Glenn C. Loury & Bruce Western

The challenge of mass incarceration in America

The proper role for the social scientist criminology, sociology, political science, in discussions of social policy is not self- economics, and law–and reflect differ - evident because the most challenging ing ideological predispositions. Howev - policy problems are not merely techni - er, all hold the common conviction that cal. Nor is policy discourse only instru - this newly emergent punishment regime mental ; it is also expressive and constitutive . constitutes a formation of fundamental It sets an agenda for action, frames key signi½cance for American society; that moral judgments of a citizenry, marks its roots in the political culture are varied the boundary between civic and com- and intricate; and that there is no easy munal responsibility, conveys a narra- or straightforward path out of the policy tive of justi½cation, and establishes the ½x that we have gotten ourselves into. signi½cance of a nation’s history for The empirical contours of American in- its present-day course of public action. carceration are assessed in the four pieces Whether intended or not, public debate that begin this issue. Bruce Western of over the most basic issues (implicitly) Harvard University and Becky Pettit of answers the question, what manner of the University of Washington examine people are we Americans? This outcome the class and racial dimensions of incar - is surely true for public debate about ceration and its impact on social inequal - what may be the preeminent domestic ity. Robert J. Sampson and Charles Loef - policy issue of our time: that mass incar - fler, both of Harvard University, look at ceration is now, de facto, a central ele - data on the spatial concentration of im- ment of American social policy. prisonment in the large American city of The essays gathered in this issue of Chicago. Two subsequent essays focus on Dædalus explore the empirical contours, particular subsectors of the prison uni - the political underpinnings, and the pros- verse: Candace Kruttschnitt of the Uni - pects for reform of America’s incarcera - versity of Toronto surveys the social con - tion complex. They exemplify the poten - text of women’s imprisonment; Jeffrey tial for the social sciences to contribute Fagan of Columbia University reviews usefully to a crucial public debate. The the current state of juvenile incarcera - authors come from varied disciplines– tion in the United States. Following this assessment of the basic facts, the issue © 2010 by the American Academy of Arts turns to the political underpinnings of & Sciences America’s incar ceration policies.

Dædalus Summer 2010 1 Glenn C. Over the past four decades, the Unit- the incarceration problem? These ques - Loury ed States has, by any measure, become a tions are taken up by the authors of the & Bruce Western vastly more punitive society. This expan - next set of essays in this issue. Marie on mass sion, and transformation, of penal insti - Gottschalk of the University of Pennsyl - incarcer- ation tutions in the United States–which has vania is skeptical that the present era of taken place at every level of government economic hardship will fundamentally and in all regions of the country–is with- alter penal policies so as to reduce the out historical precedent or international long-term incarceration rate. Loïc Wac- parallel. With roughly 5 percent of the quant of the University of California, world’s population, the United States Berkeley, emphasizes the interconnect - currently con½nes about 25 percent of edness of penal policy (for poor urban the world’s prison inmates. The Ameri - minority men) and welfare policy (for can prison system has grown into a levia- poor urban minority women), arguing than unmatched in human history. This that both reflect structural changes system is not limited to law enforce ment characteristic of late-capitalist society and punishment policy. It also extends to in relations between socially marginal social policy writ large, a uniquely Amer- populations and the state. Jonathan ican form of social policy at that. Simon, of uc Berkeley School of Law, These developments should be deeply develops a set of metaphors to draw troubling to anyone who professes to analogies between the “troubled assets” love liberty. America, with great arm ies of today’s ½nancial sector and the “trou - deployed abroad under the ½gurative bled persons” who are subjected to the ban ner of “Freedom,” harbors the larg- prison complex. Nicola Lacey of the est custodial infrastructure for the mass Lon don School of Economics discusses deprivation of liberty on the planet. The American penal policy in international ½nancial costs entailed are staggering, comparative perspective, identifying dis - and the extent of human suffering en- tinguishing features of the political eco- dured boggles the mind. No other ad- nomy of the United States that may ac- vanced nation has been willing to toler - count for its striking penal dissimilarity. ate imprisonment on the scale, and of the character, that has become common - In what sense, one might ask, does this place and that goes virtually unremarked policy development constitute a prob - in the United States. The United States lem? How do we know that there are too consigns nearly as great a fraction of its many Americans in prison? A crude anal- population to a lifetime in prison (more ogy will help make this point: If more than ½fty per one hundred thousand res - people were to fall sick, a logical response idents) as Sweden or Denmark or Norway would be to build hospitals and admit ½nds it necessary to imprison for terms patients. Likewise, if more people com - of any duration. mit crimes, then the construction of pris- How and why did this extraordinary ons, with a greater number of criminals policy development take place? Why is being consigned to them, is a natural pol- punishment American-style such an in- icy response. The purpose of this com - ternational anomaly? And what effects parison is to say that there is no way of should we expect the economic crisis– specifying a “correct” number of pris - with its over-stretched state budgets and oners independent of the extent of the proliferating ½nancial bailouts–to have criminal behaviors to which imprison - on the ways policy-makers think about ment is a proper societal response. The

2 Dædalus Summer 2010 same can be said of racial disparities in itating consequences of limited educa - Intro- punishment. One cannot conclude that tion, drug dependence, and, not least, duction “too many” African Americans are held the stigma of having been incarcerated. in prisons absent some consideration of They cite a less-than-wholly-successful the extent to which there are racial differ- deinstitutionalization campaign for the ences in criminal behavior. How much, mentally ill as a cautionary tale. then, should we credit the powerful mor- In the issue’s concluding piece, Glenn al indictment of American social policy C. Loury of Brown University offers some that lurks just behind a phrase like “mass personal reflections on the intersection incarceration”? Supposing we can be per - of crime, inequality, and social justice. suaded that reform is, in fact, a moral im- perative, what should we do? The next This issue grows out of an Academy two essays in this issue–by Mark A.R. project on The Challenge of Mass Incar - Kleiman of the University of Cali fornia, ceration in America, for which we serve Los Angeles, and by Robert Weisberg and as project leaders. We believe that the Joan Petersilia, both of Stanford Univer - analysis put forth in this issue, and the sity–address themselves to these basic ongoing Academy project, will contrib- policy dilemmas. Kleiman argues that it ute to the national conversation about is possible to have both many fewer pris - criminal justice and public safety. In oners behind bars and also much less doing so, we hope to generate a broader crime, if we are smart about using new public understanding of the scale and surveillance techniques together with social consequences of mass incarcera - modest, though certain, sanctions for tion in America. parolees and probationers–a policy he calls “outpatient incarceration.” Weisberg and Petersilia are skeptical about use of the term “mass incarcera - tion.” They warn against the melodrama and conspiratorial overtones that often accompany popular laments over recent American penal trends. They stress that “no particular measured incarceration rate is inherently unjusti½ed,” so simply citing numbers cannot possibly establish the moral culpability of the system. But they also acknowledge that American in- carceration is “an embarrassment” and that the structural effects of imprison - ment at this scale are both deleterious and far-reaching. Their concern is that unexpected and undesired consequences may ensue if reformers open the prison gates without ½rst thinking carefully about what programs will be effective at facilitating successful transition into so- ciety. Large numbers of persons now in custody, they remind us, suffer the debil-

Dædalus Summer 2010 3