[ad_1]<\/p>\n
Last holiday season, cities in California reported increased organized retail theft, as shocking videos of \u201csmash and grab\u201d robberies circulated widely on social media.<\/p>\n
Mass shooting events are still too common, including the tragic incident near the state\u2019s Capitol just weeks ago. Searching for the causes, many across the state are eager to blame the past decade of criminal justice reforms and prison-downsizing efforts more generally \u2014 including those intended to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 \u2014 which significantly reduced the size and scope of California\u2019s correctional system. But is this blame misplaced? How are these reforms and crime connected, if at all?<\/p>\n
Can we downsize our prisons and jails without compromising public safety?<\/p>\n
Perhaps more than any other state, California is immersed in a period of fundamental reform to its criminal justice system.<\/p>\n
Since 2011, the state has passed a series of reforms to downsize its massive prison population.<\/p>\n
The COVID-19 pandemic furthered this trend, as the state reduced prison and jail populations to slow the spread of the virus. In fact, efforts to limit the spread of COVID reduced populations more steeply and abruptly than any contemporary decarceration reform. California\u2019s incarcerated population is currently at its lowest level in over 30 years.<\/p>\n
Research shows these reforms had no impact on violent crime and only a modest impact on property crime. And, while some types of crime have increased during the pandemic, overall rates in recent years remain at near historic lows.<\/p>\n
When it comes to public safety and criminal justice reform, California has done many things right. But, it also has fallen short. Corrections spending has not tracked with population declines, and costs remain high. California\u2019s total spending on corrections now approaches the state\u2019s total spending on higher education, and a year of college in the UC system costs significantly less than a year behind bars.<\/p>\n
Despite this spending, crime rates have not fallen proportionately, suggesting the state is reaping diminishing crime-control returns on its incarceration investments. And, racial inequality in California\u2019s criminal justice system persists. The state currently ranks 8th highest in the U.S. in terms of Black\/White disparity in incarceration rates.<\/p>\n
Hispanics are also over-represented in the correctional population, although to a lesser degree than African Americans.<\/p>\n
The big question is: what\u2019s next? California is at a crossroads.<\/p>\n
We examined possible scenarios for California\u2019s public safety future as part of a new policy and scenario report released in partnership with California 100. At the extremes, one scenario, \u201cMass Incarceration Redux,\u201d explores a California in which the state seeks to reverse course on the reforms of the past decade. Just as rising crime rates led to public support for the \u201cWar on Drugs,\u201d the past decade of reform coupled with historically low crime rates could make voters more sensitive and reactionary to any future crime increases. Whether driven by real, or merely perceived, public safety concerns, if fear of crime threatens the election prospects of the political left, the party may encounter an \u201cif you can\u2019t beat \u2018em, join \u2018em\u201d situation, similar to what occurred following the 1988 presidential election. The result is a massive increase in the incarcerated population, the need for new prison construction, and skyrocketing criminal justice costs. Racial disparities are also expected to increase, as the mechanisms which generated such disparities in the first place get reactivated.<\/p>\n
Also at the extremes, in another scenario, \u201cReimagining Corrections,\u201d a strong economy and budget surplus combine with political will and voter appetite to reform the criminogenic aspects of California\u2019s justice system \u2014 reinvigorating interest in the rehabilitative ideal that dominated in the late 1800s and early 1900s.<\/p>\n
Rather than reactively rely on incarceration, this scenario seeks to eliminate the underlying structural factors that produce crime, such as poverty and inequality, and in the extreme, could generate efforts to abolish prisons altogether.<\/p>\n
Two other scenarios fall somewhere in between. In one, \u201cTough on Crime, but on a Budget,\u201d rising fear of crime \u2014 spurred on by a moral panic or spiking crime rates \u2014 and budget constraints collide, forcing politicians and criminal justice stakeholders to find new ways to get \u201ctough on crime\u201d but at a lower cost.<\/p>\n
In another, \u201cDoing Better with Less,\u201d economic contraction or recession puts pressure on public spending in California and politics move toward bipartisan support for reform, resulting in immense pressure on the state\u2019s criminal justice system to maximize the amount of crime averted for each dollar of criminal justice spending. In this scenario, a cash-strapped but reform-minded California will be tasked with maximizing the efficiency of its criminal justice apparatus.<\/p>\n
Which path will California choose? That\u2019s a critical question, not the least because when it comes to criminal justice, as California goes, so goes the nation.<\/p>\n
Charis E. Kubrin is a professor of Criminology, Law and Society at the University of California, Irvine\u2019s School of Social Ecology and led the research for California 100\u2019s Future of Public Safety Policy and Future Scenario Report. Bradley J. Bartos is an assistant professor in the School of Government and Public Policy at the University of Arizona and collaborated on the research for California 100\u2019s Future of Public Safety Policy and Future Scenario Report.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n