Here's a strange compare and contrast for you. In his column for the Times yesterday, the Conservative columnist Daniel Finkelstein said Labour's prisons policies – doubling the number of people in jail – have worked because the overall crime rate has fallen. In my column today, I argue Labour’s policies have actually made crime worse.
(I should note that Finkelstein is one of my favourite columnists on the right. Although we almost always disagree, he is genuinely fizzing with ideas and facts, rather than raving and prejudice.)
At first glance, it might look like Finkelstein has the figures right: it's certainly true crime has fallen, and it's certainly true more people have been sent to jail. But it's a classic logical error to assume correlation is the same as causation. The fancy term for it is post hoc, ergo propter hoc: this event happened afterwards, therefore it happened because.
How do we know in this instance it’s wrong? There are two reasons. First, crime has been falling in virtually every developed nation over the past decade, irrespective of the penal policies it pursued.
In the US, New York City emphasized prison (as Finkelstein notes); San Francisco emphasized rehabilitation (as Finkelstein doesn't note). Both saw a huge drop in crime. In Europe, Britain emphasized jail; Finland emphasized rehabilitation. Again, both saw a huge drop in crime. (Finland's fell from low to very low, since rehabilitation was already pretty advanced.) The reasons for this are complex, but the most obvious is that there has been a period of spurting economic growth – and throughout history, they are almost always accompanied by drops in crime.
Secondly, it's true that – on every measure – a random British person in 2008 is much less likely to commit a crime than in, say, 1993. But there is one exception, and one exception only: if you have been released from prison. If you were an ex-prisoner in 1993, you had a 53 percent chance of reoffending within two years. Today, it is 75 percent. The policy Finkelstein claims has reduced crime – prison, and its after-effects – is actually the one life-stage where crime has risen significantly.
Doesn't this puncture his argument somewhat? Doesn’t it undermine the belief that mass imprisonment is responsible for the fall in crime when in the one area where its effect can be directly measured, it has caused it to increase - dramatically?
Excellent point. You are too nice about Finkelstein tho'.
Posted by: Dave | Thursday, 24 July 2008 at 05:19 PM
Johann, you write that SF "emphasized rehabilitation" and saw "a huge drop in crime" - but the prison population of California grew massively over the past decade and a bit. Did that have any positive effect at all on the crime figures?
Finland might have "emphasized rehabilitation" but you don't say whether the prison population of Finland grew or fell.
Does it always boil down to an either/or question? How about tough sentences AND rehabilitation. Maybe that's what SF has chosen to do with - according to you- excellent results.
Posted by: dsj | Thursday, 24 July 2008 at 07:38 PM
As usual, you compare apples and pears. Like corporal and capital punishment. Either of which would have a far greater impact on crime :)
Cheap rubbish (oh yes, did someone forget to mention that reactionary now has the definition of "the twaddle the Independent and Guardian excrete"? :)
So don't compare Hari lies and Labour statements.
What do you mean, Hani?: "a random British person in 2008 is much less likely to commit a crime than in, say, 1993."
So what were the relevant figures for 1983, 1973, 1963, 1953, and 1943?
Or where those times just too horribly racist and homophobic, and generally too safe? Too good to mention?
Posted by: mako | Saturday, 26 July 2008 at 02:12 AM