‘The better way to fight crime’: Why fiscal arguments do not restrain the carceral state

Abstract

In recent years, actors from across the political spectrum concerned about the expansion of the US carceral state have pointed to the fiscal impacts of incarceration in a time of public austerity. A new regime of public policies pledging to be ‘smart on crime’ has taken root as a result. Advocates of such policies operate on the assumption that fiscal arguments will shift the trajectory of prison expansion because commitments to austerity will override the costly ‘tough on crime’ regime that has driven prison expansion in the USA over the last 40 years. This article reverses this assumption through a consideration of state-level policy in Oregon, a state that has formally embraced a commitment to fiscal restraint and ‘justice reinvestment’ as a strategy to limit prison growth. Our historical analysis reveals that since statehood, commitments to austerity and taxpayer protection have always framed criminal justice policy debates. Understood from this perspective, the story is not that prison reform advocates have discovered a new framework (‘smart on crime’) to restrain prison growth. It is that the longstanding discourse and politics of fiscal austerity has come to incorporate and absorb a portion of the anti-prison movement itself. That is fiscal arguments for prison reform are fully commensurate with the logic that drove mass incarceration in the first place. As a result, the state’s prison population has continued to expand even in the era of ‘smart on crime’ policymaking because commitments to fiscal austerity have not fundamentally challenged the policies and discourses that fueled the initial prison boom in the state. As most prisoners in the USA continue to be confined in state institutions, the analysis of state-level policy development in this article offers important insights into ongoing political debates over decarceration.

The Mississippi model: Dangers of prison reform in the context of fiscal austerity

“…This article provides a new in-depth case study on the extensive literature exploring the effects of recent penal reforms (Aviram, 2015; Beckett, 2018; Cate, 2016; Cate and HoSang, 2018; Dagan and Teles, 2016; Garland et al., 2014; Gottschalk, 2011a, 2011b, 2015; Lynch, 2000; Miller, 2014; Petersilia, 2014; Phelps, 2011; Phelps and Pager, 2015; Rengifo et al., 2017; Seeds, 2017; Xenakis and Cheliotis, 2019). The case affirms much of the findings in this literature that explore the limitations of fiscal austerity driven prison reforms, showing that by prioritizing “cost cuts,” these reforms can exacerbate dangerous conditions of prisons, shift correctional control to areas ripe for privatization and are unable to meaningfully reduce incarceration rates (Aviram, 2015; Beckett, 2018; Cate, 2016; Cate and HoSang, 2018; Gottschalk, 2011b, 2015).…”

“…This article provides a new in-depth case study on the extensive literature exploring the effects of recent penal reforms (Aviram, 2015; Beckett, 2018; Cate, 2016; Cate and HoSang, 2018; Dagan and Teles, 2016; Garland et al., 2014; Gottschalk, 2011a, 2011b, 2015; Lynch, 2000; Miller, 2014; Petersilia, 2014; Phelps, 2011; Phelps and Pager, 2015; Rengifo et al., 2017; Seeds, 2017; Xenakis and Cheliotis, 2019). The case affirms much of the findings in this literature that explore the limitations of fiscal austerity driven prison reforms, showing that by prioritizing “cost cuts,” these reforms can exacerbate dangerous conditions of prisons, shift correctional control to areas ripe for privatization and are unable to meaningfully reduce incarceration rates (Aviram, 2015; Beckett, 2018; Cate, 2016; Cate and HoSang, 2018; Gottschalk, 2011b, 2015). Additionally, the reforms in Mississippi fail to address the major drivers of mass incarceration as Gottschalk (2015) cautions because they attempt to reduce incarceration rates by targeting low-level offenders who have not been convicted of serious, sexual, or violent crimes, termed the “non-non-nons.” While investing in cheaper alternatives, like community sanctions, for low-level offenders can reduce costs and lead to significant and positive change for these offenders who may avoid incarceration, these policies are not up to the task of dismantling the carceral state (Beckett, 2018; Gottschalk, 2015; Miller, 2014; Phelps, 2011).…”

Extraction without reserve: The case of Arizona's penal care regime

“…Late mass incarceration reflects a moment of reform efforts aimed at addressing the social ills of the penal state (Seeds, 2017). Key among such issues are the exorbitant costs of keeping people locked up, which has spurred policies to downsize prison populations as fiscally motivated measures (Aviram, 2016; Cate and HoSang, 2018). Also understood as decarceration, such reforms have come to reflect new terms, struggles, and orientations within the penal field that might be leveraged for more widescale progressive change (Goodman et al, 2017).…”

“…Debates on late mass incarceration have centered the prospects and pitfalls of cost-motivated reform measures (Cate and HoSang, 2018; Gilmore, 2015; Seeds, 2017). Whereas fiscal austerity has led many states to pursue some kind of decarceration reform, Arizona has remained staunchly punitive, focused primarily on cheapening its prison conditions.…”

Beyond the austerity-driven hypothesis: Political economic theses on penality and the recent prison population decline

“…By contrast, the new decarceration trend has been especially scrutinized by the US literature. In what might be called the ‘austerity-driven hypothesis’, a noteworthy body of scholarship claims that the economic turmoil of the late 2000s and its consequences played a prominent – albeit not exclusive 5 – role in triggering the prison downsizing (see, among many others, Cate and HoSang, 2018; Gottschalk, 2015; Green, 2015; Karstedt et al, 2019). This account emphasizes the relevance of public spending cuts and deficits in spurring the fall in the prison population (Brown, 2013; Phelps and Pager, 2016).…”