I know little about Senator Jim Webb (D, Virginia), but I know this: His criticisms of U.S. sentencing and incarceration policies are right on target.Senator Webb is concerned that our prisons are filled with mentally ill prisoners, and that large number of non-violent offenders are incarcerated for long periods--longer, perhaps, than their offense warranted.
To address these concerns, Webb has recommended the creation of the National Criminal Justice Commission, a group charged with reviewing all aspects of the criminal justice system. This is quite a task, and I wonder who will make up this Commission. Some of the statistics mentioned in the bill:
- 2.38 million people are in prison in the United States (ed. note: the United States is the world leader in incarceration, locking up 738 people for every 100,000 in the population. The next highest country? Rwanda: 691. Russia is a close third at 611. Wondering about Iran? 214. China, with 1.3 billion people? 118. India, with 1.1 billion? 30)
- About 32% of all black males in the U.S. will serve prison time in their lives, compared to 17% of Hispanic males and 6% of white males.
- There are 7.3 million people under the control of the criminal justice system (including jail, prison, parole, and probation).
- Time in prison does not help offenders return to society. Current national recidivism rates are around 66%.
- We continue to spend more money on corrections than on education.
- The massive incarceration of drug offenders has not curtailed drug use.
Unfortunately, our policies on crime and punishment in the U.S. tend not to be developed from research and observation, but from political motives and public opinion. The "get tough on crime" period was purely political, with little empirical support that it would work to reduce crime. This sentiment is echoed in the Virginian-Pilot article, linked above:
But why is this a political issue at all? Don't we all want to reduce crime? Haven't we seen enough evidence that mass incarceration isn't working? Why isn't our solution simpler--find out what works, and use it--political parties be damned?But (George Mason Political Science Professor Mark) Rozell added that "being hard on crime is the politically safe place to be.... There's just not a lot of public sentiment out there to do something about incarceration time.
"Whether he's doing the right thing or not, politically it's risky."
I suppose Americans need to make a choice--we could certainly continue with our policy of mass incarceration, which only serves to weaken communities, increase poverty, and generates many thousands of ex-prisoners each year who are unprepared to return to "normal" life; or, we can shift from being "tough on crime" to being smart about crime.
Perhaps the public will accept that being smart is not the same as being weak.
8 comments:
This is a terrific post, ShockProf. It reminds me of the discussion of politics and crime at last year's ASC meeting. Thank you so much for sharing this -- I will be following Senator Webb's bill with great interest...
P.S. Here is a Colbert interview with Senator Webb from last summer where he (Webb) briefly addresses the mass incarceration issue.
OK, last comment: here is a link from Senator Webb's website that talks more about the proposed commission.
This is really big news -- a politician who is actually paying attention to the criminal justice and prison systems!!
Allow me to live up to my reputation and rain on the parade a bit...This may be an important and worthwhile initiative, but it is only as good as the extent to which the recommendations of such a body result in actual changes. Look at the major recommendations coming from the various commissions in the late '60s. Most are still valid criticisms today because many were ignored. It might actually be cheaper and faster to just dust off those recommendations, determine which are still relevant, and finally (40 years later) take the recommended actions.
PS- This is a bipartisan effort being strongly backed by Arlen Specter (R-PA), ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Cranks - thanks for the "shout out" to the right but we all know Arlen "The Sellout" Specter is about as republican as Obama is a non-socialist (sorry, i couldn't help myself). …
It is hard to disagree with Webb's ideas, and like Dr.H., it is refreshing to know someone knows the criminal justice system is still out there. It is hard, however, NOT be pessimistic. First, what do "Blue Ribbon Panels" and "Commissions" really accomplish beyond add a political element to something? Honestly, and I mean this seriously, do we think a commission of some sort is going to come up with anything we don't already know, make recommendations that as Cranks indicates haven't been made since 1960's (or really....the mid-1800's)? Of course the answer is No. Ok, actually, Hell No!
In recent years I have become frustrated with our (as academics) tendency to only focus on these macro-level issues. Ok, like all of you, I still find it nearly incredible every time I read it to hear that more than 1/3 of AA males will go through prison/jail in their lifetime. For the love of everything that is good and holy how can this happen? We understand we have an incarceration right that is transhistorically and transculturally high. Ok, so what?
Meaning, how really does it translate to the micro?
I tend to (try at least) to place myself in the role of police officers, judges, prosecutors....so what does all of this mean? Believe it or not (most liberals really don't believe this), all of these "nonviolent drug offenders" REALLY cause problems in the very communities we say we are concerned about. Yes, its true! Some notable # are, well, really bad guys. They sell drugs, they victimize people, they could give a rats behind about who they hurt in the process. Go to the East side of Detroit, go to Mattapan in Boston, stop over in East St. Louis, hit the rough neighborhoods of Carbondale, Il….tell these people drugs need to be handled with Rx. Read "Gang Leader for a Day" (I know you LOVE that book Velma), read "Code of the Street," read "In Search of Respect...." We're not just talking about hard core drug dealers, it is bigger, more important than that. I will NEVER forget the time some in Detroit who I was interviewing who just got locked up said to me (in response to my question , why do you carry guys...) "Listen White Boy, tell me this, when you leave your house at night to go to the party store (I don't think he meant Itza Party), do you ever worry about getting shot? Do you ever really wonder if this will be the day...your last day?" And for the love of God I said, "You know what, no." He then responded, “Well, I do. That’s why I carry a gun.” That simple. Don't tell people who live in drug infested, crime ridden neighborhoods about oppression....they live it every day when they try to go get a gallon of milk.
So, I applaud Webb but what will this commission really accomplish? If I am a cop, a prosecutor, a judge....What do I do with a drug dealer who says, quite literally, "F' you. I will go back to selling drugs the minute I get out." Folks, there is a strong reality to this whether we want to believe it or not. While this commission will talk about all of the same macro level issues like too little funding for education (huuummmmm, average Boston teacher makes over 70k a year...doesn't sound too insignificant to me), what do I do? I think this is where the rubber meets the road and all of the macro discussion starts to fall apart. About three months ago I sat in a meeting in a large eastern city and saw surveillance of a few targeted murders of young black men by young black men. It was the most disturbing thing I have ever seen. Calmly walking up to someone and shooting them, then trotting off. I have been convincing myself for years this is NOT the face of crime. But you know what, it is to a degree that some of us do not want to admit. There is SOMETHING to what Wilson and DiIulio said. How do we respond? As academics, we are just as guilty of ignoring the reality of the crime problem as those who overplay the reality of the crime problem.
Scoobs out.
Just so we're on the same page...the guy in Detroit was carrying GUNS not GUYS!
I agree, Cranks. Though times have changed greatly since the 60s, I'd bet that many of the findings of this proposed commission, were it to come to fruition, would echo those of earlier commissions with respect to social injustices, poverty, etc. And, as you point out, it's not like federal commissions are always terribly effectual; after all, the Warren Commission didn't stop people from speculating (and believing, and trying to prove) that Lee Harvey Oswald did NOT act alone. (As an aside, I actually took a special topics course on the Kennedy Assassination my senior year in college. I think I'm one of the few people on Earth who has actually read the entire Warren Commission Report!) Still, I think the major benefit of Webb's bill is that it takes the politically risky step of publicly criticizing criminal justice and correctional policy. I think (or at least I hope) it will be tremendously beneficial that the bill has initial bipartisan support. Recognition that our system is terribly broken ought to transcend political/ideological affiliation...
Scoob: given your insights, how would you suggest addressing the micro-level causes of crime? Do you think a panel like the one Webb has proposed could feasibly address both individual- and structural-level issues? I agree that creating a congressional panel to address any social issue necessarily politicizes it...but until scholars/researchers are put in charge of creating public policy instead of elected officials, I think a political commission -- headed by the folks with the policy-making power -- is as good a shot as we've got at effectuating real policy change. While grassroots efforts can sometimes be very effective in enacting/reforming legislation (think MADD, for example), I don't know that the general public is exactly chomping at the bit to commence a grassroots "reverse mass incarceration" movement, ya know?
I wish I knew what to suggest. But I will also say this...academics in our arrogant way beat up those doing the actual work pretty darn good. We shake our heads and wag our fingers and with such a sense of authority tell others what not to do as if its so plainly evident what the answer to all of these questions are. In reality, we may know what NOT to do but we know very little about what TO do. Our comments like "invest in education," "focus on reentry," "more treatment" are political ads not policy realities. We already DO invest in these things and quite heavily. I am not saying we shouldn't/couldn't do more. We have this fields of dream mentality - if we build it they will come. Or, if we create capacity it will work. The reality is that some sizable percentage of indivdiuals do NOT want to be involved in reentry programs, do NOT want treatment, and even those who do, a good deal will do it to avoid sanctions. its frustrating as hell. Most of us work with communities who struggle with this everyday. When programs fails, academics/advocates will then step up and explain THAT away by saying, well, its because we just didn't invest heavily enough in it. What is "enough?" The reality is that there is NO answer - there can always be more. It is really hard for me at times to move beyond the individual actor selling drugs on the street corner....I am a police officer, what do I do with this young person?
Post a Comment