Americans Behind Bars: The International Use of Incarceration, 1992-93: Part 1

Overview

Interest in international comparisons on the use of incarceration has increased in recent years. From the Singapore caning of Michael Fay tchanges in the use of prisons in eastern Europe to the use of prison labor in China, attention has focused on o the ways in which nations utilize different sentencing policies.

In recent years, we have issued two prior reports comparing international rates of incarceration. (1) These reports documented that the United States had become the world leader in its rate of incarceration, having surpassed South Africa and the former Soviet Union, and that the black male rate of incarceration in the U.S. far exceeded that of black males in South Africa.

We now look again at these issues, in what is the most comprehensive survey to date on international rates of incarceration. The main findings of this report are the following:

• Russia has now surpassed the United States to become the world leader in its rate of incarceration, with 558 citizens per 100,000 population in its prison system. The rise of organized crime, political instability, and the transition to an uncertain economic future have all played a factor in crime rates and the use of imprisonment.
• With 1.3 million Americans behind bars, the U.S. rate of incarceration is 519 per 100,000, second in the world among the 52 nations covered in this survey. (2) The U.S. rate has increased by 22 percent since 1989, and is generally 5-8 times the rate of most industrialized nations.
• A racial breakdown of the U.S. inmate population shows that African-Americans are incarcerated at a rate that is more than six times that of whites -- 1,947 per 100,000, compared to 306 per 100,000.
• Black males in the U.S. are incarcerated at more than four times the rate of black males in South Africa -- 3,822 per 100,000 versus 851 per 100,000.
• The cost of incarceration nationally in the U.S. is estimated at $26.8 billion annually. Estimated costs of incarceration for African-American males are $11.6 billion annually.
• The number of African-American males in prisons and jails in the U.S. 583,000 is greater than the number of African-American males enrolled in higher education 537,000.
• Drug, property and public order offenders accounted for 84 percent of the 155 percent increase in new court commitments to state prison from 1980 to 1992, while violent offenders accounted for only 16 percent of the increase.

As we have stated in past reports, a nation's rate of incarceration in itself only describes one aspect of its criminal justice or social policies. For example, a nation with a high rate of incarceration might have a high rate of crime, a harsh sentencing system, a politically repressive government, or some combination of these and other factors. Similarly, one cannot assume that nations with low incarceration rates necessarily have low crime rates or are respectful of civil liberties. For example, the cost of large scale incarceration is prohibitive for many Third World nations, so they maintain a low imprisonment rate. Other nations maintain a relatively low incarceration rate, yet have brutal conditions of confinement. In Zaire, for example, although the incarceration rate is a relatively modest 88 per 100,000, it has been reported that nearly 7.5 percent of the inmates in the prison system die each year due to malnutrition and poor health care. (3)

With these cautions in mind, we look at the dramatically high rate of incarceration in the United States and attempt to assess the factors that have created the anomaly of one of the wealthiest nations in the world sharing the unenviable position of incarceration leader with its former Cold War rival Russia. Whatever the mix of crime rates, criminal justice policies, or social policies that have led to this situation, the rate of incarceration in the United States is so much higher than in comparable nations that it requires a close examination of the various causal factors. Given the renewed "law and order" climate in the country, we also examine the anticipated impact of newly adopted legislation and conclude with recommendations for what we believe would be a more rational criminal justice policy.

International Trends in the Use of Incarceration

As can be seen in Figure 1, the Russian Republic has now replaced the United States as the world leader in its use of incarceration, with a rate of incarceration of 558 per 100,000.

By all accounts, this has been the result of a greatly increased use of incarceration since the fall of the Soviet Union. For comparative purposes, estimates of the use of incarceration by the Soviet Union in 1989 ranged from 268 to 353 per 100,000. A variety of factors have led to the increased use of incarceration in Russia. (4) News accounts have discussed the rise of organized crime, coming at a time of much economic and political instability. As the country moves toward a market economy, the social disruption and loss of a limited social "safety net" for some may contribute to higher crime rates. It has been reported that during the first quarter of 1994, there was an average of 84 murders a day in Russia, a per capita rate that is about double that of the U.S. The use of the prison system for political prisoners, both in the past and at present, is an issue for which there are few precise figures. The State Department has also reported that because the court system does not have the resources to handle the increasing number of arrests, defendants are often held in pretrial detention for more than a year without judicial review. (5)

While comparative data are not readily available, some reports indicate that the high rate of incarceration in Russia may be in good part a result of harsher sentencing practices than other nations, and not primarily differences in crime rates. Comparing prison populations and sentencing practices in Russia to England and Wales, Roy D. King concluded that "it would seem that many offenders are swept into the prison system for much more trivial offences, for much longer periods, and at much earlier points in their criminal careers [in Russia] than would be the case in Britain." (6)

The rate of incarceration in South Africa continues to remain far above that of most other nations as well, at 368 per 100,000 population. (7) It should be noted that these figures are from the end of 1993, prior to the historic change of government in 1994. Therefore, it is too early to know what changes, if any, will be instituted by the new government. One early indication of a possible direction was a reduction of almost all prison sentences by six months following a nationwide series of prison disturbances in June, 1994. (8)

In a number of European countries, though not all, incarceration rates have been rising in recent years. In the Netherlands, long considered a leader in the limited use of incarceration, the rate of incarceration doubled during the 1980s. Even with this increase, however, the country's current rate of 49 per 100,000 still places it at one tenth the U.S. rate and far below most industrialized nations.

Comparing data for 1989 from our first report, we find that Italy's rate of incarceration increased by 33 percent in the period 1989-92, while Austria, Spain, and Switzerland registered gains in the 1416 percent range, and France and Denmark were virtually unchanged.

In the U.S., which was the world leader in 1989, incarceration rates have increased by 22 percent from 426 per 100,000 in 1989 to 519 per 100,000 for 1992-1993. (9) Thus, the rate of incarceration in the U.S. is approximately five to eight times the rate of Canada and most European nations. With a total of 1.3 million inmates in the U.S., at an estimated annual cost of incarceration of $20,000 a year, the national cost of imprisonment in the U.S. is approximately $26.8 billion. Costs of incarceration for the 583,000 incarcerated African-American males are estimated at $11.6 billion annually.

As has been seen in previous reports, the rate of incarceration for African-American males is a major component of the high U.S. rates. Tables 2 and 3 below compare racial differences in incarceration in the U.S. and South Africa while still under apartheid.

Why Does the United States Have Such a High Rate of Incarceration?

It would appear logical in many respects to assume that a high rate of incarceration is a direct response to high crime rates. In recent years, though, many criminologists and policymakers have concluded that imprisonment rates are to a great degree a function of criminal justice and social policies that either encourage or discourage the use of incarceration. The current wave of "Three Strikes and You're Out" proposals illustrates this well. States that have passed such legislation will soon experience an increase in their prison populations of varying degrees depending on the scope of the legislation. While one can debate whether or not these policies are appropriate or will have an impact on crime, it is clear that conscious policy choices are creating a higher rate of imprisonment.

We can see this as well by comparing incarceration rates among the states, where we find that a state's use of imprisonment is not necessarily directly related to its crime rate. For example, while Louisiana had the nation's highest rate of incarceration in 1992 and also had a high crime rate (fifth in the nation), Oklahoma was third in its imprisonment rate despite being just 21st in its crime rate.

At the other end of the spectrum, North Dakota was lowest in the nation in both crime and incarceration rates, but Mississippi was 40th nationally in its rate of incarceration despite having the 16th highest crime rate. Decisions made by legislators and criminal justice officials, including sentencing legislation, parole policies, and the availability of sentencing options and community resources, all play a role in determining incarceration rates.

In the following sections, we examine several factors that might be thought to contribute to the high rate of incarceration in the United States. These include:

• overall crime rates
• violent crime rates
• severity of sentencing policies
• cultural attitudes toward punishment

Does the United States Have a High Rate of Incarceration Because
      of Higher Crime Rates than Other Nations?

As we have seen, high incarceration rates can be a function of high crime rates, criminal justice policies, or social policies in other areas that influence crime. Some persons contend that the United States has a high rate of incarceration due to its high rate of crime or violent crime rate, compared to other nations.

Although there are a number of methodological problems involved in comparing crime and incarceration rates among nations, criminologists have attempted to study this issue in a variety of ways. A recent survey of this issue looked at whether incarceration rates in six industrialized nations (England and Wales, West Germany, France, New Zealand, Netherlands, and Sweden) could be explained by national crime rates. (10) The conclusion was that "only a small measure of the differences in prison population between one jurisdiction and another or the changes in prison populations within particular jurisdictions seem to be related to crime rates." (11)

Further, the assumption that crime rates are substantially higher in the U.S. than in other industrialized nations is not true for most offenses. A comprehensive survey of victimization rates in the industrialized world conducted by the Dutch Ministry of Justice documented that rates of property crime and some assaultive crimes in the U.S. are not significantly different than in many comparable nations. (12) The twenty nation survey found that four nations (New Zealand, Netherlands, Canada, and Australia) exceeded the U.S. rate of victimization for the eleven crimes surveyed, including robbery, burglary, and car theft. Among individual offenses, the survey found that burglary rates in the U.S. were exceeded by New Zealand, Czechoslovakia, Australia, and Canada; that England, Australia, and New Zealand had higher rates of car theft; and that five nations (Czechoslovakia, Poland, Australia, Canada, and West Germany) had higher rates of sexual assault against women.

The victimization survey also confirms that the commission of a crime is to a certain extent a result of opportunity. For example, car theft rates are highest in countries where automobile ownership is high (such as the U.S., Australia, and England), while bicycle thefts also correlate with high ownership rates (as in the Netherlands and Sweden). Similarly, burglary rates are highest in countries with a significant proportion of semidetached or detached homes (including the U.S., Poland, England, and Australia). These findings have implications for crime prevention, such as making greater use of mass transit.

The data on crime victimization overall, therefore, does not provide an explanation for the high incarceration rate in the U.S. While it remains possible that crime rates account for part of the difference in rates of incarceration, the magnitude of the difference between the U.S. and other nations is so great that overall crime rates cannot account for the disparity.

Do Rates of Violent Crime Explain the High Rate of Incarceration in the U.S.?

Looking at rates of violent crime, we see sharper distinctions between the U.S. and most industrialized nations, in large part due to the role of firearms in U.S. crime rates. Rates of assault and murder with firearms are far higher in the U.S. than in comparable nations, with murder rates in the U.S. generally five to ten times the rate of most European nations. Since a violent offender is generally more likely to be incarcerated upon conviction than a nonviolent offender, a higher violent crime rate would be expected to result in a higher imprisonment rate.

We do not have sufficient data to analyze the relative proportions of violent and nonviolent offenders in other prison systems, or to assess how they compare to the U.S. in this regard. What is available, though, is information regarding the increase in the American prison population in recent years. Examining these data demonstrates that the substantial rise in the inmate population since 1980 was not primarily due to incarceration of violent offenders.

As seen in Table 4 below, data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics show that new court commitments to state prison increased by 155 percent from 1980 to 1992. A breakdown of this increase, though, shows that violent offenders accounted for only 16 percent of this increase, with the remaining 84 percent being due to increased incarceration of drug and property offenders and persons convicted of public order offenses. Thus, while it may be true that part of the explanation for high incarceration rates in the U.S. is due to higher rates of violent crime, this is clearly not the primary factor behind the unprecedented increase in the prison population that we have seen in recent years.

Are Sentencing Policies in the U.S. Harsher than in Other Nations?

Another way to explore this issue is to examine relative sentences in different nations for convicted offenders. Those who contend that the high rate of incarceration in the U.S. is primarily a product of high crime rates suggest that a comparison of sentencing policies is necessary in order to ascertain whether the U.S. is more punitive than other nations on a per crime basis. The evidence on this issue is somewhat mixed, but does not necessarily support the contention that high crime rates are the sole explanation for the high rate of incarceration in the U.S.

A 1987 study conducted by the Justice Department examined imprisonment decisions for the crimes of burglary, robbery, and theft in the U.S. compared with Canada, England, and the former West Germany. (13) The study found that the chances of receiving a prison term for an arrest on these offenses was roughly comparable in the U.S., Canada, and England, but lower, particularly for theft, in West Germany. A key issue that was not addressed in the study, though, was comparative length of sentence. It is possible, for example, that while convicted offenders in the U.S. are sentenced to prison at comparable rates to these two other nations, sentence lengths in the U.S. may be longer or shorter than in other countries.

In fact, European comparisons by Young and Brown found that sentence length was in fact a more critical variable than prison admissions in determining prison populations. In looking at the Netherlands and Sweden, both of which have low rates of incarceration, they concluded that the rate of sentencing to prisons was comparable to other nations, but that shorter average sentences accounted for the difference in incarceration rates. (14)

One of the few studies that have attempted to compare the U.S. with other nations, although with some methodological limitations, came to the conclusion that U.S. sentencing practices were in fact more severe. In an examination of sentencing practices in the U.S. and France, Richard Frase looked at whether crime rates, and particularly violent crime, could explain the substantial difference in incarceration rates between the two nations. (15) His conclusion was that even controlling for differences in crime rates, American sentencing severity the use of prison as a sentence and the length of prison sentences was almost twice as high as in France. (By a somewhat more conservative estimation technique, Frase still estimated that American sentencing severity was about 50 percent greater than in France.)

One limitation of the U.S. studies is that they analyze data from the early 1980s. Sentencing patterns in the U.S. have changed substantially since that time, with there now being a greater likelihood of incarceration for many offenses. Bureau of Justice Statistics data show that for every 1,000 arrests, the commitment rate to state prison has increased by 6 percent for robbery, 29 percent for aggravated assault, 49 percent for burglary, and fully 447 percent for drugs from 1980 to 1992. (16) For drug offenses in particular, the length of imprisonment is also increasing in many jurisdictions due to the impact of mandatory sentencing laws. While we do not have data describing sentencing trends in other nations during this period, the changes in U.S. drug policy in particular suggest that the incarceration differential with other nations may continue to increase for some period of time.

A Cross-National Look at Sentence Length

If in fact sentence length is a key variable in understanding relative rates of incarceration, then the question is why different nations impose varying degrees of sentence length on offenders. Recent research in this area, analyzed by Warren Young and Mark Brown, provides some provocative conclusions. (17) After reviewing explanations for harsher sentencing policies that look at issues such as unemployment rates and public policy decisions, they conclude that these do not provide sufficient correlations for cross national distinctions. They find instead that the most substantial explanation lies in the cultural attitudes of a society; that is, what most people would consider the "right" punishment.

Attitudes toward punishment tend to be shared within a society and affect decision making regarding the harshness of sentencing. But why are some nations more punitive than others? Research by Wilkins and Pease suggests that "a society's penal climate or its relative punitiveness is linked to its relative egalitarianism: the greater a society's tolerance of inequality, the more extreme the scale of punishment utilized." (18) Thus, sentencing severity is a type of negative reward for those at one end of the spectrum, compared to the positive rewards of income and status. A society like the United States, therefore, premised on a strong degree of individualism and with greater disparity of wealth than most industrialized nations, will be more likely to display harsher cultural attitudes toward sentencing policy than a nation with a broader social welfare system.

The implications of this analysis are quite profound, for it suggests that changes in criminal justice policy alone will not eliminate the differential in international rates of incarceration. This is not to deny the importance of changes in criminal justice policy, which can have a significant impact for sentencing of many offenders. The analysis tells us, though, that if a society is committed to lowering its rate of incarceration, either on fiscal or moral grounds, an overall reevaluation of cultural attitudes and values that determine sentencing policy needs to be initiated.

Summary: Toward an Understanding of Crime and Incarceration

What can we conclude from this assessment of crime rates and incarceration? Several key themes emerge:

1. Crime rates for most property crimes and some assaultive offenses in the U.S. are not significantly greater than for other industrialized nations, and therefore are not a major explanation for the high rate of incarceration in the U.S.
2. Higher rates of violent crime in the U.S. are responsible for at least part of the nation's high incarceration rate compared to other nations. The dramatic increase in the prison population since 1980, though, was not primarily a result of sentencing greater numbers of violent offenders, since violent offenders represented only 16 percent of the increase in court commitments from 1980 to 1992.
3. The impact of the "war on drugs" has been responsible for much of the increase in the prison population, with 46 percent of new court commitments since 1980 being due to drug offenses.
4. Cross national comparisons of rates of incarceration suggest that the length of prison sentences, rather than the number of persons sentenced to prison is the main determinant of differing rates of incarceration. Thus, alternatives to incarceration may have some impact on lowering a jurisdiction's incarceration rate, but this will generally be of less magnitude than altering sentence lengths.
5. Once prisons are built, they are in many respects a self perpetuating entity. Prisons are constructed to last for 50-100 years and their continued use over time contributes to a culture that makes their use seem logical and rational. While few persons would argue with the necessity for a certain level of imprisonment in society, it is far from clear that incarceration is the only, or best, means of either preventing or controlling crime. A broad range of policies both within and outside the criminal justice system exist to accomplish these objectives, and different nations make use of these resources to varying degrees. Unless incarceration is examined in this context, policymakers will be confronted with a set of crime control options that is much more restrictive than necessary.

What Has Been the Impact of Increased Incarceration on Crime?

While there are a variety of reasons why judges sentence offenders to prison, the underlying goal is to reduce crime, whether accomplished through incapacitation, deterrence, or rehabilitation in prison. Given the enormous increase in the use of imprisonment in the past two decades, along with heightened public concern about crime, it is critical to examine the effect these policies have had on public safety.

There is a small body of opinion, generally represented by the National Rifle Association and its allies, that contends that the prison buildup of the 1980s had a dramatic effect on crime rates and that "Incarceration works." (19) This assertion turns out to be based on serious distortions of criminal justice data. The NRA claims, for example, that the 150 percent increase in incarceration from 1980 to 1991 led to a 24 percent drop in "serious victimization." Upon closer examination, however, the NRA definition of "serious victimization" includes violent crimes, but also the nonviolent crime of burglary, one of the FBI's seven Index offenses. While burglary rates did decline during the 1980s their inclusion with violent crimes distorts actual trends. Had the NRA included the Index offense of auto theft rather than burglary in its calculations, the results would have been very different, since auto theft victimization increased by 33 percent during this period. Looking only at violent crime, we find that the more than doubling of the prison population paralleled a 4 percent decline in violent crime during this period.

The "relationship" claimed by the NRA also turns out to be one that is not consistent over time. By breaking down crime and incarceration into two periods, 1980-86 and 1986-91, as seen below in Tables 5 and 6, we find that incarceration rates rose by 65 percent and violent crime declined by 16 percent in the first period, but that from 1986 to 1991, despite the fact that imprisonment rose 51 percent, violent crime also increased, by 15 percent. Clearly, no cause and effect relationship can be discerned here.

What about crime rates overall, though, in addition to violent crime? Here, too, we see no consistent impact. Some crimes, such as burglary and larceny, have declined steadily since 1980. Others, such as auto theft, have increased significantly. One measure of crime's impact on society is the financial harm suffered by victims. In this regard, the increase in auto theft has been far more costly, since the median loss to victims ($3,600) is substantially greater than for victims of burglary or larceny ($50 and $55 respectively). (20) Again, any overall positive gains in crime control are difficult to discern.

More sophisticated studies, such as those of Patrick A. Langan, have attempted to look at this issue as well, and have suggested that increased incarceration may have had some impact on crime rates. (21) Yet in a comparative study of the use of incarceration in England and the United States he concludes that "Existing evidence does not suggest that crime can be dramatically reduced simply by putting more offenders behind bars," and that "modest reductions in crime may be possible, but major and lasting reductions probably will require social intervention techniques, such as parent training or preschool intellectual enrichment programs." (22)

Two other issues bear on this relationship as well. First, as we have noted in previous reports, demographic issues play a significant role in crime rates, since young males produce disproportionately high rates of crime. As criminologists Darrell Steffensmeier and Miles Harer have noted, most of the change in crime rates in the period 1980-88 can be explained by changes in the proportion of the population in the age group 15-24. (23)

Second, the impact of drug crimes and arrests adds another dimension to this analysis, since drug offenses are not covered as part of the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, or what is generally described as the "crime rate." Since there are no data on the number of drug crimes that are committed, we can only look to statistics on drug arrests for general trends, where we find that drug arrests doubled during the 1980s. Some experts have speculated that the decline in some offenses such as burglary during this period may represent a shift in crime patterns from burglary to low level drug dealing, and not necessarily an overall reduction in criminal activity.

Finally, some advocates of increased incarceration contend that had the large buildup of the prison population not taken place, crime rates would have been even higher than they already are. This type of speculation can be neither proved nor disproved, but if one believes that crime would have increased, then there must have been some specific factors causing this. They may have included poverty, drug abuse, poor education, and family breakdown, among others. Addressing these problems should have more of an impact on crime than continuing to expand the prison population.