Page 194/22 makes an interesting point:
Drug inmates’ share of unique offenders is basically the same as their share of inmates: about 20%, or 26% if we count those convicted of both drug and non-drug offenses as
“drug offenders,” compared to 17% of the total stock
When you look at state and local prison statistics, or at least the ones I've looked at during message board arguments, you quickly see that drug crimes do not dominate; in the midwest, the dominating crime appears to be domestic violence.
A common rebuttal to that point is that at any point in time, there may be more domestic violence inmates in prison, but the overall flow of drug offenders is greater: they serve shorter but more frequent sentences; the "installment plan", as the author puts it.
The statistics don't appear to bear that out. The tables that precede this point are interesting, too. To the extent that prison is a "revolving door" for inmates, that too does not appear to be the explaining factor for mass incarceration.
Drug inmates’ share of unique offenders is basically the same as their share of inmates: about 20%, or 26% if we count those convicted of both drug and non-drug offenses as “drug offenders,” compared to 17% of the total stock
When you look at state and local prison statistics, or at least the ones I've looked at during message board arguments, you quickly see that drug crimes do not dominate; in the midwest, the dominating crime appears to be domestic violence.
A common rebuttal to that point is that at any point in time, there may be more domestic violence inmates in prison, but the overall flow of drug offenders is greater: they serve shorter but more frequent sentences; the "installment plan", as the author puts it.
The statistics don't appear to bear that out. The tables that precede this point are interesting, too. To the extent that prison is a "revolving door" for inmates, that too does not appear to be the explaining factor for mass incarceration.