How ‘Bout That Deterrence?
June 20th, 2007 at 6:37 am
Sometimes a lack of a correlation can reveal a lot. Recently the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice took a look at juvenile crime and incarceration in Texas and California. Both states have huge juvenile justice systems, in part because together they account for 11 percent of juveniles in the country. Over the last decade, both states have seen a nearly identical drop in youth crime (as measured by arrest rates). More disturbingly, both states have had their juvenile detention systems rocked by abuse scandals.
Where California and Texas differ is their incarceration policy the last 10 years:
From 1995 to 2006, Texas increased the number of youth that were incarcerated under the age of 18 by 48%. This was done through harsh sentencing practices that targeted non-violent, property and drug offenders. In contrast, during the same period, California drastically reduced the total number of juveniles incarcerated in youth prisons by 75% —an unprecedented decline—by imprisoning only the most violent offender.
The short report from the CJCJ, which is based in San Francisco, is available as a Word doc here. Peter Feng, communications and policy manager at CJCJ, said California directs non-violent offenders to diversion programs, such as mental health or drug treatment.
The good news for those who oppose lock-’em-up policies is that, based on the California-Texas comparison, there’s no indication that those policies increase juvenile crime rates. The bad news for proponents of diversion programs is that the data don’t indicate diversion policies have any effect either.
The fact that juvenile crime rates have decreased at the same rate in both states, regardless of incarceration policy, shows only that incarceration policies in general apparently don’t affect crime rates. Some underlying variable must be pushing down crime rates — or arrest rates? — and that’s where further examination is needed.
But it is worth considering what the results mean when it comes to building new prisons. If the goal is reducing the youth crime rate — either by alleged deterrence or supposedly keeping recidivists off the street — looking to harsher sentences and the additional prison space they require doesn’t appear to be the best place to start.
