Re: The economics of incarceration

["Devine, James" <jdevine@xxxxxxx>]

Doesn't the calculation of the "optimal level or rate of incarceration"
depend on one's "social welfare function," i.e., how one weights costs
and benefits, so a pro-working-class number would be different from
(lower than) a bourgeois one?

Jim Devine, e-mail: jdevine@xxxxxxx
web: http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine/ 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PEN-L list [mailto:PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter
> Hollings
> Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 7:58 AM
> To: PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The economics of incarceration
> 
> Interesting. Subjectively, I would agree with the conclusion that we
> are
> incarcerating too many. For example, if the costs of incarceration
> are
> $46,000/year, we ought to be able to rehabilitate many criminals for
> less than that. But how can one derive an optimal level of
> incarceration
> without considering the costs of crime as well as other solutions
> such
> as rehabilitation?
> 
> Peter Hollings
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PEN-L list [mailto:PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> michael
> perelman
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 8:42 PM
> To: PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [PEN-L] The economics of incarceration
> 
> 
> Donohue, John J. 2005. "Fighting Crime: An Economist's View." The
> Milken
> Institute Review, 7: 1 (First Quarter): pp. 46-58.
> 
>  48: "Between 1933 and 1973, incarceration in the United States
> varied
> within a narrow band of roughly 100 to 120 prisoners per 100,000
> population.  Since then, this rate has been increasing by an average
> of
> 5 percent annually.  As of June 2003, some two million individuals
> were
> imprisoned -- a rate of almost 500 per 100,000."
> 
>  48: "On the benefit side, the research suggests that the
> "elasticity"
> of crime with respect to incarceration is somewhere between 0.1 and
> 0.4
> -- that is, increasing the prison population by 10 percent reduces
> crime
> by 1 to 4 percent.  On the other side of the equation, estimates of
> the
> cost of locking up another individual run between $32,000 and
> $57,000
> annually."
> 
>  48: "The most rigorous study on the relevant elasticity was
> conducted
> by William Spelman of the University of Texas.  He concluded that
> "we
> can be 90 percent confident that the true value is between 0.12 and
> 0.20, with a best single guess of 0.16."  Since Spelman's estimates
> accounted for the incapacitation effect, but ignore any deterrence
> effect, I rely conservatively on somewhat larger elasticity of 0.2."
> 
>  48: "With an elasticity of crime with respect to incarceration of
> 0.2
> and an annual cost of housing a prisoner of $46,000, the "optimal"
> level
> of incarceration would require imprisoning 300,000 fewer
> individuals.
> This is just a ballpark estimate, of course.  But, at the very
> least, it
> implies that we cannot expect to get much more crime reduction at
> reasonable cost by increasing the numbers behind bars."
> 
> --
> 
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
> Chico, CA 95929
> 530-898-5321
> fax 530-898-5901