|
Article Excerpt
NEARLY ONE IN EVERY HUNDRED ADULTS IN THE UNITED STATES IS IN JAIL or prison today. In a period dominated by calls to roll back the government in all areas of social and economic policy, we have witnessed its massive expansion in the realm of penal policy since the 1970s. The US incarceration rate is now more than 737 per 100,000 people, or 5 to 12 times the rate of Western European countries and Japan (Harrison and Beck, 2006: 2; International Center for Prison Studies, n.d.). The reach of the US carceral state extends far beyond the 2.3 million men and women currently in prison or jail in the United States. On any given day, over 7 million people--or 1 in every 32 adults--are incarcerated or on probation or parole (Glaze and Bonczar, 2006: 1). This rate of state supervision is unparalleled in US history.
These overall figures on incarceration belie the enormous and disproportionate impact that this bold and unprecedented social experiment has had on certain groups in US society. If current trends continue, one in three black men and one in six Hispanic men are expected to spend some time in jail or prison during their lives (Bonczar, 2003: 1). The number of incarcerated African-American men has grown so rapidly over the past quarter-century that more black men are behind bars than enrolled in colleges and universities (Butterfield, 2002:A-14). (1)
Some contend that growing public dismay over the crushing economic burden of incarcerating and monitoring so many people heralds the beginning of the end of the prison boom (Bennett and Kuttner, 2003: 36). As evidence, they point to penal developments in the states. Severe budget deficits prompted by the 2001 recession forced some states to close prisons and lay off guards. Dozens of states experimented with new sentencing formulas, mostly directed at nonviolent offenders. (2) Fiscally conservative Republicans previously known for being penal hard-liners championed some of these recent relaxations in penal policy. This fueled speculation that law-and-order Republicans, troubled by mounting costs, are well poised to roll back the carceral state, much as red-baiter Richard Nixon was ideally situated to breach the great political wall with the People's Republic of China.
We should be cautious, however, about assuming that fiscal pressures and the recent softening of public opinion sparked by the plummeting crime rate over the past decade will automatically forge a durable consensus that will dismantle the carceral state. (3) It was mistakenly assumed three decades ago that shared disillusionment on the right and the left with the rehabilitative ideal would shrink the prison population. Instead, it exploded. Criminal justice policies often confound conventional distinctions between left and right, particularly on issues related to crime victims. The relationship between political leaders, social movements, interest groups, and governing institutions is highly contingent and volatile in the case of penal policy because the left-right divide is more blurred and because of certain institutional features of the US criminal justice system and welfare state. (4)
While economic arguments against the carceral state are important and compelling, they have their limitations. If properly pitched, they can help forge a consensus to reverse the prison boom. But they can also be used to propel mean-spirited budget cuts that do not significantly reduce the size of the prison population--or save much money--but do render life in prison and life after prison leaner and meaner. Criminal justice reform to reverse the prison boom is a highly fragile project that cannot be underwritten primarily by fiscal concerns. Without some broader vision and movement for change, the US carceral state, trimmed a little by a few modest sentencing and drug law reforms, will be here to stay. Such a movement is beginning to coalesce in the United States. Opponents have begun to portray the carceral state not only as a financial liability but also as a moral liability and a pressing civil and human rights issue that perverts cherished democratic institutions, like the right to vote. They also have begun to focus public attention on how the prison boom has exacerbated economic and social inequalities and is a growing menace to public health.
FISCAL PRESSURES ON THE CARCERAL STATE
It is important to keep in mind that race to incarcerate began in the 1970s at a time when states faced dire financial straits. It was sustained despite wide fluctuations in the crime rate, public opinion, and the economy over the next 30 years. As Norval Morris warned more than two decades ago, fiscal concerns are "an extraordinarily weak reed to rely on" because "states and the federal government are capable of the most extraordinary absorption of increased numbers" (Morris, 1983-84: 353).
The spurt of sentencing and drug law reforms in the wake of the 2001 recession has yet to make any real dent in the overall size of the incarcerated population. While states have relaxed some drug laws, the penalties still remain very stiff. Moreover, many states recently toughened their sanctions for sex offenders, which will likely result in a rapid explosion in the number of prisoners serving time for sex crimes over the next two decades (JFA Institute, 2007: 12). In 2005, the total incarcerated population grew by 2.7 percent, compared to an average of 3.3 percent over the previous decade. While the rate of increase slowed somewhat over this period for state and federal prisoners, it accelerated for inmates held in local jails (Harrison and Beck, 2006: 2). An ominous new report on prison population trends commissioned by the Pew Charitable Trusts predicts that the growth rate of the state and federal prison population will markedly accelerate over the next five years (JFA Institute, 2007: 9).
Budgetary pressures for another round of sentencing reform are weakening. In fiscal 2006, many states actually had budget surpluses, and general fund spending by the states increased by nearly 9 percent, far above average (National Governors Association, 2006: vii, viii, and 1). While corrections has been the fastest growing item in many state budgets for years, it is still not--relatively speaking--a major budget item. Corrections comprises only about 7 percent of state general fund spending, compared to about 46 percent for education and 18 percent for Medicaid (National Governors Association, 2006: 1).
With the massive growth of the US carceral state, some policymakers and legislators have become more sensitive to the long-term fiscal impact of certain changes in penal policy. But many others have not. A model example is North Carolina, which developed a sophisticated computer model in the 1990s to forecast what various recommended changes in penal policy would cost. North Carolina went from having the highest incarceration rate in the country in 1980 to 31st in the nation two decades later (Wilhelm and Turner, 2002: 7-8). (5) In explicitly forcing economic considerations to be a central factor in determining prison policy, North Carolina may be more the exception than the rule. While a number of other states now require fiscal impact statements, the effects of these reports on penal policy can vary enormously (Wilhelm and Turner, 2002: 10). This is partly because the quality of data that states have about their prison systems is extremely uneven. Some have detailed information about each offender's sentence, criminal history, prior residence, etc., while others "barely know who is in their prison systems" (Jacobson, 2005: 219-20).
In many states, policymakers continue to pursue ad hoc solutions that may save money over the short run but may be extremely expensive over the long term. Most prison costs are fixed and are...
|
