Customer Reviews

Crime and Punishment in America

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Elliott Currie doesn't seem to understand that you aren't supposed to approach the issue of crime by actually thinking about it and looking at the evidence. These days crime policy is increasingly monotone--a one-note cry of "get tough." When crime fails to vanish like the "get tough" proponents claim it will, the cry simply becomes "get tougher." So we get the death penalty for more and more crimes, "three-strikes" laws to give life sentences for all sorts of offenses, huge numbers of people imprisoned solely for posession of drugs, and states like California spending more on their prison system than on their impoverished colleges and universities.

Anyone who reads Elliott Curries book will find that these policies do not have a leg to stand on intellectually. Currie begins by reviewing what he calls our "prison experiment." For some 30 years we have taken the "get tough" approach, over which time we have increased the prison population by a factor of about six. Over this time, the level of crime has changed little, as Currie amply demonstrates.

Currie then goes on to demolish what he calls "prison myths," a whole set of factoids about crime and the justice system that are put out by right-wing ideologues like John DiIulio, Charles Murray and Morgan Reynolds, and spread by pundits and politicians like William Bennett, Phil Gramm, and Newt Gingrich. To give one example, Currie shows how Reynolds concocts his claim that robbers serve an average prison sentence of 23 days (the actual figure is over 4 years). What Reynolds does is divide the time served by convicted robbers by the total number of roberies in a year. Reynolds ignores simple facts: over half of all robberies are not reported to police, many that are reported are not solved, and many robbers commit more than one crime. The result is a meaningless statistic. While Currie is too well-mannered to say it, it is obvious why Reynolds and his like manipulate the data the way they do--they are intentionally deceiving people.

If Currie had done no more than debunk the "get tough" approach, his book would be worthy of five stars for that alone. But the second half of his book is even more revealing. Currie has made a comprehensive review of solid research on all kinds of social policy. What he reveals is dramatic--we know what kinds of policies will reduce crime.

Currie describes a whole set of policies that have been shown, with hard evidence, to be effective. A few examples will convey the type of policies that are needed:

-"Home visiting" programs that provide support for low-income parents with infants and young children in the form of regular visits from nurses. Such programs are proven to be effective in reducing child abuse and neglect, which are long-term causes of crime.

-Intensive mentoring programs for juveniles with criminal records, which involve having caseworkers or therapists meet several times weekly with the juveniles for an extended period. Juveniles in such programs had much lower rearrest rates than other juveniles with similar records

-Effective drug treatment programs for the 50-60 percent of inmates with drug problems. Again, inmates who complete such programs are far less likely to commit future crimes. The need is to make such programs available to all inmates who need them, not just a handful.

Currie also demonstrates conclusively that poverty and income inequality are major contributors to crime, and that an effective attach on poverty will significantly contribute to reducing crime.

The evidence Currie cites is so overwhelming that it raises the question of why policies like those he advocates are not in place. The conclusion I am forced to is that politicians like Bennett and "get tough" proponents like DiIulio and Reynolds do not really want to solve the crime problem. They want to keep people scared to get their political support.

Crime, like any other social issue, is a topic people have very strong opinions on. But also like any other social issue, most people don't have much basis for their opinions other than beliefs and values steeped in misunderstanding. Elliott Currie writes with the view that we must redefine our view of the criminal justice system, their purpose, and how our nation struggles with violence. The design of it all, he argues, is out of whack. Locking large numbers of people into cells and then releasing them without having addressed the underlying reasons why they got there in the first place is no solution. Currie brings in much statistical data, which can make the first two chapters slow, but it is necessary. You can't take social "science" seriously without such data. He ends on a more philosophical note, but in between, he creates a well structured critique of America's crime situation.

First, he wonders about prisons. Are we soft on crime? Does prison work? And do prisons pay back in prevented crimes what they cost? Then he suggests that there are alternatives to incarceration alone, and discusses methods of prevention. He also discusses crime as a social phenomenon, and economic factors that create favorable settings for crime. And finally, he suggests that our view of the justice system itself must be revised, that decreasing violence should be a priority above punishment.

Having sat in on Elliott Currie's "Crime and Criminal Justice" class at UC Berkeley, I found myself wanting a little more from the book. His class was more extensive and covered other issues like gun control, the death penalty, how to get and interpret data on crime, etc. But this is not a textbook on crime. It is Currie's plea that we all take responsibility for the lives of many who are young and live marginal existences, who suffer abuses and desperate conditions. We provide them with the social service of incarceration and hope to be rid of their disagreeable behavior. Is this what we really want? Even if your views on crime are more conservative than Currie's, he provides an argument that is intellectual and passionate, and you may at least wonder if he has a point.

"Crime and Punishment in America" provides excellent examples of how common sense and rational science have been sacrificed in criminal justice policymaking in favor of politically favorable actions. Currie explores why "lock 'em up and throw away the key", while a very politically fashionable approach to crime, will only serve to exacerbate the crime crisis. Currie also provides excellent answers to conservative critics like James Q. Wilson and John J. DiIulio who seem to be grossly misinterpreting the data we have about crime.

As a former criminal justice student of Currie's myself, I must say that, along with his lectures at Berkeley, his detailed analysis in this book went a long way in changing my personal views about the crime problem in America.

This book is a rather valiant attempt to argue against the tide. The thesis of the book is that the United States of America is involved in a bizaree social experiment. That experiment is to create a grossly unequall society and to see if it can be kept together with a draconian law enforcement system.

The author tries to argue that crime is the result of social inequality and not the "break down of the family" as suggested by conservative comentators. This part of the book although probably true is not that well argued. Better are the sections which correct a number of myths in America about the criminal justice system. Those myths suggest that the system is soft and that most criminals in custody are dangerous. Both nonsense of course.

The book is readable and I read it in a couple of hours. Still no doubt most Americans will read Rush Limbaugh rather than this more interesting work.

The tragedy of America is of course that most of its citizens tend not to be interested in other countries and have little knowledge of other social systems. This lack of knowledge blinds them to how serious a moral choice is made when so many people imprisoned because of social inequality.

This book was required reading a sociology class I took and I would recommend it to anyone. The book is easy to read, easy to understand, interesting, and relevent to any member of society. Currie builds a strong thesis as to why our justice system does us little justice, and he offers some valuable suggestions as to how the system could do us more justice. I would especially recomend this book to all voters.

Conventional wisdom can, at times, be wrong. This may very well be true of the idea that simply building more prisons and throwing more people in jail will solve the problem of crime. Very simply, Currie points out that this only takes care of the criminals who are caught. It really does nothing to take care of the problem at its source.

Although prison has a deterrent effect, the effect is relative to the situation the person finds himself in. For instance, if the person is desperate, the person is more likely to commit a crime than a person who is well off. Prison, as pointed out in the book, is largely mere incarceration. It protects the public, but it doesn't solve the problem.

What struck me most about this book is the number or programs that have worked at reducing crime. I was happy to see that change is possible, but I was dismayed that none of this seems to be making much of a foothold in political arenas. People are still in the grip of fear.

I would highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to seriously think about the problem of crime. I would also (if I had the power) require this book of all politicians whose office directly affects the citizenry.

This book is misleading, and here's why:

Currie's main argument is that prisons do not work because they do nothing to deter crime. He backs up this assertion by stating while the United States started beefing up prison sentences and building more prisons in the mid 80's, that the crime rate actually rose significantly! Here, Currie is right. From 1984 to 1993, while prison time was getting stiffer, the rate of violent crime rose from 1984 from 41 victimizations per 1,000, to 52 per 1,000 in 1993.

However, this premise is misleading because Currie never tells you that from 1973 to 1983, the violent crime rate was the same (around 50 victimizations per 1,000) as it had been when it "peaked" in 1993! Thus, Currie is hiding the ball and only telling you half the story!

And moreover, Currie's hypothesis is dead wrong when you consider the rates of violent crime since the book was published. When Currie wrote the book the crime rate was around 45 victimizations per 1,000, and he projected that the rate would increase because prisons don't "rehabilitate" its prisoners. However, the crime rate is now 21 victimizations per 1,000 - a 58% decrease in violent crime since 1993! How do you explain that, Currie?

However, the book is still on point when it criticizes how the USA imprisons far more many people than any other country. The only problem is that recent crime trends over the past 10 years show that contrary to what Currie said, imprisoning lots of people has made this country much safer (58% decrease in violent crime). This fact really kills Currie's main thesis.

Nevertheless, I think Currie is right when he says that there has to be a better way to deal with crime than just locking people up. For example, diversion programs for drug addicts would be a far more humanitarian and less expensive way to deal with these types of offenders than jail time. Also, the progressive social programs Currie discusses would also be helpful in keeping people out of jail in the first place. And of course, a greater investment in education is also key...but this has all been said before...

This book is truly one of the better books discussing the problems with our punishment in America. Elliott Currie does not go directly into the book explaining his argument outright. The first two paragraphs describe the arguments as to why the "Prison Experiment" is and was a good idea, and after each argument for, he details why those specific arguments are flawed. The last three chapters of his book explain his argument for an alternative to our social crisis in a logical and reasonable manner.
Mr. Currie's argument in the last part of the book is that there are many alternatives to imprisoning our entire population that commits a crime. He states that the justice system as we have it right now is so completely focused on being a punitive system that it has ignored its potential to be a preventative system. His premise here is completely true and correct. He believes that our system should be focusing on rehabilitating our criminals and juveniles rather than putting them away and "assuming" they will be okay when they get out. This argument is also deductively valid because the conclusion would follow necessarily from the premise. If we focus on rehabilitating, the population would be extremely less likely to commit crimes because it would give people an alternative. Elliott Currie's book is also good because he commits no logical fallicies. He does a good job detailing the reasons why his argument is valid. He suggests anger management programs, drug treatment programs, more schooling, and stricter aftercare for paroled men and women. All of these programs would seem to logically reduce crime greatly once an inmate was paroled.
In conclusion, Elliot Currie offers an excellent argument as to an alternative to our "prison experiment." He clearly explains the reasons as to why his argument is valid and he gives a multitude of reasons as to why the arguments for the "prison experiment" are wrong. It was an excellent book full of good opinions.