incarcerarea

7/29/2019 incarcerarea

1/15

Victims and Offenders, 5:268282, 2010

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1556-4886 print/1556-4991 online

DOI: 10.1080/15564886.2010.485910

268

UVAO1556-48861556-4991Victims and Offenders, Vol.5, No. 3, Sep 2010:pp. 00Victims and Offenders

A Global Perspectiveon Incarceration: How anInternational Focus Can Helpthe United States ReconsiderIts Incarceration RatesGlobalPerspective on IncarcerationD.B. Weiss and D. L.MacKenzie

Douglas B. Weiss

University of MarylandCollege Park, College Park, Maryland, USA

Doris L. MacKenzie

Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA

Abstract:The disproportionate number of people incarcerated is one exceptional feature of

criminal justice in the United States. Comparisons among the United States and other

Western democracies on several social, political, and economic factors fail to provide a justi-

fication for the high incarceration rates in the United States. The more than 2.3 million peo-

ple incarcerated in this nation largely reflect policy choices that have been made at all levels

of government in the United States. While these policy choices have created unprecedented

imprisonment rates, abnormally large incarceration rates are not entirely unknown in other

nations. In the 1950s, Finland had an incarceration rate more than three times greater than

that of its Nordic neighbors. More than 50 years later, Finland was able to reduce its use of

incarceration to a rate comparable to its neighbors. Germany is another country that has

worked to reduce its reliance on incarceration. A focus on how other Western democracies

have reduced their incarceration rates can provide the United States with blueprints forhow effective crime control can be achieved without a heavy reliance on incarceration.

Keywords: prisons, global incarceration rates, effective crime control, decarceration in

Finland, sentencing and corrections policies

INTRODUCTION

One of the most distinctive characteristics of the criminal justice system in the

United States is the disproportionate number of people in its prisons and jails.

Address correspondence to Douglas B. Weiss, Department of Criminology and Crimi-nal Justice, 2220 LeFrak Hall, College Park, MD 20742. E-mail: [email protected]


2/15

Global Perspective on Incarceration 269

Even though the United States makes up just 5% of the worlds population, it

houses 25% of the worlds prison population (Walmsley, 2009). At the end of

2008, there were more than 2.3 million people held in U.S. prisons and jails.

This equates to a rate of 754 inmates per 100,000 population (Sabol, West, &

Cooper, 2009). The United States was not always the worlds leader in incar-

ceration, however. Prior to the 1970s, the incarceration rate in the United

States remained relatively stable at around 100 inmates per 100,000 population

for several decades. The current prison population represents the culmination

of unprecedented growth in the use of imprisonment in the United States

since the early 1970s.

While the sheer magnitude of the incarceration rate in the United Statesmay be unprecedented, it is not the first time that a nation has experienced

exceptionally high levels of incarceration. Other Western democracies have

experienced abnormally high levels of incarceration in the past. For instance,

Finlands incarceration rate in 1950 was three to four times greater than that

of other Nordic nations. Policy makers in Finland viewed this situation as a

national embarrassment and took active steps to bring the incarceration rate

in line with those of its Nordic neighbors. After an ideological shift in the

thinking of punishment and a series of legislative reforms, Finland experienced

a sustained period of decarceration that brought its incarceration rate down to

a level comparable to that of its neighbors. Somewhat remarkably, crime

trends in Finland during this time were similar to those of its neighbors.

Although the U.S. incarceration rate is the highest in the world, the past

ten years has witnessed a decline in the rate of growth of incarceration. For

example, from 2000 to 2008 the growth of the prison population (1.8% per year

on average) was less than a third of the rate observed during the 1990s (6.5%

per year on average) (Sabol, West, & Cooper, 2009). While the numbers of

state and federal prisoners reached all-time year-end highs in 2008, the

respective growth rates for each slowed to 0.8%. This was the second-smallest

annual rate of growth in the state prison population (0.1% growth occurred in

2001) and the lowest rate for the federal prison population since 2000.

Several factors may be influencing this change in the rate of incarceration.

First, both violent and property crime rates have declined in the past ten years.

For example, in 1989 the violent crime rate (per 100,000 inhabitants) was 666.9;

this rate declined to 523 in 1999 and continued to decline to the lowest rate

(454.5) in 2008. This decline may have led to changes in the number of people

sent to facilities. A second major factor influencing incarceration rates may be

the financial state of the nation. Many states face a financial crisis and one way

they can cut costs is to reduce the number of people incarcerated. States have

considered various options like alternatives to incarceration or early release.The purpose of this essay is to consider why the incarceration rate in the

United States is several times greater than the rates in other Western

democracies, and to explore whether policy reforms in the United States can


3/15

270 D. B. Weiss and D. L. MacKenzie

be as effective as they were in Finland or Germany in reducing their incarcer-

ation use. This essay is divided into three sections. The first section will

compare the United States with other Western democracies on several social,

political, and economic factors that are commonly thought to be associated

with incarceration levels. It will be shown that while there are some struc-

tural characteristics in the United States that are conducive to high levels of

incarceration (e.g., low spending on social welfare programs), there are other

characteristics that should mitigate incarceration levels (e.g., lower unem-

ployment levels). It will also be demonstrated that the United States is not

vastly different from other Western democracies, which would theoretically

justify its exceptionally high incarceration levels. The second section discussesthe Finnish and German experiences with incarceration use and describes the

changes undertaken by these countries to reduce their incarceration levels.

The Finnish criminal justice system in 1950 shares many similarities to the

present-day system in the United States. While there may be social, cultural,

and political factors that make it more difficult to reduce the incarcerated

population in the United States, the observed decline in Finlands prison popula-

tion suggests that changing policy can go a long way in reducing the use of

incarceration in the United States.

EXPLAINING THE EXCEPTIONALLY HIGH INCARCERATION RATE

IN THE UNITED STATES

The United States incarcerates more people than any other country, and sub-

stantially more than any other developed country. The incarceration rate of

the United States was 754 inmates per 100,000 population at the end of 2008

(Sabol, West, & Cooper, 2009). In comparison, the incarceration rates in five

other Western democracies are only about 100 per 100,000 population (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Incarceration rates in six Western democracies (2008).Source: International Center for Prison Studies.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Finland Germany Australia Scotland England &Wales

UnitedStates

Inmates/100,0

00pop


4/15


Some may explain the high incarceration rate in the United States as a product

of some exceptional feature of American society.

There are several social, political, economic, and cultural factors that have

been used to account for high levels of incarceration. This section will compare

the United States with several other Western democracies on some factors

which may be related to incarceration use. While there are some features of

the United States that contribute to high levels of incarceration, such as low

spending on social welfare programs, it appears that the most exceptional

feature of the United States is its considerably greater reliance on incarcera-

tion as a sanction.

Crime rates are the factor most commonly thought to be related to levels

of incarceration. Many suggest that the incarceration rate in the United

States is so high because it experiences higher crime rates. Index crime rates

in 2006 for six Western democracies, including the United States, are found in

Table 1.1 While violent crime rates in the United States are high relative to

these other nations, they do not appear to be exceptional. The robbery rate in

England and Wales and the domestic burglary rate in Australia were greaterthan their corresponding rates in the United States. While the homicide rate

in the United States (5.5) is nearly twice as great as the rate in Finland (2.8),

the Western democracy with the next-highest rate, it does not follow that this

would explain the exceptionally high level of incarceration use in the United

States since (1) homicide is a relatively rare occurrence and (2) Finland has

the lowest incarceration rate of these six nations.

Victimization data is another data source that can be used to assess

whether crime is a greater problem in the United States than it is in other

countries. Figure 2 presents data from the International Crime Victimization

Survey (ICVS) that shows the one-year prevalence victimization rates for tencrimes in a sample of Western democracies. These findings suggest that crime

is more common in England and Wales and the Netherlands than it is in the

United States. Victimization rates in the United States are similar to those in

Table 1: Index crime rates (per 100,000) in six Western democracies (2006).

Homicide1 Robbery RapeAggravated

assaultDomesticburglary

Motorvehicle theft

United States 5.5 149 30.9 287.5 729 398England &

Wales1.6 189 25.7 544 360

Scotland 2.6 70 203 1532 399 293Australia 1.6 84 839 367Germany 1.0 65 9.8 183 129 109Finland 2.8 32 11.7 39.3 113 292

1Aromaa and Heiskanen (2008) (2004 rates).2Scottish Executive, 2005.3Aebi et al. (2006).


5/15


Canada, yet the incarceration rate in Canada is five to six times smaller than

that of the United States. Based on official crime and victimization data, it does

not appear that the United States is vastly different from these other nations.

If reported crime and victimization rates in the United States are similar

to those of other Western democracies, than perhaps other social, political, or

economic factors could be used to explain the high incarceration rate in the

United States. Table 2 compares the United States with four other Western

democracies on several demographic statistics. Two indicators of informal

social control, the divorce rate and the prevalence of single parent households,are greater in the United States than in the other nations. While high rates in

these areas are indicative of weak levels of informal social control and corre-

spond to a need for greater formal social control (e.g., the criminal justice

Figure 2: One-year prevalence overall victimization rates (%) for ten crimes.Note: Crimes include car theft, theft from a car, motorcycle theft, bike theft, burglary,attempted burglary, robbery, theft of personal property, sexual offenses against women, andassaults/threats.Source: Van Dijk, van Kesteren, and Smit, (2007).

0 5 10 15 20 25

Spain

France

Finland

Germany

Scotland

Sweden

Australia

Canada

USA

NetherlandsEngland

Table 2: Demographic statistics for five Western democracies (2008).

Netmigration

(%)1Foreign

born (%)1Population

growth rate1Marriage

rate2Divorce

rate 2Single parenthouseholds3

Australia 5.6 23.8 1.24 5.43 2.6 22.05

Finland 1 3.4 0.34 5.4 2.5 20.04

Germany 2.7 12.9 -0.06 4.5 2.3 20.1United

Kingdom2.5 9.7 0.63 8.03 3.93 24.1

UnitedStates

4.5 12.9 0.98 7.2 5.43 28.3

Sources: 1Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.2UN Demographic Yearbook, 2006.3U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2005.4Statistics Finland.5Australian Bureau of Statistics.


6/15


system), the United States has a comparatively high marriage ratewhich

would indicate greater levels of social control. The United States is similar to

these other nations in terms of population composition (the percentage of for-

eign-born) and population change (net migration and population growth).

Thus it does not appear that the United States is significantly different from

other Western democracies in terms of these demographic statistics.

Table 3 compares the United States with other Western democracies on

several economic indicators. Less spending on social welfare programs and

greater income inequality in the United States could contribute to high incar-

ceration rates. The two nations that spend the most on social welfare programs

and have the lowest levels of income inequality, Germany and Finland, also

have the lowest incarceration rates of these five nations. It is also plausible to

believe that high levels of unemployment would contribute to high incarceration

rates, yet the data contained in this table would suggest otherwise. Finland and

Germany have the highest unemployment rates, whereas the United States has

the lowest rate among these five nations.2 At face value, then, it would appear

that there is some kind of association between economic factors and incarcera-

tion. Nonetheless, the United States is not so vastly different from these other

nations so as to justify the large discrepancy in incarceration rates.

SENTENCING AND CORRECTIONS POLICIES

Imprisonment rates in the United States have grown enormously in the past

25 years. Between 1980 and 2007, the United States imprisonment rate has

grown 264%. In 1980, there were 139 inmates incarcerated in state and

federal prisons per 100,000 population. As of year-end 2008, this rate had

grown to 504 inmates per 100,000 population (Sabol, West, & Cooper, 2009).

Prior to 1980, the imprisonment rate remained at a relatively stable rate of

approximately 100 inmates per 100,000 population for more than 50 years.The vast majority of this increase can be attributed to changes in sentencing

and correctional policies (88%) rather than an increase in crime (Blumstein &

Beck, 1999).

Table 3: Economic statistics for five Western democracies (2008).

Educationalspending

(% of GDP)

Socialexpenditures(% of GDP)

%Unemployment

Incomedistribution

(GINI index)

Australia 5.9 17.9 4.8 30.5Finland 6.1 22.5 7.7 26.1Germany 5.2 27.3 9.8 27.7United Kingdom 5.9 20.6 5.3 32.6United States 7.4 16.2 4.6 35.7

Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.


7/15


While the incarceration rate in the United States experienced significant

growth during the past several decades, incarceration rates in other Western

democracies increased only slightly or even declined. From 1987 to 2007, there

was a 114% increase in incarceration rates in the United States. Incarceration

rates in England and Wales (61%), Scotland (36%), and Australia (73%) also

increased during this timealbeit at a slower pace. In contrast, some nations

experienced stable levels of incarceration while others saw their incarceration

rates decline. Germanys incarceration rate remained relatively stable (3%)

while the incarceration rate in Finland decreased by 19% (International

Center for Prison Studies, 2008).

Perhaps the difference in incarceration rates is attributable to policy dif-ferences between the United States and other Western democracies. The

United States may have a significantly higher incarceration rate than other

countries simply because it relies more heavily on incarceration as a sanction.

Sentencing data from the United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the

Operations of Criminal Justice Systems suggest this is a significant contribut-

ing factor (Aromaa & Heiskanen, 2008). Table 4 presents data regarding sanc-

tioning practices in five Western democracies between 1995 and 2000. While

imprisonment is the most commonly used sanction in the United States, other

Western democracies primarily use fines to punish offenders.

These differences are a direct result of differences in penal policy between

nations. For instance, a general principle of penal policy in Finland and

Germany is that imprisonment should be avoided as far as possible and used

only as a last resort. Since the 1970s, more than half of all sentences in Finland

and Germany have consisted of fines (Heinz, 2006; Lappi-Seppala, 2004). In

general, Western democracies tend to use fines more often than incarceration

with few exceptions. In 20062007, 60% of defendants convicted in Scottish

courts received a fine, while 13% received a custodial sentence (Scottish

Executive, 2007). Courts in England and Wales do not rely as heavily on fines

Table 4: Mean percentages of total adults sentenced (19952000).

ImprisonmentControl offreedom

Warnings FinesCommunity

service

United States 69.9% 30.1% 20.5% 6.5%Finland 7.2% 13.4% 75.8% 3.6%Germany 7.5% 15.3% 77.2%England &

Wales9.2% 8.0% 9.4% 69.0%

Scotland 20.5% 6.4% 12.5% 54.4% 5.9%

Source: Aromaa and Heiskanen (2008).Notes: Percentages may not add up to 100% because sentences may include more than onetype of sanction; Control of Freedom=Probation Orders, Electronic Monitoring; Warnings =Suspended or Conditional Sentences.


8/15


as do these other countries. In 2006, just 17% of convicted defendants in

England and Wales received fines. However, the percentage of convicted

defendants who receive a prison sentence (24% in 2006) is also relatively low.

In comparison, 78% of sentences imposed by U.S. federal courts in fiscal year

2005 involved incarceration. Just 3% of sentences involved fines only. In 2004,

70% of felons sentenced in state courts were sentenced to a period of incarcer-

ation (Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 2008).

In sum, the factors reviewed above suggest the United States is more

similar to than different from other Western democracies. While there are

some differences in economic factors between the United States and other

Western democracies in terms of spending on social welfare programs andincome inequality, the most prominent difference pertains to sentencing prac-

tices. On average, seven out of ten defendants convicted in U.S. courts

between 1995 and 2000 received some form of incarceration as part of their

sentence. For most other Western democracies, the corresponding rate was

less than one in ten. Criminal justice policies and practices in the United

States appear to be the determinant factor in determining incarceration rates.

The following sections describe actions taken by Finland and Germany to

control prison population growth.

DECARCERATION IN FINLAND

Finland provides a valuable case study to examine how making changes to the

criminal justice system can impact incarceration rates without producing a

corresponding increase in crime rates. In the early 1950s, the incarceration

rate in Finland was around 200 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants. While this

rate is a fraction of the current imprisonment rate in the United States, at

that time it was nearly twice the rate in the United States and was three to

four times greater than that of other Nordic countries. Lappi-Seppala (2001)

identified three possible factors that could help explain Finlands exception-ally high incarceration rates at that time: (1) a unique cultural climate in

which severity was not measured on the same scale used in the other Nordic

countries (p. 106), (2) a rigid penal system characterized by high minimum

penalties, and (3) severe sentencing practices for relatively common crimes

such as driving under the influence.

The changes in these three factors were responsible for decarceration in

Finland. Perhaps the most crucial factor that served as a catalyst for change

was a shift in the ideological thinking of criminal justice policy makers.

Around this time, there was a critical backlash against coercive treatment

(rehabilitation) and the ability of the state to restrict the liberty of the people.This backlash helped to redefine the aims and means of criminal justice policy

and to bring them into line with the aims of general social policy. The best crim-

inal justice policy came to be seen as good social policy. The traditional goals of


9/15


criminal justice policy such as crime prevention, the protection of society, and

the elimination of criminality were replaced by the aims of (1) the minimiza-

tion of the costs and adverse effects of crime and crime control and (2) the fair

distribution of these costs among the offender, society, and the victim. In order

to accomplish these goals, policy makers looked beyond the traditional criminal

justice system that sought to either punish offenders or rehabilitate them.

Punishment came to be seen as only one option among many others.

The recognition of the limited capabilities of the traditional criminal jus-

tice system and the inability to justify the exceptionally high rates of incarcer-

ation in Finland set the stage for a series of legislative and policy reforms that

would lead Finland down a path of decarceration. Since a complete discussionof all these reforms is beyond the scope of this essay, only a few reforms will be

mentioned.3 These include reduced penalties for traditional property crimes,

the expanded use of noncustodial alternatives, and the development of sen-

tencing alternatives specifically designed to reduce the number of offenders

sentenced to imprisonment.

Significant legislative changes were made in regard to theft and drunken

driving offenses between 1970 and 1991. High minimum penalties and strict

offense definitions for serious forms of theft were largely responsible for the

high number of offenders in Finnish prisons (Lappi-Seppala, 2001). Through a

legislative reform enacted in 1972 that redefined serious forms of theft and

introduced a new penalty range, the percentage of convicted offenders who

received a custodial sentence for theft dropped from 38% in 1971 to 11% in

1991. In addition, the median sentence for offenders convicted of larceny

dropped from 7.4 months in 1971 to 2.6 months in 1991. Reforms pertaining to

drunk driving offenses focused on using noncustodial alternatives instead of

unconditional sentences of imprisonment. Similar to the success of the

reforms directed at theft offenses, drunken driving related reforms reduced

the percentage of convicted offenders sentenced to unconditional imprison-

ment from 70% in 1971 to 12% in 1981.

Another major change in Finnish sentencing practices was the introduc-

tion of community service as an alternative to unconditional imprisonment

(Lappi-Seppala, 2001). The use of community service as an alternative sen-

tence was designed in such a way so as to ensure that it was being used in lieu

of short terms of imprisonment (Lappi-Seppala, 2004). This was accomplished

by using a two-step procedure during the sentencing phase. In the first step,

the court determines a sentence for the offender using the normal criteria for

sentencing. If the offender is sentenced to unconditional imprisonment, then

the court can decide whether to commute the sentence into community service

provided a number of criteria have been met. These criteria include (1) theconsent of the convicted person, (2) the determination that the convicted

offender is able to carry out the requirements, and (3) that there is nothing in

the prior criminal history of the convicted person that would preclude the use


10/15


of community service (e.g., recidivism, prior convictions). After several years

of being implemented on an experimental basis, community service orders

started being used nationwide in 1994. An examination of trends in Finnish

court sentencing practices suggests that community service orders, used in

this way, have largely accomplished the goal of reducing the flow of offenders

into prison. Since 1994, approximately 30% of convicted offenders sentenced

to an unconditional prison sentence received a community service order

instead.

Even as Finland took these steps to reduce its incarceration rate, crime

trends in Finland were remarkably similar to those of its Nordic neighbors

(Falck, von Hofer, & Storgaard, 2003). Figure 3 illustrates how crime trends

in Finland were similar to those of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden between

1950 and 2000. Each of these four nations experienced significant increases in

recorded crime rates during this period, yet these nations differed in their use

of incarceration. Figure 4 shows that while incarceration rates were relatively

Figure 3: Crime rates (per 100,000) in Scandinavia (19502000).Source: Falck, von Hofer, & Storgaard (2003); Lappi-Seppala (2004).

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

DEN

FIN

NOR

SWE

Figure 4: Incarceration rates (per 100,000) in Scandinavia (19502000).Source: Falck, von Hofer, & Storgaard (2003); Lappi-Seppala (2004).

0

50

100

150

200

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

DEN

FIN

NOR

SWE


11/15


stable for Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, Finlands incarceration rates

gradually declined from a peak of approximately 190 inmates per 100,000

population in 1950 to approximately 60 in the 1990s. Despite being faced with

rising crime rates, Finland took steps to bring its incarceration rates in line

with those of its neighbors. The fact that crime rates in Finland did not

drastically differ from those of its neighbors even as it minimized the use of

incarceration suggests that it is possible for a nation to reduce its incarcera-

tion rate without placing public safety at an elevated risk.

INCARCERATION IN GERMANY

Germany is another nation that has taken measures to control the growth of

incarceration at a time when crime rates were increasing. Although Germany

has not experienced as high an incarceration rate in its history as has Finland,

it has faced problems related to the heavy use of incarcerationsuch as severe

overcrowding (Graham, 1990). Heinz (2006) traces the history of sentencing

practices in Germany as far back as 1882, where nearly 80% of convicted offend-

ers were sentenced to unconditional prison sentences. Since then, Germany has

gradually rolled back its use of custodial sentences in favor of noncustodial

alternatives such as fines. Since the mid-1980s, less than 10% of convicted

offenders in German courts have received an unconditional prison sentence,

while approximately 70% of offenders were ordered to pay fines.

While the use of imprisonment has declined throughout the twentieth

century, modern sentencing practices in Germany can be traced back to legis-

lation enacted in 1969 (Weigend, 2001). The criminal law reforms that took

effect in 1969 were explicitly designed to restrict the use of imprisonment to

only the most serious cases. This aim was to be achieved through several mea-

sures including (1) the abolishment of prison sentences of less than one

month; (2) the decriminalization of many petty offenses, such as public order

and traffic offenses, which were subsequently turned into administrativeinfractions punishable by fines only; and (3) the discouragement of sentences

of less than six months. Noncustodial alternatives, primarily fines and proba-

tion, were used in lieu of short terms of imprisonment.

The criminal law reforms of 1969 also began a trend in the development of

sanctions other than those that have been traditionally usedi.e., imprison-

ment, probation, and fines (Weigend, 2001). Some of these alternative sanc-

tions have not been used very often, such as warning with suspension, while

others are being increasingly used by the German courts, such as community

service and restitution programs.

Not all of these additional sanctions are directed at reducing the number ofconvicted offenders sentenced to imprisonment. For example, the sanction

warning with suspension of punishment allows courts to suspend punishments

consisting of fines and sentence the offender to probation instead. On the other


12/15


hand, legislation enacted in 1994 allows the courts to mitigate the penalty or

suspend sentences of less than one year of imprisonment if the convicted

offender either participates in a victim-offender reconciliation program or makes

some effort to provide financial restitution to the victim.

COMPARING THE UNITED STATES WITH FINLAND AND GERMANY

The criminal justice system in Finland in 1950 is similar in many ways to the

criminal justice systems operating throughout the United States today. Both

systems are characterized by (1) rigid sentencing schemes characterized by

high minimum penalties, (2) severe sentences for relatively common crimes,

and (3) a heavy reliance on custodial sentences. The move away from indeter-

minate sentencing and the widespread adoption of sentencing guidelines and

mandatory minimums in the United States has created rigid sentencing

schemes that prevent judges from considering mitigating factors when making

sentencing decisions. Habitual offender laws, such as three-strike legislation,

and mandatory minimum drug laws are also indicative of a system that uses

severe sentencing practices.

While severe sentences for DUI offenders contributed to Finlands high

incarceration rate, alcohol and drug-related offenses have contributed to highincarceration rates in the United States. More than 1.7 million arrests were

made for drug violations and more than 1.5 million arrests were made for DUI

offenses in the United States in 2008 (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2009).

In 1980, drug offenders made up just 6% of the state prison population. By

2006, nearly 20% of all state prisoners were drug offenders (Sabol, West, &

Cooper, 2009). Because of these similarities, the steps taken by Finnish policy

makers could serve as a model for how the United States can reduce its incar-

cerated population.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the experience of other Western democracies with high incarcer-

ation rates can serve as a model for how the United States can reduce its level

of incarceration should that be a goal of policy makers. In many ways, the situ-

ation with Finland in 1950 in regards to high incarceration rates is similar to

the situation that the United States currently finds itself in. In both cases,

Finland and the United States have had or currently have (1) incarceration

rates that are clearly disproportionate when compared to similar nations and

(2) rigid sentencing schemes characterized by high minimum penalties and aheavy reliance on custodial sentences. Recognizing its high incarceration rate

as an important social problem and as a national embarrassment, Finnish

policy makers undertook a series of reforms designed to change its sentencing


13/15


practices. While these legislative reforms were primarily designed to reduce

the use of imprisonment, the reduction in incarceration experienced by Finland

could not have been sustained without the accompanying ideological shift in

thinking about criminal justice policy and its limits.

Germany is another nation that has moved away from the use of imprison-

ment in favor of noncustodial sentences. Even though incarceration rates in

Germany did not experience as dramatic a decline as in Finland, Germany

does provide an example of how a nation can moderate its use of incarceration

even while crime rates are increasing.

Finland and Germany are two examples of nations that have taken

measures designed to restrict the use of imprisonment. Other nations havetaken measures to control the growth of incarceration, such as Ireland, and

have relied on a variety of different measures, such as the increased use of

restorative justice programs. While it appears that the measures taken by

Finland and Germany to control and reduce the growth of incarceration met

with some success, there may be some doubts as to whether these measures

would achieve the same degree of success in the United States. Some may

draw on the American exceptionalism position and argue that there are cer-

tain features of the economic, cultural, and political context in the United

States that make high incarceration rates an inevitable consequence and that

what has worked for other countries would not work here. There is support for

the position that certain cultural and political factors contribute to high rates

of incarceration (Garland, 2001; Lappi-Seppala, 2007). However, research also

indicates that certain societal conditions are only part of the determinant of

the size of prison populations and that policy decisions are influential as well

(Snacken, Beyens, & Tubex, 1995).

The decline in crime rates over the past ten years combined with the

recent financial crisis has led many to consider whether it is necessary to

incarcerate such a large segment of our population. They search for solutions

that will be politically viable. Yet few have taken the direct steps that will be

necessary to reduce the numbers incarcerated. To date, the changes have not

had a major impact on the incarceration rate when the rates are compared to

those of other Western democracies.

Until the time comes when policy makers in the United States view high

incarceration rates as a social problem and ask themselves why the United

States should have an incarceration rate several times greater than other

Western democracies, the use and scale of imprisonment in this nation will

continue to grow. Mass imprisonment is a costly policy choice that has pro-

duced some benefit in terms of crime reduction in the short term, but its long-

term consequences may override any short-term benefit (see, for instance,Clear, 2007). While some state governments may be taking measures

designed to reduce their prison population (such as the repeal of mandatory

minimums) unless these measures are accompanied by a fundamental shift in


14/15


the thinking about incarceration and its limitations as a crime control device

it is difficult to determine whether reductions in the prisoner population can

be sustained. While there are certain cultural and political factors that have

contributed to high imprisonment rates in the United States, the policies of

our own choosing have contributed as well. The United States has served as a

model of leadership in many policy areas for many countries. Criminal justice

is one policy area where the United States may be well served to learn from

and build upon the experience of other nations.

NOTES

1. Caution should be exercised in making comparisons between national crime ratesbecause there may be differences between nations in counting rules and offensedefinitions.

2. The rate in the United States may be deceptively low since those incarcerated arenot included in the calculation of unemployment rates (Western, 2007).

3. For a more complete discussion of these reforms, see Lappi-Seppala (2001) andTornudd (1993).

REFERENCES

Aebi, M. F., Aromaa, K., de Cavarlay, B. A., Barclay, G., Gruszczynska, B., von Hofer, H.,Hysi, V., Jehle, J-M., Killias, M., Smit, P., & Tavares, C. (2006). European source-book of crime and criminal justice statistics (3rd ed.). The Hague: Ministry of Justice.

Aromaa, K., & Heiskanen, M. (Eds.). (2008). Crime and criminal justice systems inEurope and North America, 19952004. Helsinki: European Institute for CrimePrevention and Control. Retrieved September 1, 2008, from http://www.heuni.fi/43087.htm

Blumstein, A., & Beck, A. J. (1999). Population growth in U.S. prisons, 19801996.Crime and Justice,26, 1761.

Clear, T. (2007).Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvan-taged neighborhoods worse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Falck, S., von Hofer, H., & Storgaard, A. (2003).Nordic criminal statistics, 19502000.Stockholm: Department of Criminology, Stockholm University.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2009). Crime in the United States, 2008. Washington,DC: Department of Justice.

Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Graham, J. (1990). Decarceration in the Federal Republic of Germany: How practitionersare succeeding where policy-makers have failed. British Journal of Criminology,30(2), 150170.

Heinz, W. (2006). Penal sanctions and sanctioning practice in the Federal Republic of

Germany, 18822004. Retrieved October 30, 2009, from http://www.uni-konstanz.de/rtf/kis/sanks04_eng.htm

International Center for Prison Studies. (2008). World prison brief. RetrievedSeptember 1, 2008, from http://www.kcl.ac.uk/schools/law/research/icps


15/15


Lappi-Seppala, T. (2001). Sentencing and punishment in Finland: The decline of therepressive ideal. In M. Tonry & R. S. Frase (Eds.), Sentencing and sanctions inwestern countries (pp. 92150). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lappi-Seppala, T. (2004). Penal policy and prison rates: Long-term experiences fromFinland. Helsinki: National Research Institute of Legal Policy.

Lappi-Seppala, T. (2007). Trust, welfare, and political economy: Cross-comparativeperspectives in penal severity. In P-O. Traskman (Ed.),Rationality and emotion inEuropean penal policy, Nordic perspectives. Copenhagen: DJOF Publishing.

Sabol, W. J., West, H. C., & Cooper, M. (2009). Prisoners in 2008 (NCJ 228417).Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Scottish Executive. (2005).Recorded crime in Scotland 2004/05. Edinburgh, Scotland:

Scottish Executive.Scottish Executive. (2007).Sentencing Profile Statistics 2006/07. Edinburgh, Scotland:

Scottish Executive.

Snacken, S., Beyens, K., & Tubex, H. (1995). Changing prison populations in Westerncountries: Fate or policy?European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and CriminalJustice,3(1), 1853.

Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics. (2008). Percent distribution of felonysentences imposed by State courts. Retrieved May 15, 2010, from www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t5472004.pdf

Tornudd, P. (1993). Fifteen years of decreasing prisoner rates. Helsinki: NationalResearch Institute of Legal Policy.

Van Dijk, J. J. M., van Kesteren, J. N., & Smit, P. (2007). Criminal victimization ininternational perspective: Key findings from the 2004-2005 ICVS and EU ICS. TheHague: Boom Legal Publishers.

Walmsley, R. (2009). World prison population list (8th ed.). London: International Centrefor Prison Studies.

Weigend, T. (2001). Sentencing and punishment in Germany. In M. Tonry & R. S.Frase (Eds.),Sentencing and sanctions in western countries (pp. 188221). Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Western, B. (2007). Punishment and inequality in America. New York: Russell SageFoundation.

incarcerarea

Documents