Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Look south

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, January 11, 2011 4:44pm - 62 Comments

Conservative backbencher Brent Rathgeber looks to the United States, seemingly to explain his government’s approach to crime.

answer to Mark Holland’s challenge to name a “single jurisdiction where higher rates of incarceration led to a lower crime rate”-easy–USA.

from 1988 to 2008, fed and state prisoner pop from 1M to 2.3M–violent crime cut in 1/2 and overall crime rate down 25% (NY Times 2/3/2009).

That drop in the crime rate is noted in a New York Times piece from March 2, 2009—a piece based on a Pew Center study that raised concerns about the fact that correctional spending in the United States was “outpacing budget growth in education, transportation and public assistance.”

Of course, it is difficult to draw a direct line between the incarceration rate and the crime rate (see this chat with Pew’s Susan K. Urahn and her comparison of Florida and New York). Were it so easy, one might imagine that the United States, with the highest incarceration rate in the world, would now be the most peaceful.

When the Economist looked at the American justice system last year, it noted some of the research and thinking in this regard.

Some people argue that the system works: that crime has fallen in the past two decades because the bad guys are either in prison or scared of being sent there. Caged thugs cannot break into your home. Bernie Madoff’s 150-year sentence for running a Ponzi scam should deter imitators. And indeed the crime rate continues to drop, despite the recession, as Michael Rushford of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, an advocacy group, points out. This, he says, is because habitual criminals face serious consequences. Some research supports him: after raking through decades of historical data, John Donohue of Yale Law School estimates that a 10% increase in imprisonment brings a 2% reduction in crime.

Others disagree. Using more recent data, Bert Useem of Purdue University and Anne Piehl of Rutgers University estimate that a 10% increase in the number of people behind bars would reduce crime by only 0.5%. In the states that currently lock up the most people, imprisoning more would actually increase crime, they believe. Some inmates emerge from prison as more accomplished criminals. And raising the incarceration rate means locking up people who are, on average, less dangerous than the ones already behind bars.

a

Bookmark and Share
  • YYZ

    After reading this I zoomed over to Brent Rathgeber's Wikipedia page. Here's the intro:

    "Brent Rathgeber (born 24 July 1964 in Melville, Saskatchewan) is a lawyer and politician"

    This immediately confirmed my suspicion: Brent Rathgeber has likely never taken a statistics course. If he had, he would know that a relationship does not imply or explain causality.

    Over the same time period, there has been growth in internet use. Perhaps we can attribute the growth in internet use to building more prisons?

    Come on Brent. Stats 101.

    • Cats

      Fair enough but I think Holland was off base too.

      Its ambiguous from the wording of his challenge but I think Holland honestly believed that there wasn't a single example where imprisonment increased and crime rates decreased.

      From what i've heard he seems to believe there is a casual link in the opposite direction, the whole notion that prisons increase crime by making offenders more hardened.

      Best fishes.

  • Emily

    Why not just lock up the whole population, then the problem would be solved permanently?

    • Cats

      Crimes happen in prisons too believe it or not.

      Cats away!

      • Emily

        Capital punishment en masse.

      • Jan

        Yes, large amounts of drugs enter prisons despite the security. How do you suppose that could be happening?

        • Cats

          Smuggling or bribing an official on the inside.

          Do you support the Liberal idea of free drugs and needles for inmates ?

          Cats wants to know.

          • Jan

            Do you think the government facilitating drug dealing is teaching inmates to respect the law. And not providing clean needles is just plain – unethicalm don't you think.

          • Cats

            I'd rather anyone hooked on IV drugs be put in solitary to detox.

            New investments in prisons will help upgrade security too, get contraband out of the system.

            If anywhere harm reduction is ridiculous its prison. Rehab shouldn't be "optional" behind bars.

            Cats!

          • Emily

            Why yes, the screaming, tearing of skin, violence, bleeding, vomiting, diarrhea and so on should be no trouble for a jail to handle, right?

            See…this is why we have a constitution and charter of rights.

          • Emily

            Cons are sadistic.

  • tedbetts

    I think Brent is on to something here. I bet if we locked up 90-100% of the population, I guarantee you we would see a drop in the crime rate.

    Interestingly, and perhaps for similar or parallel reasons, some researchers think that if we locked up the entire Conservative caucus (assuming the Sheriff could find them), democracy levels would increase in Canada by an estimated 43.2%.

    • Cats

      Locking up our democratically elected officials would increase democracy ?

      Nice theory Cats.

      • tedbetts

        Only the Conservatives. And only by 43%.

        According to the same studies, locking up just Stephen Harper would result in a 36.8% increase in Canadian democracy.

        • A_logician

          That's one of 86.7% of statistics that are just made up on the spot.

          • tobyornotoby

            Studies show that this is just not the case!

      • Jan

        Well, democracy is diminishing and they're on the loose – isn't it obvious they're the cause. What are you calling for – empiral data – what kind of a Conservative are you?

  • bergkamp

    Interesting we are having a discussion about not locking up criminals just a few days after a nutter in Tucson with multiple arrests, but no time in jail, went on a rampage and killed 6 and injured 14.

    And I still don't understand logic or wtf people are talking about when they claim jail does not reduce crime. There is high recidivist rate amongst criminals and if they are in jail, and not on the streets, than they can't commit even more crimes.

    • gottabesaid

      'And I still don't understand logic or wtf people are talking about when they claim jail does not reduce crime. There is high recidivist rate amongst criminals and if they are in jail, and not on the streets, than they can't commit even more crimes.'

      Fair enough, but if was the case — if more jail reduces crime — the United States would be a much safer place than Canada. It is not.

      • bergkamp

        " … but if was the case — if more jail reduces crime — the United States would be a much safer place than Canada. It is not."

        US would be even more violent if they weren't putting criminals in jail.

        Depends on what you mean and what State you are thinking of. From StatsCan in Dec 2001:

        "Over the past 20 years, Canada recorded much lower rates of violent crime than the United States did. However, rates for property offences have generally been higher in Canada, according to a comparison of police-reported crime between the two nations."

    • http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

      And I still don't understand logic or wtf people are talking about when they claim jail does not reduce crime.

      One possible explanation may be that unless you lock people up forever for any crime–an absurd proposal–longer sentences merely delays future crimes from recidivist criminals.

      • bergkamp

        " … longer sentences merely delays future crimes from recidivist criminals."

        Age is important when considering crime. If we locked up all males aged 16-25 or thereabout, there would be very little crime in Canada. Also, criminals commit less crimes after they turn 25/30 yrs old so. I don't want to lock people up indefinitely, that's for sure, but crime is young man's activity.

        All I am saying is that when criminals are in jail they are not committing more crimes on society. Jail does actually reduce crime.

        • Jan

          But the U.S. has high rates of incarceration, recidivism and crime.

        • jacobserebrin

          The problem is when you lock someone up you prevent them from victimizing the public for the term of their sentence, so in that sense longer sentences could reduce crime in the short term by preventing specific individuals from committing crimes for that period of time.

          But it also turns people into hardened criminals.

          Sure, lots of young men commit crimes, but then they grow up, get jobs, start families and drink less. If those young men grow up in prison, they're not coming out to jobs and families they're coming out to a life of serious violent crime. So what may have been a first and last youthful brush with the law is now the beginning of a life of crime.

          Longer sentences and higher incarceration rates also reduce the social stigma surrounding imprisonment, one of the main deterrents. Let's be honest here, if you're committing a crime you're not going to be thinking about the length of the possible sentence. I mean seriously, do even the best informed Canadians know the mandatory minimums or average sentences for any crimes except maybe murder? That's not what's going to give a criminal pause, you know what might though, the reaction of his family and friends, the knowledge that when you get out life is going to be a lot harder. But if you have more people in prison, the more likely it is that the average person will know someone in prison and you begin to create a culture where going to prison becomes, at least in some places, acceptable and then crime become an acceptable carrier choice – increasing crime rates.

          It's not a zero sum game and there are a lot more than just two factors here.

          But let's be honest about this, increasing incarceration rates has nothing to do with reducing crime rates and everything to do with punishment.

          • TimmesArrow

            Ergo longer sentences and manditory minimums sans good rehabilitation programmes are an exercise in futility. Punishment in the sense of just throw away the key and the human being is a logical absurdity with grave consequences for future society.

            Now please tell me the Harper govt is planning for the future [ our future] by thinking about how it's going to reintegrate all those additional inmates into society someday, with the hope that some of them will become productive functioning citizens again???

          • squirrellyjoe

            sort of like the boom in tatoos and guys with earrings. as soon as there's one pirate on your block, everyone wants a parrot!

        • LdKitchenersOwn

          Keep in mind though that they also come out better and more efficient criminals than when they went in. Going to jail is like taking some years off to go back to school. Sure, you aren't as productive in your career for the time you're there, but once you graduate (/are released) you're much better at your chosen field of endeavour than when you started.

        • tobyornotoby

          But males 16-25 who have been locked up, are much more likely to commit crimes when released.

    • Jan

      High recidivism is a sign that incarceration isn't working as a deterrent.

    • Thwim

      You are making an assumption that had the person *not* been sent to jail, they would have continued committing crimes as the same rate as when they got out.

      However, given that we know jail time tends to "harden" criminals, as well as separate them from other more productive ways to live in society, so while they're not committing crimes while in prison, I would suggest there's an argument that when they get out they will be more likely to commit further crimes than if they had not been sent in.

      Which is worse, a crime every year for 10 years or so or a single crime leading to 3 years in prison and after that a crime every six months for the next 7 years?

  • Leaky Leaker

    They're hiding the numbers of the real costs of this behind cabinet secrecy. They are setting things up to *create* a prison industry. When it's leaked you'll see how insidious these Cons are.

    • Jan

      Bumping up the numbers increases the profitability. It would be interesting to track the lobbying activity.

  • Fido

    This comment board needs one of these:

    [ http://www.petsmart.com/product/zoom/index.jsp?pr... ]

    :-)

    • Jan

      SSSCAT – worth a try. LOL

  • chet

    It has been known for some time that the most and worst crimes are committed by a relatively few in the community, but over and over and over again.

    It would be difficult to comprehend how the left cannot even fathom that this group cannot committ crimes when they are behind bars, but can if they are out on the streets,

    if one didn't have other examples of leftist, reality altering, propositions such as raising our taxes to lower the Earth's temperature,

    the ever popular, cost controls with no effect on supply,

    and the always good for coctail parties "all cultures and societies are equal…different, but equal and certainly at least as good as our "corrupt" West" meme….stoning women just being one of those quaint multiculti quirks….like spicy mamosas and such.

    • Jan

      You're really rambling – aren't the talking points on this ready yet?

      • Jan

        And it's Samosas, which are not a Muslim tradition – if that's where you were going.

    • Emily

      So this is why Cons want to put people in prison for having 6 plants?

      And kindly stop slipping GW and Muslims into totally unrelated topics.

      • Jan

        chet's probably on the cucumber swat team…

        • Emily

          LOL I never thought of that!

    • chet

      Wait, wait,

      I support limited government and hence can be associated with the "tea party", which means (according to our tolerant progressive left) I am complicit in murder because Sara Palin did a target type ad once (like the ones the Dems use all the time),

      So I suggest none of you even respond to me, lest you be considered accessories after the fact to murder, or howsover tainted you may become by even engaging in me, according to the laws of Progressia.

      Let me be on this thread. Don't bring yourselves down along with me.

      It's the only way.

      • Emily

        Cons aren't for 'limited govt', and if you're Canadian which is doubtful….the tea party is irrelevant.

        Progressia must be on Mars though, because it doesn't exist on earth.

    • gottabesaid

      Chet,

      There is no evidence that the Conservatives' strategy will work. None. Repeating the mistakes of the U.S. will not make us safer.

      Please don't mistake opposition to your party's strategy as some weak-kneed liberal thug-hugging. Your government is proposing to spend millions of dollars on a strategy that has been proven not to work. It's a bad investment, and it won't make Canada safer.

      But, it will likely get the Conservatives some votes, and that's really what it's all about, isn't it?

      • A_logician

        Votes and campaign contributions from those profiting from prison-building.

      • chet

        There was a repeat sexually offender released into our neighborhood last month. Committed multiple violent, sexual acts. He would do it. Get incarcerated. Released. Do it again. The cycle was repeated at least three times, one of which involved the brutal rape of a sweet little 2 year old girl while he was "on release".

        The standard advisory tells us "he's at serious risk to reoffend."

        Are you telling me our community is safer if he's out, rather than being incarcerated until he's a frail old man unable to even walk? Is ours a more tolerant society to unleash a monster we know will prey on our children?

        This happens time and time and time again.

        I'd love to hear the argument how keeping him in jail just "won't work".

        • gottabesaid

          Sounds like the crown attorney in your neighbourhood is doing a pretty bad job. We have laws on the books that ensure that dangerous offenders aren't released. You should ask why those laws weren't applied. Also, if you could let me know how exactly the Conservatives' latest get-tough-on-crime legislation would have ensured this man was locked away for good, please post it.

          Anyway, before your government goes pissing away money on this re-election splurge, er, justice initiative, I'd appreciate them proving that it will work — because the evidence is not on their side.

        • Gayle

          Well lucky for all of us the Liberal Party of Canada created legislation that permits the long term supervision of such people, so that they will have conditions not to attend places children may be (including McDonalds), being under the supervision of a parole officer or police officer etc. All this even after they have served their entire sentence.

          Longer sentences are meaningless. Long term, and even life time supervision is not.

        • Anon

          How do we know you're not making this story up? Don't give an nameless hypothetical anecdote to try and support justification for more prisons.

          If this were true, then I'd definitely agree this is a failing of the judicial system (and I presume very few would disagree).

      • squirrellyjoe

        Next you're gonna tell me the war on drugs was just fictional, and that its actually been a tool of the phareceutical industry to bring us closer to our inner pirate.

  • Fido

    Chet persists in rambling on about "targets" used by the U.S. Democrat Party. Targets are WAY different than cross-hairs. We all set targets every day. We set those targets to emphasize the importance of reaching goals, e.g., the Conservative Party set targets for spending stimulus dollars. The Democrat Party set goals to defeat Republican opponents in elections. They depicted their opponents' locations with target symbols.

    I don't think Democrats ever set a cross-hair to symbolize a goal; no one I I know sets cross-hairs for goals. Setting a cross-hair implies only one thing–aiming a gun with intent to kill. Ask any hunter about that.

    • Jan

      Palin is now saying it was surveyor's markings. Right. It's like the bullseye symbol. We used it all the time but to put it on a person – that would just be over the line.

      • Reverend_Blair

        A surveyors markings? I think the DEA oughtta raid her home, because she's been imbibing in something rather exotic.

        • Jan

          Lamest thing I've heard so far.

          • Loraine Lamontagne

            Some of have surveyor markings while other produce paper burning holes.

  • chet

    So kids sitting in front of video games, hour after hour with crosshairs in their sites actually engaging in mock killing (which hasn't been shown to cause actual violence and in any event none of the political vultures have ever spoken out against it) is ok, but a single ad where a cross hair is used as a metaphore like a target (where it's entirely likely this dude never, ever even saw this fleeting ad,

    caused him to go on a killing spree?

    The lunacy of the left is something to behold.

    If they wish it to be true, it becomes truth.

    • Jan

      chet, stop mis-representing what other people say. And if you think a single ad is the concer aren't paying attention and you obviously haven't followed the Tea Party.

      • Gayle

        You can chastise him all you want. He is not interested in being honest and he could not care less if he is deliberately mis-stating others' positions.

        The sooner you realize this, the sooner you can stop taking him seriously and just laugh at him instead.

    • gottabesaid

      'If they wish it to be true, it becomes truth.'

      MAN, you are on a roll tonight! So… you and your party can't provide a shred of real evidence to support your tough-on-crime strategy, can't refute the fact that the same strategy failed in the U.S.… and you're accusing the left of delusion?

      Hoo hoo! Thanks, chet. I needed a laugh.

      You and your party have fun pissing my tax dollars away on failed policies.

      • Matlock

        If the virtue of a political party is determined by the voters it attracts, then chiff's continued shameless posting of falsehoods speaks to the state of today's "Conservative" party.

  • Stewart_Smith

    I guess we locked up a lot more people it would also help keep Coyne from getting caught in traffic.

  • Joe Bregante

    Our Crime Statistics is Canada are in direct relation to two pieces of Legislation:
    1: The Young Offenders Act.
    2: The Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    When our judges start handing out appropriate sentences to fit the crimes, and when we lock people up for life (as opposed to 25 years – with a first eligibility for parole after serving 14), then maybe we will see a serious drop in crime.

  • Selena

    The US needs fodder for the prison-industrial complex. Watch our own pathetic little neocons try the same course.

From Macleans