STATISTIC OF THE DAY: America locks up too many people

Posted on August 5, 2010

Image via Kuzeytac (Vacation+Bad internet) on Flickr

I would argue that a factor illustrating the health of a democracy is the number of people it keeps locked up behind bars. Certainly, there are improvements that the federal government can make to ensure an accessible and bright future for the youngest members of our democracy (i.e., provide more funding towards education and social programs that work). Otherwise, we’re leaving our children a democracy that lazily imprisons its citizens that might otherwise be productive members of society. Via the Economist:

Justice is harsher in America than in any other rich country. Between 2.3m and 2.4m Americans are behind bars, roughly one in every 100 adults.

Of course, some of America’s toughest laws are born out of politics—or from politicians that want to look tough on crime. Many of us take the bait, but we ultimately indirectly take away our own freedom through the democratic process. This is the danger of disinformation. More via Matthew Yglesias:

The result is a terrifying wasting of financial resources and human potential. Sticking to tradeoffs inside the realm of crime prevention, it would clearly make more sense to increase the quantity and quality of police officers and parole/probation supervisors than to be handing out these endless jail sentences. Even for legitimately serious violent crimes, it’s more important to catch and prosecute people quickly and effectively than to lock people away forever and ever. In formalistic terms, a 50% chance of a 2-year sentence and a 2% percent chance of a 50-year sentence are the same thing. Real people, however, discount the future. And the sort of people who commit violent crimes—young men with poor impulse control—are especially likely to do so.

Mark Kleiman’s When Brute Force Fails makes these points (and more) and is by far the best thing I’ve read on the subject of crime and crime control in 21st century America.

Is locking people up the answer? Via the Economist:

Some people argue that the system works: that crime has fallen in the past two decades because the bad guys are either in prison or scared of being sent there. Caged thugs cannot break into your home. Bernie Madoff’s 150-year sentence for running a Ponzi scam should deter imitators. And indeed the crime rate continues to drop, despite the recession, as Michael Rushford of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, an advocacy group, points out. This, he says, is because habitual criminals face serious consequences. Some research supports him: after raking through decades of historical data, John Donohue of Yale Law School estimates that a 10% increase in imprisonment brings a 2% reduction in crime.

Others disagree. Using more recent data, Bert Useem of Purdue University and Anne Piehl of Rutgers University estimate that a 10% increase in the number of people behind bars would reduce crime by only 0.5%. In the states that currently lock up the most people, imprisoning more would actually increase crime, they believe. Some inmates emerge from prison as more accomplished criminals. And raising the incarceration rate means locking up people who are, on average, less dangerous than the ones already behind bars. A recent study found that, over the past 13 years, the proportion of new prisoners in Florida who had committed violent crimes fell by 28%, whereas those inside for “other” crimes shot up by 189%. These “other” crimes were non-violent ones involving neither drugs nor theft, such as driving with a suspended licence.

One the Net:

The graph was found at Wikipedia. Furthermore, the author or licensor of the Flickr image does not endorse my work or me and their images are protected under an attribution license.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

PROP 8: United States District Court for the Northern District of California rules that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional

Posted on August 4, 2010

Image via Fritz Liess on Flickr.

Today, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. More specifically, “Judge Walker rule[d] Proposition 8 [is] unconstitutional ‘under both the due-process and equal-protection clauses.’” Prop 8 supporters will appeal to the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Then, after the “9th Circuit court rules, lawyers have the option of asking the Supreme Court to intervene.” You can read the decision here. The court’s conclusion:

CONCLUSION

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite- sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

More via San Jose Mercury News:

Supporters of Proposition 8 may already suspect the outcome of today’s ruling in the case challenging California’s ban on same-sex marriage.

In court papers filed Tuesday night, lawyers for the Proposition 8 defense team asked Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker for a stay of his ruling if the outcome is to declare the law unconstitutional. The motion indicates that the Proposition 8 lawyers will immediately ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review the ruling if Walker rules against them.

“A stay is essential to averting the harms that would flow from another purported window of same-sex marriage in California,” they wrote.

More via the Los Angeles Times:

A federal judge in San Francisco decided today that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, striking down Proposition 8, the voter approved ballot measure that banned same-sex unions.

U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said Proposition 8, passed by voters in November 2008, violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice.. His ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Video: Ted Olson Comments on Prop 8 Being Ruled Unconstitutional