highest technically possible sentence against the public interest? I've never heard that. On the contrary, many churches have jail and prison outreach ministries (here's one I just found on google: http://www.theriversidechurchny.org/socialjustice/?prison http://www.theriversidechurchny.org/socialjustice/?prison). One of them, Prison Fellowship (and its founder Chuck Colson) is quite large and widely respected and supported in the Christian community (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_Fellowship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_Fellowship). Justice Fellowship spun off of Prison Fellowship, which specifically fights to reform the American justice system (http://www.justicefellowship.org/issues http://www.justicefellowship.org/issues).
- spacemanmatt 11y ago
  It's easy to find self-described Christians who are extremely right-wing and favor harsh sentences for "lawbreakers" because they see themselves as the good people who will never break a law, and therefore never experience or otherwise have to think about proportionality.
  - LesZedCB 11y ago
    Quite frankly, I think it's possible to find that in almost any group that is middle class or higher. Reducing it to a religious problem is pretty simplistic, especially since it's already pretty well understood to be a race problem and an economic/class problem.
  - adrusi 11y ago
    Yeah but that's more tied with the "right wing" than the "Christian". Sure there's overlap between those groups, but you won't find more left-wing Christian groups pressing for harsher sentencing, and you will find right-wing non-christian (non-religious) groups pushing for harsher sentencing, so I think referring to them as " Christian is really a misidentification.
  - humanrebar 11y ago
    Sure. And from a Christian perspective, they ignore Christ's teachings when they do so: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:35-40 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025:35... Christ always had a special place for the people in the worst circumstances, even if they deserve their problems.
kondor6c 11y ago
I don't believe the prison work programs are forced at all, I think they have a choice to do it. Instead it's a chance for them to get work experience/vocation education that they might not have received.
- BrandonM 11y ago
  I spent four hours in a county court room one morning. You can do it, too. I regularly heard the judge dole out terms like "5 years in state prison, with a month of credit for every 3 months of work." Convicts were literally being told to work in exchange for their freedom, like modern day indentured servitude.
  - xaqfox 11y ago
    Supporters of this may believe that giving inmates jobs is a better rehabilitation device than playing basketball, working out, watching TV, or sitting in a cell all day. Instead, being taught to do things that most members of society have to do to survive. Work credits could be seen as getting a shorter sentence by showing that you can behave like members of society (i.e. displaying evidence of your rehabilitation). They normally give credits like this for general good behavior, too (again, evidence for behaving in society, at large).
    - BrandonM 11y ago
      I would be in full support, too, if inmates received more than $0.21-1.23 per hour: http://drc.ohio.gov/web/drc_policies/documents/25-OPI-11.pdf http://drc.ohio.gov/web/drc_policies/documents/25-OPI-11.pdf
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
>Are prisoners still forced to provide cheap "American" goods that would otherwise come from China? It's worse than that. One prison rents their inmates to a company which has them cold calls people and pretend to be a charity in order to sell them overpriced crap "American Helping Hands" http://www.americanhelpinghands.org/Products.aspx http://www.americanhelpinghands.org/Products.aspx >An odd thing to say about a slate article, but I think they're overthinking it. I've seen this same trope going around recently that drug law reform won't help us control the prison population, usually as an excuse not to reform drug laws. If you get caught with drugs, you may well be breaking other laws that allow police or D.A.'s to charge you as a violent or higher level offender. Caught with drugs and a gun? Your gun possession may have been legal in absence of the drugs but now you may be on the hook for a/another felony. Did you "resist arrest"? They love this stuff because they think it makes them look more effective.
irixusr 11y ago
The problem with the word "Christians" is that it is a very vague term. For baptists, the term would include the likes MLK and Jimmy Carter but also the Westboro church (which is irrelevantly small, but gets a lot of publicity). It also includes Catholicism and mainline protestants who are appalled at the US' prison system and have been very vocal working to change it.

jordigh 11y ago

Huh, this article has nothing to do with how prisons are run as a for-profit business. The prison boom began in the 1980s when Reagan and Bush privatised them: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-united-states-big-business-or-a-new-form-of-slavery/8289 http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-unit... Isn't that our smoking gun? People are being sent to prison because someone is making a pretty penny?

PuffinBlue 11y ago
Oh wow, that is fascinating and depressing reading. It really does seem that such a system would lead to invested parties pushing for more incarceration so they retain their financial gains. Wouldn't any business try to maximise it's profits and push for conditions where making those profits becomes easier? That's the nature of a business isn't it, one run solely for profit anyway?
calibraxis 11y ago
Yes, the article says nothing, because some things are just "politically incorrect": prison is a continuation of slavery. The drug war attacks certain cultures. Some make money off cheap labor and government prison funding. A country that ravages people outside the country in war, will ravage people inside the country too. Prison is a tool to maintain a status quo by reducing many people's freedom to resist. If the article talked about China or Russia, it wouldn't talk about regulating lawyers. It'd talk about the systematic incentives that make everyone (not just lawyers) act so zealously to imprison their populace.
- jordigh 11y ago
  Please don't use the political correctness strawman. Nobody is refusing to talk about privatisation of prisons because of it. Many people talk about it, and there's no evidence that the Slate article refused to talk about privatisation from fear of offending anyone.
  - spacemanmatt 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

PuffinBlue 11y ago

It always struck me (as a Brit) that the plea bargaining system in the US seemed to encourage prison time. There seems to be a lot of incentive for the DA's to 'get their conviction' and a lot of pressure on those accused to accept a bargain that might see them do 2 years instead of 20 or some arbitrary high number. Is this an accurate view? Do these plea bargain happen regularly? I also understand that the prison system was privatised in the US. The combination of aggressive DA's, plea bargains and financial incentives to incarcerate seem, from the outside at least, to have created a perfect storm that's sort of feeding itself. I'd love to hear from anyone with thought on this!

allencoin 11y ago
Partially privatized. According to a 2012 source [1], there are 1.6 million prisoners in the US and roughly 8% of them are in privately-owned prisons. That number, however, unfortunately keeps growing. [1] http://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-the-u.s.s-growing-for-profit-detention-industry http://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-the-u.s.s-g...
- jordigh 11y ago
  Huh, I was under the impression that most prisoners in the US were in privatised prisons. If that is not the case, then this does not seem to explain either the prison boom.
  - Shivetya 11y ago
    Prison boom is easy to explain. Politicians like to be seen doing something. Punishing bad people is easy. Building prisons is the cost but politicians don't pay this cost and people don't understand the financial cost of the prisons nor the cost it inflicts on those imprisoned and their families. Politicians also like to control people. You do this through laws and regulations. Combined with punitive measures you coerce people into thinking and behaving as you need them. Those who don't or are less desirable; poor who don't fund campaigns and such; are easy targets. Politicians also want to put groups against each other, distracting both sides from all the other activities that the politician may be engaged in. TL;DR Politicians crave power and money, it is simple to "protect" the people by making it easier to put people in jail claiming a problem solved.

mtreis86 11y ago

I think the line between criminals and civilians has blurred. Too many people live their daily lives while technically committing crimes.

atom-morgan 11y ago
The only difference between me and many criminals is they were caught in the act. Even Obama is an example of this [1]. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/world/americas/24iht-dems.3272493.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/world/americas/24iht-dems....

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago

A common refrain you hear from law enforcement is "ignorance of the law is no protection from breaking it." But what if it was? As Harvey Silverglate details in his book, "3 Felonies a Day,[1]" it is absurdly easy to accidentally commit a federal crime and serve prison time. The idea behind vindictive punishment is to make it so bad that you won't commit a crime, but if people aren't aware of the liabilities, how can people truly know their risk? Often intent has to be proven, but if it's in the interest of the prosecutor and their career to get a conviction, they'll get a conviction. I think to reduce the "arrest/convict, ask questions later" approach is to give every officer and prosecutor a publicly available scorecard that shows their record of rightful arrests and convictions versus wrongful ones, as well as excessive punishment sought and applied in wrongful cases. There is a scene at the end of the hilarious murder trial film, My Cousin Vinny, when the defense's expert witness completely shatters the prosecution's case, and the prosecutor immediately moves to dismiss all charges. I wonder if that would happen today? 1. http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.asp...

anon4 11y ago
You reminded me of something I heard the other day regarding minimum sentencing laws -- they (partly) don't work because people aren't law experts and don't know about them. It's like that joke "I bought a book on livestock breeding but the cows can't read it". Maybe better education of the consequences would help. Or not. I don't know.
adekok 11y ago
> A common refrain you hear from law enforcement is "ignorance of the law is no protection from breaking it." > > But what if it was? It is for police and judges. See what happens if a policeman gives you a bogus ticket. Or a judge makes a decision counter to the law. The onus is on you to prove they're wrong. And there is no punishment or negative feedback on them for breaking the law. If the police and judges aren't required to know the law, I don't see why anyone else needs to know it, either.
- splat 11y ago

abloodywar 11y ago

Prison industrial complex (private prisons), debtors prison and war on drugs are three things I can come up with off the top of my head.

interesting_att 11y ago

The professor interviewed in this article argues that the rise in prison population can only partly be explained by the common theories (an actual crime wave in the 80s, drug criminalization, and mandatory minimums). He argues that one of the biggest factors of the prison boom is with the DA having to be 'tough on crime' to further future political ambitions. I don't think anyone can argue with this, as historically being 'tough on crime' has been a vote getter. A few other factors I think are worthy of considering: 1) The financial incentives of the for profit prison system (which includes for profit prisons, prison guard unions, bail bond industry) which advocates for harsher sentences. 2) The political incentives of having a larger prison population. Many congressmen fight to have a prison in their district for two main reasons. First, it brings jobs to their community. Second, and more importantly, it increases the count of people who they 'represent' even though the felons are not allowed to vote! 3) The criminalization of mental illness- We used to heavily fund mental hospitals. This has been chipped away dramatically starting in the 1980s. 4) Average lifespan of prisoners increasing- I would assume that the average prisoner's lifespan is increasing, hence a bigger prison population. No real evidence to back this up. 5) Drug criminalization leads to more criminals- The professor argues that the population who are in prison for drugs alone is only a small percentage, and that the rest are due violent crimes and property crimes. This is misleading as drug criminalization naturally leads to more criminal activities in other fields. By pushing drugs underground, a group of people will be inevitably become comfortable with the underground. Secondly, drug criminalization leads to higher drug prices, which leads to more property crimes to fuel addiction. Lastly, drug criminalization means people are less likely to get help for their drug problems, increasing the chances they will become socially maladaptive and more likely to develop violent behaviors. 6) The gutting of public defenders- Tied to what the professor argued but surprisingly not really mentioned. Public defenders are extremely underfunded, hence a high likelihood of losing your court case. This in turn leads to a higher prison population. 7) Discrimination against prisoners- As our economy gets more and more competitive, and as background information becomes easier to obtain, it is getting harder and harder for prisoners to get a job. Tied to point #5, a person who would be arrested for drugs could have his future economic career ruined. He has a higher likelihood of reverting back to crime, hence a higher prison population. 8) The removal and policing of public space- One thing I noticed is that public spaces (i.e. parks, stoops, etc) have been routinely removed to make space for private retail. It's way easier to call the cops when you are angering the property owner than if you are on public property. And in those public spaces, you are subject to way more laws (i.e. public intoxication). So it should be no surprise that we have a higher prison population if we're systematically policing more and more areas. Many of these problems stem back to Reagan in the 1980s with America took a decidedly right-wing turn. Glad to see society is finally changing what it thinks about the over-criminalization of society.

cheez 11y ago

Finally. I was unfortunately victim to this (not in the US, but in Canada) where objectively, it should have been dropped, but the prosecutor wanted to make an example of me. The case was unbelievably flimsy, but you have no idea the pressure you're under when you're facing opponents who have financial and social incentives to punish you. The morning of my trial (I refused to accept anything before then), the prosecutor was losing her shit because she could lose, screaming and yelling at me. I literally laughed in her face, then accepted the least possible thing that resulted in no conviction or record without a trial. The witnesses had financial incentives to lie and I did not have the resources to go through an appeal. Things I heard throughout this ordeal: 1. If you were white, this never would have happened. 2. I cannot believe how much $witness is lying, yet you can't prove it. Since this problem, I've seen the same prosecutor try and catch other people in the same bullshit law to the point where it has been in the news. I've countered with my own silent battle, getting politicians to talk to me and I can say that this has directly resulted in some changes, which I'm happy about. One of them told actually told me that he wishes I would have won so that he could use me as an example. Can you believe it? I gotta tell you, it's frustrating as anything I have ever experienced in my life. But living well is the best revenge and I've got a great life. Oh, I posted bail? I'm out this motherfucker? I could go? Oh, fuck y'all, aye, fuck the judge Fuck the motherfuckin' District Attorney, the prosecutor And fuck you motherfuckers in the jury box Fuck all y'all 'cause I'm out on motherfuckin' bail Y'all ain't never gonna see me in this motherfucker again Drop that shit 'em Let these old punk ass bitches know how we runnin' this shit Niggaz ain't going back to court you stank ass bitches I understand Tupac better now.

happyscrappy 11y ago

>Well, the real growth in the prison population comes from county-level district attorneys sending violent people to prison.

LesZedCB 11y ago
Except it never answered why the DA's are sending more people to prison. That sort of begs the question, right? The best conclusion the author came up with was: > Maybe it’s that next election they’re looking at, that they remain tough on crime because they want to become attorney general or governor. There’s no clear data on this. which is a super weak answer. As jordigh said above, it's because prisons are now largely run for profit. Most people who were already aware of the large prison population already knew that for-profit prisons was the reason this phenomenon occurred. Honestly, this article sounds like a propaganda piece to serve as a red herring for the for-profit prison industry to keep chugging along.
- happyscrappy 11y ago
  I know people don't want to hear it but private prisons are only 8%, but keep on believing what you need to.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - happyscrappy 11y ago
      Did you just add two separate percentages together? Facepalm. Edit: LesZedCB just deleted his comment where he indignantly told me that 6% of state prisoners plus 16% of federal prisoners equals 22% of all prisoners.
      - LesZedCB 11y ago
        I redacted it because I realized it was bad math. Sorry for the indignance, it was misinformed on my own part.

gozmike 11y ago

Did anyone else notice the URL of this article? http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/02/mass_incarceration_a_provocative_new_theory_for_why_so_many_americans_are.single.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/0... In case you missed it, the HTML file linked to is "A provocative new theory for why so many americans are single" It may be early morning, but I find that amusing :)

T3RMINATED 11y ago

do you need a theory - its BUSINESS and they are CHEAP LABOR

voxadam 11y ago

One avenue for improvement that I see is the elimination of mandatory minimums. Mandatory minimums are, in my ever so humble opinion, a blaten violation of the spirit of the United States Constitution re separation of powers, and the elimination of such sentencing requirements giving way, once again, to true judicial discretion would go a long way toward remedying things.

Nursie 11y ago

>> The fact of the matter is in today’s state prisons, which hold about 90 percent of all of our prisoners, only 17 percent of the inmates are there primarily for drug charges. And about two-thirds are there for either property or violent crimes. Hmmm. This is unsatisfying. How many are there for crimes that were committed to feed drug habits? How many for crimes related to but not directly involving drugs (turf wars, drug-money related offences etc)? Sure, these are crimes and we should definitely still bring people committing these to justice, but I wonder how many just would not have happened without the WoD? Clearly it's not the whole picture, but it might be a little more complex than the article makes out.

iamzultan 11y ago
>only 17 percent of the inmates are there primarily for drug charges. This is either false or misleading because of how it is worded. The percentage of people serving time in state prison for drug offenses is ~53% http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs#sthash.eHLcf6VP.dpbs http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs#sthash.eHL...
- rayiner 11y ago
  You're reading that source wrong (understandable because the wording is awkward). 53% is for violent crime.
- JackFr 11y ago
  From your source: Almost 16% of state prisoners were convicted drug offenders (208,000 inmates), including 24% of all females in state prison (22,000 inmates) and 15% of all males in state prison (186,000 inmates).
swalsh 11y ago
I'd guess most of these records are open to the public. Maybe it would be possible to use some AI to read the records, and collect better data?
- Nursie 11y ago

chim3 11y ago

"new theory"

happyscrappy 11y ago
FTA: >Well, the real growth in the prison population comes from county-level district attorneys sending violent people to prison.

Bjartr 11y ago

In the discussions here I keep seeing 8% mentioned as the proportion of prisoners held by private prisons. I wanted a little more context for that number so I found the absolute numbers. Total US Prison Population[0]: 2,400,000 Private US Prison Population: 200,000 [0] As of 2008, if someone has more recent numbers please comment.

norea-armozel 11y ago

I can definitely say that DAs are the biggest factor in the prison population boom. For example, I was arrested for threatening my dad many years ago. I could've easily gone to prison for some time but the DA was given leeway to drop the charges entirely (with the assumption I wouldn't cause trouble for quite some time). If a DA's office can drop charges with little consequences then it's obvious they can press on with the silliest of notions of meting out justice for all of them (which they do). I think there needs to be a complete overhaul of how criminal prosecution is done in this country.

dsummerlin 11y ago

There are so many complicated variables in this, but one thing that is crucial to point out is that he keeps referring to state prisons, which is intentionally misleading because many many drug offenders end up in federal prisons, where they make up 48.4% (https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offen...) of the population. That alone makes a lot of this guy's commentary suspect, and since he didn't even mention race or private prisons as a possible factor it really tanks the smell test on this new theory of his.

danielvf 11y ago
Federal prisons make up less than 10% of the US prison population. It's almost irrelevant in terms of the total prison population.

danielvf 11y ago

I was surprised that almost everything that I'd heard about prisons in the US was wrong. (I went digging into source documents to confirm the below.) - US prison population is declining in both absolute and relative numbers, even as the population is growing. [1] - The prison population skews strongly toward violence. I totaled up the numbers from my own state's prisons[2]: 51% - HOMICIDE, SEXUAL ASSAULT, ROBBERY, ASSAULT, KIDNAPPING 21% - BURGLARY, LARCENY, STOLEN VEHICLE, FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY, FORGERY/COUNTERFEITING 17% - DRUGS 11% - Other - The violent offender percentage is increasing over time, while the drug related charges are decreasing. - Federal prisons make up less than 10% of the US prison population, and have a very different composition, and legal pathway for getting there. Any statistic you see that is about only "Federal" prisons or prisoners is next to meaningless in the context of the US prison population. - The percentage of US incarcerated that are in privately owned prisons is actual lower than the quoted 8%, and is actually somewhere around 5-6%. (Both TFA and Wikipedia make the mistake of thinking that Federal Prisons + State prisons equals all US prisoners. The are forgetting about local jails, which account for roughly 25% of US prisoners.) - Prisons contain far more convicted murderers than you could think possible. People with lesser charges leave soon, and people with murder convictions stay for a long time. 15% of my state's prison population is in with either life or more than 30 years.[3] 50% of my state's prisoners are serving more than a ten year term.[3] But at the same time the intake numbers look entirely different - most people arriving have less than a 2 year term and only 1.3% of arrivals last year had a 30 year or more sentence. [4] [1] http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf [2] http://www.doc.sc.gov/pubweb/research/InmatePopulationStatsTrend/ASOFTrendMSOFY11-15.pdf http://www.doc.sc.gov/pubweb/research/InmatePopulationStatsT... [3] http://www.doc.sc.gov/pubweb/research/InmatePopulationStatsTrend/ASOFTrendSentenceLengthDistributionFY11-15.pdf http://www.doc.sc.gov/pubweb/research/InmatePopulationStatsT... [4] http://www.doc.sc.gov/pubweb/research/AdmissionsTrend/AdmissionTrendSentenceLengthDistributionFY11-15.pdf http://www.doc.sc.gov/pubweb/research/AdmissionsTrend/Admiss...

brohee 11y ago
What makes a convicted murderer doesn't always implies killing anyone, as in the case of the burglars charged and condemned for murder after the death of their accomplice, killed by a homeowner... Numbers on "murderers" who didn't kill anyone would be interresting.

skwirl 11y ago

In summary: The theory is that from the mid 70s to the early 90s the prison population increased due to a real increase in crime, but after that, it increased due to prosecutors doubling the percentage of arrestees that they charge with a felony. I wonder if the simple explanation is that over decades the size of the prosecutorial bureaucracy increased to deal with an actual increased work load, but after that work load started to go down naturally, that bureaucracy had to find a way to keep itself in business, and that was by charging arrestees who would have been previously released. A DA's office where people are sitting on their hands is an office that will see budget cuts and staff reductions. We know from both government and the private industry that almost no department will voluntarily take a budget or staff cut, even if it is warranted. Maybe we should try reducing the DA's budgets in some states/counties and see what happens to crime and incarceration rates.

happyscrappy 11y ago
FTFA: >Well, the real growth in the prison population comes from county-level district attorneys sending violent people to prison. If the article's conclusion was the title it would not even be on HN.

jb613 11y ago

TLDR: it wasn't the crime waves, it wasn't longer prison sentences, it wasn't the declared war on drugs - it's that the probability that a district attorney files a felony charge against an arrestee goes from about 1 in 3, to 2 in 3

jb613 11y ago
Professor John Pfaff prescribes as the solution: "What makes it very hard is that the person we really need to target now—whose behavior we need to regulate—is the district attorney, and the district attorney is a very politically independent figure. He’s directly elected, and he’s directly elected at the county level. So there’s no big centralized fix. You can’t necessarily go to Washington and say, ‘Here’s the law that’s going to control what the DAs do,’ because they don’t have to listen to the federal government at all." However, this is not only anti-democratic but anti to the entire American system of decentralized government.

kijin 11y ago

> And if we focused on cutting back sentence lengths, maybe that would weaken DAs’ bargaining power at plea bargaining, but since people aren’t serving the massively long sentences anyway, it probably won’t have that big an effect on prison population either. So Mr. Pfaff believes that overzealous DAs have caused the prison population to skyrocket, but quickly dismisses the one proposal that could actually help solve the problem. This seems like a classic case of "My answer, and only my answer, is correct. All other answers are wrong, even if they are compatible with my answer." > You can’t necessarily go to Washington and say, ‘Here’s the law that’s going to control what the DAs do,’ because they don’t have to listen to the federal government at all." Yes, you can. Getting rid of ridiculously long mandatory sentences will make a DA sound a lot less convincing when he threatens the defendant to accept a plea bargain or else. If fewer defendants accept plea bargains, the DA will have to go to trial more often, which costs a lot of time and money. This gives DAs a strong incentive not to charge too many people. There is no justice in a legal system where one side is free to threaten the other side to waive their Constitutional right to a day in court. I don't think we will ever achieve perfect equality of bargaining power between the state and an individual citizen, but tweaking the incentive structure in this way would be a promising first step toward reducing that gap.

twic 11y ago

The article tentatively points the finger at the fact that prosecutors are elected, and that being a prosecutor is a step towards higher elected office. The fact that the US elects prosecutors, and judges, is incredibly strange. Surely it could only possibly be a terrible, catastrophic idea? You want prosecutors and judges to be professional, impartial, and independent, which is exactly what elected politicians aren't. Are there any other countries which elect their judges or prosecutors? How did the US get like this? Are Americans aware of how odd this is? The Economist has some funny stories about it: http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21613276-theyre-not-politicians-so-they-shouldnt-act-them-trouble-electing-judges http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21613276-theyre-...