US Criminal Justice Policy and Practice in the Twenty‐First Century: Toward the End of Mass Incarceration?

Abstract

Although the wisdom of mass incarceration is now widely questioned, incarceration rates have fallen far less than what would be predicted on the basis of crime trends. Informed by institutional studies of path dependence, sociolegal scholarship on legal discretion, and research suggesting that “late mass incarceration” is characterized by a moderated response to nonviolent crime but even stronger penalties for violent offenses, this article analyzes recent sentencing‐related reforms and case processing outcomes. Although the legislative findings reveal widespread willingness to moderate penalties for nonviolent crimes, the results also reveal a notably heightened system response to both violent and nonviolent crimes at the level of case processing. These findings help explain why the decline in incarceration rates has been notably smaller than the drop in crime rates and are consistent with the literature on path dependence, which emphasizes that massive institutional developments enhance the capacity and motivation of institutional actors to preserve jobs, resources, and authorities. The findings also underscore the importance of analyzing on‐the‐ground case processing outcomes as well as formal law when assessing the state and fate of complex institutional developments such as mass incarceration.

Marginal gains or diminishing returns? Penal bifurcation, policy change and the administration of prisoner release in England and Wales

“…At a time of considerable uncertainty in British politics it is unclear whether these plans will ever be fully realised; however, it is surely noteworthy that a ‘two-pronged approach’ continues to do much of the rhetorical heavy lifting in the passage above. The idea that prison release should function as both a bridge and a barrier between prison and the community is now firmly entrenched within British penal policy and this ‘policy tradition’ presents policy-makers with powerful institutional incentives to continue working within these developmental pathways (see Beckett et al, 2018). In some cases, the lifecycle of new penal policy ideas can be fleeting and short-lived, but the bifurcation of prisoner release demonstrates what can happen when this process has advanced to a stage where institutional gains are increasingly marginal but, diminishing returns do not yet justify radical departures.…”

“…A twin-track approach re-purposed existing practices and presented a way of thinking about crime that integrated policy, political and administrative innovations within a framework that could be implemented with only limited institutional resistance (see Shute, 2003: 403). The key point being that once accepted, these policy prescriptions began to coalesce into an institutionally recognisable policy tradition as alternative reform options were discounted and additional resources were committed to the delivery of a twin-track system (see Beckett et al, 2018). Initially, at least the more punitive aspects of this strategy were tempered by the traditions of British penal pragmatism (Windlesham, 2001).…”

Is the Process the Only Punishment?: Racial–Ethnic Disparities in Lower‐Level Courts

“…This study is also restricted to one jurisdiction. Although the study's focus on a single county could limit its generalizability, this approach aligns with a growing attention to the locality of criminal justice (Lynch ; Beckett et al ; Schoenfeld ), with much of the research on misdemeanor case processing focusing on a single jurisdiction (Feeley ; Beckett and Herbert ; Kutateladze, Andiloro, and Johnson ; Heaton, Mayson, and Stevenson ; Kohler‐Hausmann ; Kutateladze and Lawson ; Owens, Kerrison, and Santos Da Silveira ). Even if Miami‐Dade County differs from other jurisdictions, the identified mechanisms of racial–ethnic inequality in lower‐level courts may generalize to other contexts.…”

Same old song and dance? An analysis of legislative activity in a period of penal reform

“…In an analysis of state laws passed between 2007 and 2014, Beckett et al. (2016, 2018) confirm that the vast majority of decarcerative reforms target non-serious, non-violent offenses. At the same time, policymakers have singled out “violent,” repeat, or “sex” offenders for increased penalties (Gottschalk, 2015).…”

“…And, in fact, reforms do not always bifurcate along a non-violent—violent binary. For instance, in their examination of enacted legislation between 2007 and 2014, Beckett et al. (2018) find that newly enacted punitive legislation equally targets low-level and more serious crimes.…”