Chart of the Day – America’s Prison Population Over the Past 100 Years

[rangerrebew]

Chart of the Day – America’s Prison Population Over the Past 100 Years

Michael Krieger | Posted Thursday Feb 12, 2015 at 4:01 pm 
 

There are 2.3 million Americans in prison or jail. The U.S. has 5 percent of the world’s population but 25 percent of its prisoners. One in three black men can expect to spend time in prison. There are 2.7 million minors with an incarcerated parent. The imprisonment rate has grown by more than 400 percent since 1970.

Recent research suggests that incarceration has lost its potency. A report released this week from the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law finds that increased incarceration has had a very limited effect on crime over the past two and a half decades.

The sickening and absurd rate of incarceration in these United States has been a frequent topic of conversation here at Liberty Blitzkrieg over the years (links at the end). In our national insanity, the U.S. has only 5% of the worlds population, yet 25% of its prisoners. Many of these people have no business being locked in a cage to begin with, and are wasting their lives away for committing “victimless crimes,” i.e. for no good reason.

While the immorality of locking up so many of our fellow citizens for non-crimes should be readily apparent, today’s article from Five-Thirty-Eight offers evidence that America’s incarceration rate has become so saturated that it has absolutely no meaningful impact in lowering crimes rates anyway. The time for prison reform and the elimination of mandatory minimum sentences is long overdue.

From Five-Thirty-Eight:


There are 2.3 million Americans in prison or jail. The U.S. has 5 percent of the world’s population but 25 percent of its prisoners. One in three black men can expect to spend time in prison. There are 2.7 million minors with an incarcerated parent. The imprisonment rate has grown by more than 400 percent since 1970.

It’s supposed to help the country reduce crime in two ways: incapacitation — it’s hard to be a habitual offender while in prison — or deterrence — people scared of prison may do their best to not end up there.

But recent research suggests that incarceration has lost its potency. A reportreleased this week from the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law finds that increased incarceration has had a very limited effect on crime over the past two and a half decades.

At incarceration’s current elevated levels, the effect of more incarceration on crime is not statistically different than zero. It’s no longer working.

In 1970, there were just shy of 200,000 Americans in prison. Today there are more than 1.5 million — 496 prisoners for every 100,000 people. That’s more than in any developed country. According to the International Centre for Prison Studies, the imprisonment rate in Russia is 467. In the U.K., it’s 148. In France, 102. In Germany, it’s 76. In Japan, 50.

It’s because of these elevated levels that we’re likely to see diminishing returns. If we assume — fairly! — that the criminal justice system tends to incarcerate the worst offenders first, it becomes clear why. Once the worst offenders are in prison, each additional prisoner will yield less benefit in the form of reduced crime. Increased incarceration — and its incapacitation effect — loses its bite. And at its world-historic level, it’s not surprising that it would’ve lost nearly all of it.

And diminishing returns are what we saw. Crime rates dropped as incarceration rates rose, for a time, but incarceration’s effect on crime weakened as more people were imprisoned. An increase in incarceration was responsible for something like 5 percent of the decrease in crime in the 1990s, when its levels were lower, but has played no meaningful role since. If I were speaking to a fellow economist, I’d say the incarceration elasticity of crime is not distinguishable from zero. At a cocktail party, I’d say that crime no longer responds to changes in incarceration.

Evidence of incarceration’s diminishing returns can be found outside of big data sets and regression models, too. It can also be found via a natural experiment. A report from the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project compared the prisoner releases from California’s realignment with similar releases in Italy, following clemency legislation passed by the Italian Parliament. California saw no discernable change in crime. Italy saw a spike in crime. The reason? California’s incarceration rate was high, and Italy’s was low. Italy hadn’t yet experienced dramatically diminishing returns.

Now here’s the money shot. U.S. imprisonment rate per 100,000 people since 1880:



Screen Shot 2015-02-12 at 3.05.01 PM


Land of the free indeed. Can we reverse this nonsense already?

http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2015/02/12/chart-of-the-day-americas-prison-population-over-the-past-100-years/

[rangerrebew]

If one looks closely, the upward trend begins in 1970, six years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which roughly corresponds to the breakdown in the black two parent family.

[olde north church]

If one looks closely, the upward trend begins in 1970, six years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which roughly corresponds to the breakdown in the black two parent family.

One may also note it coincides with the "War On Drugs". 

[Oceander]

It has just as much (if not more) to do with the fact that the number of criminal offenses has soared, and with the zero-tolerance nonsense that mandates minimum terms of imprisonment.

It also has to do with the fact that it is increasingly easy to discover someone's criminal record, even if it was a youthful indiscretion twenty years ago, and because more and more employers will simply refuse to hire someone who has any sort of a criminal record, regardless of how far in the past that record is, regardless of what the individual has done to rehabilitate him or her self, and regardless of whether the criminal offense bears any reasonable relationship to the job.

If you shut people out of society, and prevent them from bettering themselves, then many of them will simply fall back into criminal conduct - some of them simply no longer have any alternative.

[olde north church]

It has just as much (if not more) to do with the fact that the number of criminal offenses has soared, and with the zero-tolerance nonsense that mandates minimum terms of imprisonment.

It also has to do with the fact that it is increasingly easy to discover someone's criminal record, even if it was a youthful indiscretion twenty years ago, and because more and more employers will simply refuse to hire someone who has any sort of a criminal record, regardless of how far in the past that record is, regardless of what the individual has done to rehabilitate him or her self, and regardless of whether the criminal offense bears any reasonable relationship to the job.

If you shut people out of society, and prevent them from bettering themselves, then many of them will simply fall back into criminal conduct - some of them simply no longer have any alternative.

That too.  I believe the saying is "Summum jus, summa injuria.".  My conjugation could be incorrect.

[Oceander]

That too.  I believe the saying is "Summa jus, summam injurious.".  My conjugation could be incorrect.

Indeed.  strict law is sometimes the greatest injustice

[Lando Lincoln]

Hmmm... Roe v. Wade 1973.  How might that fit in?

[Oceander]

Hmmm... Roe v. Wade 1973.  How might that fit in?

Most likely, not at all.

[truth_seeker]

A worthwhile point for research would be: Were blacks always committing murder, at more than seven times the rate of whites?

I happen to believe long sentences for non-violent drug offenses don't work.

I believe liberals and Rand Paul are pointing out sentencing disparities for minorities, and I agree on that issue. But the emphasis must remain on the distinction between violent and non-violent.

I go to a lot of AA meetings, where I see many mentally ill people, career criminals, etc. I can empathize with down-and-outers, but not with violent ones. They must be taken off the streets.

I do believe that prison should be more about punishment and deterrence. Hence I support forced work.

For some, jail/prison means "3 hots and a cot," often better than they get on the streets. 

[olde north church]

A worthwhile point for research would be: Were blacks always committing murder, at more than seven times the rate of whites?

I happen to believe long sentences for non-violent drug offenses don't work.

I believe liberals and Rand Paul are pointing out sentencing disparities for minorities, and I agree on that issue. But the emphasis must remain on the distinction between violent and non-violent.

I go to a lot of AA meetings, where I see many mentally ill people, career criminals, etc. I can empathize with down-and-outers, but not with violent ones. They must be taken off the streets.

I do believe that prison should be more about punishment and deterrence. Hence I support forced work.

For some, jail/prison means "3 hots and a cot," often better than they get on the streets.

For some prison is just a change in the scenery.

[mountaineer]

"Drug courts"* in my state have proven to be very helpful and effective. Unfortunately, given the size of the drug abuse problem, they're like scooping out the ocean with a teaspoon.



*Drug courts offer alternatives to jail and prison time for non-violent offenders who qualify. In those courts, intensive judicial supervision is combined with frequent drug testing and counseling to treat addictions that may have lead to crimes.  More here.