
Who’s to Blame for Mass Incarceration? - sergeant3
http://bostonreview.net/books-ideas/donna-murch-michael-javen-fortner-black-silent-majority
======
cjensen
David Brooks recently did a column on incarceration rates. It's a useful
column because it cites facts.

He reports that the clear cause of increased incarceration is this:
prosecutors now bring charges against two out of every three people arrested.
That's double the charge rate from 20 years ago.

Brooks states that he doesn't know why the change has occurred, and reports
some of the theories he has heard.

One of the facts he cites is that just 20% of incarcerations are from drug
charges. He dismisses that as not the cause, which is plainly correct. I would
nitpick and say that it is a potential contributing factor worth examining
more closely to see how much of that 20% is due to less-serious charges.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/opinion/david-brooks-
the-p...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/opinion/david-brooks-the-prison-
problem.html?_r=0)

~~~
danielvf
Also note that in both absolute numbers and relative to total population, the
number of people incarcerated in the US has been going down for the last
several years.

------
makecheck
I actually don't understand prison sentence lengths at all.

1\. Why is prison time measured in _years_?!? I can't even list all the things
I've done in the last year. I can't imagine being confined to a few square
blocks for ten or twenty or thirty times that length of time, especially when
it does not _only_ cause loss of freedom (which was supposedly the only
intent) but a _greatly_ reduced quality of _life_ (e.g. endangerment, and even
small things like having worse meals all the time).

2\. Why is prison even _considered_ for young people? People do stupid things
when they're young; they don't always know better. You can't tell me that
someone who's 20, who's barely had a chance to live alone for "years", should
suddenly be told to spend "years" living with strangers for (most likely) some
petty crime. Great recipe for development there.

3\. Why do we have bail? Oh, you're rich? Great, leave; otherwise, stay in
jail until your trial. And since the system is so damned efficient, who knows
how long that will be. Oh, and those in charge occasionally forget about
people[1] after they're detained.

4\. Why isn't community service the _number one penalty_ for most crimes,
especially minor offenses? And, why isn't the bar being significantly lowered
for what constitutes a minor offense?

[1] [http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/us/california-forgotten-
prison...](http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/us/california-forgotten-prisoner/)

~~~
darkroasted
" _Why is prison even considered for young people?_ "

Here are some crimes I've seen in the news:

* A man was shot and killed during a robbery while he was getting robbed. He begged for them to not shoot him and they put one more bullet in his chest. The perps were 15. [http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Arrest-Questioned-...](http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Arrest-Questioned-Killing-Dad-Stuhlman-Walking-Dog-Overbrook-296849631.html)

* A kid at a local school was gang beaten by other students, had teeth knocked out, and was concussed. He was beaten because of a "mistaken identity" Here is a video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjC7yd1OaAk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjC7yd1OaAk)

So what should be done in the case of these offenders? If not jail, then what?
Clearly these perpetrators are too dangerous to coexist in civilized society.
So there has to be some form of punishment, and some form of separation. I
would be ok with sending them to work on a farm instead of prison, but I'm
pretty sure that others would describe that as being "forced labor camps" and
would rail against that too.

~~~
makecheck
Well my first question would be (and this doesn't seem to be the first
question that "justice" systems ask), what situations are these kids in?

I'm not saying that the situation completely excuses a severe punishment but
when you looked at stories like these, did you even _wonder_ :

\- Maybe this kind of robbery has happened to _them_ , or to their friends,
family or neighbors. It's not hard to imagine someone turning cold after
seeing bad things happen to loved ones.

\- Maybe they know something that the store owner did and it was a kind of
"mob justice". (I'm not justifying them shooting the guy. Yet, based _solely_
on the knowledge that the owner was begging for his life, you don't know
enough about the situation to understand why the kids shot him.)

\- Are these things happening because of other factors? Economics are
frequently a reason. I can imagine giving a lot less of a crap about society
if I was dirt poor and I couldn't see any way to make it better.

I think the _first_ solution they should consider is if they can make the
perpetrator's life _better_. Prison makes it undeniably worse; ironically, if
being poor got them into prison, they'll probably be even worse off after
prison (what with people refusing to hire convicts and such).

~~~
darkroasted
Honest question: how familiar are you with the actual history of these
problems, and the actual situation on the ground? Have you read anything
beyond standard zeitgeist sources (sociology classes, NYTimes, Economist),
etc?

The dominant social policy of the last 65 years has been that crime and
disorder can be cured by addressing "root causes" which means material
deprivation, lack of school funding, lack of housing, a school curriculum that
was not culturally attuned, etc.

So first in the 50s, 60s and 70s they built public housing, upped welfare
spending, eliminated corporal punishment in the schools, and greatly reduced
punishment and police enforcement. Here is a poster from the time:
[http://www.newyork.com/articles/wp-
content/uploads/2015/09/a...](http://www.newyork.com/articles/wp-
content/uploads/2015/09/affordable-new-york-mcny_250.jpg)

This was a disaster. The welfare spending incentivized women to not get
married and to stay on the dole, because you would lose benefits if you got
married or got a job. The public housing was not policed at all and was
destroyed by the rougher element in the population. Crime skyrocketed. Youths
would commit muggings at gun point and end up back on the streets with nothing
more than probation.

Then there was a ham-fisted backlash starting in the mid-1970s but really
coming into effect in the 80s and 90s. Unfortunately, rather than emphasis
consistent discipline and enforcement from the get go, the backlash was more
about "three strikes" and using drug offenses as proxy crimes. Even in
schools, getting tough meant suspensions, which is not much of a punishment to
a roguish street urchin.

So if you look at the situation now, you have kids growing up in homes which
are violent and where they don't get punished if they roam the streets and
bully other kids. Then you have those kids go to schools that are full of
disorder, and where if they cause trouble they just sent to the principals
office and then go right back into the classroom. Or maybe they get suspended
for a few days. Big whoop, that is only a punishment if you care about school.
Gangs are allowed to openly sell drugs on the street. So by age 15 your role
models are gang members, you have never been subject to real discipline, you
have been fighting others or being assaulted your whole life. And then they
commit some heinous crime. At that point, the 15-year-old cannot be permitted
to coexist in normal society. Giving them money or something is not going to
magically make them civilized when they have spent their live growing up in a
barbarous environment. It's not the 15-year-old-murderers fault in the cosmic
sense that he was born into such a wild environment. But the fact remains that
he his too dangerous to be permitted to roam the streets freely.

But of course I absolutely agree that the problem needs to be addressed
earlier. We need to figure out a way that these kids are an environment with
order, that is with safety, security, and discipline from the day they are
born.

------
coldtea
\- Puritanism, with its emphasis on revenge and guilt and Old Testament morals
(the zero tolerance thing, death penalty etc).

\- Slavery and racism (and it's consequences over several generations starting
out as uneducated, dead-poor, suspect below second-rate citizens when freed,
and held down with several tactics, from Jim Crow laws and plain old
segregation until the 70s, to lack of finance options, poorly funded school
districts, employee discrimination, etc.

\- Profit, from mass incarceration, the private prison complex, and the whole
thing.

\- Crappy laws (three strikes, drug laws, etc).

\- An increasingly touchy and litigation happy society (from right wing "tough
on crime" people, to P.C. advocates pushing against though crimes, etc).

\- A state increasingly intervening and regulating all previously free aspects
of life, down to collecting rain water in your own yard...

------
qwerty85344324
Crime rates have plummeted since we have started being "tough on crime". We
are all much safer than we were decades ago. Isn't our incarceration system
working? What's the issue here?

[http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/figure_...](http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/figure_3.jpg)

~~~
ryandrake
You'd need to show a causal relationship to make that argument.

~~~
happyscrappy
More criminals behind bars, lower crime. It may not fit your narrative but it
should not be hard to understand.

~~~
ryandrake
I'm not arguing for any particular "narrative" although you seem to be.

You seem to be suggesting that more criminals behind bars leads to lower
crime. Is there any evidence that this is true? Could this be a coincidence,
or could there be some other factor lowering crime? Are you jumping to
conclusions based on your own favorite narrative?

The OP similarly lists two facts and then jumps to the same conclusion: Crime
rates have plummeted, and we are all much safer than we were decades ago.
(Therefore) our incarceration system working?

I think to make that claim one must "show one's work".

~~~
happyscrappy
>Could this be a coincidence

It could be aliens, but Occams razor. Criminals cannot commit crimes if they
are in prison. It is quite revealing that people willfully deny that and the
narrative is the cop is the perp and the perp is the victim.

------
leroy_masochist
TLDR, this is a very critical review of a book that argues that the draconian
Rockefeller anti-drug laws passed in NY State in the 1970's were not only
strongly supported by the African-American community, but would likely not
have passed without said community's support.

The author's response to the review is equally long and detailed [0]. I
recommend reading both if you have the time.

[0]: [http://bostonreview.net/books-ideas/response-michael-
javen-f...](http://bostonreview.net/books-ideas/response-michael-javen-
fortner-donna-murch-black-silent-majority)

~~~
krapp
Congratulations on being the first commenter in three hours and 60-odd replies
to have apparently read the actual article.

------
debacle
The answer is "everyone."

* The people who elected "tough on crime" DAs and politicians.

* The DAs who got every conviction they could and the harshest sentencing possible to show how they're "cleaning up the streets."

* The politicians who voted for mandatory minimum sentencing.

* The judges for being punitive rather than rehabilitative.

* The media for painting a very distorted picture of modern America.

The US is never going to fix itself as long as it continues to be a culture of
fear, blame, hate, and ignorance.

~~~
mc32
Pretty much, yes, everyone. But the years of just say no and imprisonment
favored over treatment for drugs use, surely did not help. Some exacerbating
reasons is that politicians and the people they represent get to regulate
sentencing rather than social scientists and criminologists, so you get people
scared by drug addiction wanting to keep it from getting to their kids driving
the general sentiment.

I understand people in a democracy want control of their social fate, but, in
many cases level headed reason based on studies and good policy would be
better.

I'm glad were having a moment of sanity when it comes to drugs, addiction, and
law.

And lest it not be clear, most people of all ethnicities who saw drugs as a
plague saw jailing of offenders as the primary solution to the problem. That's
to say people of few means but able to avoid the drugs issue also saw this as
a law and order get them off the streets issue --in some ways because it was
the only answer available.

------
mason240
The criminals committing the crimes.

~~~
deelowe
Well, this one's settled. Evidently, people are just evil and there's nothing
that can be done about it.

Or, ya know, perhaps there's a reason why some culture have insanely higher
incarceration rates than others?

~~~
necessity
There is a reason for higher incarceration rates: they commit more crimes
proportionally.

It is easy to put the blame on "evil racist cops" and whatnot, it is much
harder to stop ignoring the issue that a small part of the population
represents a vast amount of the criminals and start thinking about real
solutions. What are the causes of the violence? There is welfare to those who
need it, there are opportunities for those who work for it. Is it an
economical issue, a social/cultural one? Perhaps prison life is "comfortable"
compared to working your ass off, perhaps education is lacking, perhaps a bit
of everything, and so forth...

~~~
cottonseed
> There is a reason for higher incarceration rates: they commit more crimes
> proportionally.

That's not true. At least not when it comes to drug use, blacks and white use
drugs at similar rates [0]. Asymmetric enforcement is another explanation.

[0]
[http://c1.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/pic_corner_07101...](http://c1.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/pic_corner_071014_samhsa.jpg)

~~~
CWuestefeld
I don't think drug _usage_ is the right metric, though.

I believe that the law enforcement strategy is a concentration on drug
dealers; prosecution of _users_ is pretty much incidental, used to enhance
sentences for other crimes as much as anything else.

If prosecution of _dealers_ is the policy, then you'd need to show that blacks
and whites _sell_ drugs at similar rates. I have no idea whether or not that's
true...

~~~
modoc
And the other thing is the related factors that make them more or less likely
to be caught or noticed by the law. There's counter examples I'm sure, but
dealers who service more upper crust types (who in the US are more likely to
be white) are frankly less likely to show up on the radar and less likely to
have a dime dropped on them by a client who's bag was a little light. It's
like streetwalkers vs escorts listed on TER vs companions that you'd need a
gold clad personal introduction to even know they exist. The higher up the
ladder you go, the more discrete all parties tend to be.

------
breitling
As an outsider, here is my view: The government builds certain services with
the intent that hopefully as few people need them as possible. Such as
Prisons, Hospitals, etc. The government is motivated to make an effort to
ensure people don't end up there.

When prisons are privatized and profit-driven, what motivation does one have
to keep people away from them? This is not a co-incidence that the US has a
high rate of incarceration and the prisons are privatized. From what I see and
hear, there is little effort in rehabilitating prisoners, they're just being
punished.

Does anyone know the rate of US prisoners re-offending? I'd wager that it's
quite high compared to other countries where rehabilitation is the prime
purpose of prisons.

~~~
rayiner
[https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/181249.pdf](https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/181249.pdf).
In 1987, there were only 3,100 prisoners in for-profit prisons _world wide_.
Between 1960 and 1987, the U.S. incarceration rate doubled, while the violent
crime rate almost quadrupled. The chronology makes clear that the increase in
incarceration was, up until the late 1990's, driven by dramatically higher
crime, and that prison privatization was a follow-on effect from companies
taking advantage of the government's need to house increasing numbers of
prisoners.

Sometime in the late 1990's, the incarceration rate caught up to the violent
crime rate. Crime rate started going down in the late 1990's, while
incarceration rate started to go down only in the last few years. It's
reasonable to argue that the for-profit prison industry has played a role in
keeping incarceration from decreasing in step with crime.

------
ivanca
Always follow the money (for-profit prisons):
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/28/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/28/how-
for-profit-prisons-have-become-the-biggest-lobby-no-one-is-talking-about/)

~~~
DanBC
How many prisons are for profit? How many prisoners are in for profit prisons?

~~~
Lawtonfogle
How many prisons, while not for profit, are largely staffed and have services
met by for profit entities?

~~~
DanBC
Why would that distort the prisoner population in the US but not anywhere else
that has private interest invesment in prisons?

------
falsestprophet
"Who’s to Blame for Mass Incarceration?" is a review of the book Black Silent
Majority: The Rockefeller Drug Laws and the Politics of Punishment about New
York state drug laws and their impact on the black community.

Are drugs laws the cause of "mass incarceration" of blacks in the United
States?

The review article does not offer any statistics. Here are some from the US
Bureau of Justice Statistics (a federal agency belonging to the DOJ) about
state prisoners with sentences over one year (state sentences of less than a
year are general served in county jails).

Only 4% of black state prisoners are sentenced for cases where the most
serious offense is drug possession.

Only a further 11.9% of black state prisoners are sentenced for cases where
the most serious offense is other drug crimes including trafficking.

58.3% of black state prisoners are sentenced for cases where the most serious
offense is violent crime (including 12% for murder)... 16% for property
crimes... 9.5% for public order crimes.

States account for over 92% of prisoners. Though over 50% of federal prisoners
are sentence for cases where the most serious offense is drug crimes.

If no one was sentenced for cases where drugs crimes were the most serious
offense, then 85% of black state prisoners would still be imprisoned. So, that
wouldn't solve the problem of black "mass incarceration" in US state prisons.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statics
[http://imgur.com/sE1D137](http://imgur.com/sE1D137)
[http://felonvoting.procon.org/sourcefiles/USBJS%20-Prisoners...](http://felonvoting.procon.org/sourcefiles/USBJS%20-Prisoners%20in%202013.pdf)

~~~
joesmo
"If no one was sentenced for cases where drugs crimes were the most serious
offense, then 85% of black state prisoners would still be imprisoned. So, that
wouldn't solve the problem of black "mass incarceration" in US state prisons."

This is a gross misunderstanding of the war on drugs that only takes into
account the percentage of people who are in prison simply for drug charges.
There is a lot more drug-related crime that would not exist if no one was
imprisoned for drug crimes anymore so the statistic is simply useless.

~~~
0x49
What drug-related crime would not exist? I seriously doubt the legalization of
anything is going to change this (unless you get rid of our law system
entirely).

The illegal drug market will always exist, regardless of legalization. Why?
Anything legalized will be regulated and taxed and many people will still find
it easier to go around both.

~~~
joesmo
A lot of theft, burglary, robbery, assault, murder, etc. would simply not
exist or be marginalized just like they are currently for alcohol. It's been
awhile since I heard of a shootout over booze distribution. Yes, there is
still a black market for alcohol, but the crime surrounding it is a tiny
fraction of what it was during prohibition. No one denies that violence
related to alcohol dropped dramatically after prohibition and obviously, the
same thing will happen to other drugs as they're not special.

~~~
0x49
The crime dropped after prohibition because the FBI became a bigger part of
preventing crime and rooted out all of the police corruption. Violence in
Mexico will continue, unless the government can prevent any cop, judge, or
agent from being bought.

Drugs arent special as you say, but they also arent the cause of the violence.
Gangs will still be violent and kill each other. It will just be over
something new. So yes, we might see a decrease in drug-related violence (im
still not convinced of this though), but we will see an increase in violence
related to something else being traded on the black market.

I also have a hard time seeing crack or meth being legalized when many people
still sue the cigarette companies for giving them cancer. I think tort reform
is also needed.

