Could economics solve the prison crisis?
| Author | Kevin Albertson,Chris Fox |
| Published date | 01 September 2010 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550510379883 |
| Date | 01 September 2010 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Copyright ª 2010 NAPO Vol 57(3): 263-280
DOI: 10.1177/0264550510379883
www.napo.org.uk
http://prb.sagepub.com
Could economics solve the prison crisis?
Chris Fox, Manchester Metropolitan University
Kevin Albertson, Manchester Metropolitan University
Abstract This article considers important developments over the last decade
which have laid the foundations for a new approach to criminal justice policy;
an approach in which economic analysis is central. These developments include
aspects of the policy debate on sentencing; the government’s commitment to
evidence-based policy; investment in the economics profession across govern-
ment; and the rise of the Justice Reinvestment movement. While many of the
opportunities presented for economic analysis of sentencing policy have not yet
been exploited, there is reason to believe that they will be over the next few
years. Various reasons are discussed including the current economic situation,
which makes increasingly untenable the continuing commitment of government
to increasing prison capacity without consideration of more efficient alternatives.
The article concludes by suggesting some steps that the new government might
take to ensure that the benefits of an economically efficient approach to criminal
justice policy are realized.
Keywords criminal justice policy, economics, efficiency, sentencing
Introduction
Prison numbers in England and Wales have risen sharply in the last decade
(Prison Reform Trust, 2009) and government predictions are that they will rise fur-
ther still (Justice Committee, 2009; Prison Reform Trust, 2009). Yet there is little, if
any, evidence that society as a whole has benefited from this increase in the num-
ber and length of custodial sentences imposed. Crime rates have fallen over the
same period (Hoare, 2009), but evidence that increases in prison numbers result
in lower rates of crime is limited, contested and suggests that increases in prison
numbers are only responsible for a small drop in crime (Carter, 2003; Levitt,
263
Downloaded from http://prb.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on February 5, 2010
264
57(3)
1996; Liedka et al., 2006; Marvell and Moody, 1994; Reilly and Witt, 1996). In
many ways, the last ten years or so of penal policy represent an opportunity lost;
an opportunity to make use of the latest analytical research to use public
resources at their most (or at least more) efficient. For example, consideration
of results from the Justice Reinvestment movement in the USA may provide an
opportunity to rethink our approach to the use of prison (Allen, 2007; Council
of State Governments, undated). A new approach is possible, driven, not only
by moral or social concerns that we have about actual and perceived crime rates
and a high prison population, but informed by economic analysis and argument.
This is the more important given the United Kingdom’s recent economic
difficulties.
Since 1997, economic analysis of the options England and Wales face when
developing criminal justice policy generally, and penal policy specifically, has been
growing in reach and volume – albeit slowly. Some of the impetus for this has
resulted from the actions and policies of government. But for every step forward
in developing penal policy based on socio/economic analysis, at times it seems
government takes at least one and sometimes more steps back.
Economics is a discipline based on the analysis of the best use of scarce
resources; the consideration of how agents, individuals and societies may achieve
the greatest good from them. Put simply, the choosing of one action (or inaction)
over another on the basis of desired objectives and expected outcomes. This
might appear somewhat dry, but the questions and issues which may be
addressed by the discipline are anything but dry. As Levitt and Dubner (2005:
14) write, economics is ‘the hidden side of . . . everything’. As an applied social
science, the tools economists wield have been applied to subjects ranging from:
obesity (Chou et al., 2004); to sport (Morley and Thomas, 2005, for example);
and climate change (Stern 2007; Nordhaus 2007, for example); to name but
a few.
Economics seeks to determine and justify analytically the best, or most efficient,
use of resources by considering an eclectic approach to any problem. Thus, when
considering the rationale behind any action or policy innovation, it is important also
to consider on what else the resources might have been used. Thus, the three basic
considerations which relate to the use of resource in the context of policy are:
whether the cost of the policy will outweigh the benefit (so-called cost/benefit anal-
ysis); whether there is another policy which will yield a greater benefit for the same
or less cost; and whether there is another policy which, for less cost, will lead to at
least as great a benefit. Obvious questions one might think, but historically seldom
asked in the context of criminal justice.
In this article we consider important developments over the last decade which
have laid the foundations for a new approach to criminal justice policy; an
approach in which economic analysis is central. We suggest that the time is now
ripe for government to adopt this new approach, underpinning efficient policy
with the principles of economic analysis. However, the application of such meth-
ods in the future is not certain and we conclude by suggesting some steps the new
government might take to ensure that the benefits of an economically driven effi-
cient approach to criminal justice policy are realized.
Downloaded from http://prb.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on February 5, 2010
Could economics solve the prison crisis? 265
Laying the foundations: The previous decade
Since the turn of the century there have been several important developments in the
application of economic techniques to criminal justice policy. Some of these devel-
opments are the result of government action and policies; some have happened
despite government. They cover a broad range of factors including aspects of the
policy debate on sentencing; the government’s commitment to evidence-based pol-
icy; investment in the economics profession across government; and the rise of the
Justice Reinvestment movement, particularly in the USA.
Economic principles in the policy debate
Over recent years economic concepts and evidence have been apparent within the
criminal justice policy debate. An example is the debate around sentencing which
resulted from Patrick (now Lord) Carter’s first report on the criminal justice system.
Faced with clear evidence of the problems posed by a rising prison population,
Carter drew on economic concepts and noted the criminal justice system is
demand-led: ‘The system serves and is driven by the judiciary’ (Carter, 2003:
20). However, it cannot be assumed that supply of prison places will respond pas-
sively to demand. Carter was concerned that sentencing practice was unable to take
account of this and hence the capacity of the criminal justice system to deliver sen-
tences would lag behind demand. While noting the importance of judicial indepen-
dence in making individual sentencing decisions, Carter also noted that prison
capacity is largely fixed in the short to medium term. Therefore:
Judges and magistrates need to be able to discharge their responsibility for managing
demand for probation and prisons to ensure the consistent and cost effective use of
existing capacity. (Carter, 2003: 25)
For Carter, the introduction of the National Offender Management Service,
together with the establishment of the Sentencing Guidelines Council and Senten-
cing Advisory Panel, would facilitate the development of an overall approach to
sentencing which takes better account of criminal justice system capacity and the
effectiveness of different sentencing options. A system which better matches sup-
ply and demand will ultimately be more cost effective. A clearer split between pur-
chasers and providers of custodial and community sentences, together with a
stronger evidence-base will lead to the more efficient use of resources and a
stabilization or even a reduction in prison numbers and, potentially, criminal
activity might be expected to follow.
Perhaps the biggest obstacle to this approach was likely to be opposition in
response to a perceived threat to judicial independence. If sentencing had to be con-
strained by available capacity, the judiciary might have argued that this would limit
their independence – even if this consideration was made at a system-wide level,
rather than at the level of individual sentences (Justice Committee, 2009). However,
the judiciary recognize sentencing decisions have economic consequences;
resources put into the criminal justice system are resources which cannot be put into
Downloaded from http://prb.sagepub.com at SAGE Publications on February 5, 2010
266
57(3)
other parts of the public sector. In economic terms this is known as opportunity cost;
the foregone benefit of an alternative use of the resource. For example, in a speech
in 2007, Lord Philips, the Lord Chief Justice, noted:
If you decide to lock up one man for a minimum term of 30 years, you are investing
£1 million or more in punishing him. That sum could pay for quite a few surgical
operations or for a lot of remedial training in some of the schools where the staff
are struggling to cope with the problems of trying to teach children who cannot
even understand English. (Philips, 2007: 6)
Philips went on to suggest...
To continue reading
Request your trial