the economics of crime and justice
DESCRIPTION
The Economics of Crime and Justice. Johnny Cash at Folsom Prison, 1968. Topics. Prisons in America Correctional Bureaucracy in CA The Serious Offender/Career Criminal Terrorism: A Preview. Bureaucracy: Readings. Albert Hirshman, Exit, Voice and Loyalty exit: voting with your feet - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
The Economics of Crime and Justice
Johnny Cash at Folsom Prison, 1968
2
Topics
Prisons in AmericaPrisons in America Correctional Bureaucracy in CACorrectional Bureaucracy in CA The Serious Offender/Career CriminalThe Serious Offender/Career Criminal Terrorism: A PreviewTerrorism: A Preview
3
Bureaucracy: Readings
Albert Hirshman, Albert Hirshman, Exit, Voice and LoyaltyExit, Voice and Loyalty exit: voting with your feetexit: voting with your feet voice: political actionvoice: political action
Anthony Downs, Anthony Downs, Inside BureaucracyInside Bureaucracy survival of the bureaucratsurvival of the bureaucrat
4
XIII. Lecture Thirteen: “Managing Prison Stocks and Flows: TheCorrectional Bureaucaracy”, Professor Phillips
References: A. Blumstein, "Prisons: Population, Capacity andAlternatives" (RBR), James Q. Wilson (Ed.) Op. Cit.,(RBR)Phillips & Shapiro, "Prison Costs and PublicExpenditures" (RBR)Albert Hirshman, Exit, Voice and Loyalty, Ch. 1Anthony Downs, Inside Bureaucracy, Ch. 9
5
Prisons in America
Are we the land of the free and the home of Are we the land of the free and the home of the brave?the brave?
Are we the gulag?Are we the gulag?
Or both?Or both?
6
Likelihood of Going to Prison in a Lifetime
1/4
1/6
1/23
1/10
For
Newborn
Prevalence of Imprisonment in the U. S. Population, 1974-01Source:
7
Imprisonment Rates Per 100/000
http://virlib.ncjrs.org/Corrections.asp
8
9
1012 % Current/Total 25%
1.3 million in prison; 4.3 million out but formerly in
11
Current & Former Prisoners Ever Incarcerated, 1974
In 12%
Formerly In88%
12
Current & Former Prisoners Ever Incarcerated, 2001
In23%
Formerly In77%
13
14
2.7% of Adults have been in prison, one time or another
15
And the % is projected to rise
16
If born in 2001, chances or ever going to prison 6.6%
17
If born a black male in 2001, lifetime chance is 32.2%, 1/3
18
Growth rates in State and Federal Prisoners, 1995-2002
Prisoners in 2002
Source
19
Comparative International Rates of Incarceration
1980
20
The U.S. Incarceration Rate is Higher than for Russia, and South Africa; 7 times Italy and 8 times France
21
CA Criminal Justice: examplesAlbert Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty Exit: choosing to live in a gated communityExit: choosing to live in a gated community Voice: lobbying for Voice: lobbying for per se per se laws for DUIlaws for DUI Voice: lobbying for victims’ rights bills and Voice: lobbying for victims’ rights bills and
ballot initiativesballot initiatives
22
No Czar for CA CJS
Offenses per Capita
$ ExpendituresPer Capita
Crime Control Technology
Control Costs + Damages to Victims
optimum
High Cost Inefficiency
23
No Czar for CJS
Offenses increase, public demands safetyOffenses increase, public demands safety Elected officials can increase police faster Elected officials can increase police faster
than they can build prisonsthan they can build prisons Arrests rise, courts clogArrests rise, courts clog prison capacity risesprison capacity rises number of parolees risesnumber of parolees rises
California Criminal Justice Expenditures By Function, 1992-93
Corrections35%
Law Enforcement48%
Prosecution5%
Public Defense2%
Courts10%
California Criminal Justice Expenditure Shares
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%6
7-6
8
69
-70
71
-72
73
-74
75
-76
77
-78
79
-80
81
-82
83
-84
85
-86
87
-88
89
-90
91
-92
Fiscal Year
Sh
are
Corrections
Courts
Public Defense
Prosecution
Law Enforcement
26
Corrections FunctionCorrections Function
Probation DepartmentsProbation Departments JailsJails
city and countycity and county Youth AuthorityYouth Authority California State Department of CorrectionsCalifornia State Department of Corrections
prisons prisons
State Department of Corrections as a Proportion of California Corrections .
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%73
-74
75
-76
77
-78
79
-80
81
-82
83
-84
85
-86
87
-88
89
-90
91
-92
Fiscal Year
Sh
are Cities and Counties, CYA
Dept. of Corrections
28
California Corrections BureaucracyCalifornia Corrections Bureaucracy Prisoner and Parole PopulationsPrisoner and Parole Populations
StocksStocks Felon New Admissions From CourtFelon New Admissions From Court
Inflow to PrisonInflow to Prison Prisoners Released to ParolePrisoners Released to Parole
Outflow from Prison/Inflow to ParoleOutflow from Prison/Inflow to Parole Parole ViolatorsParole Violators
Outflow from ParoleOutflow from Parole Discharges from Parole and DeathsDischarges from Parole and Deaths
Outflow from ParoleOutflow from Parole
California Department of Corrections1996California Department of Corrections1996
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
30
Correctional Trends in California: Custodial PopulationsCorrectional Trends in California: Custodial Populations
Prisoners Per CapitaPrisoners Per Capita Institutional PopulationInstitutional Population
FelonsFelonsCivil Narcotics AddictsCivil Narcotics Addicts
Parolees Per CapitaParolees Per Capita Parole and Outpatient Population Parole and Outpatient Population
Supervised in CaliforniaSupervised in California
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
32
California Department of Corrections:
Total Parole and Outpatient Population
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
34
Correctional Trends in California: Inflows to PrisonCorrectional Trends in California: Inflows to Prison
Felon New Admissions from CourtFelon New Admissions from Court Parole Violators Returned to CustodyParole Violators Returned to Custody Parole Violators With a New TermParole Violators With a New Term
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
36
Two Policy IssuesTwo Policy Issues
Composition of New Admissions from CourtComposition of New Admissions from Court Large Volume of Parole Violators Returned to Large Volume of Parole Violators Returned to
PrisonPrison
37
38
39
40
SERIOUSNESS SURVEY (and months served in prison)
RATE THE SERIOUSNESS OF EACH OF THE FOLLOWING BEHAVIORS ON A SCALE FROM ZERO( LEAST SERIOUS) TO TEN( MOST SERIOUS):
MEAN1. HOMICIDE _9.7__362. MASS POISONING ( e.g. TYLENOL) _8.3__ 3. FORCIBLE RAPE _9.4__664. ARSON: SET FIRE TO A GARAGE _7.8__5. SELLING HEROIN _6.2__6. AUTO THEFT _5.7__177. EMBEZZLEMENT OF $1,000 _4.6__8. PROSTITUTE IN A HOUSE OF PROSTITUTION _3.5__9. POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA _2.3__1310. SNIFFING GLUE _2.0__
41
At Least Two Inefficiencies
Using scarce prison space for less serious Using scarce prison space for less serious drug offendersdrug offenders
using scarce prison space for recycled using scarce prison space for recycled parolees returned to custody ( drug test parolees returned to custody ( drug test violators)violators)
Consequence: composition of prisoners Consequence: composition of prisoners rises for drug offenders and falls for violent rises for drug offenders and falls for violent offendersoffenders
42
43
Citizen Reaction to Release of Violent Offenders Voice: Three Strikes LawVoice: Three Strikes Law
Polly Klass abduction and murder by a Polly Klass abduction and murder by a released violent offenderreleased violent offender
44
45
Part II. The Serious Offender (the power of ideas) Theoretical Justification for Detention Theoretical Justification for Detention
PolicyPolicy
46
Part IIPart II The Serious OffenderThe Serious Offender
a few serious criminals account for most crimesa few serious criminals account for most crimes if free, each serious offender would commit crimes at the if free, each serious offender would commit crimes at the
rate of rate of per yearper year if there are N serious offenders, they would commit if there are N serious offenders, they would commit *N *N
offenses per year, if freeoffenses per year, if free if there are PR serious offenders in prison, then we save if there are PR serious offenders in prison, then we save
*PR offenses per year*PR offenses per year the net observed offenses per year is:the net observed offenses per year is:
OF = OF = *N - *N - *PR = *PR = (N -AD*S)(N -AD*S)
47
Population
Serious Offenders, N
Prisoners, PR
48
Population
Serious Offenders, N
Prisoners, PR
If the Serious Offender Population grows faster than the PrisonPopulation then crime gets worse
49
Population
Serious Offenders, N
Prisoners, PR
If the Prison Population grows faster than the Serious OffenderPopulation then crime gets better
50
Thinking About the Serious Offender
Visually: subpopulationsVisually: subpopulations Stocks and FlowsStocks and Flows TransitionsTransitions
51
Mean Time Served: One Year
Relations Between Stocks and Flows
Inflow OutflowStock, Dec 31100 PrisonersJan 1, year one
100 AdmitsJan 1, year two 100 releases
In equilibrium: inflow = outflow
Jan 1, year two100 Admits
Jan 1, year three100 releases
outflow is proportional to the stock: 100 = 1* 100
52
Mean Time Served: Two Years
Relations Between Stocks and Flows
Inflow OutflowStock
Jan 1, year one 100 Admits
Jan 1, year two 0 releases
Jan 1, year two100 Admits
Dec 31, year one100 prisonersDec 31, year two200 prisoners
Jan 1, year three100 releases
Jan 1, year three100 Admits
In equilibrium: inflow = outflow
outflow is proportional to the stock: 100 = 1/2* 200
Crime Generation: The Serious Offender (Active)
Crime Control: Incapacitation (Inactive)
Probability of arrest, conviction, and imprisonment equals q J
probability of remainingactiveequals1- q J
Average Time Served equals s
Probability of Release equals 1/s
Figure 3A : Dynamic Serious Offender Model
probability of remianing inactive equals 1- 1/s
---------------------------------------------------------------
next state
active inactive
active 1- q J q J
inactive 1/s 1- 1/s
current state
Figure 3B: Probabilities of Transitioning From Incapacitated to Free and Back ------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. 96, Lecture 6 Notes.
54
Illustrative Example Suppose for a career criminal, time committing Suppose for a career criminal, time committing
crime = time behind bars,crime = time behind bars, 1/(1/(q J) = sq J) = s s is time behind bars, e.g 2 years s is time behind bars, e.g 2 years and and is offenses per year, e. g. 30 per yearis offenses per year, e. g. 30 per year q is probability of being arrested and convicted q is probability of being arrested and convicted
per offense, per offense, J is the probability of imprisonment if J is the probability of imprisonment if
convicted, e.g. 2/3convicted, e.g. 2/3 then q = 1/40 per offense, and then q = 1/40 per offense, and q = 3/4 per yearq = 3/4 per year and and q J, the probability of arrest, convictionq J, the probability of arrest, conviction and imprisonment is 1/2and imprisonment is 1/2
Crime Generation: The Serious Offender (Active)
Crime Control: Incapacitation (Inactive)
Probability of arrest, conviction, and imprisonment equals q J
probability of remainingactiveequals1- q J
Average Time Served equals s
Probability of Release equals 1/s
Figure 3A : Dynamic Serious Offender Model
probability of remianing inactive equals 1- 1/s
---------------------------------------------------------------
next state
active inactive
active 1- q J q J
inactive 1/s 1- 1/s
current state
Figure 3B: Probabilities of Transitioning From Incapacitated to Free and Back ------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. 96, Lecture 6 Notes.
1/21/2
1/2
1/2
56
Terrorism in the USA
Home grownHome grown Foreign importsForeign imports RemediesRemedies
57
Learning from History
Skyjacking in the USASkyjacking in the USA first in the USA was 1961first in the USA was 1961
58
Learning from Economics
Thwarting embezzlementThwarting embezzlement inspection, I. E. auditinspection, I. E. audit
Recent History of US Terrorism Post 9-11Post 9-11
Cabinet position for Homeland SecurityCabinet position for Homeland Security Pre 9-11Pre 9-11 BombingsBombings
World Trade Center, New YorkWorld Trade Center, New York Murtaugh Federal Building, Oklahoma Murtaugh Federal Building, Oklahoma
CityCity Black ChurchesBlack Churches
SkyjackingsSkyjackings
60
61
http://www.state.govhttp://www.state.govOffice of the CoordinatorOffice of the Coordinatorfor Counter-Terrorismfor Counter-TerrorismPatterns of Global TerrorismPatterns of Global Terrorism
62
63
64
65
Reward: $2,000,000
69
Actual and Attempted Bombings in the US .
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
35001
97
3
19
74
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
19
93
19
94
Year
Nu
mb
er
70
Casualties from Bombings, US .
1
10
100
1000
100001
97
3
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
Year
Nu
mb
er
Injured
Killed
72
ARA: InterAmericaAF: AfricaEAP: East Asia and the PacificEUR: EuropeNESA: Near East and South Asia
73
74
Americas
75
76
Europe
77
78
Skyjackings
The first skyjacking was a Peruvian carrier The first skyjacking was a Peruvian carrier in February 1931in February 1931
The first skyjacking of a US carrier was a The first skyjacking of a US carrier was a National Airlines flight destined for Key National Airlines flight destined for Key West Florida on May 1, 1961West Florida on May 1, 1961
Economics 160, Economics of Crime and Justice, Midterm Grades, Spring ‘04 Scores: Range 69-140
Median 105 N = 138 Grade Distribution: # A+ 137- 2 A 129-136 9 A- 121-128 11 B+ 113-120 18 B 105-112 30 B- 99-104 21 C+ 93-98 12 C 87-92 11 C- 81-86 9 D+ 95-80 4 D 69-74 4 Total: 138