The Mythical Relationship Between Incarceration and Crime Rates

Article by David Rogers

Proponents of Oregon’s infamous mandatory sentences, Measure 11, argue that “tough” sentences are the best way to reduce crime. That logic can be easy to sell to the public but is deeply misguided. Fighting crime is not as simple as locking more people up and for longer periods of time. The relationship between incarceration and crime is complex.

If incarceration was such an effective strategy, then it would be logical that states that have higher incarceration rates would see bigger drops in crime. But research has shown that often the opposite is true. For most of the 1990s, the states with higher than average incarceration rates experienced smaller declines in crime than states with lower than average incarceration rates, according to a Sentencing Project Report: Incarceration and Crime: A Complex Relationship.

Similar findings are highlighted by a report that Partnership for Safety and Justice commissioned from the prominent criminal justice researcher Judith Greene. Greene’s report, Crime Trends and Incarceration Rates in Oregon, compared several states from 1995 to 2002. As seen in the graph, Oregon’s incarceration rates tower above those of Washington State, California, and New York during that time period. Interestingly, those other states experienced similar drops in crime without a large-scale prison expansion, and New York actually reduced its incarceration rates. These numbers beg the question: what is really responsible for the drop in crime rates?

What really reduces crime? Many different factors working together.

The Sentencing Project’s report highlights research that suggests incarceration is responsible for perhaps a quarter of the decline in violent crime during the 1990s. For people that want a more accurate picture, we need to acknowledge several other factors. Perhaps the biggest was the growing economy. The significant rise in job opportunities, particularly for low-wage workers, had a major influence in reducing crime. Changes in drug markets played a role as well. By the early 1990s, crack use was on the decline and so was much of its associated violence. These shifts mirror trends of other drug epidemics.

Additionally, strategic policing strategies contributed to the decline in crime. As cities adopted various community policing approaches, hired additional officers, and instituted community partnerships that engaged in problem-solving strategies, several large cities experienced historic drops in crime.

But ultimately, the Sentencing Project warns away from accepting simplistic answers: “…a range of factors may affect crime, including general economic trends, employment rates, age, demographics, rates of drug abuse, and geographic variation.”

At this point in time, it is truly rare to find a credible criminologist who would suggest that long sentences pose a deterrent to crime. But advocates of tougher sentences continue to say that if offenders are locked up, we are preventing future crime because as along as they are “incapacitated” they are not committing additional crimes. Again, this seems like a fairly simple theory that is easy to explain, but the theory doesn’t hold up when subjected to much scrutiny.

Whenever someone puts forward the myth that Measure 11 is responsible for Oregon’s decline in crime in the 1990s, it’s helpful to remember what the facts tell us. Again, Judith Greene explains:

“…people convicted of the types of crime affected by Measure 11 were already subject to substantial prison terms under the old sentencing guidelines. An incapacitation effect, if any, wouldn’t kick in until after the point when these prisoners would have been released if they had been sentenced under the old system. But Oregon’s rate of violent crime began to decline immediately following the onset of Measure 11, too soon to have been triggered by the harsher sentencing requirements.”

Simply put, the sentencing changes created by Measure 11 hadn’t really taken effect yet when Oregon, like the rest of the country, began to see a decline in violent crime.

Are there easy answers to reducing crime?

Trends in crime are complicated and we can’t expect to reduce crime effectively with expensive, “lock ‘em up” solutions. It has been well-established though the state’s budgeting process that incarceration is incredibly expensive. With an average annual cost of $25,000 a year to keep one person in prison, the dollars add up quickly.

In Oregon, the state’s prison system almost doubled in the decade following the passage of Measure 11, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. The Department of Corrections budget went from $337 million in the 1993-95 biennium to its current $1.3 billion. Oregon now has the dubious distinction of spending more money on its prison system than on higher education. But we do have choices.

A 2006 report by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy looked at what were the best approaches to reducing crime. The Institute is a non-partisan, government-funded research organization created to provide the Washington State Legislature with facts and information to inform their policymaking. The report “Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates” has been getting attention around the country from states who are tired of spending billions of dollars building more prisons without enough of a return.

The study looked at whether there were evidence-based programs that had meaningful impacts at reducing future crime and whether they would be less expensive than building more prisons. The report is well worth a read and provides a cost/benefit analysis of over 70 different approaches to crime reduction. The report underscores that there are a variety of ways to address public safety. No single approach is the panacea and there is a spectrum of proven programs states can invest in that save money and reduce the need for future prison beds.

Much of the research mentioned in this article is what underscores the notion that getting tough on crime is often the opposite of getting smart on crime. We should be wary of simple solutions to public safety based on the myth that longer sentences will solve our problems and demand action based on facts instead.

This article originally appeared in the Fall 2007 issue of Justice Matters.