Mass IncarcerationMass Incarceration

Glenn C. Loury

Brown UniversityBrown University

March 2010

Presentation based on data provided by Bruce Western of Harvard University

Mass Imprisonment

David Garland (2001, 1) defines mass imprisonment:

. . . a rate of imprisonment. . . that is markedly above thehistorical and comparative norm for societies of thistype. . .

[imprisonment] ceases to be the incarceration ofindividual offenders and becomes the systematicimprisonment of whole groups of the population.

Mass Imprisonment

David Garland (2001, 1) defines mass imprisonment:

. . . a rate of imprisonment. . . that is markedly above thehistorical and comparative norm for societies of thistype. . .

[imprisonment] ceases to be the incarceration ofindividual offenders and becomes the systematicimprisonment of whole groups of the population.

Denmark

Sweden

France

Belgium

Austria

Italy

N'lands

Germany

UK

0 200 400 600

Incarceration Rate (per 100,000)

Incarceration in Western Europe, 2001

0 200 400 600

59

68

77

85

85

95

95

96

126

Denmark

Sweden

France

Belgium

Austria

Italy

N'lands

Germany

UK

USA

0 200 400 600

Incarceration Rate (per 100,000)

Incarceration in Western Europe and the US, 2001

0 200 400 600

59

68

77

85

85

95

95

96

126

686

●●

●●●

●●●●●●●

●

●●

●

●●●●●

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

1940 1960 1980 2000

100

200

300

400

500

US Imprisonment Rate, 1925−1972

Pris

oner

s pe

r 10

0,00

0

●●

●●●

●●●●●●●

●

●●

●

●●●●●

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

1940 1960 1980 2000

100

200

300

400

500

US Imprisonment Rate, 1925−2006

Pris

oner

s pe

r 10

0,00

0

●●

●●

●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●●●

●●

●●

●●●

●●●●●●●

●

●●

●

●●●●●

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

1940 1960 1980 2000

100

200

300

400

500

US Imprisonment Rate, 1925−2006

Pris

oner

s pe

r 10

0,00

0

●●

●●

●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●●●

●●

In 2007:

* 1.5m in prison

●●

●●●

●●●●●●●

●

●●

●

●●●●●

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

1940 1960 1980 2000

100

200

300

400

500

US Imprisonment Rate, 1925−2006

Pris

oner

s pe

r 10

0,00

0

●●

●●

●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●●●

●●

In 2007:

* 1.5m in prison

* 780,000 in jail

●●

●●●

●●●●●●●

●

●●

●

●●●●●

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

1940 1960 1980 2000

100

200

300

400

500

US Imprisonment Rate, 1925−2006

Pris

oner

s pe

r 10

0,00

0

●●

●●

●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●●●

●●

In 2007:

* 1.5m in prison

* 780,000 in jail

* 800,000 on parole

●●

●●●

●●●●●●●

●

●●

●

●●●●●

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

1940 1960 1980 2000

100

200

300

400

500

US Imprisonment Rate, 1925−2006

Pris

oner

s pe

r 10

0,00

0

●●

●●

●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●●●

●●

In 2007:

* 1.5m in prison

* 780,000 in jail

* 800,000 on parole

* 4.2m on probation

Inm

ates

per

100

,000

010

000

2000

030

000

4000

00

1000

020

000

3000

040

000

Incarceration by Race and Education

19802008

All

214 750

Inm

ates

per

100

,000

010

000

2000

030

000

4000

00

1000

020

000

3000

040

000

Incarceration by Race and Education

19802008

All Men 20−34 Men 20−34 <HS

214 750 6501750 2350

11950

White

Inm

ates

per

100

,000

010

000

2000

030

000

4000

00

1000

020

000

3000

040

000

Incarceration by Race and Education

19802008

All Men 20−34 Men 20−34 <HS

Men 20−34 Men 20−34 <HS

214 750 6501750 2350

11950

5240

11430 10580

37150

White Black

Cum

ulat

ive

Ris

k of

Impr

ison

men

t (%

)

010

2030

4050

6070

010

2030

4050

6070

Men's Risk of Imprisonment by 30−34

1.2 1.84.2

9.012.1

14.7

All Non−college Dropouts All Non−college Dropouts

Whites Blacks

1979

Cum

ulat

ive

Ris

k of

Impr

ison

men

t (%

)

010

2030

4050

6070

010

2030

4050

6070

Men's Risk of Imprisonment by 30−34

1.23.3 1.8

6.34.2

15.3

9.0

20.7

12.1

35.7

14.7

69.0

All Non−college Dropouts All Non−college Dropouts

Whites Blacks

19792009

●●

●●●

●●●●●●●

●

●●

●

●●●●●

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●

1940 1960 1980 2000

100

200

300

400

500

US Imprisonment Rate, 1925−2006

Pris

oner

s pe

r 10

0,00

0

●●

●●

●●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

●●●

●●

In 2007:

Imprisonment and the Life Course

White and black men, born 1975–1979 experiencing a life event by2009 (percent).

Whites Blacks

Marriage 68% 47%

Bachelor’s Degree 34 17

Military Service 10 9

Imprisonment 5 27

Imprisonment and the Life Course

White and black men, born 1975–1979 experiencing a life event by2009 (percent).

Whites Blacks

Marriage 68% 47%

Bachelor’s Degree 34 17

Military Service 10 9

Imprisonment 5 27

What Are the Implications for Inequality?

Inequality created by incarceration is:

I Invisible

I Cumulative

I Intergenerational

What Are the Implications for Inequality?

Inequality created by incarceration is:

I Invisible

I Cumulative

I Intergenerational

What Are the Implications for Inequality?

Inequality created by incarceration is:

I Invisible

I Cumulative

I Intergenerational

What Are the Implications for Inequality?

Inequality created by incarceration is:

I Invisible

I Cumulative

I Intergenerational

Invisible Inequality

I Inequality created by incarceration is invisible, becauseincarceration is concentrated and segregative, hidden frommainstream society

I Important for sociology: Incarceration is often overlooked insocial accounting, and inequality is underestimated

Invisible Inequality

I Inequality created by incarceration is invisible, becauseincarceration is concentrated and segregative, hidden frommainstream society

I Important for sociology: Incarceration is often overlooked insocial accounting, and inequality is underestimated

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

● ●● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

3040

5060

Employment Rate, Black Male Dropouts, 20−34

Per

cent

Em

ploy

ed

●

●

CPS only

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

● ●● ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●

●

●

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

3040

5060

Employment Rate, Black Male Dropouts, 20−34

Per

cent

Em

ploy

ed

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

● ●

●

●

●

● ●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

CPS onlyIncluding incarcerated

Cumulative Inequality

I Inequality created by incarceration diminishes the economicstatus of those whose employment and wage rates are alreadyvery low

I Panel data estimates show that incarceration reduces earningsby about 40%

I Experimental evidence indicates employment is reduced by athird to a half.

Cumulative Inequality

I Inequality created by incarceration diminishes the economicstatus of those whose employment and wage rates are alreadyvery low

I Panel data estimates show that incarceration reduces earningsby about 40%

I Experimental evidence indicates employment is reduced by athird to a half.

Cumulative Inequality

I Inequality created by incarceration diminishes the economicstatus of those whose employment and wage rates are alreadyvery low

I Panel data estimates show that incarceration reduces earningsby about 40%

I Experimental evidence indicates employment is reduced by athird to a half.

Not Incarcerated Low AFQT <HS Incarcerated

20−year Earnings Mobility Among Low−Income Men

Mob

ile o

ut o

f 1st

Qua

rtile

(%

)

010

2030

4050

6070 64.4

41.3

36.6

24.6

Intergenerational Inequality

I Large prison populations means large numbers of childrenwith parents in prison

I Stigma of incarceration for children, new research showingbehavioral problems, particularly for boys

Intergenerational Inequality

I Large prison populations means large numbers of childrenwith parents in prison

I Stigma of incarceration for children, new research showingbehavioral problems, particularly for boys

●●

● ● ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●● ●

●●

● ● ●● ● ●

●● ● ●

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

02

46

810

12

Children with Incarcerated Parents, 1980−2008

Num

ber

of C

hild

ren

(100

,000

s)

● ● ● ● ● ● ●●

●●

●● ● ●

●● ●

●●

● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●

●

●

●

Hispanic

●●

● ● ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●● ●

●●

● ● ●● ● ●

●● ● ●

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

02

46

810

12

Children with Incarcerated Parents, 1980−2008

Num

ber

of C

hild

ren

(100

,000

s)

● ● ● ● ● ● ●●

●●

●● ● ●

●● ●

●●

● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●

●

●

●

HispanicWhite

●●

● ● ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●● ●

●●

● ● ●● ● ●

●● ● ●

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

02

46

810

12

Children with Incarcerated Parents, 1980−2008

Num

ber

of C

hild

ren

(100

,000

s)

● ● ● ● ● ● ●●

●●

●● ● ●

●● ●

●●

● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●

●●

● ●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

● ● ●● ● ●

●●

● ●

●

●

●

HispanicWhiteBlack

●●

● ● ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●● ●

●●

● ● ●● ● ●

●● ● ●

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

02

46

810

12

Children with Incarcerated Parents, 1980−2008

Num

ber

of C

hild

ren

(100

,000

s)

● ● ● ● ● ● ●●

●●

●● ● ●

●● ●

●●

● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●

●●

● ●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

● ● ●● ● ●

●●

● ●

●

●

●

HispanicWhiteBlack

* 11% of black children have a parent incarcerated

●●

● ● ●●

●●

●●

●●

●●

●● ●

●●

● ● ●● ● ●

●● ● ●

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

02

46

810

12

Children with Incarcerated Parents, 1980−2008

Num

ber

of C

hild

ren

(100

,000

s)

● ● ● ● ● ● ●●

●●

●● ● ●

●● ●

●●

● ● ●● ● ● ● ● ● ●

●●

● ●●

●●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●●

●●

● ● ●● ● ●

●●

● ●

●

●

●

HispanicWhiteBlack

* 11% of black children have a parent incarcerated

* 24% of black children, 1990, will have their father imprisoned by age 14

Next Steps

I State budgets are overburdened by correctional spending ⇒political will for retrenching mass imprisonment

I What is the problem? High imprisonment rates? No

I Chronic idleness, addiction, and mental health problems ofmen with little schooling

I Criminal justice reforms by themselves will be insufficient andwill fail

Next Steps

I State budgets are overburdened by correctional spending ⇒political will for retrenching mass imprisonment

I What is the problem? High imprisonment rates? No

I Chronic idleness, addiction, and mental health problems ofmen with little schooling

I Criminal justice reforms by themselves will be insufficient andwill fail

Next Steps

I State budgets are overburdened by correctional spending ⇒political will for retrenching mass imprisonment

I What is the problem? High imprisonment rates? No

I Chronic idleness, addiction, and mental health problems ofmen with little schooling

I Criminal justice reforms by themselves will be insufficient andwill fail

Next Steps

I State budgets are overburdened by correctional spending ⇒political will for retrenching mass imprisonment

I What is the problem? High imprisonment rates? No

I Chronic idleness, addiction, and mental health problems ofmen with little schooling

I Criminal justice reforms by themselves will be insufficient andwill fail

Next Steps

I State budgets are overburdened by correctional spending ⇒political will for retrenching mass imprisonment

I What is the problem? High imprisonment rates? No

I Chronic idleness, addiction, and mental health problems ofmen with little schooling

I Criminal justice reforms by themselves will be insufficient andwill fail

Next Steps

I State budgets are overburdened by correctional spending ⇒political will for retrenching mass imprisonment

I What is the problem? High imprisonment rates? No

I Chronic idleness, addiction, and mental health problems ofmen with little schooling

I Criminal justice reforms by themselves will be insufficient andwill fail

Next Steps

I State budgets are overburdened by correctional spending ⇒political will for retrenching mass imprisonment

I What is the problem? High imprisonment rates? No

I Chronic idleness, addiction, and mental health problems ofmen with little schooling

I Criminal justice reforms by themselves will be insufficient andwill fail

Next Steps

I State budgets are overburdened by correctional spending ⇒political will for retrenching mass imprisonment

I What is the problem? High imprisonment rates? No

I Chronic idleness, addiction, and mental health problems ofmen with little schooling

I Criminal justice reforms by themselves will be insufficient andwill fail

Next Steps

I State budgets are overburdened by correctional spending ⇒political will for retrenching mass imprisonment

I What is the problem? High imprisonment rates? No

I Chronic idleness, addiction, and mental health problems ofmen with little schooling

I Criminal justice reforms by themselves will be insufficient andwill fail

Next Steps

I State budgets are overburdened by correctional spending ⇒political will for retrenching mass imprisonment

I What is the problem? High imprisonment rates? No

I Chronic idleness, addiction, and mental health problems ofmen with little schooling

I Criminal justice reforms by themselves will be insufficient andwill fail

A National Prisoner Reentry Plan

I Transitional jobs for all parolees needing work (200,000 a year)

I More drug treatment, housing, and education

I No more re-imprisonment for technical parole violators

I Supervision shifts from prison to the community, and replacescriminal justice oversight with social policy

I $8.5 billion cost, $10 billion benefit in reduced crime andcorrectional costs

A National Prisoner Reentry Plan

I Transitional jobs for all parolees needing work (200,000 a year)

I More drug treatment, housing, and education

I No more re-imprisonment for technical parole violators

I Supervision shifts from prison to the community, and replacescriminal justice oversight with social policy

I $8.5 billion cost, $10 billion benefit in reduced crime andcorrectional costs

A National Prisoner Reentry Plan

I Transitional jobs for all parolees needing work (200,000 a year)

I More drug treatment, housing, and education

I No more re-imprisonment for technical parole violators

I Supervision shifts from prison to the community, and replacescriminal justice oversight with social policy

I $8.5 billion cost, $10 billion benefit in reduced crime andcorrectional costs

A National Prisoner Reentry Plan

I Transitional jobs for all parolees needing work (200,000 a year)

I More drug treatment, housing, and education

I No more re-imprisonment for technical parole violators

I Supervision shifts from prison to the community, and replacescriminal justice oversight with social policy

I $8.5 billion cost, $10 billion benefit in reduced crime andcorrectional costs

A National Prisoner Reentry Plan

I Transitional jobs for all parolees needing work (200,000 a year)

I More drug treatment, housing, and education

I No more re-imprisonment for technical parole violators

I Supervision shifts from prison to the community, and replacescriminal justice oversight with social policy

I $8.5 billion cost, $10 billion benefit in reduced crime andcorrectional costs

A National Prisoner Reentry Plan

I Transitional jobs for all parolees needing work (200,000 a year)

I More drug treatment, housing, and education

I No more re-imprisonment for technical parole violators

I Supervision shifts from prison to the community, and replacescriminal justice oversight with social policy

I $8.5 billion cost, $10 billion benefit in reduced crime andcorrectional costs

Mass Incarceration Redux

I When incareration rates are high and concentrated. . .

I And incarceration has large and enduring effects on inequality(invisible, cumulative, and intergenerational)...

I Mass incarceration has produced a new social group separatedfrom full membership in society

Mass Incarceration Redux

I When incareration rates are high and concentrated. . .

I And incarceration has large and enduring effects on inequality(invisible, cumulative, and intergenerational)...

I Mass incarceration has produced a new social group separatedfrom full membership in society

Mass Incarceration Redux

I When incareration rates are high and concentrated. . .

I And incarceration has large and enduring effects on inequality(invisible, cumulative, and intergenerational)...

I Mass incarceration has produced a new social group separatedfrom full membership in society

Here’s a ‘narrative defining question for you:

Should we think about racial disparity of punishment in America as an accidental accretion of neutral state action applied to a racially divergent social flux – the chips having fallen as they may, so to speak?

Or is this powerfully salient feature of

contemporary American social life better understood as the residual effect of our uniquely American history of enslavement, violent domination, disenfranchisement and racial discrimination?

That is, ought we to think of massive

racial inequality in the incidence of punishment in America as a necessary evil, given our need for order maintenance? Or, should we view it an abhorrent expression of who we Americans have become as a people at the dawn of the 21st century?