4 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
A Start -, September 29, 2009
At the beginning of 2008 the U.S. had 1% of its population behind bars - over 2 million; another 7 million were under community-based state supervision. On the other hand, the U.S. continues to be the world's most violent industrialized nation. Further, the incarceration rate for African-Americans is 7X that of whites, and almost 50% of those between 20 - 29 in urban areas are under some form of correctional supervision. Total expenditures (police, courts, corrections) approximate $200 billion/year.
Author Pratt then contends we have no reason to believe that engaging in relatively mundane misbehavior leads to serious violent offenses. For example, the volume of thefts and burglaries in Sydney, Australia are about the same as in Los Angeles, yet homicides in Sydney are only 4.8% those of Los Angeles (measured before Chief Bratton implemented his reforms). As states create stiffer sanctions, presumably in an effort to rid the streets of those who would commit life-threatening violence, the bulk of enforcement is directed towards non-serious offenders. The most frequent crime resulting in prison is drug possession (22%), burglary (20%), theft and fraud (20%), and drug delivery (15%). Repeated studies have found 6% within an age cohort responsible for over half of arrests.
Americans' views on crime are confusing - on the one hand favoring strong general policies such as "three strikes and you're out," while also favoring a much lesser penalty when the third strike is minor.
Periods of average incarceration are often severely under-estimated by including unsolved crimes in the denominator used for calculations. Pratt contends fear of incarceration is not a big factor influencing crime rates; however, he also forgets that being off the streets certainly is.
Evidence suggests that up to 80% of incarcerated inmates in the U.S. have substance abuse problems, and that a sizable percentage have psychological disorders.
One unanticipated consequence of the trend to private prisons is that private corporations now spend considerable effort lobbying for efforts to generate more prisoners who will stay longer.
The author contends that incarceration undermines the structure and stability of the families involved; on the other hand, that might not be a bad thing.
Pratt believes that what is needed is a more evidence-based approach to crime control and responsible corrections policy. Ameliorating the effects of economic deprivation and family disruption are likely to have a significant impact on crime reduction, he contends. Yet, in a treatise with over 500 citations to mostly academic studies, Pratt surprisingly offers nothing to support this assertion.
Continuing, the development of a rational, evidence-based corrections policy should begin with seeing drug use as a public health rather than criminal problem. This, however, is impeded by the fact that many law enforcement agencies depend significantly on revenues from civil asset forfeiture of property connected with drug crimes. Drug courts created under the assumption that treatment is a more appropriate sanction for drug offenders than punishment are a good start, though empirical evaluations are somewhat mixed, though favorable.
Recidivism reduction programs should target factor found causative such as antisocial attitudes, family, peer associations, and drug use - not 'commonsense' factors such as self-esteem or fear of doing push ups in 'boot-camp.' Thirty - fifty percent improvement in recidivism results.
Near the end, Pratt cites a respected researcher (James Austin) as concluding that evidence produced in academic studies of criminology is 'scant,' 'shoddy and superficial,' and 'equivocal.' Pratt's recommendations include an 'enough with the wishy-washy," and then proceeds to equivocate all over himself for the next page and a half.
Author Pratt makes a good point about decriminalizing drugs - however, he limits the impact by failing to cite recent studies on this topic. Overall, "Addicted to Incarceration" is loaded with citations; however, too many are decades old - such as the one comparing Sydney with L.A. on homicide rates, and a 1977 study on race relations that can no longer allege credibility. Finally, I never got over his introductory graphs showing incarceration rates climbing steadily from 1980 until 1998, then becoming almost level, vs. another graph showing steady crime rates until 1992, then falling until about 2001. Not good support for arguing excessive incarceration.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
