creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Jacob Sullum
Jacob Sullum
15 Feb 2012
Obama's Fiscal Fakery: How Can You Pay Down the National Debt by Building It Up?

Decrying "a decade of deficits" on Monday, President Obama declared that "my budget lays out a … Read More.

8 Feb 2012
Bogus Busts: New York City Continues Its Illegal Crackdown on Pot Smokers

Thirty-five years ago, New York's legislature decriminalized marijuana possession. Numbers released last week … Read More.

1 Feb 2012
Complexity Compounded

In his State of the Union address last week, President Obama used billionaire investor Warren Buffett's secretary,… Read More.

Americans: Stars in Bars

Share Comment

For Americans tired of hearing how we lag behind other developed nations in teaching children math, science and reading, a new report highlights an area where the United States is indisputably a world leader. According to the Pew Center on the States, the United States has a higher incarceration rate than any other country. In your face, Finland!

I exaggerate the response to the report slightly. But some conservatives did react to the news that one out of 99 American adults is behind bars with equanimity, if not pride. "When I see a headline about a record incarceration rate, I'm glad," wrote National Review Senior Editor Ramesh Ponnuru on his Washington Post blog. "Aren't you?"

No, I'm not. If the United States were locking up more people than other countries simply because it had a higher crime rate, the number of prisoners in itself would not necessarily be cause for concern. The problem is that it's locking up many people for longer than is appropriate and many people who do not belong in prison at all, including half a million drug offenders.

The Pew Center may not be right that the United States has a higher incarceration rate than countries like China and Cuba, whose official figures should be viewed with skepticism. Still, the United States undeniably imprisons a much larger share of its population than other democracies: about 750 per 100,000 people, more than twice the rates in Ukraine, Estonia and Latvia; more than five times the rates in Spain, Scotland and the Netherlands; and more than 10 times the rates in Denmark, Italy and Finland.

But so what? Maybe we have a bigger crime problem, a more sensibly tough response to it or both. "The fact that we have a large prison population by itself is not a central problem," the criminologist James Q. Wilson told The Washington Post, "because it has contributed to the extraordinary increase in public safety we have had in this country."

When the government incarcerates people who are guilty only of consensual "crimes," however, it wastes scarce prison space that could be used to incapacitate predatory criminals.

That compromises public safety rather than enhancing it.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that drug offenders account for about 25 percent of local jail inmates, 21 percent of state prisoners and 55 percent of federal prisoners. Since 1980 the number of drug offenders in state prisons has increased by 1,200 percent, more than four times the increase in violent offenders.

Drug warriors tend to conflate these two categories. "These offenders are often violent criminals who are likely to repeat their criminal activities," Attorney General Michael Mukasey said in a Feb. 25 speech to the Fraternal Order of Police, describing the prisoners who could benefit from retroactive changes to the federal sentencing guidelines for crack offenses, the first of whom were freed this week.

According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, however, only one in 10 federal crack offenses involves violence or the threat of violence. Mukasey obscured this point by saying "nearly 80 percent of those eligible for retroactivity have a prior criminal record."

A prior record is not the same as a history of violence. Research conducted by criminologist John DiIulio, economist Anne Morrison Piehl, and sociologist Bert Useem in the late 1990s found that many, if not most, people sentenced for drug crimes in New York, Arizona, and New Mexico were "drug-only offenders," meaning the only crimes they'd ever committed involved the voluntary exchange of politically incorrect intoxicants for money.

As James Q. Wilson himself has observed, imprisoning those people does not reduce the total number of drug dealers, since others quickly take their place. Worse, it leaves less prison space for the robbers, rapists and murderers who represent a genuine threat to public safety. With limited resources, politicians face an unavoidable but rarely acknowledged tradeoff between being tough on drugs and being tough on crime.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine, and his work appears in the new Reason anthology "Choice" (BenBella Books). To find out more about Jacob Sullum and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
Hi Jacob

Here in New York, we are the proud (?) birthplace of those infamous Rockefeller Laws. The recent actions to revisit and reduce the sentences of non-violent crack users is a welcome first swing of the wrecking ball to these laws. Personally, I am looking for many happy returns of the wrecking ball until these laws are torn down like the Berlin Wall.
Comment: #1
Posted by: robert j therriault
Wed Mar 5, 2008 6:30 AM
Mr Sullum's position on this news (about prison populations) isn't surprising, since he has a long history of libertarian stances on drug laws. He appears to be arguing that it's a waste of resources to lock up most drug offenders, since they supposedly are not violent and therefore not a threat to the rest of society. Curiously missing from his column, however, is any suggestion of a viable alternative. A treatment program perhaps? Which offenders go into it, and who will pay for it? And then there is the matter that drug dealing is still illegal and therefore those who violate the laws must be punished in some way. "Repeal the drug laws," he says. Fine, but this would do nothing but convert a relatively small criminal problem into a gigantic social one. I think anyone who follows Mr Sullum's logic needs to take a good hard look at nations like Holland, and ask how well drug legalization has worked out for them. The answer is out there somewhere, but letting crackheads off the hook isn't it.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Matt
Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:56 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Jacob Sullum
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 27 Feb 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 20 Feb 2012
Mark Levy
Mark LevyUpdated 18 Feb 2012

24 Mar 2010 Don't Buy It

26 May 2010 Paul and the Private Parts: Bigots Not Only Ones Hurt by Bans on Discrimination

5 Jan 2011 No Booze for You