The Myth of Mass Incarceration

Violent crime, not drugs, has driven imprisonment. And drug offenses usually are for dealing, not using.

By BARRY LATZER
Feb. 22, 2016


It has become a boogeyman in public discourse: “mass incarceration.” Both left and right, from Hillary Clinton to Rand Paul, agree that it must be ended. But a close examination of the data shows that U.S. imprisonment has been driven largely by violent crime—and thus significantly reducing incarceration may be impossible.

Less than one-half of 1% of the U.S. population is incarcerated, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), so “mass” is a bit of hyperbole. The proportion of African-Americans in prison, 1.2%, is high compared with whites (0.25%), but not in absolute terms.

There’s a lot of historical amnesia about the cause of prison expansion, a mistaken sense that it was all about drugs or race and had very little to do with serious crime. This ignores the facts. Between 1960 and 1990, the rate of violent crime in the U.S. surged by over 350%, according to FBI data, the biggest sustained buildup in the country’s history.

One major reason was that as crime rose the criminal-justice system caved. Prison commitments fell, as did time served per conviction. For every 1,000 arrests for serious crimes in 1970, 170 defendants went to prison, compared with 261 defendants five years earlier. Murderers released in 1960 had served a median 4.3 years, which wasn’t long to begin with. By 1970 that figure had dropped to 3.5 years.

Unquestionably, in the last decades of the 20th century more defendants than ever were sentenced to prison. But this was a direct result of changes in policy to cope with the escalation in violent crime. In the 1980s, after well over a decade of soaring crime, state incarceration rates jumped 107%.

When crime began to drop in the mid-1990s, so did the rise in incarceration rates. From 2000 to 2010, they increased a negligible 0.65%, and since 2005 they have been declining steadily, except for a slight uptick in 2013. The estimated 1.5 million prisoners at year-end 2014 is the smallest total prison population in the U.S. since 2005.

Those who talk of “mass incarceration” often blame the stiff drug sentences enacted during the crack-cocaine era, the late 1980s and early ’90s. But what pushed up incarceration rates, beginning in the mid-1970s, was primarily violent crime, not drug offenses.

The percentage of state prisoners in for drug violations peaked at only 22% in 1990. Further, drug convictions “explain only about 20% of prison growth since 1980,” according to a 2012 article by Fordham law professor John Pfaff, published in the Harvard Journal on Legislation.

Relatively few prisoners today are locked up for drug offenses. At the end of 2013 the state prison population was about 1.3 million. Fifty-three percent were serving time for violent crimes such as murder, robbery, rape or aggravated assault, according to the BJS. Nineteen percent were in for property crimes such as burglary, car theft or fraud. Another 11% had been convicted of weapons offenses, drunken driving or other public-order violations.

That leaves about 16%, or 208,000 people, incarcerated for drug crimes. Of those, less than a quarter were in for mere possession. The rest were in for trafficking and other crimes. Critics of “mass incarceration” often point to the federal prisons, where half of inmates, or about 96,000 people, are drug offenders. But 99.5% of them are traffickers. The notion that prisons are filled with young pot smokers, harmless victims of aggressive prosecution, is patently false.

The other line of attack is that the criminal justice system is racist because blacks are disproportionately imprisoned. About 35% of all prisoners, state and federal, are African-American, while blacks comprise about 13% of the U.S. population. But any explanation of this disparity must take blacks’ higher rates of offending into account.

From 1976 to 1995, blacks were identified by police as the perpetrators in more than half of homicides, according to FBI data compiled by the BJS. During this same period, individuals interviewed for the national crime-victim survey described robbery perpetrators as black more than 60% of the time. While the rate of black violent crime fell dramatically after the mid-1990s, it remains disturbingly high. From 2000 to 2014, African-Americans were murdered eight times as often as whites per capita, nearly always as a result of black-on-black assaults.

Such serious crimes are still the main driver of African-American incarceration. The latest BJS figures, from the end of 2013, show that 57% of blacks in state prison were convicted of violent crimes. Only 16% were in for drug crimes. Those numbers nearly match the figures for the state prison population overall.

Nor have blacks always served longer sentences than whites once incarcerated. In 1993, at the peak of the prison buildup, blacks and whites in state prison served identical terms, a median 12 months, for all offenses. For drug crimes, whites actually served slightly more time than blacks, 12 months to 11 months.

A growing consensus now supports making the criminal-justice system less punitive. But prison rates won’t drop dramatically unless serious crime declines further, which is unlikely. It certainly didn’t happen in 2015, when homicides in the 50 largest U.S. cities increased 17%. Nor are racial disparities likely to diminish so long as African-Americans commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes.

Mr. Latzer, an emeritus professor of criminal justice at the City University of New York, is the author of “The Rise and Fall of Violent Crime in America” (Encounter Books, 2016).

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-mass-incarceration-1456184736

Decent article,Ivy.

Odd that not once in the article are the "Rockefeller Drug Laws" mentioned in article by a professor at C.U.N.Y. Those were the laws imposing MANDATORY minimum sentences on drug possession and trafficking convictions. Since the heroin...later cocaine...later crack eras...the laws have surely swelled the state prisons with the guilty and those who might be innocent but strike plea bargains for fear of long sentence.

Criminals are criminals and nobody here will ever read me defending criminal acts. Poor people do have a disadvantage in the legal system though and are more likely to cop out and serve time for the same type of charge as a person on higher end of socio economic ladder.

Not mentioning the NY and other state mandatory sentences for possession is a GLARING omission. State prisons have locked up people to the point of overcrowding for possession. In fact, several states including your state UTAH, have scaled back these mand. min. laws and changed laws reducing what were once felonies to misdemeanors. Again, this is happening in different parts of the country....so not a simple side versus side issue.

2014 article about the proposed law change in Utah

http://fox13now.com/2014/10/22/drug-poss...ah-law-changes/

The idea had the backing of Utah Dept. of Corrections Executive Director Rollin Cook, who told FOX 13 he estimates as much as 25-percent of the prison population is there on drug possession.

This article is not politically correct and will piss off many.

Sounds accurate. Traffickers go to jail for drug possession after plea dealing down to save time and money for the state and risk of going to jail for much longer.

Oh, notice crime started to drop in the 90's.

This coincides with a theory that once welfare started paying for abortions(like they do in NY) it would lower crime.

Makes so much sense.

Besides there being much better, less evil ways to lower crime, I don't think lower crime rates justify abortion at all.

Anyone who can watch just these animated videos, narrated by a former abortionist, of the "procedure" and not be sickened, outraged, and against it is frankly worthy of the same judgements abortionists and the women who choose to kill the child within them face.

The godless, secular left has done a masterful job at spinning this issue. It's not a BAD thing that women are killing their unborn children. It's a GOOD thing because they are exercising their "right to choose."

Look at how hard they fight against women being given the most info possible before having an abortion. Like seeing the child within them on an ultrasound or seeing videos like those below. Pro-abortion (that's what pro-choice is) liberals want it all behind closed doors, no facts out in the open. They'reall about pro-choice as long as it's an uninformed choice.

Look at NARAL Pro-Choice America's reaction to that Doritos ad during the Super Bowl. They were offended that it "humanized" the fetus. Are you kidding me?

Bottom line, people who support abortion on demand, which is basically what we have now, are soulless pieces of shit.

How's that for politically incorrect?

1st Trimester
https://youtu.be/5THDmys8z30

2nd Trimester
https://youtu.be/jgw4X7Dw_3k

3rd Trimester
https://youtu.be/r5Af8vIym2o

@Ivy League

I will not watch your videos.

My mind is made up. Abortion lowered crime in NYC. That's how I and many see it.

@Ivy League

I will not watch your videos.

My mind is made up. Abortion lowered crime in NYC. That's how I and many see it.

Of course you wont. That's how all pro-abortion people are. Out of sight, out of mind. To actually see the horrors of abortion - and the videos above are just animation - would force them to confront themselves, their selfishness, and their lack of humanity.

In the words of Baretta:

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime!

say that shit when somebody that should've been aborted robs you at gunpoint

that mothafucka shooting people in kalamazoo michigan should've been aborted

Knick,

Your comment here is along the line of my views about Trump's success so so far.

Who are the "many" that will be pissed off by this article? Who? The Black members of GBB? The ones with liberal leanings?
I'm not pissed off.I've said several times here that the truth is the truth no matter how uncomfortable it makes people feel.

"Mass incarceration" slogan is ,in fact, BS. People decide to do crime and get locked up.I've always been consistent about that.

Once people speak the truth as they see it, it opens up room for discussion. Some are not interested in discussions though, just rants. Trump is EXPERTLY taking advantage of people who are tired of public figures tapdancing around issues. Trump rants at rallies, rants in debates,etc.

Question remains about whether he's interested in opening up frank dialogue about resolutions or whether he's just interested in ranting.

Go back and search the site when discussions like this go down. In a few instances, people who are "only telling the truth" when it comes to Black crimes stats got exposed for contradicting themselves when we post comments they've written here admiring or defending CONVICTED felons of other backgrounds against law enforcement.If they were consistent in their views about criminal ACTS people would take them seriously.

Thanks getthesenets.

So yeah, abortion for poor people, especially unwed girls, is effective for controlling crime regardless of race.

I believe more black babies are aborted than born in NYC. But that's misleading because I'm sure girls from places like Long Island and Westchester and upstate will travel in to the City for one.

I am of the believe that the high percentage of black abortions has helped put a dent in crime. And maybe it would get rid of some white trash too, but the Southern states don't really have abortion on demand like NY.

As for the white guy in Kalamazoo, these random white loner shooters are a problem. But they don't seem cultural.

In the black community, it's epidemic. So when a white male goes on a spree, we magnify the story to feel better because it's politically correct to offset the much more common problem. Black gun violence.

Reminded me of a similar article to this : https://news.vice.com/article/how-missis...-justice-reform

@ Knickerbocker

"As for the white guy in Kalamazoo, these random white loner shooters are a problem. But they don't seem cultural.

In the black community, it's epidemic. So when a white male goes on a spree, we magnify the story to feel better because it's politically correct to offset the much more common problem. Black gun violence."

Gun violence is a common problem overall, not exclusively to 1 background. The media will portray whatever that brings viewers and have the tendency to reflect bias viewpoints.

I don't think killing babies or fetuses is the answer. One of the answers would be better parenting. Another is safer schools that kick out kids who act violently. A third is a lower level of community tolerance for aggressive behavior.

Also need to point out that guns aren't the only problem. Mob violence like beating up homeless people then posting it on Facebook, knocking people out by sucker-punching them in the back of the head, the acceptance of rape and burglary, etc. The current narrative of victimhood teaches young people to ignore the real problems and hate those who disagree with you. There was a time, before the mid-1960s, when most communities did not tolerate that garbage.

Really? Overall problem? Look at Chicago alone. Already at 100 homicides, mostly black victims. They usually have 500 homicides a year but could hit 600 at this pace.

There probably aren't any cities or counties where 500 whites are the victim of a homicide.

Thanks. We'll never agree. I think abortion lowers crime and hate to think what NYC would be like if minority babies, black in particular, weren't aborted at such high rates.

Naturally the priest in my local parish disagrees with me but I don't care anymore. Catholicism and Conservatism offer no better answers.

That's why I said overall because for black communities ( including other non-white communities) it's a heavily dense neighborhoods in large cities. For whites, it's small communities and counties. More so headlines for our major cities because of the tourist attractions, history, and economy.

Overall nationally , it's a common problem.

Sure, abortion lowers crime. Hey, if you just kill everyone then you'll have no crime at all, so let's do that.

chicago used to have way more than 500 or 600 murders so crime is actually down

inadequate schooling plays a major role in the crime in black communities

the government flooding the hood with drugs didn't help either

The government didn't flood the hood with drugs. That's a myth.

Ivy
I totally agree with you buddy. Mass incarceration is a total myth and defies both logic and facts.
Cookcounty
Inadequate schooling causes black violence? Really !!!! How about blacks having kids at young ages without being married and then not supervising their children. How about that for a reason for black violence!
The governement that floods the hood with drugs you are referring to must be the black chicago government of the black panthers.
Almost every male black entertainer today has to act like a gangbanger, god forbid he speaks using proper sentences.
Next time a black woman or guy from the hood complains about not having money, im going to tell him to take back all their tattoos, get a refund, and then spend the friggin money on their kids.
Oh shit, i forgot, i already pay for their kids with my tax dollars.
End the out of wedlock births !!!!!

@crash

better schools in the black community would lower crime for generations

the govt. already got caught flooding the hood with drugs....smh

there are probably more whites in your state on public aide than blacks

So the government floods the hood with drugs. Cmon, i am quite certain you dont believe that.
Schools may be part of the problem but the TRUE problem is the alarming amount of out of wedlock births in the black community. It really boils down to the disinegration of the black family. How many black woman have children with different men, not to mention as teenagers without education or any real skills. Why does the black community condone such aggregious behavior?
Every successful athlete or entertainer always thanks their mothers or grandmothers, where the frig are the fathers. If a famous black speaks using proper english and is educated, he is called " a sell out". What the frig kind of a culture is that. Having babies like they are pitbull puppies. Its like, get with the damn program already. We are tired of it.

Please don't confuse cook county with the facts. They hurt his brain.

For whoever wants to know why the idea that the government flooded black communities with drugs, it comes from an investigated series by a reporter for the San Jose Mercury News in the late 1990s. The reporter was Gary Webb, and he claimed that the Nicaraguan Contras (anti-Communists) trafficked drugs in California with the knowledge and approval of the CIA. President Reagan supported the Contradoras/Contras because they were fighting the Sandinistas, who were the Communists. The Democrats didn't think the Communists were so bad so they cut off government funding by passing something called the Boland Amendment. So Reagan went around the Boland Amendment by raising private money to support the Contras.

Two Nicaraguans who were important in the Contras, Oscar Danilo Blandon and Norwin Meneses, who sold cocaine to Freeway Ricky Ross, who then sold them to the Crips. The CIA did work with Blandon and Meneses, but did not support their drug work. In fact Blandon was arrested by the FBI for drug trafficking, convicted, and then worked with the DEA to take down Ricky Ross! So Blandon received NO protection by the CIA. Sometimes the CIA has to work with bad people to get the bigger fish, like helping to take down a hostile government. That's part of their job.

Ricky Ross started selling cocaine for a teacher after high school, then made so much money he went on his own. The teacher had a middle man, but Ross dealt with the original suppliers, Blandon and Meneses, who sold a cheaper form of coke. They all made a lot of money. The key facts are that they operated out of Los Angeles via Nicaragua. The Nicaraguans did not deal in with other black communities. Ross was already a drug trafficker. The CIA did not protect the Nicaraguans. The government did not bring drugs to black communities. Ultimately, people in black communities who used crack did it of their own free will. No one put guns to their heads and made them smoke crack. They made their own choices.

Ross says that because the CIA looked the other way while Blandon sold cocaine that they are responsible. But working with a drug trafficker does not mean that the CIA approved of what he was doing. Also, it was not Blandon who sold crack and started the crack epidemic, but Ross. Ricky Ross started the crack epidemic because the people he was dealing to preferred it over PCP, which was the epidemic then.

Here is Ricky Ross interviewed by Reason magazine. It's interesting because it delves into the economics of Ross's criminal enterprise: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9w3ql7hIG8

Gary Webb was demoted by the San Jose Mercury News for being sloppy and jumping to conclusions after other newspapers challenged him. He quit then wrote a book called "Deadly Alliance." He went to work as a state investigator until he was laid off, then for an alternative newspaper. Unable to meet his mortgage, he lost his house, became depressed and killed himself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb

Several investigations concluded that Webb's claims were exaggerated. Crack had already started showing up in Los Angeles, Miami, Houston and other places in 1981 when dealers created it to increase profits. Ross sold cocaine and the dealers he sold it to started converting it to rock to increase their own profits. Ross sold his low-priced coke all over the country. Blandon didn't sell it all over the country, Ross did. The claim that the government flooded black communities with drugs is lie (especially since the accusation is that the CIA spread cocaine -- not any other government agency and not other drugs -- and that one charge is false. No one in the CIA sold drugs, but a couple people working with the CIA did. So the claim is guilt by association, which is a logical fallacy.

Another guy who believes the government itself sold the drugs is conspiracy nut Alex Jones, who also believes that Bill Clinton used to have cocaine flown in at the Mena, Arkansas air port when he was governor.

That may be part of their job, but morally this isn't justifiable. If a government is hostile to the USA, it doesn't mean it's "bad" by default and has to be taken down. By that logic, we can also say the mafia is doing their job too, because it's their life and traditions; the only thing that differentiates them from the secret services like the CIA is that they are not "official", but so what?


How can you be so sure the CIA didn't sell drugs? I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the secret services of all the countries commit crimes from time to time, sometimes out of the hypocritical reason of "strengthening their nation" and sometimes just to fill their pockets. Why should the CIA be an exception? I never thought anyone in this world seriously believed in the honesty of such institutions like the secret services, especially ones like the CIA that have much to do with politics, espionage and counter-espionage. Such things always depend from a point of view, because politicians and governments considered "bad" by the CIA may be considered at least "not so bad" by somebody else. Some people think the USA are "bad" and only aim at the world supremacy, but this imo is as much an exaggerated view as the view of the ones who support the CIA and the idea that all enemies of the USA have to be eliminated.

Don't know much about Gary Webb, but his articles about the alleged release of drug lord Carlos Lehder seemed pretty convincing to me. How do you know he really killed himself?

Michael Ruppert an ex cop also said the CIA sold drugs even famously confronted the CIA director at a town hall meeting. I don't say I agree or disagree with the this stuff, because if they did sell tracks would be covered and individuals involved would be discredited, also anyone involved in the crack game might be looking for a scape goat. We have seen FBI agents who work with bad guys so of one agent in the CIA did work with Ross that doesn't mean the CIA as a whole sold crack.

Very informative faithful1

News flash, blacks were doing drugs , especially heroin , well before Reagan supported the contra's.

@F1

Well spoken. Your definitely on point with your answers and give you credit ( and a host of others) for being well rounded.

Basically the drug trade can't sustain itself without a clientele. Cocaine, Marijuana, Opiums have all been in our country since its foundation (before and after of course). The policies and law just change over these years due to underground market, crimes, foreign wars, and other factors as well. This isn't much of a conspiracy against blacks nor any specific ethnic background problems since everybody is involved either as providers or consumers.