I have an op-ed in today's LA Times about the horrors of prison rape, and the strange space -- part tacitly accepted punishment, part source of humor, part awful human rights abuse -- it occupies in our culture. Elsewhere in the same section, James Q. Wilson says that we don't have too many people in prison -- in fact, the number is just right. His piece argues, simply, that our massive prison population reduces crimes because it a) keeps the prisoners from committing crimes and b) scares those on the outside into lawfulness. In other words, it works through incarceration and deterrence. But that's a false argument. The relevant question isn't whether we keep our current criminal justice system or keep our current criminal justice system but toss a bunch of criminals back onto the streets. It's whether we keep our current criminal justice system or move towards a system dedicated to preemption and rehabilitation, rather than punishment and incarceration. Spending a shit-ton of money locking people up is one way to reduce crime. It also makes those who were locked up more violent, destroys families, reduces economic productivity, helps criminals network with each other, and so forth (none of which are costs that Wilson mentions). We could also, however, spend that hefty sum of money on interventions known to reduce criminality, which include everything from universal pre-kindergarten to jobs programs to drug rehab. But that wouldn't be nearly so satisfying, and wouldn't let politicians seem nearly so tough.(Image used under a Creative Commons License from Flickr user Gipic.) PRISON RAPE.
I have an op-ed in today's LA Times about the horrors of prison rape, and the strange space -- part tacitly accepted punishment, part source of humor, part awful human rights abuse -- it occupies in our culture. Elsewhere in the same section, James Q. Wilson says that we don't have too many people in prison -- in fact, the number is just right. His piece argues, simply, that our massive prison population reduces crimes because it a) keeps the prisoners from committing crimes and b) scares those on the outside into lawfulness. In other words, it works through incarceration and deterrence. But that's a false argument. The relevant question isn't whether we keep our current criminal justice system or keep our current criminal justice system but toss a bunch of criminals back onto the streets. It's whether we keep our current criminal justice system or move towards a system dedicated to preemption and rehabilitation, rather than punishment and incarceration. Spending a shit-ton of money locking people up is one way to reduce crime. It also makes those who were locked up more violent, destroys families, reduces economic productivity, helps criminals network with each other, and so forth (none of which are costs that Wilson mentions). We could also, however, spend that hefty sum of money on interventions known to reduce criminality, which include everything from universal pre-kindergarten to jobs programs to drug rehab. But that wouldn't be nearly so satisfying, and wouldn't let politicians seem nearly so tough.(Image used under a Creative Commons License from Flickr user Gipic.) 
