
Mass incarceration: A new theory for why so many Americans are in prison - po
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/02/mass_incarceration_a_provocative_new_theory_for_why_so_many_americans_are.single.html
======
Nursie
>> The fact of the matter is in today’s state prisons, which hold about 90
percent of all of our prisoners, only 17 percent of the inmates are there
primarily for drug charges. And about two-thirds are there for either property
or violent crimes.

Hmmm. This is unsatisfying. How many are there for crimes that were committed
to feed drug habits? How many for crimes related to but not directly involving
drugs (turf wars, drug-money related offences etc)?

Sure, these are crimes and we should definitely still bring people committing
these to justice, but I wonder how many just would not have happened without
the WoD?

Clearly it's not the whole picture, but it might be a little more complex than
the article makes out.

~~~
mason240
>How many are there for crimes that were committed to feed drug habits?

Legalizing drugs will not make them free, and they will still lead to
addiction.

~~~
Nursie
>> Legalizing drugs will not make them free, and they will still lead to
addiction.

Indeed they will. But if addicts have easier access to medically supervised
maintenance doses (for instance), without risking jail time, then there may be
less crime committed to feed these habits. Stuff I've seen has suggested that
(for instance) when heroin users know where their next hit is coming from (the
clinic) they are better able to handle their addiction and able to make some
progress in the rest of life (hold down a job, etc).

I'm not saying I definitely have all the answers, the picture is complex.

~~~
rayiner
Legalizing drugs are one thing (though 80-90% of Americans still oppose
legalization for stuff like heroin). Spending non-prison public dollars on
peoples' heroin addiction (while potentially a good idea), will never happen
in the U.S. before the heat death of the universe.

~~~
vidarh
The cost of medical heroin to feed the typical daily consumption of heroin for
an addict costs in the $10-$20 range, as far as I remember. We know the costs
because because heroin is manufactured and regularly prescribed as a pain
killer in a number of countries, e.g. in the UK you sometime get diamorphine
(heroin) prescriptions for post-operative pain.

In other words, even if it was not paid for, but just made available on
prescription, chances are substantial proportion of users would be able to
afford to maintain their addiction without much, if any, crime.

------
PuffinBlue
It always struck me (as a Brit) that the plea bargaining system in the US
seemed to encourage prison time. There seems to be a lot of incentive for the
DA's to 'get their conviction' and a lot of pressure on those accused to
accept a bargain that might see them do 2 years instead of 20 or some
arbitrary high number.

Is this an accurate view? Do these plea bargain happen regularly?

I also understand that the prison system was privatised in the US. The
combination of aggressive DA's, plea bargains and financial incentives to
incarcerate seem, from the outside at least, to have created a perfect storm
that's sort of feeding itself.

I'd love to hear from anyone with thought on this!

~~~
wil421
>I also understand that the prison system was privatised in the US.

The prison system was not privatized in the US. Some places do have private
prison but it is by no means the norm. As of 2012 less than 8% of the 2.2
million incarcerated persons in the US are in private prisons [1]. This is
less than 1% of the population. Although 20% of federal prisoners are in
private prisons as of last year [2].

The recidivism rate is even worse. In 2005 almost a half a million inmates
were tracked after their release, more than 75% were rearrested within 5
years.[3]

>financial incentives to incarcerate...

Do you have any sources for this?

[1][http://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-
the-u.s.s-g...](http://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-
the-u.s.s-growing-for-profit-detention-industry)

[2][http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/06/private-prisons-
prof...](http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/06/private-prisons-profit)

[3][http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/pages/welco...](http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/pages/welcome.aspx)

~~~
joliss
Thanks, very interesting stats!

>> financial incentives to incarcerate...

> Do you have any sources for this?

For private prisons, the Corrections Corporation of America reportedly spends
over $1 million each year on lobbying. [1][2]

Beyond private prisons, there's lobbying from prison guards' unions. For
example, the California union appears to have substantial political influence,
and in 2008 successfully spent $1.8 million to defeat a ballot initiative that
would have reduced the prison population.[3]

Further, in some municipalities, cities use fines as revenue-raising tools,
and arrest and jail people who fail to pay. See e.g. the Ferguson DOJ
report.[4]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrections_Corporation_of_Ame...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrections_Corporation_of_America#Lobbying_efforts)

[2] [http://www.diversityinc.com/diversity-management/who-
profits...](http://www.diversityinc.com/diversity-management/who-profits-from-
the-prison-boom/)

[3] [http://criminology.fsu.edu/wp-
content/uploads/volume-10-issu...](http://criminology.fsu.edu/wp-
content/uploads/volume-10-issue-31.pdf) p. 750 (PDF page 274)

[4] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-
nation/wp/2015/03/0...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-
nation/wp/2015/03/04/the-12-key-highlights-from-the-dojs-scathing-ferguson-
report/)

~~~
coldtea
> _For private prisons, the Corrections Corporation of America reportedly
> spends over $1 million each year on lobbying. [1][2]_

Why lobbying -- buying influence with money -- is legal in the US, I will
never understand...

~~~
vonmoltke
Lobbying is, as far as I know, legal in every functional democracy.

I think you are confusing this with campaign contributions, which is a
different but related activity.

~~~
coldtea
I'm not aware of lobbies, established for a specific purpose, with offices and
personel, and getting donations, in any functional democracy I know of.

~~~
vonmoltke
Lobbying in the UK sure sounds like lobbying in the US to me.[1] So does
Volkswagen's lobbying of the EU parliament.[2] Do you have an example of a
functional democracy that doesn't have lobbying like this?

[1]
[http://www.lobbyingtransparency.org/](http://www.lobbyingtransparency.org/)

[2] [https://uk.news.yahoo.com/volkswagen-scandal-puts-eu-
lobbyin...](https://uk.news.yahoo.com/volkswagen-scandal-puts-eu-lobbying-
under-spotlight-200031351.html)

------
jordigh
Huh, this article has nothing to do with how prisons are run as a for-profit
business. The prison boom began in the 1980s when Reagan and Bush privatised
them:

[http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-
unit...](http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-united-
states-big-business-or-a-new-form-of-slavery/8289)

Isn't that our smoking gun? People are being sent to prison because someone is
making a pretty penny?

~~~
calibraxis
Yes, the article says nothing, because some things are just "politically
incorrect": prison is a continuation of slavery. The drug war attacks certain
cultures. Some make money off cheap labor and government prison funding. A
country that ravages people outside the country in war, will ravage people
inside the country too. Prison is a tool to maintain a status quo by reducing
many people's freedom to resist.

If the article talked about China or Russia, it wouldn't talk about regulating
lawyers. It'd talk about the systematic incentives that make everyone (not
just lawyers) act so zealously to imprison their populace.

~~~
jordigh
Please don't use the political correctness strawman. Nobody is refusing to
talk about privatisation of prisons because of it. Many people talk about it,
and there's no evidence that the Slate article refused to talk about
privatisation from fear of offending anyone.

~~~
spacemanmatt
Much agreed that PC is a crappy straw man. I'm glad Slate is talking but I
don't think anywhere close to enough of the nation is willing to have this
conversation.

~~~
happyscrappy
Many are willing to have the conversation, but the majority want to be
_tougher_ on crime.

------
rm_-rf_slash
A common refrain you hear from law enforcement is "ignorance of the law is no
protection from breaking it."

But what if it was?

As Harvey Silverglate details in his book, "3 Felonies a Day,[1]" it is
absurdly easy to accidentally commit a federal crime and serve prison time.
The idea behind vindictive punishment is to make it so bad that you won't
commit a crime, but if people aren't aware of the liabilities, how can people
truly know their risk? Often intent has to be proven, but if it's in the
interest of the prosecutor and their career to get a conviction, they'll get a
conviction.

I think to reduce the "arrest/convict, ask questions later" approach is to
give every officer and prosecutor a publicly available scorecard that shows
their record of rightful arrests and convictions versus wrongful ones, as well
as excessive punishment sought and applied in wrongful cases.

There is a scene at the end of the hilarious murder trial film, My Cousin
Vinny, when the defense's expert witness completely shatters the prosecution's
case, and the prosecutor immediately moves to dismiss all charges. I wonder if
that would happen today?

1\.
[http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.asp...](http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx)

~~~
adekok
> A common refrain you hear from law enforcement is "ignorance of the law is
> no protection from breaking it." > > But what if it was?

It is for police and judges. See what happens if a policeman gives you a bogus
ticket. Or a judge makes a decision counter to the law. The onus is on _you_
to prove they're wrong. And there is no punishment or negative feedback on
them for breaking the law.

If the police and judges aren't required to know the law, I don't see why
anyone else needs to know it, either.

~~~
splat
This principle was explicitly upheld by the Supreme Court in Heien v. North
Carolina. A police officer pulled a car over because it had a broken brake
light. During the stop, the police officer became suspicious that the car was
carrying drugs, searched the car (with the permission of the driver) and found
cocaine.

Now, as it happens it is not illegal under North Carolina state law to have a
broken brake light, so the police officer had no basis to pull the man over in
the first place. But the Supreme Court ruled that there are so many laws out
there that a police officer cannot possibly know them all and because the
police officer believed that the defendant was breaking the law in good faith,
that was good enough for a traffic stop.

~~~
SilasX
Why would it be legal to have non working brake lights? Is car safety
equipment just optional in NC?

(Makes sense that it should be insufficient for a car search though.)

~~~
splat
I might have had it slightly wrong in my original comment. I think that only
one of his brake lights was faulty and it's not illegal to have one broken
brake light.

------
cheez
Finally. I was unfortunately victim to this (not in the US, but in Canada)
where objectively, it should have been dropped, but the prosecutor wanted to
make an example of me. The case was unbelievably flimsy, but you have no idea
the pressure you're under when you're facing opponents who have financial and
social incentives to punish you. The morning of my trial (I refused to accept
anything before then), the prosecutor was losing her shit because she could
lose, screaming and yelling at me. I literally laughed in her face, then
accepted the least possible thing that resulted in no conviction or record
without a trial. The witnesses had financial incentives to lie and I did not
have the resources to go through an appeal.

Things I heard throughout this ordeal:

    
    
      1. If you were white, this never would have happened.
      2. I cannot believe how much $witness is lying, yet you can't prove it.
    

Since this problem, I've seen the same prosecutor try and catch other people
in the same bullshit law to the point where it has been in the news. I've
countered with my own silent battle, getting politicians to talk to me and I
can say that this has directly resulted in some changes, which I'm happy
about. One of them told actually told me that he wishes I would have won so
that he could use me as an example. Can you believe it?

I gotta tell you, it's frustrating as anything I have ever experienced in my
life. But living well is the best revenge and I've got a great life.

    
    
      Oh, I posted bail? I'm out this motherfucker?
      I could go? Oh, fuck y'all, aye, fuck the judge
      Fuck the motherfuckin' District Attorney, the prosecutor
      And fuck you motherfuckers in the jury box
      Fuck all y'all 'cause I'm out on motherfuckin' bail
      Y'all ain't never gonna see me in this motherfucker again
      Drop that shit 'em
      Let these old punk ass bitches know how we runnin' this shit
      Niggaz ain't going back to court you stank ass bitches
    

I understand Tupac better now.

------
norea-armozel
I can definitely say that DAs are the biggest factor in the prison population
boom. For example, I was arrested for threatening my dad many years ago. I
could've easily gone to prison for some time but the DA was given leeway to
drop the charges entirely (with the assumption I wouldn't cause trouble for
quite some time).

If a DA's office can drop charges with little consequences then it's obvious
they can press on with the silliest of notions of meting out justice for all
of them (which they do). I think there needs to be a complete overhaul of how
criminal prosecution is done in this country.

------
lotsofcows
Do you still have "3 minor crimes" == "prison time"?

Are prisoners still forced to provide cheap "American" goods that would
otherwise come from China?

Do "Christian" groups still push for the highest technically possible sentence
against the public interest?

An odd thing to say about a slate article, but I think they're overthinking
it.

~~~
humanrebar
> Do "Christian" groups still push for the highest technically possible
> sentence against the public interest?

I've never heard that. On the contrary, many churches have jail and prison
outreach ministries (here's one I just found on google:
[http://www.theriversidechurchny.org/socialjustice/?prison](http://www.theriversidechurchny.org/socialjustice/?prison)).
One of them, Prison Fellowship (and its founder Chuck Colson) is quite large
and widely respected and supported in the Christian community
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_Fellowship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_Fellowship)).

Justice Fellowship spun off of Prison Fellowship, which specifically fights to
reform the American justice system
([http://www.justicefellowship.org/issues](http://www.justicefellowship.org/issues)).

~~~
spacemanmatt
It's easy to find self-described Christians who are extremely right-wing and
favor harsh sentences for "lawbreakers" because they see themselves as the
good people who will never break a law, and therefore never experience or
otherwise have to think about proportionality.

~~~
adrusi
Yeah but that's more tied with the "right wing" than the "Christian". Sure
there's overlap between those groups, but you won't find more left-wing
Christian groups pressing for harsher sentencing, and you _will_ find right-
wing non-christian (non-religious) groups pushing for harsher sentencing, so I
think referring to them as " Christian is really a misidentification.

------
skwirl
In summary: The theory is that from the mid 70s to the early 90s the prison
population increased due to a real increase in crime, but after that, it
increased due to prosecutors doubling the percentage of arrestees that they
charge with a felony.

I wonder if the simple explanation is that over decades the size of the
prosecutorial bureaucracy increased to deal with an actual increased work
load, but after that work load started to go down naturally, that bureaucracy
had to find a way to keep itself in business, and that was by charging
arrestees who would have been previously released.

A DA's office where people are sitting on their hands is an office that will
see budget cuts and staff reductions. We know from both government and the
private industry that almost no department will voluntarily take a budget or
staff cut, even if it is warranted.

Maybe we should try reducing the DA's budgets in some states/counties and see
what happens to crime and incarceration rates.

~~~
happyscrappy
FTFA:

>Well, the real growth in the prison population comes from county-level
district attorneys sending violent people to prison.

If the article's conclusion was the title it would not even be on HN.

------
dsummerlin
There are so many complicated variables in this, but one thing that is crucial
to point out is that he keeps referring to state prisons, which is
intentionally misleading because many many drug offenders end up in federal
prisons, where they make up 48.4%
([https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offen...](https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp))
of the population. That alone makes a lot of this guy's commentary suspect,
and since he didn't even mention race or private prisons as a possible factor
it really tanks the smell test on this new theory of his.

~~~
danielvf
Federal prisons make up less than 10% of the US prison population. It's almost
irrelevant in terms of the total prison population.

------
kijin
> _And if we focused on cutting back sentence lengths, maybe that would weaken
> DAs’ bargaining power at plea bargaining, but since people aren’t serving
> the massively long sentences anyway, it probably won’t have that big an
> effect on prison population either._

So Mr. Pfaff believes that overzealous DAs have caused the prison population
to skyrocket, but quickly dismisses the one proposal that could actually help
solve the problem.

This seems like a classic case of "My answer, and only my answer, is correct.
All other answers are wrong, even if they are compatible with my answer."

> _You can’t necessarily go to Washington and say, ‘Here’s the law that’s
> going to control what the DAs do,’ because they don’t have to listen to the
> federal government at all. "_

Yes, you can. Getting rid of ridiculously long mandatory sentences will make a
DA sound a lot less convincing when he threatens the defendant to accept a
plea bargain _or else_. If fewer defendants accept plea bargains, the DA will
have to go to trial more often, which costs a lot of time and money. This
gives DAs a strong incentive not to charge too many people.

There is no justice in a legal system where one side is free to threaten the
other side to waive their Constitutional right to a day in court. I don't
think we will ever achieve perfect equality of bargaining power between the
state and an individual citizen, but tweaking the incentive structure in this
way would be a promising first step toward reducing that gap.

------
voxadam
One avenue for improvement that I see is the elimination of mandatory
minimums. Mandatory minimums are, in my ever so humble opinion, a blaten
violation of the spirit of the United States Constitution re separation of
powers, and the elimination of such sentencing requirements giving way, once
again, to true judicial discretion would go a long way toward remedying
things.

------
mtreis86
I think the line between criminals and civilians has blurred. Too many people
live their daily lives while technically committing crimes.

~~~
atom-morgan
The only difference between me and many criminals is they were caught in the
act. Even Obama is an example of this [1].

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/world/americas/24iht-
dems....](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/world/americas/24iht-
dems.3272493.html)

------
abloodywar
Prison industrial complex (private prisons), debtors prison and war on drugs
are three things I can come up with off the top of my head.

------
twic
The article tentatively points the finger at the fact that prosecutors are
elected, and that being a prosecutor is a step towards higher elected office.

The fact that the US elects prosecutors, and judges, is _incredibly strange_.
Surely it could only possibly be a terrible, catastrophic idea? You want
prosecutors and judges to be professional, impartial, and independent, which
is exactly what elected politicians aren't.

Are there any other countries which elect their judges or prosecutors? How did
the US get like this? Are Americans aware of how odd this is?

The Economist has some funny stories about it:

[http://www.economist.com/news/united-
states/21613276-theyre-...](http://www.economist.com/news/united-
states/21613276-theyre-not-politicians-so-they-shouldnt-act-them-trouble-
electing-judges)

------
Bjartr
In the discussions here I keep seeing 8% mentioned as the proportion of
prisoners held by private prisons. I wanted a little more context for that
number so I found the absolute numbers.

Total US Prison Population[0]: 2,400,000

Private US Prison Population: 200,000

[0] As of 2008, if someone has more recent numbers please comment.

------
jb613
TLDR: it wasn't the crime waves, it wasn't longer prison sentences, it wasn't
the declared war on drugs - it's that the probability that a district attorney
files a felony charge against an arrestee goes from about 1 in 3, to 2 in 3

~~~
jb613
Professor John Pfaff prescribes as the solution:

"What makes it very hard is that the person we really need to target now—whose
behavior we need to regulate—is the district attorney, and the district
attorney is a very politically independent figure. He’s directly elected, and
he’s directly elected at the county level. So there’s no big centralized fix.
You can’t necessarily go to Washington and say, ‘Here’s the law that’s going
to control what the DAs do,’ because they don’t have to listen to the federal
government at all."

However, this is not only anti-democratic but anti to the entire American
system of decentralized government.

------
danielvf
I was surprised that almost everything that I'd heard about prisons in the US
was wrong. (I went digging into source documents to confirm the below.)

\- US prison population is declining in both absolute and relative numbers,
even as the population is growing. [1]

\- The prison population skews strongly toward violence. I totaled up the
numbers from my own state's prisons[2]:

    
    
      51% - HOMICIDE, SEXUAL ASSAULT, ROBBERY, ASSAULT, KIDNAPPING
      21% - BURGLARY, LARCENY, STOLEN VEHICLE, FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY, FORGERY/COUNTERFEITING
      17% - DRUGS
      11% - Other
    

\- The violent offender percentage is increasing over time, while the drug
related charges are decreasing.

\- Federal prisons make up less than 10% of the US prison population, and have
a very different composition, and legal pathway for getting there. Any
statistic you see that is about only "Federal" prisons or prisoners is next to
meaningless in the context of the US prison population.

\- The percentage of US incarcerated that are in privately owned prisons is
actual lower than the quoted 8%, and is actually somewhere around 5-6%. (Both
TFA and Wikipedia make the mistake of thinking that Federal Prisons + State
prisons equals all US prisoners. The are forgetting about local jails, which
account for roughly 25% of US prisoners.)

\- Prisons contain far more convicted murderers than you could think possible.
People with lesser charges leave soon, and people with murder convictions stay
for a long time. 15% of my state's prison population is in with either life or
more than 30 years.[3] 50% of my state's prisoners are serving more than a ten
year term.[3] But at the same time the intake numbers look entirely different
- most people arriving have less than a 2 year term and only 1.3% of arrivals
last year had a 30 year or more sentence. [4]

[1]
[http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf](http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf)

[2]
[http://www.doc.sc.gov/pubweb/research/InmatePopulationStatsT...](http://www.doc.sc.gov/pubweb/research/InmatePopulationStatsTrend/ASOFTrendMSOFY11-15.pdf)

[3]
[http://www.doc.sc.gov/pubweb/research/InmatePopulationStatsT...](http://www.doc.sc.gov/pubweb/research/InmatePopulationStatsTrend/ASOFTrendSentenceLengthDistributionFY11-15.pdf)

[4]
[http://www.doc.sc.gov/pubweb/research/AdmissionsTrend/Admiss...](http://www.doc.sc.gov/pubweb/research/AdmissionsTrend/AdmissionTrendSentenceLengthDistributionFY11-15.pdf)

~~~
brohee
What makes a convicted murderer doesn't always implies killing anyone, as in
the case of the burglars charged and condemned for murder after the death of
their accomplice, killed by a homeowner...

Numbers on "murderers" who didn't kill anyone would be interresting.

------
gozmike
Did anyone else notice the URL of this article?

[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/0...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/02/mass_incarceration_a_provocative_new_theory_for_why_so_many_americans_are.single.html)

In case you missed it, the HTML file linked to is "A provocative new theory
for why so many americans are single"

It may be early morning, but I find that amusing :)

------
chim3
"new theory"

~~~
happyscrappy
FTA:

>Well, the real growth in the prison population comes from county-level
district attorneys sending violent people to prison.

------
interesting_att
The professor interviewed in this article argues that the rise in prison
population can only partly be explained by the common theories (an actual
crime wave in the 80s, drug criminalization, and mandatory minimums).

He argues that one of the biggest factors of the prison boom is with the DA
having to be 'tough on crime' to further future political ambitions. I don't
think anyone can argue with this, as historically being 'tough on crime' has
been a vote getter.

A few other factors I think are worthy of considering:

1) The financial incentives of the for profit prison system (which includes
for profit prisons, prison guard unions, bail bond industry) which advocates
for harsher sentences.

2) The political incentives of having a larger prison population. Many
congressmen fight to have a prison in their district for two main reasons.
First, it brings jobs to their community. Second, and more importantly, it
increases the count of people who they 'represent' even though the felons are
not allowed to vote!

3) The criminalization of mental illness- We used to heavily fund mental
hospitals. This has been chipped away dramatically starting in the 1980s.

4) Average lifespan of prisoners increasing- I would assume that the average
prisoner's lifespan is increasing, hence a bigger prison population. No real
evidence to back this up.

5) Drug criminalization leads to more criminals- The professor argues that the
population who are in prison for drugs alone is only a small percentage, and
that the rest are due violent crimes and property crimes. This is misleading
as drug criminalization naturally leads to more criminal activities in other
fields. By pushing drugs underground, a group of people will be inevitably
become comfortable with the underground. Secondly, drug criminalization leads
to higher drug prices, which leads to more property crimes to fuel addiction.
Lastly, drug criminalization means people are less likely to get help for
their drug problems, increasing the chances they will become socially
maladaptive and more likely to develop violent behaviors.

6) The gutting of public defenders- Tied to what the professor argued but
surprisingly not really mentioned. Public defenders are extremely underfunded,
hence a high likelihood of losing your court case. This in turn leads to a
higher prison population.

7) Discrimination against prisoners- As our economy gets more and more
competitive, and as background information becomes easier to obtain, it is
getting harder and harder for prisoners to get a job. Tied to point #5, a
person who would be arrested for drugs could have his future economic career
ruined. He has a higher likelihood of reverting back to crime, hence a higher
prison population.

8) The removal and policing of public space- One thing I noticed is that
public spaces (i.e. parks, stoops, etc) have been routinely removed to make
space for private retail. It's way easier to call the cops when you are
angering the property owner than if you are on public property. And in those
public spaces, you are subject to way more laws (i.e. public intoxication). So
it should be no surprise that we have a higher prison population if we're
systematically policing more and more areas.

Many of these problems stem back to Reagan in the 1980s with America took a
decidedly right-wing turn. Glad to see society is finally changing what it
thinks about the over-criminalization of society.

~~~
bluedino
>> The political incentives of having a larger prison population. Many
congressmen fight to have a prison in their district for two main reasons.
First, it brings jobs to their community.

Nobody wants a prison in their community. And nobody wants to work in a
prison.

~~~
omegaham
I disagree - prisons bring large numbers of jobs to otherwise economically
depressed areas. If your options are working at Burger King or working at a
prison with benefits, guaranteed overtime, and opportunity for advancement,
you'll take the prison gig.

My girlfriend has worked corrections at the state and county level. She hated
county but enjoyed the state work.

------
happyscrappy
>Well, the real growth in the prison population comes from county-level
district attorneys sending violent people to prison.

~~~
LesZedCB
Except it never answered why the DA's are sending more people to prison. That
sort of begs the question, right? The best conclusion the author came up with
was:

> Maybe it’s that next election they’re looking at, that they remain tough on
> crime because they want to become attorney general or governor. There’s no
> clear data on this.

which is a super weak answer. As jordigh said above, it's because prisons are
now largely run for profit. Most people who were already aware of the large
prison population _already knew_ that for-profit prisons was the reason this
phenomenon occurred. Honestly, this article sounds like a propaganda piece to
serve as a red herring for the for-profit prison industry to keep chugging
along.

~~~
happyscrappy
I know people don't want to hear it but private prisons are only 8%, but keep
on believing what you need to.

