California Criminal JusticeCalifornia Criminal Justice

1960-20061960-2006

1

2

Figure 1: 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

The Phenomenon, P. 2The Phenomenon, P. 2

Flat

California: Index Offenses and Prisoners & Parolees, Per Capita, 1960-2006

0.001000

0.010000

0.100000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Rat

e

CA Index Offenses Per Capita

CA Prisoners and Parolees Per Capita

CA Criminal Justice SystemCA Criminal Justice System

3

The SixtiesThe SixtiesOffenses Per Capita grew at 8% per year

CDC populations grew slowly at 1% per

year

4

The SeventiesThe SeventiesNixon and Kissenger bomb Cambodia

Feb. 25, 1970

Bank of America burns

In Isla Vista

Offenses Per Capita grew at 2% per year,CDC populations fell -3.9% per year

5

The EightiesThe EightiesThe War on Crime Plus the War on Drugs

Nixon 1973 State of the Union: “Next week I will propose a revision of the entire Federal Criminal Code, modernizing it and strengthening it, to close the loopholes and tailor our laws to present day needs. When I say "modernize," incidentally, I do not mean to be soft on crime; I mean exactly the opposite.

Mandatory minimum drug sentences: 1986

Federal Sentencing Guidelines, 1987

“Just say no”

Offenses Per Capita fell at -1.5% per year,CDC populations grew at 13% peryear

6

The NinetiesThe NinetiesOffenses per capita fell at –7.6% per yearCDC Populations grew at 4.5% per year

7

California: Index Offenses and Prisoners & Parolees, Per Capita, 1960-2006

0.001000

0.010000

0.100000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Rat

e

CA Index Offenses Per Capita

CA Prisoners and Parolees Per Capita

CA Criminal Justice SystemCA Criminal Justice System

8%

2% -1.5% -7.6%

1% -3.9%

13%

4.5%

8

Folk SayingsFolk Sayings ““A day late and a dollar short”A day late and a dollar short”

How about “two decades late and out How about “two decades late and out to lunch”?to lunch”?

9

Corrections Advanced 2 DecadesCorrections Advanced 2 Decades

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 00 05

LNCAIXOFPC LNCDCPC20

CA index Offenses and CA Prisoners Plus Parolees, both Per Capita 1940-2006

Proportional scale

CA Index O ffenses Per Capita

CA Prisoners & Parolees Per Capita, Advanced 20 years

10

What was the trigger in the 60’s?What was the trigger in the 60’s?

Two Possibilities:Two Possibilities: #1: Advancement of the White #1: Advancement of the White

Middle Class & the stagnation of the Middle Class & the stagnation of the Black Middle ClassBlack Middle Class

#2: The War on Drugs created a #2: The War on Drugs created a criminal class, just as prohibition did criminal class, just as prohibition did in the twentiesin the twenties

11

World War Two & the GI BillWorld War Two & the GI Bill 16.1 million men served in WWII, 16.1 million men served in WWII,

1,054,000 Black men served in a 1,054,000 Black men served in a mostly segregated armed servicesmostly segregated armed services

2.2 primarily white men received 2.2 primarily white men received higher education benefits, as well as higher education benefits, as well as housing benefitshousing benefits

By 1947, about ½ of college students By 1947, about ½ of college students were vetswere vets

Reference: Edward Humes, Reference: Edward Humes, Over Over Here: How the G I Bill Transformed Here: How the G I Bill Transformed the American Dream (the American Dream (2006) Harcourt2006) Harcourt

12

Prohibition: Prohibition: 1920-19331920-1933

Twice as many speakeasies in New York as there had been saloons

13

The Drunkards Progress, The Drunkards Progress, lithograph by Currier & Iveslithograph by Currier & Ives

14

Coast Guard & Rum RunnersCoast Guard & Rum Runners

Indian Lake Boat Co., Lima OH

The Mendota and the Edna

British Schooner Katherine and Motorboat off NJ

Only about 5% of booze was intercepted

15

The GodfatherThe Godfather

16

Review: Part IIReview: Part II

17

Summary: Part ISummary: Part I CA & US Offenses and Prisoners have CA & US Offenses and Prisoners have

similar growth patternssimilar growth patterns Offenses per capita grew rapidly in the Offenses per capita grew rapidly in the

sixties, slowly in the seventies, fell sixties, slowly in the seventies, fell modestly in the eighties and dropped in modestly in the eighties and dropped in the ninetiesthe nineties

Prisoners per capita did not start Prisoners per capita did not start growing until the eighties, so can not growing until the eighties, so can not explain the slower growth of offenses in explain the slower growth of offenses in the seventiesthe seventies

Growth of crime in 60’s may be due to Growth of crime in 60’s may be due to leaving blacks largely out of GI Billleaving blacks largely out of GI Bill

18

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/http://www.drugwarfacts.org/crime.pdfcrime.pdf

19

dittoditto

20

California: Index Offenses and Prisoners & Parolees, Per Capita, 1960-2006

0.001000

0.010000

0.100000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Rat

e

CA Index Offenses Per Capita

CA Prisoners and Parolees Per Capita

CA Criminal Justice SystemCA Criminal Justice System

8%

2% -1.5% -7.6%

1% -3.9%13%

4.5%

Note: Offenses Per Capita are rising in 60’s & less fast in 70’s while prisoners & parolees are falling so detention is not Causing the slowdown!

21

When offenses started to rise in When offenses started to rise in the 60’s the first response was to the 60’s the first response was to increase cops on the street, i.e. increase cops on the street, i.e. labor. It takes longer to increase labor. It takes longer to increase

capital, i.e. build prisonscapital, i.e. build prisons OFOF = f( = f(CRCR, SV, SE, MC), SV, SE, MC) CRCR = g( = g(OFOF, , LL, K), K)

22

The Role of GangsThe Role of Gangs Homicide as a window on gangsHomicide as a window on gangs

23

USUS

24

25

QuestionsQuestions Why did crime go up so quickly in the Why did crime go up so quickly in the

60’s?60’s? Why did growth taper off in the 70’s?Why did growth taper off in the 70’s?

Not detentionNot detention Maybe deterrenceMaybe deterrence Maybe improving causal conditionsMaybe improving causal conditions

Why did crime fall in the 90’sWhy did crime fall in the 90’s

26

Homicide Clearance RatiosHomicide Clearance Ratios

27

Homicide in Los Angeles Homicide in Los Angeles CountyCounty

1990-1994: 9442 1990-1994: 9442 homicideshomicides

Increasing number Increasing number of gang murdersof gang murders > 40 % of the total> 40 % of the total

Only 1 in 3 murders Only 1 in 3 murders leads to leads to punishmentpunishment gang killings are gang killings are

harder to solveharder to solve

29

SummarySummary US drug policy has created a gang US drug policy has created a gang

problem and a homicide problem by problem and a homicide problem by creating an illegal occupation for young creating an illegal occupation for young peoplepeople

This corresponds to our country’s earlier This corresponds to our country’s earlier experience where 13 years of experience where 13 years of prohibition(1920-1933) funded the Mafiaprohibition(1920-1933) funded the Mafia

It pays to fight for drug turf just like it It pays to fight for drug turf just like it paid to fight for control of speakeasies, paid to fight for control of speakeasies, smuggling, and protection racketssmuggling, and protection rackets

30

31

Subtracting 40% of Homicides that areGang related

Damages: US Violence, 1993Damages: US Violence, 1993

Offense Loss Rate ReportedOffenses

Damages,Billions, $

Homicide $1,191,000 24,526 $46.8

Rape $87,000 104,806 $9.1

Assault $15,000 1,135,099 $17.0

Total $72.9

Source: National Institute of Justice, Victim Costs and Consequences (1996)

2007: 16929 homicides in US. If we saved 40%Of these, we would save 6772 lives worth $8 Billion in 1993 $. As Milton Friedman noted, US Drug policy is not just mis-guided, it is immoral. It funds gangs and it kills citizens.

Review: Part IIIReview: Part III Four data sets:Four data sets:

CA prisoners 1851-1945: consistent with a CA prisoners 1851-1945: consistent with a Kondratiev wave (Lecture: strategies to Kondratiev wave (Lecture: strategies to estimate deterrence)estimate deterrence)

US homicide rates per 100,000 1900-2007: US homicide rates per 100,000 1900-2007: consistent with a Kondratiev wave (Lecture: consistent with a Kondratiev wave (Lecture: strategies to estimate deterrence)strategies to estimate deterrence)

CA Index offense rate per capita, 1952-CA Index offense rate per capita, 1952-2007, increases with the misery rate and 2007, increases with the misery rate and decreases with prisoners per capita decreases with prisoners per capita (Lecture: strategies to estimate deterrence)(Lecture: strategies to estimate deterrence)

33

Review: Part III (Cont.)Review: Part III (Cont.) Expenditures per capita by state in Expenditures per capita by state in

US and UCR Index Offenses per US and UCR Index Offenses per capita, 2002 (Lecture: Crimein capita, 2002 (Lecture: Crimein California)California) Findings: Investment in education, moral Findings: Investment in education, moral

compliance, and fewer children in compliance, and fewer children in poverty significantly reduces crimepoverty significantly reduces crime

Higher income per capita significantle Higher income per capita significantle reduces crime reduces crime

34

35

ExpendituresPer Capita

UCR Offenses Per Capita

CCT Income

EducationMoral ComplianceLess poverty

Review: Part IVReview: Part IV Inefficiency in CA correctionsInefficiency in CA corrections Corrections is not in equilibrium, i.e. Corrections is not in equilibrium, i.e.

discharges from parole are less than discharges from parole are less than new admissions to prison from court new admissions to prison from court (inflow)(inflow)

Parole violaters returned to prison with Parole violaters returned to prison with a new term, PVWNT, and parole a new term, PVWNT, and parole violaters returned to custody, mean violaters returned to custody, mean people spend much longer in prison people spend much longer in prison than is optimal if parole were effectivethan is optimal if parole were effective

36

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

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

39

PrisonNew Admits

Paroledischarges

PVWNT

Inefficient Corrections System

40

PrisonNew Admits

Paroledischarges

Efficient Corrections System

41

42