Leonardo Angiulo: US Incarceration Rate May be Unsustainable
Leonardo Angiulo, GoLocalProv Legal Contributor
Leonardo Angiulo: US Incarceration Rate May be Unsustainable

A typical human reaction to criticism like this is to question the source. It just so happens that the National Research Council stands up well to scrutiny. In 1863 an act signed into law by President Lincoln created the National Academy of Sciences in order to advise the Federal Government on various issues that require expert opinion. The National Research Council is a division of the National Academy and is committed to shaping public policy and informing public opinions on various policy concerns. Given the fact that the Academies have researched topics for Congress as varied as oyster farms, inorganic arsenic, and agro-defense facilities in Kansas, it's fair to say that they are an objective body when it comes to criminal justice policy.
Since the opinion comes from a group that regularly advises the legislature and makes specific comments on our national incarceration rates, these findings could serve as a spark to a new public dialogue. Specifically, a review of the accompanying press release offers staggering data such as Black men under age 35 who did not finish high school are more likely to be incarcerated than employed. In addition, 60 percent of the people incarcerated in 2011 were Black or Hispanic. From a financial standpoint, state spending on corrections is third behind Medicaid and education.
GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLASTThe report's authors also looked to what happens when inmates return to their communities in order to investigate whether or not the states, and therefore it's residents, are receiving a return on their investment. The summary finding is that they were unable to determine the effect of our incarceration rates on individual communities because of a lack of reliable statistical estimates. Given the ongoing public concern with the stock market, real estate values and 401(k) balances it seems incongruous that one of the largest categories of public expenditure could have any unknown effects.
There are, however, some known effects of current incarceration policies in the recent press release supporting the Council's call for reform. Some of those effects identified by Council Committee members include the already discussed financial burden on the public, the disproportionate impact on minorities, as well as the correlation between child behavioral problems and a father's incarceration. In the face of such costs, and the inability to prove high incarceration rates effectively prevent crime, policy makers are now faced with the question of what to do now. The report concludes that improving the way in which we use incarceration could recognize appropriate limits on the power of the government, reduce the numbers in institutions, improve family relationships and contribute to better mental and physical health in the population.
While these statements seem ground breaking, the truly revolutionary part is the way in which an objective public policy agency tied the assertions to evidence. In practice, these ideas were already being internalized and acted upon before this report was actually released. At the federal level this past year alone, the Sentencing Commission members spoke about the need to change the current sentencing structure and the U.S. Attorney General supported policy decisions to lower minimum mandatory sentences for non-violent drug offenses. At the state level, local courts are implementing intensive probation conditions through drug courts to help offenders identify the source of their problems rather than imposing incarceration. Two additional examples in Worcester County are Sheriff Lewis Envangalidis' inclusion of recovery programs in the House of Correction and the formation of an after incarceration support services program to encourage successful reintegration into the community.
It is without question that certain behaviors are criminalized for a reason and consequences for wrongdoing serves legitimate purposes such as punishment and prevention. The question presented by the National Research Counsel, and people serving in the judiciary and law enforcement right now, is whether the current mode of punishment benefits those it is designed to serve: the citizens of the United States.

