The United States locks up more of its people than
any other nation in the world. A whopping 2.2 million people are living behind
bars in this country on any given day. Our national incarceration rate is four
times that of Australia, five times that of the United Kingdom, and six times that
of Canada.
This uniquely American problem is not one crisis
— rather, mass incarceration is a series of state-based catastrophes, each one
different from the next. While much attention was paid
to the federal reforms passed last year through the First Step Act, of
the 2.2 million people locked up on any given day, 90 percent are under state
and local jurisdiction.
Because the overwhelming majority of people
are incarcerated at the state level, ending mass incarceration is not something
that a single act of congress or a Supreme Court decision can fix. It will
require changes to hundreds of laws and practices in all states.
For
this reason, over the past three years, the ACLU and the Urban Institute studied
the carceral systems in each state, and what it would take to cut each state’s
incarceration rate by half. National data fails to guide the most impactful reforms
because it misleads and masks important variations from state to state. For
example: while some states, like Mississippi and South Dakota, can achieve
substantial reductions in incarceration by reforming drug laws, others can’t.
We
conducted in-depth reviews in each state, looking at who’s
incarcerated, for what reasons, and for how long. We then analyzed the impact future
reforms would have on each state’s incarceration rate, including its racial
disparities and fiscal savings. We released our findings through 50
state blueprints
that explain what each state can do to cut its incarcerated population in half.
This ambitious and first-of-its-kind prison population analysis of each state offers important lessons for anyone serious about ending mass incarceration.
Our findings pointed to a variety of drivers
of incarceration. In many states, like Wisconsin, mass incarceration is driven
by probation and parole officers sending people into jails and prisons for
breaking their rules — some as simple as missing a curfew or not being able to
afford a mandatory fee. In other states, it’s driven by needlessly long
sentences, even for people who are ready to go back to their communities. Many states,
like Michigan, also have rigid time-served requirements that impose extreme
sentences on people, requiring they serve 100 percent of their time, with no
opportunity to earn credits or good time for earlier release.
But we did find elements that all states have
in common.
First, reductions in
the number of people in prison do not necessarily translate into reductions in racial
disparities. Shrinking the prison population may result in lower imprisonment
rates for all racial and ethnic populations, but it will not adequately address
disproportionality across populations. In fact, some of
the worst racial disparities are in states that have seen the greatest reductions
in incarceration. New Jersey
leads the nation in decarceration and has seen over a 30 percent decrease in its
prison population over the past 20 years — but it also leads the nation in
racial disparities in incarceration, with a rate that is twice the national
average.
Racial disparities are
so ingrained in the criminal legal system that focusing solely on reducing the
scale of mass incarceration cannot mitigate them. It requires a proactive
strategy, one that focuses on reforming the discretionary components of the criminal
legal system — mainly prosecutors and police, the two primary actors responsible
for deciding who enters the criminal legal system in the first place and how to
treat people once they’re in the system. This is why it’s so important to hold
prosecutors accountable for decisions around which arrests to
prosecute, charges to bring, bail to request, and plea bargains to offer.
Similarly, we must hold police accountable for over-policing communities of
color, including for practices like stop-and-frisk and broken windows policing.
Second, all states rely
too heavily on incarceration, including long-term incarceration, for offenses
involving violence, even though safe alternatives exist in many circumstances. The
truth is, America will never end its obsession with mass incarceration unless we
change how we respond to violence. Restorative justice programs which hold
people accountable while supporting those who were harmed by a violent crime, have
successfully reduced recidivism and decreased symptoms of posttraumatic stress
with victims. These kinds of programs better protect public safety than knee-jerk
responses to lock people up. For situations that may require incarceration, states
should avoid extreme sentences and provide opportunities for people to
rehabilitate and earn early release.
Finally, in all states,
people with needs related to mental health and substance use make up a
shockingly high percentage of people in prison. People with
disabilities are two to six times more likely to be incarcerated than people
without disabilities. Most of these people should never be brought into the
criminal legal system in the first place, and incarceration only exacerbates
their conditions. All states must implement reforms to imprison fewer people who
would be better served by community interventions, such as voluntary treatment and
diversion programs designed to help people experiencing mental health crises or
substance use disorders.
We can end mass incarceration in the United States,
but it will require each state to take an honest look at the policies,
assumptions, and politics that drive its incarceration crisis and implement the
required reforms. Some of these reforms are readily achievable, while others
are likely to be controversial. But we need audacious change to put an end to
our crisis of mass incarceration.