preview

Incarceration Crime Rate

Decent Essays

Since the 1990s and the crime drop, there has been many questions to the reason why. Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner thoroughly looked through the different theories but came to a conclusion that the main reason crime had fallen is abortion (117-145). One of the reasons they discuss is whether or not the increase of incarceration affects the fluctuations in crime rates. Levitt and Dubner suggest that the crime system became relaxed due avoid racism; however, the crime rates then began to rise (122). “Between 1980 and 2000, there was a fifteenfold increase in the number of people sent to prison on drug charges” (Levitt, Dubner 123). The purpose of this review is to evaluate the validity of the incarceration effects on crime rates. …show more content…

1). The police are able to track down these people by setting up incarceration hotspots in neighborhoods (Bower par. 7). Robert Sampson and Charles Loeffler, both of Harvard, studied to incarceration hot spots in Chicago (Bower par. 7). These two hot spots were in poor, black communities; even though, the crime rate fell overall in the city, incarceration soared in these two specific communities. (Bower par. 7) Bower then starts to explain that the usage of incarceration was immoral because it lowered the expectations of the people in these communities and they expected to either die at an early age or go to prison (Bower 10). The article can be used to contradict or to prove one’s point, but it is not solid enough to accommodate a whole argument.
In “The Scale of Imprisonment in the United States: Twentieth Century Patterns and Twenty-First Century Prospects,” Zimring, the author, discusses the policies of prisons and the fluctuations of incarceration rates and crime rates and what they mean (pars. 1-57). On the policies of the prisons, Zimring asks a questions: Were there 51 different governments …show more content…

1-30). Ouimet says “[Spelman] estimates the relationship between incarceration and crime and comes up with an elasticity measure of –0.4, which means that an increase in incarceration of one percent will be followed by a drop in crime of 0.4%” (par. 12). In other words, imprisonment only accounted for one fourth of the crime drop in the 1990s (Ouimet par. 12). Not all scholars however, believe that incarceration was responsible for the drop because of its inconsistency between states (Ouimet par. 13). In fact, they believe that states adjusted the incarceration rates due to the crime rates, the dependent and independent variables were flipped (Ouimet par. 13). Ouimet then goes into policing strategies, (another commonly known factor in affecting crime rates) and how those statistics match up with those of Canada. Though Ouimet uses evidence to prove that incarceration affects crime, he then disproves it by saying that it is to variant and is not consistent among states (pars. 12-13). This article is really good to look at another side of the crime drop. It brings in a good perspective and points; however, it ties the U.S. to Canada in which causes the author to broaden the argument instead of tying it down to specific

Get Access