Policy to Enhance Social Welfare Using Insights of Behavioral Economics
Introduction
Behavioral economics since the 1970s had pursued the understanding of human behavior by bringing together psychologists, economists, brain scientists, and professionals, and key stakeholders. The synthesis of insights and concepts within the field of behavioral economics based on these disciplines has led to the clarification and comprehension of different behavioral phenomena that were previously difficult to understand based on a single approach (Datta & Mullainathan, 2014). Consequently, the field has transformed the way society perceives individual behavioral choices and the motivations underlying their decisions and actions (Datta & Mullainathan, 2014). This has added to knowledge derived from neoclassical economics, particularly those emanating from understanding any information asymmetry and design mechanisms. These have contributed to the comprehension of market and government failure and the possible strategies for addressing the shortcomings (Datta & Mullainathan, 2014). However, it should be noted that these insights undermine already existing knowledge in different fields. Still, they are complementary and hence expand the understanding and expansion or transformation of existing policies (Datta & Mullainathan, 2014). The purpose of this paper is to design a policy that would lead to a reduction in prison overcrowding in the United States, focusing on the Three Strikes Law based on insights from behavioral economics.
Background of the Problem
The United States experienced decades of instability between 1920 and 1970. Since then, the rates of incarcerations in the country have increased by over four times in the last four decades. Today, the country has approximately 2.2 million prisoners, which comprise the largest population of imprisoned individuals globally (National Research Council, 2014). To put this population into perspective, just below a quarter of the population of prisoners globally are in prisons in the United States. The rate of incarceration in the country for adults is 1 for every 100 adults, and this rate is 5 to 10 times higher than that of other industrialized nations (National Research Council, 2014). Further, a majority of the prison population comprises individuals from the most disadvantaged groups in society. They include men below the age of 40 years who are poorly educated and coming from minority groups (National Research Council, 2014). Prisoners are accompanied by other deficits that include addictions, mental and physical illnesses, and poor work penetration/experience. The rise in the number of prisoners has received much criticism in the recent past, particularly its consequences to the prisoners, their families, communities, and the larger American society (National Research Council, 2014). Therefore, sentencing, prison, and social policies are required to reduce the reliance on imprisonments in the country.
Policy Problem – Three Strikes Law a Behavioral Economics Perspective
The imprisonment rates in the country, including the high prison population, are an outcome of the policymakers’ decisions to raise the use of imprisonment and increase the severity of sentences. Other factors, for example, increased rates of crime, decisions to use street-level arrests of drug dealers, and attitudinal changes towards crime and criminals that have made officials in the criminal justice system deal with crime convicts more severely (Jacobson, Heard, & Fair, 2013). The increased use of imprisonments is, therefore, a reflection of clear policy choices. In the 1980s and 1990s, legislators passed legislation which the governors and presidents later signed into law (National Research Council, 2014). The laws were targeted at -ensuring that an increasing number of convicted persons would be imprisoned, and the prison terms were prolonged in their sentences (National Research Council, 2014). No other references can be made from the enacting of many laws that have longer prison terms. The increases are hence an outcome of the proliferation in almost every state and federal system of laws and guidelines that promote long prison sentences for especially drug crimes, violent crimes, and repeat offenses (National Research Council, 2014). This includes the enactment in multiple states and within the country’s federal system of the three strikes and truth-in-sentencing laws (National Research Council, 2014). The Three Strikes Laws have resulted in a significant increase in the prison population and, hence, require reform to improve prisoners’ welfare and society.
The Three Strikes Laws were first enacted in California in response to the Kimberly Reynolds and Polly Klass murders. According to the laws, any convicted regardless of the crime they committed (minor/major) would result in a life sentence if the person had two previous convictions categorized as serious/violent by the state’s penal code (Walsh, 2007). According to the original material that promoted the Three Strikes Law, the sentencing approach was targeted at ensuring that murderers, rapists, and child abusers where imprisoned and remained in prison. Other states later adopted the laws in the country (Walsh, 2007). However, today, over half of the individuals sentenced under these laws are serving sentences for nonviolent crimes. Further, for example, in California, where the laws originated, they have been found to have a disproportionate impact on minority populations (Walsh, 2007). Also, over 45% of the population serving life sentences being African American, and it has also been found to be used disproportionately among individuals suffering from mental illnesses and are physically disabled.
The law has been accompanied by high monetary and social costs to society. For example, according to the California State Auditor, the law adds over $19 billion to the state prison budget. In addition, the Stanford Three Strikes Project highlighted that over 4,000 inmates are imprisoned due to nonviolent crimes, which is half the number of individuals imprisoned after a third strike (Giovanni, 2012). Estimates by the State’s Legislative analyst indicated that it costs the state about $47,000 annually to care for a single prisoner. Further, the laws have resulted in overcrowding in prisons, with most prisons having horrid conditions that affect prisoners’ welfare (Giovanni, 2012). The country’s Supreme Court in 2011 upheld the decision to reduce prisoners’ population and the prisoners’ poor conditions that led to historically sustained protests in the country.
The laws have been found not to deter violent crime. The rationale is that most violent crimes are not premeditated and are often due to anger, passion, or substance abuse. Therefore, life sentences will not stop impulse reactions as such individuals never consider the consequences of their actions. Studies on deterrence and incapacitation effects of the law, such as that by Stonlzenberg & D’Alessio (1997), have revealed that it has a minimal impact on the crime rates. The study also highlighted that before the law’s implementation, including other mandatory sentencing laws, the crime rates were showing a downward trend. The laws have been considered unjust and violations of human rights as they have affected individuals that do not deserve such prolonged sentences (Figueroa, n.d.). There are several cases where harsh punishments have been issued to nonviolent offenders, as indicated above. For example, in Lockyer v. Andrade (2003), the defendant received two 25 years to life sentences after being first found to have stoled videotapes worth $85 and $69 the second time. In addition, a mother of two children received a life sentence after being found with cocaine worth $40. In California, a man received 25 years to life sentence after stealing a slice of pizza, and it is argued that he would have received a similar sentence if he had engaged in rape (Figueroa, n.d.). Therefore, the law does not distinguish inherent differences in cases.
Moreover, repeat offenders do not take into consideration the likely consequences of their actions as they expect not to be arrested and the fact that it is true. The American Bar Association (ABA) reported that of the 34 million serious crimes committed annually, only 3 million lead to arrests. Finally, individuals released from prisons experience challenges of reintegration into society resulting in high rates of recidivism. The reason for such high rates is the lack of opportunities to succeed in most of the states (American Civil Liberties Union, n.d.). As the money used ibn, maintaining them in prisons would have been used to create, for example, employment opportunities or rehabilitation programs.
Proposed Policy – Community Corrections Programs for Nonviolent Drug Offenders
The approach in dealing with crime in the United States, particularly the Three Strikes Law, has been described as a “get-tough approach.” However, given the monetary and social costs involved with the approach as discussed above, there has been minimal in the social welfare at the individual and societal/community level. Therefore, a restorative justice policy approach is considered suitable to eliminate the costs involved and promote social welfare. The proposed policy is to engage nonviolent drug offenders, including repeat offenders into community corrections programs. The existing community corrections programs are targeted at adults and juveniles that require treatment for behavioral problems while incarcerated. However, the programs are not available for nonviolent offenders.
Prosecutors, judges, and the police, including the entire criminal justice system, harshly punish drug offenders for nothing more than drug possession. Drug offenses account for approximately 500,000 people in the United States (Sawyer & Wagner, 2020). The overcriminalization of drug use is among the most contentious problems within the justice system due to the moral outrage they evoke (Sawyer & Wagner, 2020). However, there are no answers to the reason for incarcerating a large number of nonviolent offenders and how the country and state can significantly and safely reduce the use of imprisonment (Sawyer & Wagner, 2020). Also, emotions related to violent crimes deter vital discussions on the social, economic, and moral costs of such prolonged sentences.
Eisen & Chettar (2016) established that about 39% of the prisoners in the country that are incarcerated have minimal public safety risk and can be safely released. They also found out that 25% of the present were nonviolent and lower-level offenders, with 12% being nonviolent drug offenders that would benefit from community programs. While they are considered a small proportion of the prison population, it would be a first step towards reducing the prison population.
The use of such programs would help the country make significant savings that may be used to fund early crime intervention programs such as, poverty and improving living conditions, expanding early childhood intervention (ECI) programs and nutritional services for the poor, and improving schools and schooling including other interventions (Cullen, 2007). Also, it would lead a reduction in the prison population without putting the safety and security of Americans at risk and ensure the welfare of the inmates is addressed while saving the country billions of dollars (Jacobson, 2006). The savings would also be used to improve educational and vocational training programs, including other services offered in prisons and outside the prison underfunded. Also, the programs will ensure inmates, including non-incarcerated nonviolent offenders, are appropriately rehabilitated and have a minimal risk of recidivism. In addition, it will promote reintegration into society as the criminal records would be eliminated allowing them to be employed and also result in decreased crime rates. Therefore, the overall effect would be an enhancement in both the welfare of the prisoners, the nonviolent offenders, and American society.
Conclusion
Behavioral economics combines knowledge from multiple fields of study, and is at the core of policy formulation. Today, the prison population in America is the highest globally. This has been attributed to the Three Strikes Law that was enacted in 1994 in California but rapidly spread to other states in the country and resulted in prison overcrowding. The initial intention of the law has been undermined; hence there is a considerable number of nonviolent offenders, including drug offenders that are being held in prisons. Consequently, prisoners’ welfare is poor with a trickledown effect on society and other financial costs that worsen their welfare. Therefore, a policy should be introduced to place nonviolent drug offenders into community programs. This would lead to a reduction in the prison population that would result in cost-saving to improve other programs that would deter crime and reduce the possibility of recidivism by opening up opportunities. The overall impact of the policy would be social welfare enhancement in the United States.
References
American Civil Liberties Union. (n.d.). 10 reasons to oppose “3 strikes, you’re out”. Retrieved May 19, 2020, from https://www.aclu.org/other/10-reasons-oppose-3-strikes-youre-out
Cullen, F. T. (2007). Make rehabilitation corrections’ guiding paradigm. Criminology & Public Policy, 717–727.
Datta, S., & Mullainathan, S. (2014). Behavioral design: a new approach to development policy. Review of Income and Wealth, 60(1), 7-36.
Eisen, L.-B., & Chettar, I. (2016, December 9). 39% of Prisoners Should Not Be in Prison. Retrieved May 19, 2020, from https://time.com/4596081/incarceration-report/
Figueroa, M. (n.d.). The Monetary and Social Costs of Mandatory Sentencing Laws. Retrieved May 19, 2020, from http://www.sheldensays.com/costsofmandatorysentencing.htm#_ftn1
Giovanni, T. (2012, March 12). ‘3-Strikes’ Penalties are Costly, Waste Lives. Retrieved May 19, 2020
Jacobson, J., Heard, C., & Fair, H. (2013). Prison: Evidence of its use and over-use from around the world. London: Institute for Criminal Policy Research.
Jacobson, M. (2006). Reversing the punitive turn: The Limits and promise of current research. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 277–284.
National Research Council. (2014). The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences. (J. Travis, & B. Western, Eds.) Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
Sawyer, W., & Wagner, P. (2020, March 24). Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2020. Retrieved May 19, 2020, from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html
Stonlzenberg, L., & D’Alessio, S. J. (1997). “Three strikes and you’re out”: The impact of California’s new mandatory sentencing law on serious crime rates. Crime & Delinquency, 43, 457-470.
Walsh, J. E. (2007). Three Strikes Laws. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.