The answer is “both”. I’ll try to illustrate this with a few examples.
Almost every day, I see a report in the local media (OC Register) that leaves me scratching my head. A few days ago, three young women from Orange County were killed when Gregory Black sped through a red light at 100 mph and hit their car. It turns out that Black has a long criminal record:
Moreno described Black as “a well-known gang member” with a long criminal history. . . .
Black pleaded no contest to one count of attempted murder in 2021. But he was only sentenced to five years of probation.
The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office said that besides vehicular manslaughter charges for Black, he faces special allegations of two or more prior felony convictions and aggravated circumstances of great bodily injury.
At the same time, our prisons are full of people who have committed much less serious crimes. Roughly 40,000 people are currently incarcerated for possessing or selling marijuana, an activity that is legal in nearly half of all states. In contrast, attempted murder is illegal in all 50 states, as well as Washington DC.
Whenever I see a news story describing a horrific crime, the article almost invariably includes a long list of the previous offenses for which the accused was previously found guilty. So it’s pretty clear to me that we are able to identify the most serious criminals. But in most cases the accused merely received a slap on the wrist for the previous offenses.
On the other hand, you can also find innumerable examples of people being incarcerated for minor offenses. After all, America has more than 2 million people behind bars.
For every news story about a violent criminal who receives an absurdly mild sentence, I can recall stories with exactly the opposite outcome. I recall reading about a female high school teacher sentenced to years in prison for having sex with a boy in her class. Why prison? I get that her behavior is not OK, but why not fire her from her job? Or how about the young woman who was sentenced to decades in prison after being pressured by her boyfriend to carry some drugs to a drop-off location. Isn’t that a bit extreme? Or how about the woman sentenced to prison for insider trading? Wouldn’t a hefty fine be adequate? Or how about women in jail for prostitution?
Matt Yglesias has complained that DC prosecutors are failing to prosecute people caught with illegal firearms. Not surprisingly, these people then go out and commit violent crimes. I don’t know about you, but I’m far more concerned about being victimized by a guy with an illegal gun than I am by a high school teacher, the girlfriend of a drug dealer, a prostitute or an insider trader. There’s a huge disparity in the incarceration rates of men and women. Perhaps the disparity should be even greater.
Time magazine recently had this to say:
Murder, for instance, should be treated as a far graver crime than writing a bad check.
That would seem obvious. But our actual sentencing practices don’t seem to follow any rhyme or reason.
Some politicians say that we need to be tougher on crime, while other politicians suggest we have too many people behind bars. According to Reason magazine, some politicians can’t seem to decide what they want:
In my view, the debate over criminal justice is too simplistic. We don’t need more people in prison. We don’t need fewer people in prison. We need different people in prison.
READER COMMENTS
spencer
Aug 31 2023 at 1:12pm
Rodney King is a good example.
steve
Aug 31 2023 at 1:47pm
The case Yglesias is citing is a bit confusing. The guy who had the gun had no prior criminal convictions according to the article. In many states the guy would have been carrying legally so Yglesias is making the argument that we need to have fewer guns on the streets. How do you square that with 2nd amendment rights to carry? My sense is that if someone in DC is carrying a gun that would be considered legal in other states we should either not prosecute or have minimal sentences. Otherwise I very much agree. Sentencing is way too variable. Sometimes it’s up to the whim of the judge and other times rigid rules about sentencing force judges to hand out long sentences for crimes when it doesnt make sense.
Steve
Scott Sumner
Aug 31 2023 at 3:05pm
I don’t have a problem with denying handgun licenses to convicted felons in Washington DC.
steve
Aug 31 2023 at 6:34pm
Me either. But according to this story he had no prior convictions. You need a license to conceal carry in DC. SO the question is do you prosecute people for what is legal behavior in lots of other states.
Steve
Scott Sumner
Sep 1 2023 at 11:22am
He also cites cases where they did have a previous criminal record, which are vastly more common. I’m fine with legalizing handgun ownership for those with no criminal record.
vince
Aug 31 2023 at 2:31pm
What better example of selective enforcement than Donald Trump? His greatest legacy is to show what happens when you go up against the establishment.
Scott Sumner
Aug 31 2023 at 3:00pm
Actually, it’s hard to think of a worse example. Anyone else and he’d already be in prison.
TMC
Aug 31 2023 at 3:30pm
“Anyone else”? Hillary, Bill, Biden??
vince
Aug 31 2023 at 4:23pm
TDS reigns. Compare to Hunter and Joe Biden.
vince
Aug 31 2023 at 5:45pm
Unless you’re the Bidens. What’s with the censorship on this forum? Disappointing.
Scott Sumner
Aug 31 2023 at 11:07pm
My point is that presidents in America are basically above the law.
MarkLouis
Aug 31 2023 at 5:31pm
I’ve read that most of those incarcerated for “lesser crimes” like drug crimes were plead down from more serious charges. Don’t know if that’s true but this may be more complex than it seems.
Scott Sumner
Aug 31 2023 at 5:47pm
It’s also worth noting that those “more serious crimes” often reflected the fact that drugs are illegal. People steal to buy expensive drugs. Or they fight other gangs for control of the drug trade. When Prohibition ended, the murder rate in American almost immediately plunged sharply lower.
john hare
Aug 31 2023 at 6:04pm
American appetite for drugs and alcohol is a given. The illegality of the drugs funds (through extreme profit margins) the gangs and the cartels in Mexico and other countries. That circles back to escalating our problems in the US.
MarkLouis
Sep 2 2023 at 11:05am
Willingness to use offensive force strikes me as an offense worth punishing regardless of the intended aim.
Scott Sumner
Sep 4 2023 at 7:39pm
Much better to eliminate that “willingness”. Unless you believe in punishing thought crimes.
During Prohibition, those weren’t theoretical victims, they were real victims.
MarkLouis
Sep 5 2023 at 7:51am
But until that point you must penalize the use of force. The mob used force to maintain sports betting monopolies and collect debts. Sports betting is now legal and no longer a mob activity. I’m still glad we punished their use of force before we learned how to shut down their enterprise.
Jim Glass
Aug 31 2023 at 6:43pm
New York City adopted policies that produced a huge drop in crime starting in the 1990s, beginning under Dinkins and continuing through Bloomberg (though Rudy hogs the credit). Rates of many common crimes fell 90+%. The drop was so large it was in good part responsible for the decline in the entire national crime rate (even as crime rose in other cities.) It’s true, it happened, I was there. And the “how” of it all is completely documented, e.g.:
The City That Became Safe: New York’s Lessons for Urban Crime and Its Control (Studies in Crime and Public Policy)
Seeing how the hard-earned lessons and accomplishments of one generation are so quickly forgotten and thrown away by the next is one of the disheartening things about growing old. Does anyone pay attention to the likes of this, what actually worked, now? Anyhow, main simplest takeaways on incarcerations and arrests:
[] NYC’s incarceration rate went through two stages. First, the prison population went way up and the crime rate simultaneously began to fall, because criminals belong in prison and punishment deters crime. (Radical ideas! During this period the NY Times repeatedly ran stories headlined “Prison population surges in spite of falling crime” – never understanding the laughs they inspired). Then the prison population plunged, because crime was deterred. Crime is social, literally “family”, behavior. Young kids growing up who saw their uncles and older cousins and brothers in cuffs and jail decided “I don’t want that to be me” and chose another course. Also, NYC created effective ways to keep drug offenders out of prison and in ‘programs’. In the end NYC actually sold off big chunks of it’s now-unused prison space to private developers, making good $$$ in the process.
[] As to arrests, people happily on the lam while committing big crimes are totally arrogant about committing small ones, so the police began mass “misdemeanor arrests” and checking names. I remember walking into the subway and seeing long lines of like 20 people chain ganged together for fare beating, waiting for the special train to come though and take them away. Any who were wanted felons were done. The rest who had to call their parents or spouse or boss about where they were — well, nipping small-time crime in the bud can stop it from growing big. See comment about the kids above.
I knew the warrant squad corrections officer who set NYC’s all time-record for felony arrests in one year. He used to go to landlord-tenant court (rent control!), family court, traffic court, and rope in the wanted felons who showed up. He was amazed at how many thugs wanted for rape and murder would show up at these low-level courts to fight their landlord, or the girlfriend, or a traffic ticket. (He was a character. In a bar or restaurant he’d always sit with his back to a wall, facing the door, like an old west gunman. We met playing tournament chess. In a tough position he’d lean over the board concentrating, open his jacket, and let his holstered gun swing out over the pieces — very effective against players who didn’t know him!)
In my view, the debate over criminal justice is too simplistic
Exactly. Arguing over whether this kind of person should be arrested or not, and that kind incarcerated or not, is pointless. It will never produce a (good) result. Addressing crime is like any other major social (or business) objective. It requires a comprehensive coherent systematic plan, data driven, with accountability, targeted to produce benefits over time, inter-generationally.
That’s tough to do in a political system, and tougher to sustain. NYC did it in the 1990s. Then in the mid 2010s the politics changed, criminals became once again victims of society as per the 1960s-1980s, so minimizing crime is oppression once again. Things go around, I well remember the “society makes me do it” high-crime era too.
A fun memory from the Democratic primary debates when Bloomberg was running for president: The very same Democrat politicians who spent recent years crying “End gun violence! Ban guns! Stop shootings! Ban guns!” turning on Mike charging, “You took guns away from black youths roaming the streets of the Bronx and Brooklyn! You took guns away from black youths on the street! Racist!” And it worked. Politics. Go figure. 🙂
Peter Gordon
Aug 31 2023 at 7:29pm
We are capable of making Type I and Type II errors via the same judicial system. They are not inversely proportional. And both are costly.
Thomas L Hutcheson
Aug 31 2023 at 9:50pm
Like other regulatory issues, the key is applying cost benefit analysis.
Jon Murphy
Sep 1 2023 at 12:55pm
Cost-benefit analysis is useful, but I don’t think it is the key. It is a key. But I think we also have to consider matters of justice, which are not reducible to mere accounting. For example, even if the benefits were to exceed the costs, I would argue it is still unjust to treat parking violations more severely than murder.
Michael Sandifer
Sep 2 2023 at 5:20pm
We have too many people in prison. We even have a larger percentage incarcerated than countries that have political prisoners.
We should legalize all drugs. We should punish white collar crimes, including crimes often committed by politicians more heavily.
Grand Rapids Mike
Sep 3 2023 at 1:18pm
My guess is you don’t shop at Nordstroms.
Jose Pablo
Sep 3 2023 at 10:27pm
We have too many people in prison
I don’t know … most criminals (even the “serious” ones) are never brought in front of a judge (just around 35% of serious crimes got cleared). The clearance rate is even lower for petty crimes (around 13% for car theft to name one). The “real” system (not the “theoretical” one) seems to be already very lenient on those crimes.
The measures you are proposing will, very likely, help to improve the clearance rates of more serious crimes, resulting in more people going to prison.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/marijuana-legalization-and-crime-clearance-rates-testing-proponent
Difficult to know what the net results will be
Jose Pablo
Sep 3 2023 at 9:54pm
The clearance rate for murder is just above 50% (2020 figures) and declining
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/07/police-murder-clearance-rate/661500/
For rape is 35%
For aggravated assault around 50%
For robbery below 30%
Yes, it seems that we do need “different” people in prison (and, very likely, more people in prison), we are just unable to find out who should be in prison.
Jim Glass
Sep 7 2023 at 8:04pm
“Murder Suspect Calls Cops Over Cold McDonald’s Fries, Gets Arrested”
See it to believe it, on the cop’s bodycam. LMAO. 🙂
TGGP
Sep 9 2023 at 10:35am
As the late Mark Kleiman wrote in “When Brute Force Fails”, the swiftness & certainty of punishment are more important than the length of time behind bars because criminals tend to be hyperbolic discounters. Meth addicted convicted burglars in Hawaii were able to clean up when faced with a certain day in jail if they failed to show up for a random drug test or tested dirty. But the norm for lots of crimes is that people repeatedly break the law without being punished and then randomly get convicted and spend years in prison.
Comments are closed.