PUTTING CRIMINALS IN PRISON DOES WORK

As legislators consider what to do about prison overcrowding, they should be
guided by one central truth: Increased reliance on incarceration has
resulted in improved public safety.

There was a sea change in the way most states approach crime in the late
1970s and early 1980s, following a couple of decades of rapidly rising crime
rates.

Most states changed their criminal codes to better reflect the
"incapacitation" approach to crime. Political scientist James Q. Wilson
provided the intellectual framework for this approach in his influential
book, Thinking About Crime.

At the time, according to Wilson, social science, despite considerable
pretenses, didn't really know why people commit crimes or what would cause
them not to do so.

But it was known that most predatory crimes were committed by a small number
of young men. Virtually all of them ultimately got caught. And if they were
incarcerated, they would at least not be committing additional crimes
against law-abiding citizens.

After rising for a couple of decades, national crime rates began to fall as
states adopted the incapacitation approach. Over the past two decades, the
national crime rate has fallen 28 percent.

Arizona reformed its criminal code in 1978 to provide more certainty in
sentencing. Since then, Arizona's overall crime rate has fallen by 21
percent. Violent crime has been reduced by 8.5 percent and property crimes
by 31 percent.

Some attribute this to demographics, not increased reliance on
incarceration. But the number of young men in prime crime production years
has not dropped nearly as dramatically as has the crime rate.

If public safety is the top priority, the safest conclusion is that
incapacitation is working.

Of course, it has not been inexpensive. But even after increasing
commitments nearly tenfold, the state's prison system consumes only about 10
percent of the state's General Fund budget. That's a reasonable investment
in doing a better job of government's top priority.

The debate over alternatives to incarceration rests, in substantial part, on
misleading data and sloppy thinking.

The claim is that the state is sending a lot of non-violent, first-time
offenders to prison. In reality, if full criminal histories are considered
rather than just the sentencing offense, the number of truly first-time,
non-violent prisoners doesn't affect the financial debate much.

And what is a non-violent offense? Those victimized by home burglaries
experience a sense of violation that shouldn't be lightly dismissed. And DUI
is punished with prison precisely because of its potential for violence.

The fight against crime has become unfortunately mixed up with the war
against drugs. If drug usage were decriminalized, chances are predatory
crime rates would go down. Drugs prices would likely plummet, reducing the
incidence of addicts committing crimes to support their habit.

Nevertheless, although there are a lot of people in prison whose sentencing
offense is drug possession or dealing, there are very few for whom that is
the totality of their criminal history.

There has been one important change, however, since the incapacitation
approach was largely adopted two decades ago. At that time, the best
evidence was that rehabilitation programs in prison didn't reduce recidivism
rates.

The evidence today is more hopeful. An Arizona Department of Corrections
study of inmates released in 1994 and 1995 found that participation in the
Correctional Industries program reduced the recidivism rate from 55 percent
to 34 percent.

Arizona's new corrections director, Dora Schriro, reportedly had comparable
success elsewhere with a program she's costing out for Arizona. Faith-based
programs have produced even more dramatic reductions in recidivism rates.

Reducing recidivism would have a large effect on crime rates. The new, more
hopeful evidence regarding rehabilitation warrants additional public
investment.

But the first claim on public dollars should for additional prison space so
predatory criminals can continue to be incapacitated.