Much of the discussion surrounding the size of the U.S. prison population fails to take into account the role of crime rates. Research has found that certain policies lead to harsher punishments for crimes and that these policies can vary between states. A key example is the use of strict sentencing laws and prosecutors’ growing tendency to seek felony charges for crimes, both of which have been used to explain the massive growth in the number of American prisoners over the past several decades.

Underlying all of this is the idea that certain policies are responsible for high rates of imprisonment, meaning that some states are more punitive than others. But we haven’t been able to measure how exactly this varies between states and what is responsible for the change. A new report from the Pew Charitable Trusts attempts to solve this dilemma. Researchers at Pew created a new calculation called the punishment rate, which looks at the connection between crime rates and incarceration levels to determine which states tend to punish criminals more than others based on the frequency and severity of crime.

Read More: The Punishment Rate: A New Way to Look at the U.S. Prison System

The Pew Charitable Trusts study ranks states based on their punishment rates to see which are the most punitive. The researchers found that as incarceration rates rose dramatically between 1983 and 2013, so too did punishment rates but that increase varied widely among  states.

The map below shows the Pew Charitable Trusts’ calculations for the change in punishment rates between 1983 and 2013. Darker red colors indicate a greater positive change.

If reading on mobile, use landscape view for best results or open the map in a new tab.

As the map indicates, Colorado experienced the largest change in its punishment rate between 1983 and 2013, going up 417 percent over the 30-year period. While all states saw their punishment rates increase over this period the increases were more modest in some–in states like North and South Carolina the punishment rate went up by less than 20 percent.

It’s important to note that the punishment rate measure does have its drawbacks, most notably the fact that it can’t account for drug-related imprisonment in its crime rate weighting–meaning that states with strict drug laws but low levels of other crimes are rated as more punitive because such crimes aren’t accounted for in the crime rate statistics. This is because the FBI data used to measure crime rates does not track every crime that can be punished with jail time. The researchers acknowledge this but argue that the measurement still provides insight into the larger trends at play and will hopefully prompt states to take a closer at whether their policies lead to excessive punishment for certain crimes.

While the map above highlights the states that saw the largest changes in their punishment rates, it’s also interesting to look at where each state currently stands. Pew Charitable Trusts ranks each state based on its punishment rate in 2013, the most recent year with the necessary data available. See the chart below for the full rankings by state.

If on reading mobile, use landscape view for best results.

When it comes to the rankings, most states with high punishment rates also have high incarceration rates, meaning that the imprisonment rate is often a good way to determine how punitive many states are. However, the researchers did find several outliers. In their report, the researchers find 17 states whose punishment rate ranking differs from their incarceration rate ranking by more than 10 spots, illustrating a punishment mismatch. They conclude:

Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming each ranked much higher in their punishment rates than in their imprisonment rates. In other words, these states punished crime significantly more than their imprisonment rates show. The opposite was true for Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Nevada, and New Mexico.

These findings show that simply looking at the incarceration rates does not provide the full picture when it comes to how punitive a state is. A state may have a high rate of incarceration, but that might also be related to relatively high levels of serious crime. Looking at punishment rates help us understand which states have policies that tend to be more punitive, and hopefully, this will lead policymakers to determine whether such punishments are truly appropriate.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Which States are the Most Punitive When it Comes to Crime? appeared first on Law Street.

The number of prisoners under federal jurisdiction decreased for the first time since 1980, according to a recent report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Attorney General Eric Holder praised the new statistics Tuesday and announced that an even larger decline, as many as 10,000 prisoners, is projected to come over the next two years. Holder’s speech, a keynote address to the New York University School of Law, took place just two days before he announced his resignation, highlighting one of the largest achievements during his tenure as the nation’s top prosecutor.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were roughly 1,900 fewer federal prisoners at year end in 2013 than there were at the same point in 2012. However, this drop was offset by an increase in the number of inmates in state prisons, which had roughly 6,300 more prisoners in 2013 than the previous year. A total of 28 states saw population increases in state prisons, which led to the first net increase in the total U.S. inmate population (federal and state) since its peak in 2009.

The chart below shows the trends for both state and federal prisons over the last 35 years.

Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2013 Report

The U.S. prison population went from roughly 307,000 in 1978 to more than 1.5 million in 2013, an increase greater than 400 percent. Many attribute this dramatic growth to the “tough on crime” policies that dominated criminal justice legislation from the mid-1980s to the early-2000s.

Smart on Crime

The recent statistics come just over a year after Attorney General Eric Holder announced his Smart on Crime Initiative, which aims to increase sentencing fairness and offer alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent criminals. The initiative gained significant momentum earlier this year when the U.S. Sentencing Commission voted to reduce mandatory sentencing guidelines for drug crimes in April. Shortly after that, the commission made the new guidelines retroactive, allowing as many as 50,000 prisoners to have their sentences reduced starting in 2015.

“This is nothing less than historic,” Holder said of the federal prisoner decrease on Tuesday in a keynote address at the Brennan Center for Justice. In his speech, he emphasized the new Smart on Crime policies and argued that they are starting to have some measurable effects.

In addition to last year’s decline, Holder said that the number of federal inmates is projected to drop by roughly 2,000 in the next year and by nearly 10,000 by the end of 2016, according to internal numbers from the Bureau of Prisons.

The consequences of this decline are significant for several reasons. Recent studies have argued that decreasing the prison population will not cause significant increases in crime rates.

“High incarceration rates and longer-than-necessary prison terms have not played a significant role in materially improving public safety, reducing crime, or strengthening communities.”

-Attorney General Eric Holder

Reducing the prison population is seen as a civil rights issue, as sentencing for drug crimes is widely seen as unfair to minorities. Reform advocates like the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) often cite the disproportionate amount of minorities who are arrested for drug crimes. According to the DPA:

Although rates of drug use and selling are comparable across racial lines, people of color are far more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated for drug law violations than are whites.

Arrest disparities combined with troubling recidivism statistics may indicate that long prison sentences are not always the best solution for nonviolent criminals. However, not everyone is in favor of decreasing the number of inmates, as some continue to argue that high incarceration rates were an important factor to America’s falling crime rates.

The high incarceration rate has also created a significant economic burden for the federal and state governments. According to a report from the Congressional Research Service, the cost per inmate in federal prisons was $29,291 in 2013, an increase of over 35 percent since 2000. In 2010 alone, the United States spent nearly $80 billion on incarceration in federal and state prisons.

The economic and civil rights issues connected to growth in the prison population have created bipartisan support for reform. Senators Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) cosponsored the Smarter Sentencing Act of 2014, which aims to reduce the influence of mandatory minimums in the sentencing process. The bill, which a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office said could save more than $4 billion, would give judges more discretion in the sentencing process, allowing them to decide penalties on a case-by-case basis.

While the future of sentencing reform and the size of the prison population are not yet certain, supporters like Attorney General Holder proudly claim that change is coming:

Clearly, criminal justice reform is an idea whose time has come. And thanks to a robust and growing national consensus… we are bringing about a paradigm shift, and witnessing a historic sea change, in the way our nation approaches these issues.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fewer Federal Inmates for the First Time in Decades appeared first on Law Street.

You’d think that $68 billion would go a long way. According to the Justice Policy Institute, that is how much the United States spends on its criminal justice system every year – and we get what we pay for. The United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population, yet it claims 25 percent of the world’s incarcerated population. This staggering number is among the reasons that bipartisanship may make a comeback in U.S. politics. Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Rand Paul (R-KY) have partnered up to cosponsor the REDEEM Act in an effort to tackle the confused American criminal justice system.

What Does Criminal Justice Reform Look Like?

Booker and Paul’s REDEEM Act – short for the Record Expungement Designed to Enhance Employment Act of 2014 – is meant to restructure sentencing and incarceration in the United States. The bill’s name alludes to the sealing and expungement of criminal records, which are often obstacles in finding employment for ex-convicts.

The bill would allow nonviolent, adult offenders to “to petition a court and make their case” for sealing their criminal records, and for the automatic sealing and expungement of certain juvenile records. The legislation would also introduce additional reforms to the juvenile justice system and the food stamps program.

Why is the U.S. criminal justice system in such disarray? University of Michigan Professor Salomon Orellana claims that our two-party system is partly to blame. In a guest article in the Washington Post, Orellana says that “when both parties (in a two-party system) emphasize toughness it sends a message to the public that toughness is the only legitimate response to crime.” The Republican-Democratic split favors quick-fixes, and their “tough on crime” attitude is the quick-fix America that has been failing with for the past few decades.

Orellana references New Zealand’s shift from a two-party system to one with multiple political parties. He notes that media discussion of tough policies in response to crime were less prominent in the new system. He says, “Under the multiparty system, minor parties received much more attention and consequently a wider variety of positions emerged.” In the case of New Zealand, the debate was changed for the better.

Bipartisanship is, in a way, America’s own third party. Its efforts are rarely popular on the national level but gets a lot of media attention when it happens. However, it’s possible that the REDEEM Act, and criminal justice reform in general, will provide a good opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to work together. The bill’s aisle-crossing authors make such partnerships seem promising, and not just because they are of opposite parties.

Booker and Paul are both extremely popular. Senator Booker gained state-wide celebrity status and makes an effort to work with members of the GOP when possible. Senator Paul has the name recognition of his father, former Congressman Ron Paul, and made noise himself with a unique Republican stance and a legendary filibuster. Both are revered by young people and boast enormous twitter fanbases. As rising stars within their party their actions have received a lot of attention lately, particularly when they attempt to reach across the aisle.

What Should Criminal Justice Reform Sound Like?

Despite its bipartisan co-sponsorship, the REDEEM Act has not broken the “tough on crime” barrier just yet. In an interview with Politico, Booker and Paul sat together to discuss their partnership. Booker remarked that, “it’s no longer this juxtaposition between tough on crime and public safety… You can be tough on crime and lower recidivism rates by doing common sense things.” While Booker’s statement is relatively bold, he still holds onto what should be antiquated rhetoric.

Perpetuating the same discussion that fostered American mass incarceration is a mistake. It would be healthier to foster a political discussion that rejects “tough on crime” as a legitimate response to issues that handcuff our criminal justice system. Because such rhetoric antagonizes those without opportunity, a complete attitudinal shift is necessary.

Professor Michelle Alexander details the history of “tough on crime” policies and the state of mass incarceration in her book The New Jim Crow. Alexander argues that since Nixon, Democratic and Republican presidents alike have employed hard-line crime policies to incarcerate and marginalize blacks in America. If Booker and Paul are serious about reform, and if they truly consider it a civil rights issue, they will abandon the tough stance that perpetuates many of the issues in our criminal justice system.

Nevertheless, punitive measures do not need to be phased out. Nor would they be. As Orellana writes about multiparty New Zealand, “there were still calls for punishment and enforcement, but there were also calls for alternative solutions.” Rather than promoting “tough on crime” policies working with public safety initiatives, the conversation should demand a balance between fair incarceration and effective rehabilitation.

While the REDEEM Act would be a step in the right direction, the legislation and the discussion surrounding it both fall short. But if we consider the hostility with which our Congress “operates”, the passage of this bill would be a milestone for its authors and the U.S. criminal justice system.

Latest updates on the REDEEM Act:

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [Gage Skidmore via Wikimedia and JD Lasica via Flickr]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The New Bipartisan Faces of Criminal Justice Reform appeared first on Law Street.

The old saying “crime pays” has typically been used to explain organized crime, but few people consider organizations on the other side of the law, where private prisons profit for every additional prisoner housed in their facilities. These companies have been developing a significant amount of political clout recently, and their influence on state and local governments only continues to grow.

Some quick facts about prisons in the United States:

• In 2010, there was an estimated 2,266,832 prisoners in the United States.

• There were 130,950 prisoners in private correctional facilities in 2011, which is more than 12 percent of total prisoners in the U.S.

• The private prison population has almost doubled since 1999.

• The U.S. incarceration rate (prisoners per 100,000 U.S. citizens) has risen from 131 in 1978 to 492 in 2012.

• The United States has the largest amount of prisoners in the world, in both total number and percentage of its population. [NY Times]

Prison privatization in the United States began in the 1980s when massive growth in prison populations forced many states to find new solutions for housing their criminals. This trend has picked up again in recent years, as budgetary constraints have caused local governments to pursue methods of cutting costs in public detention facilities. Although the financial benefits of privatized prisons has been called into question, states continue to agree to large contracts with the major private corrections companies.

The United States houses 16.4 percent of its federal prisoners and 6.8 percent of its state prisoners in privately owned correctional facilities. A report published by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) determined that there has been a 700 percent increase in the U.S. prison population from 1970 to 2005, an increase that far exceeds the population and crime rate changes during the same period. The effects of the prison population growth has primarily been reflected in private correctional facilities, as their increase in prisoners has dramatically outpaced those in public facilities.

The bottom line is: people are being sent to jail more frequently than ever before, and the private prison industry is experiencing significant benefits as a result.

The most shocking detail about the recent prison privatization trend has been the presence of “occupancy guarantees” in contracts made between state governments and prison contracting companies. Many of these guarantees require states to maintain 90 to even 100 percent occupancy rates in private facilities. Not only can such guarantees cost states money when requirements are not met, but it may even prevent sentencing reform, as local governments now have an interest in keeping their prisons full.

Click here to see the Huffington Post’s map detailing the locations of prisons that have occupancy rate guarantees of 90 percent and above.

A recent example of occupancy guarantees’ negative financial consequences occurred in Colorado. In this case, the state managed to close five different prisons since 2009 because of its declining crime rate, but as a result Colorado was forced to move over 3,000 prisoners from public prisons to private ones in order to fulfill its contractual obligations.  An article in the Washington Post notes that doing so cost the state nearly $2 million in 2013 compared to what the use of public correctional facilities would have cost.

Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) and the GEO Group are the two largest private prison companies in the United States. CCA, the largest company in the industry, posted revenue numbers totaling at $1.75 billion in 2012 alone, according to the companies’ most recent SEC filing. The private prison industry is extremely large, and as CCA’s board of trustees states in its annual letter to investors, “our revenue is primarily from government entities at the federal, state, and local level”. Prison expenses are a significant part of most states’ budgets; according to a survey of 40 states conducted by the Vera Institute of Justice, the average cost per inmate was $31,286, and total expenses added up to almost $39 billion each year, among the states who participated.

The private prison lobbying groups have also been gaining a significant amount of political influence, as politicians have started to rely on campaign donations from the industry. According to a report by the Justice Policy Institute, the three major methods that the prison lobbying groups have employed are direct campaign funding, lobbying, and the formation of relationships with legislators.

Corrections Corporation of America was co-founded by three men in Tennessee, one of whom was Tom Beasley, who prior to starting the company was the head of the State Republican Party in the same state. CCA has had close ties with politics from its inception, and because nearly all of its business is done with the government, therefore, it was able to penetrate the market with ease.

Both the GEO Group and CCA have their own political action committees (PACs), which they have been employed to lobby for bills and donate to congressmen with favorable policy views. To avoid attention, most of the companies lobbying efforts are spent on campaign donations, rather than specific bills and ballot measures. However, the connections that the company has formed provides unique political power. According to an article in the Tulsa World, CCA’s spokesman Steve Owen stated that it has historically been company policy to not lobby or advocate for any policy that would affect the “basis or duration of an individual’s detention or incarceration”. Yet, a lot of gray area remains regarding what constitutes supporting a policy or its policymaker.

Two notable political issues where the private prison industry has profited the most are the war on drugs and the immigration debate. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 52.1 percent of federal prisoners and 17.4 percent of state prisoners have been imprisoned due to drug related offenses. Because drug crimes contribute to a very large proportion of U.S. prisoners, they have been able to keep the demand for correctional facilities high.

Private prisons have also taken on a greater role in housing illegal immigrants in their facilities, as more and more people are being detained each year. According to the AP, there are some 400,000 illegal immigrants in US prisons each year, which cost Americans nearly $2 billion in 2012 alone. Like the war on drugs, immigration detainment has had significant effects on maintaining and increasing the american prison populations, which statistics show have unevenly benefitted private prisons in recent years.

Private prisons have been dramatically increasing their share of the United States prison population in recent years. Budgetary pressures and corporate lobbying has placed pressure on public officials at the federal, state, and local levels to pursue new means of imprisonment. The CCA and the GEO Group have gained an unprecedented amount of political influence, leading to the creation of what some have referred to as the “Prison Industrial Complex”. Their influence continues to grow as incarceration rates remain high and very little has been done to control their ability to develop relationships with politicians. Arguably, the most startling product of this political allegiance has been the adoption of contracts with occupancy guarantees, which have costed states large amounts of money that many of them cannot afford. As the cost effectiveness of private prisons continues to be debated, the question remains: why are representatives from every level of government pursuing privatization?

—

Featured image courtesy of [Kate Ter Haar via Flickr]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Profit Motive Behind Private Prisons appeared first on Law Street.