Why is the Incarceration Rate in the US so high?

The United States has about 300 million residents, about 5 percent of the total world’s population, but the prisons in the United States account for 25 percent of the world’s inmates. This statistic gives the United States the highest incarceration rate in the world with 743 of every 100,000 people behind bars (Levin 2013). On the other hand, Canada, our northern neighbor only has 113 per 100,000 of its citizens in prison (Levin 2013). So the question is, what really is behind the high incarceration rate in the United States?
The difference is substantial and cannot be ignored; the incarceration rate in the U.S. is nearly 6.5 times larger. This is a staggering statistic and begins to raise some valid concerns, could it be that the United States court system is structured in a way that unfairly treats criminals? Or could it be that people in the United States just commit more crimes per capita than the rest of the world? The latter doesn’t seem like a plausible explanation, the United States and Canada are so similar it almost seems unrealistic to assume that the crime disparity could be so wide. That leaves us with the idea that the United States court systems unfairly treats criminals or just treats criminals harsher than any other developed country in the world. This thought is certainly very frightening and should be a concern for every United States citizen. Even though most people are good, law-abiding citizens, sometimes these good people make mistakes and when this happens they should face consequences appropriate for the crime that they committed. Giving someone a long sentence in prison for what would be considered a minor crime in other developed countries is cruel and unjust. It goes against what America stands for; freedom, the land of opportunity and second chances, and the chance to live the America Dream. The issue at hand is very complex and there is probably more than one reason that contributes to the outlandish rate. However, I argue that the main reason behind the large incarceration is the harsh sentencing laws, specifically drug sentencing laws. With more than 50% of the federal prisoners in the United States locked up because of drug convictions, it is logical to assume that drug-sentencing practices may have an influence on the total prison population (Drug Offenders in the Correctional System 2012). Obviously this goes without being said, that the longer the sentence means the longer an individual will have to wait to get out of jail leading to an increase in the prison population at a certain point in time. The reason that I believe the drug sentencing laws are the largest factor behind the high prison rates is because our drug sentencing laws are so much harsher compared to other countries around the world. For example, in Canada, if you are charged with possessing five grams of crack cocaine, there is a maximum sentence of seven years in prison. On the other hand, if you are charged with the same crime in the Untied States, you will receive a mandatory minimum sentence of five years without the possibility of parole (Federal Trafficking Penalties 2014). The mandatory minimum sentences are a key difference between the United States and Canada. Canada has no mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines for any recreational possession offenses. Before last year, they had no mandatory minimum sentences for any drug offenses, but have added some for offenses related to trafficking and production (The Safe Streets and Communities Act 2011). In political science terminology, the difference in the drug sentencing laws would be an institutional theory for the difference in the incarceration rates. The way the laws are written in the courts throughout the United States mandate certain minimum sentences for certain crimes that not even the sentencing judge has the ability to change. He is given some discretion when sentencing but is sometimes required by law not to sentence an individual to less than a certain number of time in prison. These “rules of the game” have been implemented throughout time and have defined a role for judges in the sentencing process by reducing the agency they are given. It is these rules that the courts have to play by that are responsible for the higher incarceration rates.
Some critics will argue that the implementation of private prisons is the main reason behind the high prison rates, citing the fact that these companies may go bankrupt without an adequate amount of prisoners. Contracts are sometimes drawn up between these private companies and the states guaranteeing compensation for a certain level of capacity. If the private prisons are under the capacity stated in these contracts, the state has to pay them the difference and compensate them as if they were at capacity (Whitehead 2012). This all comes back to the sentencing laws, states are financially pressured to have a certain number of prisoners behind bars at all times and the most obvious way to do this is by increasing the sentencing laws. Lawmakers need to control the state budget and this is a feasible way to save some money. However, the lawmakers are not the only individuals pushing for increased sentencing laws; the corporations that operate these private prisons have lobbyists trying to do the same thing. These businesses know that increased sentencing laws will lead to an increase in the amount of prisoners, which ultimately leads to an increase in their profits.
In this case study I will be comparing the United States and Canada using a most similar system design. This system is used to compare two similar countries in terms of government, culture, economics, etc., but have a different dependent variable, in this case incarceration rate. The theory behind this design is that if two countries are very similar but have a substantial difference, we can conclude that the similarities are not responsible for that difference. This leads us to focus on what is different between the two countries that would lead to the difference in the dependent variable. Comparing the United States to Canada is logical because both of these countries have a lot of social and economic similarities. GDP per capita, which essentially measures production per person in a given year, is similar between the two. Canada’s GDP per capita is $35,600 and the United States checks in at $49,100 (Comparisons Between Canada And The United States of America 2011). These countries are also similar with regards to geographic location, with Canada being the northern neighbor to the United States. Both of these countries are politically similar, as they are both democracies. Culturally, they are also very similar. Roughly 75% of the population is Christian in both the United States and Canada (InfoPlease 2010). The two countries also speak English as their primary language. The MSS design allowed me to eliminate cultural, social, and economic reasons as the reason for the difference in incarceration rates. I can also eliminate crime rate as a possible explanation because it is similar between the two counties. The MSS design requires you to look at differences between the two countries that would have an effect on the dependent variable, which in this case is the incarceration rate. Differences between the two countries that logically would not have any effect on the incarceration rate, such as the concentrated French speaking population in Quebec, can also be disregarded.
A difference and possible explanation for the difference in incarceration rates is in the racial demographics and diversity of the United States and Canada. In the United States, African Hispanics and African Americans account for roughly 28 percent of the population, 15% Hispanics and 13% African Americans (Humes, Jones, Ramirez 2010, 4). However, in Canada that percentage is much smaller, somewhere around 4 percent of the total population, made up of 1% Hispanic and 3% African American. This difference is very important because Hispanics and African Americans disproportionately populate the prisons in the United States. According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2006, for every one Caucasian male incarcerated there were roughly 6.5 African American males and 2.5 Hispanic males. There are several factors that could lead to the difference in prison rates by ethnicity. Obviously racial prejudice against minorities probably plays some role, whether it is racist cops, juries, or judges. These individuals are probably more like to arrest, convict, or give longer sentences to minorities than they would to a Caucasian. The income level of these races may also play a factor as to why minorities represent a higher percentage of the prison population. The average white household earns about $57,000 per year while the average Hispanic and African American households are around $39,000 (Perlberg 2014). There is obviously going to be more crime in a poor urban area, which are predominantly made up of minorities, than in a wealthy suburb, which are predominantly Caucasians. When people are scratching and clawing to get by it may cause them to result to a life of crime in order to provide for themselves. A third factor that could contribute issue is that the cultural values of different races could result in different levels of crime. Certain ethnicities may be more prone to disregard the laws that are in place and break them than others. Whatever the reason that minorities are represented disproportionately, the fact that the United States has a significantly more diverse population is probably a small factor as to why the incarceration rates between the two countries is different.
While the racial demographics may be a small factor, all of the evidence points to the difference in drug sentencing laws between the United States and Canada as the primary contributing factor that leads to the difference in incarceration rates between the two countries. The total prison population in the United States is 2.4 million, 14% of which are in federal prison. 51% of the federal prisoners are incarcerated due to drug related charges, which leads to the belief that drug sentencing is a major contributor in the high incarceration rate (Klein and Soltas 2013). In the US, drug-sentencing laws are seen as extremely harsh with tough mandatory minimum sentences for even first time offenders. In the US, conviction of 5 grams of crack cocaine triggered a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years in prison, however this was recently eliminated in 2010 when Obama passed the Fair Sentencing Act, reducing the harsh penalties for crack possession (Federal Trafficking Penalties 2014). In Canada, the punishment for the same crime is a fine of $1,000 or a maximum sentence of 6 months in jail, or both (Jourard 2014). Possession related offenses make up a small amount of the US prison population and usually only result in prison time if there are large quantities of drugs present.
The harsher sentences come about with regards to drug trafficking. These penalties are very severe and often result in prison time. In the United States, a first offense of trafficking 0.5 kg–5.0 kg of cocaine requires a mandatory minimum of 5 years and maximum of 40 years (Federal Trafficking Penalties 2014). In Canada, a similar offense will have no mandatory minimum sentence. However, under circumstances such as trafficking for a criminal organization or trafficking near a school a mandatory minimum sentence of 1 or 2 years may be imposed. Although there are no formal mandatory minimum sentences with regards to this type of offense in Canada, it is unlikely to receive a sentence of less than two years (Jourard 2014). This illustrates the fact that the drug penalties in the United States are harsher than the ones in Canada. This isn’t that case for just cocaine, but for all drugs, which we can reason is a factor in the higher incarceration rates. This illustrates the fact that the drug penalties in the United States are harsher than the ones in Canada. This isn’t that case for just cocaine, but for all drugs. The harsh mandatory minimum sentencing laws in the United States give prosecutors the upper hand. Defendants know that if they are convicted there is going to be minimum sentences they will receive and are very likely agree to a plea of a lesser charge that will also result in jail time.
Another key contributor in harsh sentencing is the Three Strikes Law. Beginning in the early 1990s, states, most notably California, began to pass habitual offender laws, which allowed them to impose harsher penalties on individuals who are repeat offenders. Today nearly half of the states have some sort of repeated offender of Three Strikes law. Under this legislation, any individual with two or more previous serious/violent would be subjected to a penalty of at least 25 years with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for any new felony, regardless if considered serious or violent (Brown and Jolivette 2005). Supporters of this believed that harsher penalties for repeated offenders would result in a decrease in the crime rate. A repeated offender in California, Gary Ewing, had two prior serious and violent felonies. He was then apprehended for stealing golf clubs, and received a sentence of 25 years to life. Before the Three Strikes law was in place, he would have received a sentence of 2 years (Brown and Jolivette 2005). Canada does not have a true habitual offender law, but does have a related policy, known as the Dangerous Offender designation. This designation is reserved for repeat violent and sexual offenders and does not include non-violent crimes. If an individual is proven to be a dangerous offender, he is subjected to a mandatory minimum sentence of 7 years, which then he can apply for parole. The individual is only released when he can prove that he is no longer a threat to society. Normally, a designation as a dangerous offender results in the individual spending a life sentence (Dangerous offender: what the label means 2010). The Three Strikes law that was enacted in the United States is another factor as to why the incarceration rate is so high.
Some argue that prison privatization, not the sentencing laws are the main reason for the higher incarceration rates. These prisons need to maintain a high level of capacity or they would lose money. To do this, they lobby hard in Washington for stricter sentencing laws and parole standards. "The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws (Berkowitz 2013).” While private prisons may be responsible for the incarceration rate, they need harsh sentencing laws or they wouldn’t be doing well. That is why I believe the sentencing is the main factor.
The proof that the sentencing laws in the United States is the reason for the high incarceration rate comes from the data. The incarceration rate has increased significantly since the early 1980s. In 1981, the incarceration rate in the United States was 243 per 100,00 and 91 per every 100,000 in Canada (Boe 2002). Before 1981, the incarceration rate always hovered around this amount (243 per 100,000). The rate in the US is nearly 2.5 times higher in 1981 than the one in Canada, a lot smaller than the current rate, which is roughly 6.5 times higher. In 1984, the Sentencing Reform Act was enacted. This created the United States Sentencing Commission, which is responsible for giving sentencing guidelines to federal courts. The Sentencing Reform Act was a piece of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, also enacted in 1984, which revised the United States criminal code and instituted harsher penalties for the product and distribution of marijuana (O’Bryant and Seghetti 2002). In 1986, Ronald Reagan passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which created the mandatory minimum sentencing drug laws (O’Bryant and Seghetti 2002). It cannot be a coincidence that in the same time period that major legislation was passed regarding harsher drug sentencing the incarceration rate began to raise dramatically. In conclusion, I believe that the evidence supports by hypothesis that sentencing laws, specifically drug sentencing, is the key contributing factor in the difference in incarceration rates between the United States and Canada. The most important piece of evidence, in my opinion, is when the United States implemented changes in the criminal code in the early 1980s and introduced mandatory minimum sentencing laws in the mid 1980s is exactly when the incarceration rate began to grow. Prior to the introduction of these new laws, the incarceration rate remained steady for nearly 50 years. This shows that there is a very strong correlation to sentencing laws and incarceration rate, which isn’t unexpected, and the new tougher sentencing laws led to a higher incarceration rate. These findings lead me to believe that the sentencing laws in the United States are too harsh. The fact that we have the highest rate incarceration rate of any country in the world and that our sentencing policies are way harsher than our northern neighbor leads me to believe that the some of the punishments that criminals are receiving are cruel and unjust relative to the crime that they committed. I believe that the United States needs to adopt a more lenient policy when it comes to non-violent crimes like the rest of the world that will more fairly treat non-violent offenders.

Works Cited

Levin, Michael. " U.S. Has Highest Rate of Incarceration in the World." Wegman & Levin. (accessed April 28, 2014).

"Drug Offenders in the Correctional System." http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs#sthash.QzJBSqp3.dpbs. (accessed April 24, 2014).

"FEDERAL TRAFFICKING PENALTIES." United States Drug Enforcement Administration. http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/ftp3.shtml (accessed April 19, 2014).

"Backgrounder: The Safe Streets and Communities Act Four Components Coming Into Force." . http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/news-nouv/nr-cp/2012/doc_32759.html (accessed April 14, 2014).

Whitehead, James. "Jailing Americans for Profit: The Rise of the Prison Industrial Complex ." . (accessed April 15, 2014).

" Comparisons Between Canada And The United States of America ." . http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/simdiff.htm (accessed April 16, 2014).

InfoPlease, ed., s.v. "World Religions." : , .

Humes, Karen, Nicholas Jones, and Roberto Ramirez. "Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010." . (accessed April 15, 2014).

Perlberg, Steven. "American Median Incomes By Race Since 1967." . (accessed April 18, 2014).

Klein, Erza, and Evan Soltas. "Wonkbook: 11 facts about America’s prison population." . (accessed April 18, 2014).

Jourard, Ron. "Drug Offences: penalties under Canadian criminal law." www.defencelaw.com. (accessed April 25, 2014).

Jolivette, Greg, and Brian Brown. "A Primer: Three Strikes - The Impact After More Than a Decade." . (accessed April 16, 2014).

CBC News. "Dangerous offender: what the label means." . (accessed April 15, 2014).

Berkowitz, Bill. "States Guarantee High Prison Populations for Private Prison Industry’s Profits." . (accessed April 27, 2014).

Boe, Roger. "Comparing Crime and Imprisonment Trends in the United States, England, and Canada from 1981 to 2001." Correctional Service Canada. http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/b29-eng.shtml (accessed April 12, 2014).
O'Bryant, JoAnne , and Lisa Seghetti. "Crime Control: The Federal Response." . http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/archive/crs_federal_crime_policy.shtml (accessed April 24, 2014).

"THE UNITED STATES VERSUS THE WORLD." Defending Justice. http://www.publiceye.org/defendingjustice/pdfs/factsheets/9-Fact%20Sheet%20-%20US%20vs%20World.pdf (accessed April 17, 2014).

Flatow, Nicole. "The Drastic Overuse of Mandatory Minimum Sentences: A Judge’s Plea to Prosecutors." . https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/all/anti-drug-abuse-act-of-1986 (accessed April 12, 2014).

"Sentencing Reform Act: Historical Background." . (accessed April 12, 2014).

Sterling, Eric. "Drug Laws and Snitching: A Primer." . http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snitch/primer/ (accessed April 28, 2014).

"Minimum sentence for drug trafficking struck down by B.C. judge." . (accessed April 27, 2014).

"Fair Sentencing Act ." . https://www.aclu.org/fair-sentencing-act (accessed April 16, 2014).