1 the criminal justice system in california the story
TRANSCRIPT
11
The Criminal Justice The Criminal Justice System in CaliforniaSystem in California
The StoryThe Story
22
Three Mistakes Since 1970 Three Mistakes Since 1970 #1: After the debate about the death #1: After the debate about the death
penalty detention became the primary penalty detention became the primary objective of the Criminal Justice System objective of the Criminal Justice System (CJS) resulting in a massive prison (CJS) resulting in a massive prison building programbuilding program
#2 The “War on Drugs” in the 1980’s #2 The “War on Drugs” in the 1980’s replaced serious violent offenders with replaced serious violent offenders with relatively harmless substance abusersrelatively harmless substance abusers
# 3 The California CJS recycled inmates # 3 The California CJS recycled inmates from parole to prison because of failure to from parole to prison because of failure to support parolesupport parole
33 3
44
55 5
Prison Building since 80’s: Some IdeasPrison Building since 80’s: Some Ideas Death Penalty Controversy in the 70’sDeath Penalty Controversy in the 70’s
Was death penalty effective?Was death penalty effective? Was death penalty moral?Was death penalty moral?
Ignoring incentivesIgnoring incentives Expected cost of punishment deters everybodyExpected cost of punishment deters everybody Detention only controls those you catchDetention only controls those you catch
The law of unforeseen consequencesThe law of unforeseen consequences Relying on detention means the gulagRelying on detention means the gulag
The power of ideasThe power of ideas The “Constancy of Imprisonment” hypothesisThe “Constancy of Imprisonment” hypothesis The “Serious Offender”The “Serious Offender”
66
RecallRecall
Offenses per capita began leveling off Offenses per capita began leveling off before prisoners per capita began risingbefore prisoners per capita began rising
Does imprisonment have any effect on Does imprisonment have any effect on crime?crime?
77
7
.00
.01
.02
.03
.04
55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 00 05 10
CAINDXPC
.000
.001
.002
.003
.004
.005
55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 00 05 10
CAPRPC
California Index Offenses per Capita and California Prisoners per Capita, 1952-2010
88 8
California Prisoners Per Capita, 1930-2005
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0.003
0.0035
0.004
0.0045
0.005
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
Ra
te
Four Periods: #1 1930-1983 except WWII, constancy# 2 WWII#3 1984-1998, expansion#4 1999-
99
What is true for CJS in CaliforniaWhat is true for CJS in California
Is pretty much true for the USAIs pretty much true for the USA
1010
Per Capita Crime Rates and Imprisonment Rates, California and US
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
Rat
e
CA Crime Index Per Capita
CA Prisoners Per Capita
FBI Crime Index Per Capita, US
US Prisoners Per Capita
1952-2004
1111 11
Use the California ExperienceUse the California Experience
Crime rates Have Fallen. Why Haven’t Crime rates Have Fallen. Why Haven’t Imprisonment rates?Imprisonment rates?
Apply the conceptual tools developed prior Apply the conceptual tools developed prior to the midtermto the midtermCriminal justice system schematicCriminal justice system schematiccrime control technologycrime control technology
1212
Crime Generation
Crime Control
OffenseRate PerCapita
ExpectedCost ofPunishment
Schematic of the Criminal Justice System: Coordinating CJS
Causes ?!!
(detention,deterrence)
Expenditures
Weak Link
“The Driving Force”
1313 13
What are the facts?What are the facts?
Expenditures per capita on the CA criminal Expenditures per capita on the CA criminal justice systemjustice system
1414 14
Expenditures Per Capita in 92 $, California .Criminal Justice System, 1967-68 to 1997-98 . .
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Fiscal Year
$ P
er
Capita
1515
Moral of the storyMoral of the story If you do not pay If you do not pay enough enough for public for public
services, you end up paying the priceservices, you end up paying the priceSupport for UC started falling off in the Support for UC started falling off in the
sixtiessixtiesSupport for the criminal justice system Support for the criminal justice system
started falling off in the seventiesstarted falling off in the seventiesEconomic principle: “there is no free lunch”Economic principle: “there is no free lunch”You need a balance between private You need a balance between private
goods and public goods to prospergoods and public goods to prosper
1616 16
UC's Share of The California General Fund Expenditures
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
7.00%
8.00%
68-6
9
70-7
1
72-7
3
74-7
5
76-7
7
78-7
9
80-8
1
82-8
3
84-8
5
86-8
7
88-8
9
90-9
1
92-9
3
94-9
5
96-9
7
98-9
9
00-0
1
02-0
3
04-0
5
06-0
7
08-0
9
10-1
1
Fiscal Year
1717
Expenditures Per PupilExpenditures Per PupilFiscalFiscal
YearYear
70-70-7171
80-80-8181
90-9190-91 00-0100-01 03-0403-04 05-0605-06
CACA
RankRank
1414 1919 2828 2525 2828 3535
NominalNominal
$, CA$, CA
902902 24382438 45954595 69866986 76737673 86078607
USUS 842842 23072307 49024902 73737373 83108310 95769576
1818
Private
Public
Sweden
UK
USMexico
Canada
1919 19
2020
Bottom LineBottom Line It is not because we are not spending on It is not because we are not spending on
CJSCJSWe may not be spending enoughWe may not be spending enoughAnd we may be spending on the wrong thingsAnd we may be spending on the wrong things
Should we be spending so much on Should we be spending so much on prisons?prisons?
2121 21
Crime Generation
Crime Control
OffenseRate PerCapita
ExpectedCost ofPunishment
Schematic of the Criminal Justice System; Death Penalty
Causes ?
(detention,deterrence)
Expenditures
Weak Link
Variable, up & downSteady increase
2222 22
What are the facts?What are the facts?Expenditures per capita on the CA criminal Expenditures per capita on the CA criminal
justice systemjustice systemExpenditures per capita in real $ are rising steadilyExpenditures per capita in real $ are rising steadilyThe big ticket items are enforcement and The big ticket items are enforcement and
correctionscorrectionsOffenses per capitaOffenses per capita
Are offenses related to causal conditions?Are offenses related to causal conditions?Are offenses affected bt high imprisonment rates?Are offenses affected bt high imprisonment rates?
2323 23
Trends In Crime in California
Source: Crime and Delinquency in California, 2002http://caag.state.ca.us/ Social Welfare Lecture (#1 LP)
Growth
level
1980 19921952
2424 24
Crime in California 2007Crime in California 2007
2525 25
California Index Offenses and Criminal Justice System .Expenditures, Both Per Capita, 1967-68 to 1997-98 .
1997-98
1980-81
1967-68
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045
CA Index Offenses Per Capita
1992 $
Per
Capita
2626
PossibilityPossibilitySince offense rates were falling in the Since offense rates were falling in the
nineties while real expenditures per capita nineties while real expenditures per capita were going up, it suggests that maybe were going up, it suggests that maybe there was a change in causal conditionsthere was a change in causal conditions
2727 27
Can we identify the causes?Can we identify the causes?
The factors that cause crime might have The factors that cause crime might have been getting better in the latter 90’s been getting better in the latter 90’s
2828 28
Crime Generation
Crime Control
OffenseRate PerCapita
ExpectedCost ofPunishment
Schematic of the Criminal Justice System; Jobs and Crime
Causes ?:Economic Conditions
(detention,deterrence)
Expenditures
Weak Link
2929
Can we find a connection between Can we find a connection between causal variables and crime?causal variables and crime?
Try the misery indexTry the misery indexMisery index is the sum of the Misery index is the sum of the
unemployment rate and the inflation rateunemployment rate and the inflation rate
3030 30
California Unemployment Rate and Inflation Rate, 1952-2004
-5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
Pe
r C
en
t
unemployment rate
inflation rate
misery rate
3131 31
CA Crime Index Per 1000 and Misery Index (Percent), 1952-2004
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
Ra
te
Misery index
CA Crime Index
3232 32
Note:Note:
The misery index bottoms out in 1998 and The misery index bottoms out in 1998 and the crime rate bottoms out in 1999the crime rate bottoms out in 1999
There is visual evidence that there may be There is visual evidence that there may be a connectiona connection
3333
California: Crime Index Versus Misery Index .
y = -0.1702x 2 + 6.0493x - 16.491
R2 = 0.7761
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
Misery Index
Cri
me I
nd
ex
Observed Data
Quadratic Fit
Jobs and Crime
3434 34
California: Offenses Per Capita Vs. Prisoners Per Capita .
1980
2000
1952
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
0.045
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003 0.0035 0.004 0.0045 0.005
Prisoners Per Capita
Off
en
se
s P
er
Ca
pit
a
3535 35
What is Affecting Crime Rates?What is Affecting Crime Rates?
Economic Conditions?Economic Conditions? Imprisonment Rates?Imprisonment Rates?Both?Both?
3636 36
Model SchematicModel SchematicModel SchematicModel Schematic
Crime Generation: California IndexOffenses Per Capita
Causality:California Misery Index
Crime Control: California Prisoners Per Capita
3737 37
CA Crime Index Per Capita (t) = 0.037 + 0.00036*Misery Index (t) –3.60*Prisoners Per Capita (t) + e(t)
where e(t) = 0.95*e(t-1)
-0.004
-0.002
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 00 05
Residual Actual Fitted
CA Crime Index Per Capita Vs. CA Prisoners Per Capita & Misery Index
3838 38
Ln CA Crime Index Per Capita (t) = -5.35 + 0.17*ln Misery Index (t)-0.23 ln Prisoners Per capita (t) +e(t)
where e(t) = 0.93 e(t-1)
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
-5.0
-4.5
-4.0
-3.5
-3.0
55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 00 05
Residual Actual Fitted
Logarithms of CA Crime Index Per Capita, Prisoners Per Capita & Misery Index
3939
This study was for CA over timeThis study was for CA over time
How about across states?How about across states?
4040Source: Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice
Expect
Get
4141
UCR Offenses Per Capita By StateUCR Offenses Per Capita By StateCrime Generation: OF = f(CR,SV, SE, MC)Crime Generation: OF = f(CR,SV, SE, MC)OFPC = (PRPC, SE,MC), i.e offenses per OFPC = (PRPC, SE,MC), i.e offenses per
capita varies with prisoners per capita, causal capita varies with prisoners per capita, causal variables and moral compliancevariables and moral compliance
SE: causal variablesSE: causal variablesHuman capital: % of students above basic grade 4 Human capital: % of students above basic grade 4
reading, deaths per 100,000 from heart disease,% reading, deaths per 100,000 from heart disease,% of children below povertyof children below poverty
MC moral complianceMC moral compliance% catholic, % weekly church attendance% catholic, % weekly church attendance
41
4242 42
No control
Bad Health (low humancapital) decreases crime
4343 43
4444 44
No Control
Education Reduces crimeMoral compliance dittoLess Poverty dittoHealth insignificant
4545 45
ExpendituresPer Capita
CCT
Income
EducationMoral ComplianceLess poverty
UCR Offenses Per Capita
4646
What Happened in the 80’s?What Happened in the 80’s?The prisons filled up rapidlyThe prisons filled up rapidlyThere was overcrowdingThere was overcrowdingAverage timed served started to fallAverage timed served started to fallPublic complainedPublic complainedPrison building program got underwayPrison building program got underway
4747 47
California Prisoners Per Capita, 1952-2004
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0.003
0.0035
0.004
0.0045
0.005
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
Ra
te
4848 48
California Index Crimes, Weighted Median Years Served, . Prisoners First Released to Parole
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
19
52
19
54
19
56
19
58
19
60
19
62
19
64
19
66
19
68
19
70
19
72
19
74
19
76
19
78
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
Year
Years
4949 49
5050 50
5151 51
Prison Dynamics and Prison Dynamics and Economics Economics
Admissions * mean years served = Admissions * mean years served = prisonersprisoners
5252 52
Relationships Between Stocks Relationships Between Stocks and Flows: and Flows: Coordinating CJSCoordinating CJS
Relationships Between Stocks Relationships Between Stocks and Flows: and Flows: Coordinating CJSCoordinating CJS
In equilibrium:In equilibrium: Inflow = OutflowInflow = Outflow
The outflow is proportional to the stockThe outflow is proportional to the stockOutflow = k * StockOutflow = k * Stock
constant of proportionality, k, equals one divided constant of proportionality, k, equals one divided by mean time servedby mean time served
Admits * mean years served = stock of prisoners Admits * mean years served = stock of prisoners
5353 53
The Stock of Prisoners
Inflow OutflowStock of PrisonersNew
Admissionsfrom Court
Released toParole
Coordinating CJS
5454 54
45 degrees
Constraint: Admits per year*Average years served =Prisoners
Average Years Served
Admitsper Year
Coordinating CJS
5555 55
Prison RealitiesPrison Realities
We can not build prisons fast enough to We can not build prisons fast enough to increase capacity soon enoughincrease capacity soon enough
The public wants more convicts sent to The public wants more convicts sent to prisonprison
But prisons are fullBut prisons are fullSo, what happens?So, what happens?
5656 56
ConsequenceConsequence
Release violent offendersRelease violent offenders Innocent children are kidnapped, raped Innocent children are kidnapped, raped
and murdered: example-Polly Klassand murdered: example-Polly Klass
5757 57
5858 58
ConsequenceConsequence
Polly’s father campaigns for three strikes Polly’s father campaigns for three strikes lawlaw
5959 59
ConsequenceConsequence
More convicts are sent to prisonMore convicts are sent to prison
6060
Three Mistakes Since 1970 Three Mistakes Since 1970 #1: After the debate about the death #1: After the debate about the death
penalty detention became the primary penalty detention became the primary objective of the Criminal Justice System objective of the Criminal Justice System (CJS) resulting in a massive prison (CJS) resulting in a massive prison building programbuilding program
#2 The “War on Drugs” in the 1980’s #2 The “War on Drugs” in the 1980’s replaced serious violent offenders with replaced serious violent offenders with relatively harmless substance abusersrelatively harmless substance abusers
# 3 The California CJS recycled inmates # 3 The California CJS recycled inmates from parole to prison because of failure to from parole to prison because of failure to support parolesupport parole
6161 61
Correctional Trends in California: Correctional Trends in California: Custodial PopulationsCustodial Populations
Correctional Trends in California: Correctional Trends in California: Custodial PopulationsCustodial Populations
Prisoners Per CapitaPrisoners Per Capita Institutional PopulationInstitutional Population
FelonsFelonsCivil Narcotics AddictsCivil Narcotics Addicts
Parolees Per CapitaParolees Per CapitaParole and Outpatient Population Supervised Parole and Outpatient Population Supervised
in Californiain California
6262 62
California New Admissions from Court, Per Capita .
0
0.0002
0.0004
0.0006
0.0008
0.001
0.0012
0.0014
0.00165
2
55
58
61
64
67
70
73
76
79
82
85
88
91
94
97
Year
Rate
6363
California Prisoners and Parolees, Per Capita .
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0.003
0.0035
0.004
0.0045
0.0051
96
0
19
62
19
64
19
66
19
68
19
70
19
72
19
74
19
76
19
78
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
Year
Rate
Prisoners Per Capita
Parolees Per Capita
6464
California Correctional and Parole Officers .
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
160001
97
4
19
75
19
76
19
77
19
78
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
Year
Nu
mb
er
Correctional Officers
Parole Officers
6565 65
Correctional Trends in California: Correctional Trends in California: Inflows to PrisonInflows to Prison
Correctional Trends in California: Correctional Trends in California: Inflows to PrisonInflows to Prison
Felon New Admissions from CourtFelon New Admissions from CourtParole Violators Returned to CustodyParole Violators Returned to CustodyParole Violators With a New TermParole Violators With a New Term
6666
California Department of California Department of CorrectionsCorrections
19961996
California Department of California Department of CorrectionsCorrections
19961996
Prisoners145,565
Parolees100,935
Felon NewAdmits46,487
Releases to Parole111,532
Dischargedand Died27,691
57,984Parole Violators Returned to Custody
Parole Violators With a New Term 17,525
Parolees AtLarge18,034
Discharged and Died3,984
Absconded29,376
6767
California: Inflows to Prison .
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
800001
96
0
19
62
19
64
19
66
19
68
19
70
19
72
19
74
19
76
19
78
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
Year
Nu
mb
er
Felon New Admissions to Prison
Parole Violators Returned to Custody
Parole Violators With New Term
6868 68
““Charlie on the MTA”Charlie on the MTA”
http://www.google.comSong: “Charlie on the MTA”Song: “Charlie on the MTA”
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXgo2GTKPEg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VMSGrY-IlU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXgo2GTKPEg
6969 69
7070 70
7171 71
Two Policy IssuesTwo Policy IssuesTwo Policy IssuesTwo Policy Issues
Composition of New Admissions from Composition of New Admissions from CourtCourt
Large Volume of Parole Violators Large Volume of Parole Violators Returned to PrisonReturned to Prison
7272 72
7373 73
Next TuesdayNext Tuesday
The Power of an Idea: “The Serious The Power of an Idea: “The Serious Offender”Offender”
7474