Mass Incarceration - Brown University › Departments › Economics › Faculty › Glenn...Mass...
Transcript of Mass Incarceration - Brown University › Departments › Economics › Faculty › Glenn...Mass...
Mass IncarcerationMass Incarceration
Glenn C. Loury
Brown UniversityBrown University
March 2010
Presentation based on data provided by Bruce Western of Harvard University
Mass Imprisonment
David Garland (2001, 1) defines mass imprisonment:
. . . a rate of imprisonment. . . that is markedly above thehistorical and comparative norm for societies of thistype. . .
[imprisonment] ceases to be the incarceration ofindividual offenders and becomes the systematicimprisonment of whole groups of the population.
Mass Imprisonment
David Garland (2001, 1) defines mass imprisonment:
. . . a rate of imprisonment. . . that is markedly above thehistorical and comparative norm for societies of thistype. . .
[imprisonment] ceases to be the incarceration ofindividual offenders and becomes the systematicimprisonment of whole groups of the population.
Denmark
Sweden
France
Belgium
Austria
Italy
N'lands
Germany
UK
0 200 400 600
Incarceration Rate (per 100,000)
Incarceration in Western Europe, 2001
0 200 400 600
59
68
77
85
85
95
95
96
126
Denmark
Sweden
France
Belgium
Austria
Italy
N'lands
Germany
UK
USA
0 200 400 600
Incarceration Rate (per 100,000)
Incarceration in Western Europe and the US, 2001
0 200 400 600
59
68
77
85
85
95
95
96
126
686
●●
●●●
●●●●●●●
●
●●
●
●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
1940 1960 1980 2000
100
200
300
400
500
US Imprisonment Rate, 1925−1972
Pris
oner
s pe
r 10
0,00
0
●●
●●●
●●●●●●●
●
●●
●
●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
1940 1960 1980 2000
100
200
300
400
500
US Imprisonment Rate, 1925−2006
Pris
oner
s pe
r 10
0,00
0
●●
●●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●●●
●●
●●
●●●
●●●●●●●
●
●●
●
●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
1940 1960 1980 2000
100
200
300
400
500
US Imprisonment Rate, 1925−2006
Pris
oner
s pe
r 10
0,00
0
●●
●●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●●●
●●
In 2007:
* 1.5m in prison
●●
●●●
●●●●●●●
●
●●
●
●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
1940 1960 1980 2000
100
200
300
400
500
US Imprisonment Rate, 1925−2006
Pris
oner
s pe
r 10
0,00
0
●●
●●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●●●
●●
In 2007:
* 1.5m in prison
* 780,000 in jail
●●
●●●
●●●●●●●
●
●●
●
●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
1940 1960 1980 2000
100
200
300
400
500
US Imprisonment Rate, 1925−2006
Pris
oner
s pe
r 10
0,00
0
●●
●●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●●●
●●
In 2007:
* 1.5m in prison
* 780,000 in jail
* 800,000 on parole
●●
●●●
●●●●●●●
●
●●
●
●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
1940 1960 1980 2000
100
200
300
400
500
US Imprisonment Rate, 1925−2006
Pris
oner
s pe
r 10
0,00
0
●●
●●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●●●
●●
In 2007:
* 1.5m in prison
* 780,000 in jail
* 800,000 on parole
* 4.2m on probation
Inm
ates
per
100
,000
010
000
2000
030
000
4000
00
1000
020
000
3000
040
000
Incarceration by Race and Education
19802008
All
214 750
Inm
ates
per
100
,000
010
000
2000
030
000
4000
00
1000
020
000
3000
040
000
Incarceration by Race and Education
19802008
All Men 20−34 Men 20−34 <HS
214 750 6501750 2350
11950
White
Inm
ates
per
100
,000
010
000
2000
030
000
4000
00
1000
020
000
3000
040
000
Incarceration by Race and Education
19802008
All Men 20−34 Men 20−34 <HS
Men 20−34 Men 20−34 <HS
214 750 6501750 2350
11950
5240
11430 10580
37150
White Black
Cum
ulat
ive
Ris
k of
Impr
ison
men
t (%
)
010
2030
4050
6070
010
2030
4050
6070
Men's Risk of Imprisonment by 30−34
1.2 1.84.2
9.012.1
14.7
All Non−college Dropouts All Non−college Dropouts
Whites Blacks
1979
Cum
ulat
ive
Ris
k of
Impr
ison
men
t (%
)
010
2030
4050
6070
010
2030
4050
6070
Men's Risk of Imprisonment by 30−34
1.23.3 1.8
6.34.2
15.3
9.0
20.7
12.1
35.7
14.7
69.0
All Non−college Dropouts All Non−college Dropouts
Whites Blacks
19792009
●●
●●●
●●●●●●●
●
●●
●
●●●●●
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
1940 1960 1980 2000
100
200
300
400
500
US Imprisonment Rate, 1925−2006
Pris
oner
s pe
r 10
0,00
0
●●
●●
●●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●●●
●●
In 2007:
Imprisonment and the Life Course
White and black men, born 1975–1979 experiencing a life event by2009 (percent).
Whites Blacks
Marriage 68% 47%
Bachelor’s Degree 34 17
Military Service 10 9
Imprisonment 5 27
Imprisonment and the Life Course
White and black men, born 1975–1979 experiencing a life event by2009 (percent).
Whites Blacks
Marriage 68% 47%
Bachelor’s Degree 34 17
Military Service 10 9
Imprisonment 5 27
What Are the Implications for Inequality?
Inequality created by incarceration is:
I Invisible
I Cumulative
I Intergenerational
What Are the Implications for Inequality?
Inequality created by incarceration is:
I Invisible
I Cumulative
I Intergenerational
What Are the Implications for Inequality?
Inequality created by incarceration is:
I Invisible
I Cumulative
I Intergenerational
What Are the Implications for Inequality?
Inequality created by incarceration is:
I Invisible
I Cumulative
I Intergenerational
Invisible Inequality
I Inequality created by incarceration is invisible, becauseincarceration is concentrated and segregative, hidden frommainstream society
I Important for sociology: Incarceration is often overlooked insocial accounting, and inequality is underestimated
Invisible Inequality
I Inequality created by incarceration is invisible, becauseincarceration is concentrated and segregative, hidden frommainstream society
I Important for sociology: Incarceration is often overlooked insocial accounting, and inequality is underestimated
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
● ●● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
3040
5060
Employment Rate, Black Male Dropouts, 20−34
Per
cent
Em
ploy
ed
●
●
CPS only
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
● ●● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
●
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
3040
5060
Employment Rate, Black Male Dropouts, 20−34
Per
cent
Em
ploy
ed
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
● ●
●
●
●
● ●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
CPS onlyIncluding incarcerated
Cumulative Inequality
I Inequality created by incarceration diminishes the economicstatus of those whose employment and wage rates are alreadyvery low
I Panel data estimates show that incarceration reduces earningsby about 40%
I Experimental evidence indicates employment is reduced by athird to a half.
Cumulative Inequality
I Inequality created by incarceration diminishes the economicstatus of those whose employment and wage rates are alreadyvery low
I Panel data estimates show that incarceration reduces earningsby about 40%
I Experimental evidence indicates employment is reduced by athird to a half.
Cumulative Inequality
I Inequality created by incarceration diminishes the economicstatus of those whose employment and wage rates are alreadyvery low
I Panel data estimates show that incarceration reduces earningsby about 40%
I Experimental evidence indicates employment is reduced by athird to a half.
Not Incarcerated Low AFQT <HS Incarcerated
20−year Earnings Mobility Among Low−Income Men
Mob
ile o
ut o
f 1st
Qua
rtile
(%
)
010
2030
4050
6070 64.4
41.3
36.6
24.6
Intergenerational Inequality
I Large prison populations means large numbers of childrenwith parents in prison
I Stigma of incarceration for children, new research showingbehavioral problems, particularly for boys
Intergenerational Inequality
I Large prison populations means large numbers of childrenwith parents in prison
I Stigma of incarceration for children, new research showingbehavioral problems, particularly for boys
●●
● ● ●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●● ●
●●
● ● ●● ● ●
●● ● ●
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
02
46
810
12
Children with Incarcerated Parents, 1980−2008
Num
ber
of C
hild
ren
(100
,000
s)
● ● ● ● ● ● ●●
●●
●● ● ●
●● ●
●●
● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●
●
●
●
Hispanic
●●
● ● ●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●● ●
●●
● ● ●● ● ●
●● ● ●
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
02
46
810
12
Children with Incarcerated Parents, 1980−2008
Num
ber
of C
hild
ren
(100
,000
s)
● ● ● ● ● ● ●●
●●
●● ● ●
●● ●
●●
● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●
●
●
●
HispanicWhite
●●
● ● ●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●● ●
●●
● ● ●● ● ●
●● ● ●
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
02
46
810
12
Children with Incarcerated Parents, 1980−2008
Num
ber
of C
hild
ren
(100
,000
s)
● ● ● ● ● ● ●●
●●
●● ● ●
●● ●
●●
● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●
●●
● ●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
● ● ●● ● ●
●●
● ●
●
●
●
HispanicWhiteBlack
●●
● ● ●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●● ●
●●
● ● ●● ● ●
●● ● ●
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
02
46
810
12
Children with Incarcerated Parents, 1980−2008
Num
ber
of C
hild
ren
(100
,000
s)
● ● ● ● ● ● ●●
●●
●● ● ●
●● ●
●●
● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●
●●
● ●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
● ● ●● ● ●
●●
● ●
●
●
●
HispanicWhiteBlack
* 11% of black children have a parent incarcerated
●●
● ● ●●
●●
●●
●●
●●
●● ●
●●
● ● ●● ● ●
●● ● ●
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
02
46
810
12
Children with Incarcerated Parents, 1980−2008
Num
ber
of C
hild
ren
(100
,000
s)
● ● ● ● ● ● ●●
●●
●● ● ●
●● ●
●●
● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●
●●
● ●●
●●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●●
● ● ●● ● ●
●●
● ●
●
●
●
HispanicWhiteBlack
* 11% of black children have a parent incarcerated
* 24% of black children, 1990, will have their father imprisoned by age 14
Next Steps
I State budgets are overburdened by correctional spending ⇒political will for retrenching mass imprisonment
I What is the problem? High imprisonment rates? No
I Chronic idleness, addiction, and mental health problems ofmen with little schooling
I Criminal justice reforms by themselves will be insufficient andwill fail
Next Steps
I State budgets are overburdened by correctional spending ⇒political will for retrenching mass imprisonment
I What is the problem? High imprisonment rates? No
I Chronic idleness, addiction, and mental health problems ofmen with little schooling
I Criminal justice reforms by themselves will be insufficient andwill fail
Next Steps
I State budgets are overburdened by correctional spending ⇒political will for retrenching mass imprisonment
I What is the problem? High imprisonment rates? No
I Chronic idleness, addiction, and mental health problems ofmen with little schooling
I Criminal justice reforms by themselves will be insufficient andwill fail
Next Steps
I State budgets are overburdened by correctional spending ⇒political will for retrenching mass imprisonment
I What is the problem? High imprisonment rates? No
I Chronic idleness, addiction, and mental health problems ofmen with little schooling
I Criminal justice reforms by themselves will be insufficient andwill fail
Next Steps
I State budgets are overburdened by correctional spending ⇒political will for retrenching mass imprisonment
I What is the problem? High imprisonment rates? No
I Chronic idleness, addiction, and mental health problems ofmen with little schooling
I Criminal justice reforms by themselves will be insufficient andwill fail
Next Steps
I State budgets are overburdened by correctional spending ⇒political will for retrenching mass imprisonment
I What is the problem? High imprisonment rates? No
I Chronic idleness, addiction, and mental health problems ofmen with little schooling
I Criminal justice reforms by themselves will be insufficient andwill fail
Next Steps
I State budgets are overburdened by correctional spending ⇒political will for retrenching mass imprisonment
I What is the problem? High imprisonment rates? No
I Chronic idleness, addiction, and mental health problems ofmen with little schooling
I Criminal justice reforms by themselves will be insufficient andwill fail
Next Steps
I State budgets are overburdened by correctional spending ⇒political will for retrenching mass imprisonment
I What is the problem? High imprisonment rates? No
I Chronic idleness, addiction, and mental health problems ofmen with little schooling
I Criminal justice reforms by themselves will be insufficient andwill fail
Next Steps
I State budgets are overburdened by correctional spending ⇒political will for retrenching mass imprisonment
I What is the problem? High imprisonment rates? No
I Chronic idleness, addiction, and mental health problems ofmen with little schooling
I Criminal justice reforms by themselves will be insufficient andwill fail
Next Steps
I State budgets are overburdened by correctional spending ⇒political will for retrenching mass imprisonment
I What is the problem? High imprisonment rates? No
I Chronic idleness, addiction, and mental health problems ofmen with little schooling
I Criminal justice reforms by themselves will be insufficient andwill fail
A National Prisoner Reentry Plan
I Transitional jobs for all parolees needing work (200,000 a year)
I More drug treatment, housing, and education
I No more re-imprisonment for technical parole violators
I Supervision shifts from prison to the community, and replacescriminal justice oversight with social policy
I $8.5 billion cost, $10 billion benefit in reduced crime andcorrectional costs
A National Prisoner Reentry Plan
I Transitional jobs for all parolees needing work (200,000 a year)
I More drug treatment, housing, and education
I No more re-imprisonment for technical parole violators
I Supervision shifts from prison to the community, and replacescriminal justice oversight with social policy
I $8.5 billion cost, $10 billion benefit in reduced crime andcorrectional costs
A National Prisoner Reentry Plan
I Transitional jobs for all parolees needing work (200,000 a year)
I More drug treatment, housing, and education
I No more re-imprisonment for technical parole violators
I Supervision shifts from prison to the community, and replacescriminal justice oversight with social policy
I $8.5 billion cost, $10 billion benefit in reduced crime andcorrectional costs
A National Prisoner Reentry Plan
I Transitional jobs for all parolees needing work (200,000 a year)
I More drug treatment, housing, and education
I No more re-imprisonment for technical parole violators
I Supervision shifts from prison to the community, and replacescriminal justice oversight with social policy
I $8.5 billion cost, $10 billion benefit in reduced crime andcorrectional costs
A National Prisoner Reentry Plan
I Transitional jobs for all parolees needing work (200,000 a year)
I More drug treatment, housing, and education
I No more re-imprisonment for technical parole violators
I Supervision shifts from prison to the community, and replacescriminal justice oversight with social policy
I $8.5 billion cost, $10 billion benefit in reduced crime andcorrectional costs
A National Prisoner Reentry Plan
I Transitional jobs for all parolees needing work (200,000 a year)
I More drug treatment, housing, and education
I No more re-imprisonment for technical parole violators
I Supervision shifts from prison to the community, and replacescriminal justice oversight with social policy
I $8.5 billion cost, $10 billion benefit in reduced crime andcorrectional costs
Mass Incarceration Redux
I When incareration rates are high and concentrated. . .
I And incarceration has large and enduring effects on inequality(invisible, cumulative, and intergenerational)...
I Mass incarceration has produced a new social group separatedfrom full membership in society
Mass Incarceration Redux
I When incareration rates are high and concentrated. . .
I And incarceration has large and enduring effects on inequality(invisible, cumulative, and intergenerational)...
I Mass incarceration has produced a new social group separatedfrom full membership in society
Mass Incarceration Redux
I When incareration rates are high and concentrated. . .
I And incarceration has large and enduring effects on inequality(invisible, cumulative, and intergenerational)...
I Mass incarceration has produced a new social group separatedfrom full membership in society
Here’s a ‘narrative defining question for you:
Should we think about racial disparity of punishment in America as an accidental accretion of neutral state action applied to a racially divergent social flux – the chips having fallen as they may, so to speak?
Or is this powerfully salient feature of
contemporary American social life better understood as the residual effect of our uniquely American history of enslavement, violent domination, disenfranchisement and racial discrimination?
That is, ought we to think of massive
racial inequality in the incidence of punishment in America as a necessary evil, given our need for order maintenance? Or, should we view it an abhorrent expression of who we Americans have become as a people at the dawn of the 21st century?