Skip to main content

With the presidential debates now over and just a week to go before the election, it's clear that the vigorous back-and-forth between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will leave out one of the great issues of our time: mass incarceration.

This issue doesn't get much national press. Ask rank-and-file progressives about it and they're likely to nod gravely, knowing there must be something wrong with our criminal justice system but unsure exactly what -- or why they should care. This year's general election provided an opportunity to air out the issue and it didn't happen.

The first thing Americans should know about mass incarceration is that it exists. As the Beyond Bars campaign points out nonstop, the United States has more people incarcerated than any country on earth, both per capita and in absolute terms. Our total of 2.3 million prisoners exceeds second-place China, which has 1.7 million. Our rate of 743 prisoners per 100,000 residents tops second-place Rwanda (595) and third-place Russia (568).

It didn't used to be this way. The U.S. incarceration rate has quintupled in the past four decades. So why do we imprison so many people?

Is it to protect the population from violence? No. Over half of the people incarcerated went in for nonviolent offenses. Many are locked up because of the war on drugs, others for property crimes (many of which are drug-related anyway).

Is it to teach criminals a lesson and deter future crime? Nope: About two-thirds of those who leave prison get nabbed again for something serious within three years. According to a Harvard study, our soaring incarceration rates have had only a small effect on crime rates.

Is it for the justice of payback? Mass incarceration could hardly be described as just. It has left some 2.7 million children without a parent and ensured that people who commit even low-level crimes are burdened forever with problems getting a job. People of color, especially African-Americans, have suffered the most, getting locked up at rates far outpacing the number of crimes they commit.

This system doesn't come cheap, either. Taxpayers are on the hook for about $74 billion a year for the prison system. That number goes up to $288 billion once we count cops and courts.

So why do we have mass incarceration? The answer comes down to politics and profit. Politicians have tapped into Americans' fears with "tough on crime" rhetoric that ignores the complexities of public safety and inevitably has a racial tinge. Meanwhile, big prison spending has numerous special interest defenders -- from private prisons that profit from excessive sentencing to corporations that sell products to public prisons to the police departments that get federal money to round up drug users and low-level dealers.

Politicos like Mitt Romney and Barack Obama may think they have nothing to gain from broaching this subject. But with a little vision, they might gain quite a bit. After all, voices for change are coming from both political directions. On the conservative side, figures such as Grover Norquist and Newt Gingrich are finally speaking out for a more cost-effective approach to criminal justice. On the progressive side, groups have long been calling for more fairness. And today, state budgets have become so tight that politicians who once saw only an upside to macho posturing are having to start thinking about ways to cut spending sensibly. Curbing mass incarceration might be one of the only issues on which there could be bipartisan cooperation.

In this election season, that case hasn't been made. But the next president, whoever he is, should consider calling for a rethink of America's incarceration policies. The opportunity is there for politicians willing to take it.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Grove Norquist and Newt Gingrich?! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mike Kahlow, uciguy30

    Buzz off. You've taken a wrong turn and ended up in the wrong neighborhood.

    And there's only one empty chair in the race for election this year.

    •  Not just them (0+ / 0-)

      ACLU, NAACP, and numerous other progressive groups have long talked about the unfairness of the War on Drugs and locking up so many people, particularly for nonviolent offenses. Some conservatives, like those I mentioned, have signed on to modest versions of criminal justice reform, which is way better than nothing, on the grounds that mass incarceration costs too much -- which it does. Are you saying you support the War on Drugs?

      There are of course significant differences between the candidates. That doesn't mean either one has addressed mass incarceration, driven largely by the drug war. Neither has.

  •  I wonder why you forgot to mention prison (0+ / 0-)

    guard unions. They are a major force in CA supporting increased spending on prisons.

    There are a lot more voters supporting harsher incarceration than those worried about it. Even in blue states. So no one touches it. There is some movement (e.g. in CA) towards shorter sentences driven by budget concerns but that's pretty much it.

    Your rhetoric is not helpful, btw. I understand that you run a single issue advocacy group but it makes sense to consider the audience when writing your appeals.

    •  That's the problem! (0+ / 0-)

      Yep, even in blue states, politicians are afraid to touch the issue. But the reality is that a majority of voters want to reduce our prison population. Some do that based on the injustice of excessive sentences, others want to cut costs, others to ensure more long-term public safety through rehabilitation. Politicians are still fearful based on the 80s and 90s hysteria. It's time to get beyond that era and see the capacity for actual progress. There's actually a political opportunity if anyone wants to take it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site