How much punishment is enough?
Welcome to Sunday Morning Coffee! I’m on my back porch enjoying my cup o’joe in the cool 70’s, gazing at all our summer splendor (and four new baby chicks). I love these mornings where you know it’s going to warm up but you need a light cotton sweater in the wee hours. We’re hitting the road today (at least some of us) to visit family in Texas. We’re driving. I know. WHY??? We like road trips, but I do question our sanity as I sit here, a little bit chilly, knowing that our end destination has been 112 degrees every day for the past few days (or weeks. I lose count). Yes, yes, it’s a dry heat, I know, but we still cook food at 112 degrees, so it’s undeniably hot. My daughter and I were just laughing about how it seems like yesterday we were wishing it would warm up, and then here we are. Maybe too much of a good thing?
And that led me to think about other times when we get too much of whatever we want and find that things turn South on us. Let’s take crime and punishment as an example…
I was doing research for a curriculum this week and so was reviewing all of the laws that were passed in the 1990’s til now in an effort to reduce violent crime, prevent repeat offenders, or win the ‘war on drugs.’ This would include the 94 crime act, mandatory minimum sentencing, and the ever-popular Three Strikes and You’re Out laws. That last one is interesting. We see these laws in many iterations and forms throughout the country, but California’s probably gets the most play time. It combines Three Strikes with the mandatory minimum trend. Originally passed to prevent violent offenders from repeat offending, it morphed into being applied to any crime. Here’s some 411:
California's three-strikes law is a controversial sentencing scheme that imposes a state prison sentence of 25 years to life on a defendant (1) who is convicted of a violent or serious felony offense, and (2) who already has at least two prior convictions for violent or serious felony offenses.
Note that distinction of violent or serious felonies, serious being the key word there, open to interpretation. Here’s more:
Specifically, the Three Strikes law made it possible for a repeat offender to receive a prison sentence of 25 years to life for a nonserious or nonviolent felony (for example, petty theft with a prior), thereby raising legal questions about the federal Constitution’s Eighth Amendment.
Here’s an example: Among the more horrifying cases investigated by the Three Strikes Project is that of 55-year-old Dale Curtis Gaines, who suffers from both mental retardation and mental illness. He has never committed a violent crime, but is serving a life sentence for receiving stolen property. His first two strikes, daytime burglaries of empty homes during which he was unarmed, appear to have involved thefts valued at little more than pocket change. His third strike was a conviction for “receiving stolen goods.”
The ‘goods’ he received, by the way, was a computer. Note he didn’t steal it. He just received it. He’s serving life.
Good to know we have these dangerous criminals off our streets, huh?
Ok. Enough with the sarcasm. Let’s be real, and let’s be scientific. Malcolm Gladwell very eloquently writes about these laws and how effective they are. I use this example all the time from his book David and Goliath: Underdogs, Misfits, and the Art of Battling Giants. He uses the "inverted U" or "upside-down U" shape often seen in graphical representations of certain phenomena to illustrate the efficacy of the Three Strikes law in California. This shape is a common way to depict relationships that exhibit a peak or optimal point before declining or plateauing. This concept is also known as the "inverted U-shaped curve" or "inverted U-shaped relationship." I want to be clear that I only passed my stats class by watching Khan Academy videos over and over and leaning on my classmates, so I’m not a stats guy (well, I’m not a stats anything and I’m not a guy. That’s how NOT qualified I am to have a deep-dive discussion about stats). But…this one I totally get and have observed in the wild (otherwise known as life).
The inverted U-shaped curve illustrates that as a certain factor or variable increases, there is an initial positive effect or improvement, but after reaching a certain point, further increases in the same factor can lead to diminishing returns or negative effects. You can look at more on this here.
For instance, let's take the example of crime and punishment. The inverted U-shaped graph in relation to crime and punishment is often used to depict the relationship between the level of punishment and its impact on crime rates.
The graph illustrates that as the severity of punishment increases from a low point, there is an initial positive effect on deterrence and reduction of crime rates (this is the left-hand rise on the graph, going from bottom to top as we see punitive measures impact the crime rate in a positive way). However, beyond a certain point, further increases in punishment lead to diminishing returns in terms of crime reduction and might even have unintended negative consequences (so, we see the left hand side of the graph rise, then begin to curve down, making an upside down “U” shape).
Here's how the inverted U-shaped curve applies to crime and punishment:
1. Low Punishment:
At the beginning, when punishment is low or minimal, there might not be a strong deterrent effect on potential criminals. The perceived risks of getting caught and facing consequences are low, which could contribute to higher crime rates.
2. Moderate Punishment:
As punishment becomes more severe and visible, it starts to deter some individuals from engaging in criminal activities. The increased risk of being caught and facing significant consequences leads to a decrease in crime rates. This is the ascending part of the inverted U.
3. Optimal Deterrence Point:
There is a point on the graph where the deterrent effect is at its peak. Beyond this point, further increases in punishment may not have as much impact on reducing crime rates, and the curve begins to level off.
4. High Punishment:
If punishment continues to increase significantly, it may lead to negative outcomes. For example, excessively harsh penalties can result in overcrowded prisons, strained criminal justice systems, and the potential for unfair or unjust sentences. Additionally, extremely high punishment levels might discourage rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders into society.
The key takeaway from this concept is that there's an optimal level of punishment that maximizes its deterrence effect on crime. Going beyond this point can lead to diminishing returns and potential negative consequences. Therefore, finding a balance between effective deterrence and fair, proportionate punishment is essential in the criminal justice system.
In laymen’s terms: too much of a good thing. Harsher and harsher sentences do not deter crime. We also know that there is no statistically significant correlation between the number of people we lock up and crime rates (I sorta sound like a stats guy there). Crime rates ebb and flow, no matter how many people we incarcerate.
Many states are revising these laws set back in the 1990’s and some states are bringing folks back to court to revisit their formerly imposed sentences. That’s good, but it would be better if we learn from those mistakes in making laws in the future, and better yet, figuring out how to allocate resources to crime prevention instead of incarceration. We could do with a lot less prisons. How about that for a cost savings?
Alright. I’ve put off loading up the vehicle long enough. Sis, I know you and my bro-in-law are reading, so…see you soon! Please have the AC cranked up and the life vests ready for a jump in the lake.
To everyone else, enjoy whatever weather you have today and be thinking about how we can all use our voice to get mass incarceration under control (aka eliminated).
Off to the races, ya’ll!
