Crime And Prison Population Essay Research Paper
Crime And Prison Population Essay, Research Paper
The reply to this inquiry is amazing: the U.S. incarcerates 25 % of the universe s prison population with merely 7 % of the universe s population. This is a upseting anamoly in the history of the universe. Never before has a state been able to imprison so many people at such a high rate, two million and 1 in 127 severally. These big Numberss are improbably hard to believe about in meaningful footings. But if you can conceive of the population of Los Angeles in 1950 ; and if you so put all of those people in some type of coop, you are close to contemplating the enormousness of the U.S. incarcerated population. The improbably of import and distressing factor is how fast this occurred. Today s degree of approximately two million was achieved chiefly since 1980 when there was about 500,000 people incarcerated.
California illustrates how this growing has occurred over a comparatively short period of clip. Since 1977, the California Department of Correction s ( CDC s ) prison population has increased from 17,338 to 160,655, over a seven hundred per centum increse. If you add the people in California s federal prisons and county gaols, California leads the state with around 258,000 people in prison or gaol. When we color these Numberss, the job becomes clearer: of the prison population, African Americans constitute about one 3rd while they represent 6 % of the population. Said another manner, 1,996 in every 100,000 African American Californians are imprisoned in comparing to the 242 Whites in every 100,000. Latinos, proportionately, have suffered the brunt of California s prison roar. In 1977, 42 % of the prison population was white and 22 % was Latino. The two groups are nearing a full reversal because today Latinos represent 35 % of the province prison population whereas Whites now represent 29 % . A entire reversal appears likely if you look at the juvenile halls in Los Angeles County, where 1,100 of the 1,800 young person interior are Latino.
These unacceptable Numberss and racial disagreements are falsely legitimated through racialist premises about who commits offense and na ve connexions between lifting captivity rates and dropping offense rates. Because prison rates have risen and offense rates have dropped and because inkinesss do perpetrate more offense than other groups ( although non to a parallel grade of black captivity rates ) prison vindicators such as George Bush can see the United States function as world-incarceration leader as unfortunate but necessary. The fact is, nevertheless, that between 1991 and 1998, on norm, states with higher additions in captivity had comparatively lower lessenings in offense than those provinces with lesser additions in captivity. In other words, greater captivity rates tend to give lower lessenings in offense rates. So if captivity does cut down offense, at a certain degree a point of decreasing returns is reached.
So while increased captivity is non a simple expression for reduced offense, what about the decision that the United States is a offense ridden state, and that we therefore are bound to hold high captivity rates, albeit with some jobs? The job with this premise is that United States is non the offense ridden state people presume it to be or our prison population suggests. In comparing to other states, the U.S. is off-the charts in footings of force and mean with non-violent offense. But our captivity rates far exceed the U.S. surplus in force. The U.S. rate of 1 in 137 is practically incomprable to the rate of captivity in other G7 states, 1 in 1000. Yet, the non-violent offense rates are practically the same between these states, and over half of the U.S. captive population is non-violent. This means that to a big extent the U.S. has an unnatural captivity procedure, and non an unnatural offense job.
In his book, Crime Is Not The Problem, Zimmring exerts a great trade of attempt making computations that show the U.S. a force job. He so looks at how political rheotirc conflates this with a offense job, which leads to a major condemnable justness job. Media and politicians sensationalize violent offense as a proof for condemnable justness policeis that attack non-violent offense. Zimring argues:
Expanding penalty resources [ has ] more consequence on instances of fringy earnestness instead than those that provoke the greatest grade of citizen fright. The consequence is that when fright of deadly force is translated into a general run against offense, the major portion of excess resources will be directed at nonviolent behaviour. ( Zimmring 17 )
This has been partly true in California. While Draconian statute law has been driven to a big extent by public fright of violent-crimes, largely non-violent wrongdoers have felt the impact of these new Torahs. In 1977, 63 % of male captives in California were imprisoned for violent offense, and the violent offense rate was at 683 per 100,000 ; by 1992, nevertheless, 45 % of male captives in California were imprisoned for violent offense, but the violent offense rate had climbed to 1,103 per 100,000. What this means is that as violent offense was lifting, the per centum of those serving clip for violent offense was diminishing. To a immense extent, this reversal was facilitated by the creative activity of new Torahs and freshly enforced Torahs. In others words, the drug war came. In California in 1981, the captivity rate for drugs was merely 6 % , and today it is about 28 % . Therefore, the lessening in the per centum of violent wrongdoers came largely with the addition of drug wrongdoers, and this procedure was fueled by a sensationlized fright of drugs, non violent offense. This means that the electorate is non rather every bit fooled as Zimmring thinks, and that people rather wittingly went about making a war on drugs and some of the people who use them.
