Meeting the Prime Minister’s Goals in Crime Reduction – What Should We Do With
Prisons?
Over the next six weeks Rethinking will be examining in further detail the Prime Minister’s
Goals in Crime Reduction. In Newsletter #99, Meeting the Prime Minister’s Goals in Crime
Reduction, we looked at how New Zealand’s criminal justice system fared alongside
comparable nations, and concluded that we rated unfavourably across a number of
measures.
In Newsletter #101, “Why the Crime Rate Should Fall” we described those drivers that
would contribute to a falling crime rate over the next ten years.
In both cases, we came to the same conclusion: that the key to a significant reduction in
both the crime rate, and the cost of crime, is to reduce the level of imprisonment.
What are the Incentives to Reduce Imprisonment?
Containing the Fiscal Cost of Justice
Since the middle of 2009,1 and as set out in the Long Term Statement of Fiscal Position in
2009, Treasury reported spending in the justice sector had doubled in inflation-adjusted
terms from 1994 to 2009. However, the increase in spending has not been linked to
recorded crime rates, which had been stable over the same period.
1
David Wood, Deputy Secretary, Sector Performance, email communication, 17 November 2011.
1|P a g e
In 2010, the cost to taxpayers of running the Department of Corrections exceeded $1billion,
and since 2005 the average cost of locking up a sentenced prisoner had grown 38% in real
terms. The figure most commonly quoted is that each prisoner costs the taxpayer around
$94,000 a year.
2|P a g e
Prisoner numbers and imprisonment rates set new records during 2010/11 for the fourth
consecutive year, despite the falls in the volume and rates of reported crime. Some may
argue that such an outcome is proof that the ‘get tough on crime’ stance of the current and
previous governments is proof of the effectiveness of such a strategy. Evidence of what
happens to prisoners in prison would suggest otherwise.
The average prison population in New Zealand prisons reached 8,715 people for the year to
30th June 2011—a 3.6% increase over the previous year, and 19% more than five years
previously in 2005/06. The proportion of prisoners held on remand remained constant at
just under 24%. The proportion of the prison population made up of Māori males also
remained disappointingly constant at 51%—disappointing, given that Maori males make up
just 7.5% of the total population.
3|P a g e
While the imprisonment rate has risen over the last ten years by around 50%, the crime rate
was stable and declining.
What drove the prison population upwards? There were three key drivers.
1. An increase in the length of sentences
2. An increase in the number of people imprisoned for short sentences
3. An increase in the number of people remanded in custody
‘Stock vs Flow’
There are two main measures of prison populations used by countries. These are known as
the 'stock' and the 'flow'. The 'stock' is the number of people in prison at a given point in
time, say 9,000 in June 2012. The 'flow', is the number of offenders that are sent to prison
over a given period of time, for instance, 26,000 people throughout the prisons in 2011. In
countries where short custodial sentences are used frequently, flow will be much larger
than stock. In countries where those sent to prison typically receive longer sentences, the
flow will only be slightly larger than the stock.
4|P a g e
Increase in the Length of Sentences
In 2006, just over five years ago, Dr Warren Young, then Deputy President of the NZ Law
Commission, observed that while prison population growth had been attributed directly to
the hardening of sentencing legislation in 2002 there was nothing in the 2002 legislation
that could directly have accounted for the shift in sentencing patterns between 2002 and
2006. In his view, it was more plausible to suggest that judicial sentencing patterns shifted
in response to the prevailing political and public mood. That mood had been developing in
New Zealand for over a decade, observable in the years leading up to 1999, the passage of
the legislation in 2002, and so on. On this analysis, the legislation did no more than offer a
focal point for debate and an outlet for judges to respond.2
Dr Young’s view was that sentences were “talked up”. He summed it up this way:
“Many would say that judges responded rightly, because that seemed to be what the
public and the politicians wanted. However, what started as rhetoric had a very real,
and adverse, fiscal and moral consequence. New Zealand ended up on a treadmill of
ever-increasing punitiveness. It is now looking for a way to get off the treadmill;
instead of perpetuating a situation which can only be perpetuated as a national
shame.”
2
Warren Young “Sentencing and Parole – A New Paradigm” in ‘Beyond Retribution – Advancing the Law and
Order Debate’, Report from Prison Fellowship New Zealand Conference 2006, p.38.
5|P a g e
More People in Prison for Short Sentences
When Dr Young wrote, sentences of six months or less made up 47 percent of receptions
into prison. This has led many to subscribe to the view that prison population growth might
be halted or reversed if alternatives could be found for the significant proportion of
prisoners who are serving short sentences. Prisoners serving short sentences turn over all
the time – they arrive, and leave again, and are replaced. Hence they comprise a high
percentage of receptions, but utilise a low percentage of beds.
The ranking of countries in terms of the flow of people into prison is different than for stock.
This is a clear indication of how jurisdictions use incarceration differently. The Figure below
shows the change from 2005-06 to 2009-10 in the imprisonment rate of offenders per
100,000 people in New Zealand and how it compares with other countries.
Numbers of imprisonments
Country or
State
Imprisonments
per 100,000
population in
2009/10
Number of
% change in
imprisonments imprisonments
2009/10
2005/06 to
2009/10
France
494
309,558
-5.3%
California
461
170,477
-10.3%
Scotland
304
15,788
2.7%
Canada
293
98,848
-1.7%
Australia
276
60,665
unavailable
New
263
11,339
21.5%
244
10,865
98.0%
182
99,550
-2.5%
125
6,670
-11.3%
Zealand
Republic of
Ireland
England and
Wales
Finland
6|P a g e
NOTE
1. Australia: data from 2005/06 was unavailable
Source: NAO analysis of published imprisonment and population data.
In New Zealand, the latest increases are almost 10 times those of the next highest nation.
The Republic of Ireland is an exception in that the influx took place over a very short space
of time. In New Zealand, it came at the end of a twenty-year period of steady growth3.
Those imprisoned for less than two years are not eligible for rehabilitation programmes, and
are not subject to parole supervision on release.
Low-level offending causes a huge amount of distress in the community and can burden
victims with significant financial costs and long-term fears. It can also be the beginning of a
steady escalation of offending.
In New Zealand 91.7% of prisoners released in the 2008/09 period had served 24 months or
less, with 71% serving 6 months or less.4 It is virtually impossible to do anything productive
with offenders on short sentences, and many of them end up losing their jobs, their homes
and their families during their short time inside. The pattern repeats itself over and over
again, with offenders being imprisoned for minor offences – drink driving, theft and
burglary, disorder – which, taken collectively, create a significant public nuisance.
3
Statistics New Zealand. 'Table Builder: Convicted Offenders'. Available at:
http://www.stats.govt.nz/tools_and_services/tools/TableBuilder/conviction-and-sentencing-tables.aspx
4
Source: Department of Corrections.
7|P a g e
Increase in Offenders Remanded in Custody
The black area in the above figure represents the growth in the percentage of offenders
remanded in custody and awaiting a court hearing. New Zealand has a very high custodial
remand rate, at 41 per 100,000. That is far higher than Australia (30). England and Wales are
lower still at 25 remand prisoners per 100,000, followed by Ireland (15) and Finland (10).
In his 2008 Review of the Criminal Justice System, Ombudsman Mel Smith explains the
reasons for the increase in numbers remanded in custody.5
Between March 1997 and March 2007, the sentenced muster increased from 4,493
to 6,053, i.e., 35%. In the same time period the remand muster increased from 550 to
1,724, i.e., 214%. If the remand muster had increased at the same rate as the
sentenced muster (i.e., at 35% rather than 214%), it would have increased by 193 to
743. The difference between equivalent rates and what actually occurred is 981
prisoners. While the reduction by 981 in the total muster at March 2007 (from 7,778
5
Report of Mel Smith, Ombudsman into Issues affecting the Criminal Justice Sector (2007) pp 29-30.
8|P a g e
to 6,797) would not eliminate the pressure on prisons, it would reduce the fiscal
demand and drop substantially the rate of prisoners per 100,000 population.
The increase in the prison number in New Zealand – both the total number and as a
rate per 100,000 population – is a central issue for the criminal justice system. ... The
Bail Act 2000 and the Parole Act 2002 both have had a part to play in this increase,
and in the past decade the muster has had a major impetus on policy development.
Despite this increase and as those who are concerned about the growth in the muster
have found, there is no easy solution. One of the reasons for my suggestion for
a Commission of Inquiry is that it will allow an opportunity to stop and reflect as to
why the punitive treadmill seems to continue to pick up speed and, it is hoped, to find
constructive ways to slow it down.
In his concluding comments, Mel Smith said;
The Bail Act 2000 made bail harder to get for those charged with serious crimes and
for those who had been in prison before. It was thus seen as part of the penal
populists’ agenda.
The Role of Prisons in Controlling Crime
In short, penal policies over the last 20 years have focussed on:
(a) Putting more people in prison for longer terms of imprisonment
(b) Putting a whole lot of people in prison for short periods of time
(c) Increasing the number of people remanded in custody.
Have the policies worked to reduce crime? It is worth considering that there would be no
crime if everyone was in prison, and relatively little if all males aged 15 to 35 were
incarcerated. Are enough crimes averted by current practices to justify having so many
people in prison?
Under the current regime, societies are safer to the extent that the small numbers of
dangerous people are temporarily incapacitated, but when offenders emerge from prison –
with no job prospects, unresolved drug and mental health problems, and diminished
connections to their families, whānau and communities – they often return to crime.
9|P a g e
A recent benchmark study concluded that a 10% increase in imprisonment will at the most
produce a 2–4% decrease in crime rates.6 Closer to home, the New South Wales Bureau of
Crime Statistics and Research (NSW BOCSAR) calculated that to achieve a 10% reduction in
burglary rates through imprisonment, they would need to increase the number of burglars
imprisoned by 34%, at a cost of A$26 million per year. 7 The authors were careful to point
out that they did not take into account the potential effect of imprisonment as a factor that
might increase criminal behaviour after the offender was released.
It is widely accepted and established that any crime-reduction effects of imprisonment are
soon subject to diminishing returns. High-rate serious offenders are more likely to have
been arrested and imprisoned earlier on, so that as more people are sent to prison, they
include increasing numbers of lower-rate offenders who have committed less serious
offences.8
What Does the Evidence Tell Us?
Prisons cause crime
As long as prisons have been in existence people have known they are criminogenic, i.e.,
cause crime. More than 200 years ago the English prison reformer John Howard called
prisons ‘schools for crime’. Other effects include fracturing of family and community ties,
hardening and brutalisation, and the negative impact on mental health. As the British Home
Office wrote in a 1991 white paper entitled Custody, Care and Justice:
Imprisonment breaks up families. It is hard for prisoners to retain or subsequently to
secure law-abiding jobs. Imprisonment can lessen people’s sense of responsibility for
their actions and reduce their self-respect, both of which are fundamental to law
abiding citizenship. Some, often the young and less experienced, acquire in prisons a
6
W. Spelman (2006). ‘The Limited Importance of Prison Expansion’ in A. Blumstein and J. Wallman (eds), The
Crime Drop in America (2nd ed), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
7
D. Weatherburn, J. Hua and S. Moffatt (2006a). ‘How much crime does prison stop? The incapacitation effect
of prison on burglary’, Crime and Justice Bulletin 93, NSW BOCSAR, Sydney.
8
J.J. Donahue and P. Siegelman (1998). ‘Allocating Resources among Prison and Social Programs in the Battle
against Crime’, Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 1–43.
10 | P a g e
wider knowledge of criminal activity. Imprisonment is costly for the individual, for the
prisoner’s family and for the community).9
Imprisonment does not reduce crime
Throughout the world expert advisory committees or national commissions have time and
again been told that there is no credible evidence that imprisonment reduces reoffending. 10
One major study, which analysed the findings of 50 prison effects studies dating from 1958
and involving over 300,000 prisoner subjects,11 concluded that there is no evidence that
prison sentences reduce recidivism and some evidence that the relationship works the other
way around. In the best studies they could find, it appears that imprisonment is more likely
to increase (rather than deter) criminal behaviour upon release and that the longer the
sentence, the more likely prisoners are to reoffend on release.
A very recent study in New South Wales assessed the extent to which the probability of
arrest, the probability of imprisonment, and imprisonment duration impact on property and
violent crime rates in that Australian state.12 It concluded that while the criminal justice
system plays a significant role in preventing crime, some criminal justice variables exert
much stronger effects than others. Increasing arrest rates are likely to have the largest
impact, followed by increasing the likelihood of receiving a prison sentence. However,
Iincreasing the length of stay in prison beyond current levels did not impact on the crime
rate after accounting for increases in arrest and imprisonment likelihood.
It concluded that policy makers should focus more attention on strategies that increase the
risk of arrest and less on strategies that increase the severity of punishment.
9
Home Office (1991). Custody, Care and Justice, London: HMSO, para 1.16.
Michael Tonry (2008). ‘Learning from the Limitations of Deterrence Research’, in Michael Tonry (ed.), Crime
and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 37, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11
P. Gendreau, C. Goggin and F.T. Cullen (1999). The Effects of Prison Sentences on Recidivism, Ottawa:
Solicitor General of Canada.
12
Wai-Yin Wan, Steve Moffatt, Craig Jones and Don Weatherburn, ‘The effect of arrest and imprisonment on
crime’, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Crime and Justice Bulletin No.158, Feb 2012.
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/Lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB158.pdf/$file/CJB158.pdf
10
11 | P a g e
Punishment does not deter – even when it is harsh
A large number of studies have found no clear correlation between sanction severity and
levels of offending.13 14 15 16 And a recent study found that harsh prison sentences did not
deter criminal offending, and may well increase it.17 David Brown, in a recent article, puts it
this way:
…research generally suggests that deterrence is, in any event, an overrated notion—
largely assumed, rather than proven. The research suggests that the likelihood of
getting caught is the primary deterrent; that there may be some deterrent effect of
imprisonment in relation to instrumental property crimes, but little if any in
expressive crimes such as assault and other violent crime; and that the severity of
punishment has no deterrent effect. 18
A recent Canadian study, which reviewed empirical research on deterrence in several
countries, urged its readers to accept the hypothesis that crime levels are not affected by
the severity of sentences.19
Who Ends Up in Prison?
New Zealand is imprisoning, in larger numbers than any other western developed nation
apart from the United States, young men and women who are addicted or mentally ill, and
who have limited education and life skills. As at October 2008, 8000 people were in prison at
any one time. The majority of these inmates were male, aged between 20 and 40 years, and
of Māori ethnicity. For 73 percent of inmates their education finished at Year 11 (Form 5) or
13
R. Hogg (1999). ‘Mandatory sentencing laws and the symbolic politics of law and order’, University of New
South Wales Law Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 263–79.
14
F. Zimring and G. Hawkins (1973). Deterrence: The legal threat in crime control, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
15
A. Blumstein, J. Cohen and D. Nagin (eds) (1978). Deterrence and Incapacitation: Estimating the effect of
criminal sanctions on crime rules, Washington DC: National Academy of Sciences.
16
Michael Tonry (2005). ‘The functions of sentencing and sentencing reform’, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 58,
October, pp. 52–3.
17
Keith M. Chen Jesse M. Shapiro (2007). ‘Do Harsher Prison Conditions Reduce Recidivism? A Discontinuitybased Approach’, American Law and Economics Review, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 1–29.
18
David Brown (2010). ‘The limited benefit of prison in controlling crime’, Issues in Criminal Justice, Vol. 22, No.
1, July, pp. 137–48, p. 142.
19
A. Doob and C. Webster (2004). ‘Sentencing Severity and Crime’ in M. Tonry (ed.), Crime and Justice. A
Review of Research, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12 | P a g e
below. Ninety percent have significant literacy issues. Research has found that 60 percent of
inmates have a diagnosable personality disorder, and of this group 90 percent have suffered
or are suffering from a substance abuse problem. One quarter of inmates have suffered a
major depressive episode and a small percentage suffer from schizophrenia, bipolar or a
related disorder. It is time to consider whether it is in the long term public interest to
imprison people who could more effectively be dealt with in the community. It is estimated
that around 80 – 90% of female prisoners have suffered physical and sexual abuse as
children.
Do Prisons Rehabilitate Offenders?
Internationally, the case for prisons as a place to rehabilitate prisoners is not well made.
Most jurisdictions, including New Zealand, find that between 65% - 70% of prisoners
reoffend within two years of release.
Prisoner recidivism and spending on Rehabilitation and Reintegration Services 20
The idea that large scale rehabilitation can work in prison has little currency. Andrew Coyle,
recently retired Professor of Prison Studies, King’s College in London, and a Prison Governor
of many years’ experience, put it this way:
20
Salvation Army, ‘State of the Nation Report – The Growing Divide” 2012, Fig 11, p. 34.
13 | P a g e
There is also another dangerous influence at work and that is the proposition
advanced by some people who work in and around the prison system that good can
come out of imprisonment; that it can be an important method of changing the
behaviour and attitude of those who are sent there, so that they will come out better
people and much less likely to commit crime as a result of their experiences in
prison.21
The Department of Corrections in its own publication acknowledges that community-based
programmes generate better outcomes than custodial programmes with community
programmes generating results double those of prison-based programmes.22
That view is borne out by research which compares the return on investment for prisonbased drug treatment compared to community-based drug treatment.
21
Alison Liebling and Shadd Maruna, ‘The Effects of Imprisonment’, in Foreword by Andrew Coyle, (Willan
Publishing, Devon, 2005) xix
22
Department of Corrections ‘What Works Now? A review and update of research evidence relevant to
offender rehabilitation practises within the Department of Corrections, (December 2009) p.48
14 | P a g e
Nils Christie, the Norwegian criminologist, suggests that there may be another motive.
Study after study has shown how penal measures and long-term incarceration have
been made more acceptable to society if they were disguised as treatment, training,
or pure help to suffering individuals in need of such measures.23
The emerging view internationally is that the impact of imprisonment on crime is limited
and diminishing. Expenditure on imprisonment, especially in a time of reduced public
expenditure, is often at the cost of spending on other areas such as education, employment
programs, wages policy, welfare, rehabilitation and post-release services, which are likely to
have greater crime-reduction effects at lower cost.24
Stemen puts it this way: ‘it is no longer sufficient, if it ever was, to demonstrate that prisons
are better than nothing. Instead, they must be better than the next-best use of money.’25
The Vera Institute of Justice puts it this way: ‘the pivotal question for policy makers is not,
“Does incarceration increase public safety?” but rather, “Is incarceration the most effective
way to increase public safety?”26
What are they doing elsewhere?
In the United States (US), where the national imprisonment rate is the highest in the world
at 756 per 100,000 population and the rate has increased fivefold since 1975 when it was
110, around half of the states are attempting to reduce the imprisonment rates, spurred
largely by concerns over the spiralling costs of penal expansion. A recent Sentencing Project
report, Downscaling Prisons: Lessons from four states,27 noted that while there had been a
12% increase in the number of people incarcerated in state prisons in the US over the period
23
3) Nils Christie ‘Prisons in Society or Society as Prisoner’, in J. Freeman (ed.) Prisons, Past and Future.
London: Heinemann.
24
D. Weatherburn, L. Snowball and B. Hunter (2006b) ‘The economic and social factors underpinning
Indigenous contact with the criminal justice system: Results from the 2002 NATSISS Survey’ Crime and Justice
Bulletin 104 NSW BOCSAR Sydney
25
Stemen D (2007) Reconsidering Incarceration: New Directions for Reducing Crime Vera Institute of Justice
New York, p.13 http://www.vera.org/download?file=407/ veraincarc_vFW2.pdf
26
Stemen, D p.2
27
Greene J and M Mauer (2010) Downscaling Prisons: Lessons from Four States. Washington DC: Sentencing
Project www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/publications/inc_DownscalingPrisons2010.pdf.
15 | P a g e
2000–2008, four states had reduced their numbers. In 2008, the national total remained
steady, and 20 states experienced a modest reduction in their populations that year. In
2009, there was a 0.5% overall reduction. The authors noted that ‘what is clear in each of
these cases is that the reduction only came through conscious efforts to change policies and
practices’ (p 2). Those policies included specific sentencing reforms, the development of
alternatives, reductions in the length of sentences, increasing parole release rates, and
reductions in parole revocations.
A Pew report28 quotes several US business leaders across various states ‘adding their voices
to calls for more cost-effective ways to protect public safety and hold offenders
accountable, while also providing the education and infrastructure they need for a thriving
economy’.29 The National Conference of State Legislatures has been arguing for an
extension of ‘earned time’, otherwise known as ‘remissions’, noting that ‘earned time
provisions have seen recidivism rates remain unchanged or actually drop’.30
In another development, legislation to establish the National Criminal Justice Commission is
before the US House of Representatives and Senate. Its sponsor, Senator Jim Webb, has
stated that:
We are wasting billions of dollars and diminishing millions of lives. We need to fix the
system. Doing so will require a major nationwide recalculation of who goes to prison
and for how long and how we address the long-term consequences of
incarceration.31
The latest move has come from Republican leaders themselves. A group of conservative
leaders recently announced the Right on Crime Campaign,32 a national Republican
movement urging states to make sensible and proven reforms to the criminal justice system
28
Ibid
Pew Center on the States (2010) Right Sizing Prisons: Business leaders make the case for corrections reform.
Issue Brief. Public Safety Performance Project. www.pewcenteronthestates.org.p.1
30
Lawrence, A (2009) Cutting Corrections Costs: Earned time policies for state prisoners. National Conference
of State Legislatures. www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid= 18216.
31
W. Fisher (2010) ‘U.S. overflowing prisons spur call for reform commission.’ Common Dreams 17 May.
www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/05/17-6.
32 See the Right on Crime website www.rightoncrime.com.
29
16 | P a g e
– policies that will cut prison costs while keeping the public safe. They argue that they can
keep the public safe while spending fewer tax dollars if the money is spent more effectively.
In a recent article in the Washington Post, they announced:
We joined with other conservative leaders last month to announce the Right on
Crime Campaign … The Right on Crime Campaign represents a seismic shift in the
legislative landscape. And it opens the way for a common-sense left-right agreement
on an issue that has kept the parties apart for decades. 33
They also pump lead into the notion that higher imprisonment rates mean less crime:
Some people attribute the nation’s recent drop in crime to more people being locked
up. But the facts show otherwise. While crime fell in nearly every state over the past
seven years, some of those with the largest reductions in crime have also lowered
their prison population. Compare Florida and New York. Over the past seven years,
Florida’s incarceration rate has increased 16 percent, while New York’s decreased 16
percent. Yet the crime rate in New York has fallen twice as much as Florida’s. Put
another way, although New York spent less on its prisons, it delivered better public
safety.34
The Right on Crime website (www.rightoncrime.com) tracks the efforts in 21 states to
reduce imprisonment and reinvest funding to impact on offending. In almost all cases, these
initiatives are bipartisan, involving Republicans and Democrats working together.
Does Prison Work – Thoughts for the Future?
When the crime rate dropped in 2010, and again in 2011, some commentators claimed that
as a sign that “prison works.” But, as Elliot Currie notes, “if ‘prison works’ is the answer,
what was the question?”35 If the question is whether it is possible to prevent individuals
from committing crimes by putting them in prison, then prison works to punish and
33
N. Gingrich and P Nolan (2011) ‘Prison reform: A smart way for states to save money and lives.’ The
Washington Post 7 January
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/06/AR2011010604386.html
34
35
Ibid
Elliott Currie, Crime and Punishment in America (New York: Owl Books, 1998): 54.
17 | P a g e
incapacitate those who have committed crimes. But if the question is “What is the best way
to reduce crime?”, “prison works” may not be the most helpful response. Does a five-year
prison sentence “work” better to reduce crime than a two-year prison sentence? Does a
two-year prison sentence for nonviolent offenders “work” as well as a two-year prison
sentence for violent offenders? Do the resources devoted to prison “work” better to ensure
public safety than if those resources were devoted to something else? Prisons are not the
only way to fight crime. Policymakers could spend money on problem solving courts,
restorative justice, police crime prevention, or community based rehabilitation. They could
invest in other, non-criminal-justice areas shown to affect crime: education, employment,
economic development, etc. The impact of imprisonment crime is limited and diminishing.
The public’s support for reactive crime control is also shifting in favour of community
engagement and approaches such as the Policing Excellence Strategy. Public safety cannot
be achieved only by responding to crime after it occurs; research shows that it may also
depend on protecting people against those factors that have been shown to be associated
with high crime rates, such as unemployment, poverty, and illiteracy. By pursuing crime
reduction chiefly through imprisonment, the government forgoes the opportunity to invest
in these other important areas. Future efforts to reduce the crime rate and reduce
reoffending low, would do well to look beyond imprisonment for alternative policies that
not only may be able to accomplish the important task of protecting public safety, but may
do so more efficiently and more effectively.
18 | P a g e