LAW AND DISORDER

Commit A Serious Crime In One State, And You'll Do Hard Time. Cross The
State Border, And You May Not. Either Way, It Doesn't Seem To Make Much
Difference To The Crime Rate.

Unlike the Canadian system, criminal law in the U.S. is a matter of state
jurisdiction, with some exceptions (drug offences and inter-state crimes,
for example, fall under federal law). As a result, the U.S. has not one
criminal justice system, but 51 (counting the federal level). Both laws and
punishments vary, sometimes widely, from state to state.

This variation produces, in effect, dozens of experiments in crime control.
Can a jurisdiction curb crime by putting more offenders in prison longer?
Most criminologists think not. State-by-state comparisons suggest they are
right.

Take New York State. The spectacular decline in crime in New York City
between 1992 and 1997 is justly famous. Less well known is the fact that
over that same period, the number of state prisoners (the vast majority of
whom are from New York City) grew slowly compared to that in other states.
In fact, over those five years, New York State prison expansion was the
second-slowest in the U.S.

Over the same period, California's prison population grew nine times as
fast as New York's. But the incidence of crime in California did not drop
by the same proportion. On the contrary, violent crime fell far more
sharply in New York State, with the drop in California only reaching 40 per
cent of the decline in New York State.

Or consider the two Virginias. West Virginia boosted its prison population
by 131 per cent over the last decade and saw a four-per-cent drop in crime.
Across the border, Virginia's prisons grew by 28 per cent, while the state
enjoyed a 21-per-cent drop in crime.

Broader comparisons underscore the fact that stuffing prisons is an
ineffective way to control crime.

Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma have the three highest incarceration rates
at 793, 779, and 681 per 100,000 population respectively (excluding inmates
in federal and county institutions). North Dakota, Maine, and Minnesota
have the lowest rates at 146, 130, and 129 per 100,000 respectively (almost
as low as Canada's 119).

And yet, despite the immense gap in incarceration between the top three
states and the bottom three, the states with high incarceration rates are
not safer places. In fact, North Dakota has the lowest violent crime rate
in the United States. Maine ranks 48th; Minnesota, 39th on the index of
violent crime in the U.S.

Louisiana, with the highest incarceration rate in the U.S., has the
seventh-highest rate of violent crime. Texas is 19th; Oklahoma, 21st.

In fact, states that use prison less tend to have lower violent crime
rates. New Hampshire and Vermont, which have low rates of incarceration,
fall just behind North Dakota as the states with the least violent crime.

On the other hand, states with a high rate of incarceration tend to be
plagued by crime. Florida and South Carolina, both of which have high
imprisonment rates, are near the top of the violent-crime list.

Of course this evidence, while suggestive, is not hard proof. It could be
that a low crime rate simply means there are fewer criminals to put in
prison. It's also true that any number of other differences between the
states may account for their varying crime and imprisonment rates,
including degrees of urbanization, economic development and cultural norms.
It's obviously not just crime policy that sets Minnesota apart from Louisiana.

But even when very similar states are compared, it becomes clear that
putting more people in prison doesn't cut crime.

Consider Louisiana and Mississippi. Louisiana's incarceration rate is more
than 50 per cent higher than its neighbour's, yet crime rates in the two
states are all but identical.

Or consider Minnesota and Wisconsin. While Minnesota has a Canadian-style
incarceration rate of 129 prisoners per 100,000 people; its neighbour has a
more typical American rate of 380. Despite this enormous gap, the two have
nearly identical violent-crime rates: Wisconsin is 42nd among the states,
while Minnesota is 39th.

Perhaps most telling are the Dakotas. North Dakota's low incarceration rate
of 146 per 100,000 is far outstripped by South Dakota's 347 per 100,000.
And yet South Dakota has marginally more violent crime than its northern
namesake.

All of this suggests something many criminologists have argued for years:
Criminal justice policies have little effect on broad crime trends. The
slogan, "tough on crime" is a misnomer: Harsh punishments may be tough on
some criminals but they have never been tough on crime.