For good reasons, we spend a lot of time talking about public safety in the United States today. With images of police in riot gear and cities looking like foreign war zones this past summer, much of the conversation has turned toward restoring trust among law enforcement and the communities they serve. Yet one solution to this issue is often overlooked: Ending the practice of mass incarceration.
Mass incarceration, a dominant strategy in criminal justice over the last few decades, has locked up millions of criminals, many of whom are non-violent or have minor offenses. The latest Department of Justice figures show almost 7 million Americans are under some form of correctional supervision. Breaking down the numbers further, about 1 percent of adults are behind bars, with black men facing incarceration rates that are six times greater than those of white men. The question must be raised as to whether simply locking people up is smart policy.
First, consider the direct costs. The corrections system is one of the U.S.’s biggest growth industries, with expenditures rising 3.6 times faster than inflation since 1982. The Vera Institute of Justice reports that the average cost of imprisonment is $31,286 per inmate per year. The tab adds up quickly considering there are 2.2 million incarcerated Americans, most of whom are in state prisons.
The U.S. leads the world in incarceration in part because of bad incentives that encourage exporting too many defendants to prison. Some criminal justice academics have argued the most important cause of mass imprisonment is that judges and prosecutors too often believe sending defendants to prison doesn’t cost anything. Yet the “freebie” of state prisons is hardly costless.
Next, look at the indirect costs of imprisonment, which are worse but can’t always be quantified. The “collateral consequences” include hardship for the prisoner, their family and their community. Household budgets and relationships are put under duress, while physical and emotional health suffers.
The often expansive punishment system also significantly lessens employment prospects and civic engagement of ex-convicts. Numerous studies show this can create a vicious cycle of recidivism.
However, costs alone aren’t the best way to judge a policy. We should also assess the benefits of high incarceration rates: Presumably, enhanced public safety. For this, we can turn to the case of California, where their prison population was bursting at the seams – 175,000 inmates at its peak. Courts ruled in 2011 that overcrowding of prisons required releasing approximately 33,000 convicts. Surely, mayhem ensued.
In fact, what followed was no measurable increase in crime across the state. Instead, crime rates actually decreased. As confirmed by research, California’s property and crime rates remained near their historical lows after downsizing its prison populations. As Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis professor Jody Sundt reported in a study about California, “there was no adverse effect on the overall safety of Californians.” She concluded that “large reductions in the size of the prison population can be made without endangering the overall safety of the public.”
Although California’s hand was forced due to prison overcrowding, a case can be made for states to rely less on their prison systems. Proactive, preventative approaches that target key populations like the mentally ill or those with substance abuse problems can better prepare people to lead productive lives. Several cities have implemented such programs, saving money and bettering communities. The fight for public safety can be done more effectively and cheaply.
Downsizing our prisons is no panacea and, of course, will not work for all offenders and all communities. But research supports reassessing mass incarceration and carefully looking for alternative ways to address crime. Safely shrinking our state prison populations offers a win-win for those on different sides of a political spectrum: one side can enjoy limiting the size of government while another side can champion a more fair corrections system and less collateral damage for non-violent offenders.
Mass incarceration imposes costs on the state, communities and families. We have an opportunity to explore new ways to reduce the numbers of people under lock-and-key with room and board at the taxpayers’ expense. And we have the opportunity to reconsider how we address root causes of crime, like mental illnesses or lack of economic opportunities, more effectively and fairly.
Douglas Noonan is a professor at Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis’ School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.
