When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment

Crime, even after a decade of falling crime rates, remains a huge problem, and a major barrier to improving conditions in poor neighborhoods. Mass incarceration -- one American adult in 100 is now behind bars -- constitutes a problem in its own right. The challenge we face is how to shrink both problems at the same time. Could the United States have half as much crime and half as many prisoners a decade from now? Yes. But not the way either liberals or conservatives normally think about the problem: not by building more prisons or "fixing root causes," not through "zero tolerance" or "restorative justice," not by "winning the drug war" or "ending prohibition," not with "more guns, less crime" or national gun registration. The current system of randomized severity gets us the worst of all possible worlds: high crime rates and mass incarceration. The alternative approach that could cut both crime and incarceration rates depends on a few principles, simple in concept but requiring effective management:

• Punishment is a cost, not a benefit.
• Swiftness and certainty are more effective than severity.
• A truly convincing threat doesn't have to be carried out very often.
• A small proportion of the offenders account for most of the crime.
• Offenders need to be warned -- personally and specifically -- what it is that they're not supposed to do and what will happen if they keep doing it.
• Concentrating enforcement attention works better than dispersing it.
• Now that it is possible to monitor the location and drug use of probationers and parolees with portable GPS systems, many -- perhaps most -- of today's prisoners could be safely managed in the community instead. But that depends on the willingness and capacity to use short jail stays, delivered quickly and reliably, to sanction probation and parole violations.
• The primary goal of drug law enforcement should be to minimize crime and disorder around the drug markets, not to reduce the flow of drugs.
• Not every social program helps control crime. But some demonstrably do: nurse home visits, improved classroom discipline, shifting the school day later so that adolescents aren't on the streets when there are lots of empty homes, reducing exposure to lead, substitution therapy (methadone and buprenorphine) for opiate addicts.
• Social-services agencies need to be managed with crime control in mind, just as criminal-justice agencies need to be managed to help control disease and serve other non-crime-control purposes.

Hawaii's HOPE probation program illustrates how this approach plays out in practice. In Hawaii, as in California, neither judges nor probation officers want to revoke probation and send a probationer to prison for "technical" violations of probation terms. Consequently, probationers quickly learn what they can get away with: roughly, anything short of getting arrested for a new crime. In particular, drug users learn that the most likely result of failing a drug test is a warning from the probation officer. As a result, probationers keep using expensive drugs, which often means going to prison for the crimes they commit to pay for those drugs. But a judge in Hawaii had a better idea. He took a group of methamphetamine-using probationers who wouldn't stop using their favorite drug, and put them on randomized drug testing, with the promise that every missed or "dirty" test would lead to an immediate 48-hour spell behind bars. Once that threat had been clearly made, most probationers stopped using. Of those who got caught once and spent their two days in jail, fewer than half broke the rules again. That simple step cut the number of probationers arrested for new crimes, and the number sent off to prison, by two-thirds. In High Point, NC, police had been trying and failing for twenty years to control an open crack market. Every time a dealer was arrested, a new dealer took his place. But then the police accumulated cases against all the active dealers, and called them in for a meeting. The police chief issued a simple message: stop dealing right now, or go to prison. That drove most of the dealers away immediately; the one who decided to test the system was arrested and sent away. With all the dealers gone, the customers stopped coming, and the market dried up. Five years later, it's still gone. Poor parenting creates children at high risk of becoming serious criminals. A baby doesn't come with an instruction manual. Sending nurses to the homes of first-time mothers who are also poor and young can markedly improve the lives of their children, and reduce their probability of being arrested by more than 25%. That may be the most cost-effective crime-control program ever invented, since the cost of sending out the nurses is more than covered by reduced costs elsewhere in the health-care system due to the fact that the children don't get sick as often. One provision of the current health care bill would promote such programs, but the Heritage Foundation and the House Republican Conference oppose it as "government intrusion into the family." After four decades of being "tough on crime," it's time to get smart instead. We need to be as tough as necessary, but no tougher. The goal is not to put a many people behind bars as possible, but to make people safer in their homes, workplaces, and neighborhoods. Professionals throughout the criminal justice system are figuring out how to do that; it's time for the public conversation to catch up with what the experts know.

 

Follow Mark Kleiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/markarkleiman

Comments

[DeeDubya]

the prison population will not go down. it is too profitable.

[exfedemp]

First, Mark Kleiman must be banned from this site for attempting to introduce a modicum of rationality into the emotionally-driven debate over criminal justice system reform.. Whatever was he thinking? (every time I try an intro like this someone goes nuts until they figure out that I'm not being serious). So let me get to the serious part. Having been an unwilling participant in the process, I feel I may have something to contribute. First, reform of the criminal justice system will come about only when the american people understand the costs... human, social, and fiscal,... of the system as it currently exists. Second, prisons are essentially an industry that relies on repeat offenders to stay in business. In many areas, the prison is the main economic driver. Third, reform must be comprehensive and integrated rather than piecemeal to be effective.
Fourth, criminal behavior is inevitable in any society. But the long term goal should be the identification and correction of social issues that lead to crime, and a vital process for the reintegration of "criminals" into society. Federal prisons no longer provide training in skills that could result in a decent living outside. Why? Because if, for example, you are convicted of a felony, most states will not license you as a plumber etc. So what's the use? The end result is that there is no such thing as an ex-felon. It is sentence for life, even after paying your debt to society.

[USAFree1]

Actually, putting as many people in prison and punishing as many offenders as possible is a conservative principle. It means fewer voters and free slave labor. If you're not sure about this, check your state's Constitution and the US Constitution.

[WmC]

The problem with Mark Kleiman's proposal: it's far too rational. Politicians who propose rational solutions don't get (re) elected. Politicians who offer simplistic solutions that can fit on bumper stickers are the ones who get elected--e.g. labeling ones opponent as "soft on crime".
Look no further than the abortion issue for an example. "Pro-lifers" are not the least bit interested in policies that will actually reduce the rates of abortion. They're only interested in a meretricious solution: a total legal ban on all abortions.

[Blue Clutch]

What happens when an inmate is released from prison? Many are unskilled and uneducated; that, on top of having a criminal record, almost ensures that the individual is going to have a hard time finding any work, yet alone something that pays enough to sustain a living.

I agree with the poster that suggested the criminal's home life is a significant reason for adopting specific behaviors. It's hard to modify or correct 'negative' behavior when you cannot leave the environment that harbors said behavior. Hard to leave the environment when you're not working or have money. Those two often go together, but no one wants to employ a criminal. Ergo, the individual commits crime and ultimately goes through the revolving door that is the criminal justice system. After a few stints in prison, or even jail, the individual comes to the conclusion that he/she will unlikely find sustainable work. That's how many 'career criminals' are made, imo. That's why crime will never go away and will most likely increase, whether statistics show it or not.

In Illinois, the governor has started to release non-violent inmates to easy the financial strain endured by the state. It's going to be interesting. I hope the individuals that are released are able to find work and better themselves, but in a time where there are virtually no jobs to be had, adding 'felon' to the resume is probably not the credential most employers are looking for in a new hire.

Excellent article.

[RickO]

There is far too much money being made off the current system, too much corruption and too much influence from the religious right to ever expect any material change.

It never changes when progressives are in charge (gutless, and corrupted legislators) and when the conservatives take over, as they will at some point, it just gets way worse, unless you are wealthy, that is.

[montemalone]

How about MANDATORY drug testing for ALL members of government, including both houses of Congress and the court system.
I'd bet there would be multiple bills submitted to decriminalize, if not outright legalize, personal possession and use.
Does the President not have the right to issue an Executive Order mandating such a thing?
Only then will the absurdity of the WOD end.

[SewaneeLeftist]

Now THAT's a good series of solutions, Mr. Kleiman --let's do 'em now, do 'em at once.

[DreamerWeaver]

Hello SewaneeLeftist:
Please check out Supreme Court takes on Chicago Gun Ban blog to see what DJ and I are talking about. We have agreed to read the article you recommended but we cannot get more than the abstract from the Internet. Could you help me get the full article? DJ and I might have a conversation about guns and politics in America!!! (Suspicions held at bay...of course.)

I love reading your comments on the blogs. When are you going to get your own blog?
DW

[SewaneeLeftist]

Hi, DW,
All praise to you for your willingness to interact with other, uh, points of view. You're a better person than I am. I honor your hope for a good interchange of views.

I gave up on that after the Soccer Mom thread and the "irrelevant guns" argument. To me, no rational discussion is possible or ever will be with such claims.

However, I'm QUITE sorry to discover that maybe people MIGHT be right that an article I mention is difficult to find for those without university library access. I say "might," because my own Google search has not been exhaustive. I only looked for a little bit, so I'll try again tomorrow and give you the link if I can get one.

I have a PDF copy of "Perversity," and I tried a couple of ways of creating a place to share it with all who might be interested, such as a FaceBook group, but that didn't really work. I'd gladly e-mail it, but with the various stalkers around, safety and privacy are important concerns.

I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Good luck with your finding common ground; if anybody can do it, it's you. I know MY position doesn't help you with your correspondents, and I regret that. However, to me at least, your nuanced position is different from mine in ways that do you great credit and should stand you in good stead as you explore the issues.

[FloresdelaHoz]

Brilliant - out of the box thinking article. The unfolding economic transformation of the world will require us to cut unessential government costs. I'm very optimistic the next ten years are going to make us a more thinking and less impulsive nation.

[Dolmance]

The California Parole Officer's Association says that more than 80 percent of all property crimes are caused by heroin addicts in search of a fix. If the government spent a few dollars on Buprinorphine or actually gave the stuff out (pennies a day), we could cut crime in the US by more than half.

Which would end the insane practice of every single day at every prison in the country releasing proven child predators and rapists from custody because of considerations of space, keeping drug offenders who in most cases have no parole incarcerated.

See, there's a price to pay for being stupid. And every time you hear of some paroled sex offender committing an atrocity, you can consider his/her victim a case of collateral damage in The Drug War.

[GayIthacan]

When a guaranteed roof over your head, 3 square meals a day, cable TV, recreation, library access, canteen privileges, and 24-hour security looks better to you than your life OUTSIDE of prison, prison ceases to be much of a deterrent, doesn't it?

When economic life on the OUTSIDE approaches life on the INSIDE for many criminals, THEN we will see a significant reduction in crime.

[Harry Miaflusa]

In order to exterminate crime,we need a massive use of the death penalty.
Out of 16K murders in USA every year,at least 3K are capital cases.
Let's split them 50:50,to accomodate those against the death penalty.
Half of the murderers should get the Penalty,the other half should get prison sentences.
So,we should have 1500 executions per year,not...40.
If we manage to bring the Penalty back to the states which don't have it
& enhance its use in the rest,to the tune of 1500/year,
which means 7-8 executions per working day,
then USA will be a crime-free paradise...

[Romeover]

While we're at it, let's bring back child labor, dog-fights, slavery, and witchcraft trials.

[Harry Miaflusa]

No,no ,just the right dose of executions,to make USA safe & clean...

[BLBass]

This seems like a viable rubric, and I'm having trouble deciding whether the great example from Hawaii addresses all my questions about its effectiveness. I'll try to post coherent thoughts on this later.

[dim]

Here is another bulletpoint for your list:

* Punishment for a drug crime should not come close to exceeding the harm of the drug itself.

[seawolf77]

Amen. Exactly. A voice of reason. I think of that Kathy Bates character in "Misery" where she cobbles the guy for thinking about getting out of bed and escaping. If you saw that in the movies for the first time the whole theater would recoil in horror. Now there's a republican if I ever saw one.

[BusGreg]

The cost incurred by the state for punishment of a drug offense also should not exceed the cost of the drug the offender has on him or her when caught.

[gurukalehuru]

Hey, we lost the war in Viet Nam, we lost the war in Iraq, why is it so hard for the government to admit that they lost the war on drugs?

[gurukalehuru]

Over all, great post. We need to get smarter against crime, not tougher.