{"id":15934,"date":"2011-12-12T13:52:35","date_gmt":"2011-12-12T18:52:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/?p=15934"},"modified":"2011-12-12T13:52:35","modified_gmt":"2011-12-12T18:52:35","slug":"a-tale-of-three-states-part-3-harsh-hoosiers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/2011\/12\/a-tale-of-three-states-part-3-harsh-hoosiers\/","title":{"rendered":"A Tale of Three States, Part 3: Harsh Hoosiers"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the first post in this series<\/a>, I explored the large gap between the incarceration rates of Minnesota and Wisconsin. In the second<\/a>, I discussed racial disparities in the incarcerated populations of the two states. The disparities in both states are wide, although Wisconsin\u2019s are somewhat larger. In this entry, I add a third state, Indiana, to the statistical comparisons. As another medium-sized midwestern state, one might expect that Indiana would have criminal-justice numbers that are similar to Minnesota\u2019s and Wisconsin\u2019s. Indiana\u2019s numbers, however, point to a criminal-justice sustem that is much larger and harsher than those of its northern neighbors.<\/p>\n

As detailed in the table that appears after the jump, Indiana\u2019s imprisonment rate (about 460 per 100,000) easily outstrips Wisconsin\u2019s (387) and dwarfs Minnesota\u2019s (178). Perhaps even more surprisingly, Indiana\u2019s probation population also exceeds Minnesota\u2019s. My Minnesota-Wisconsin comparison suggested that Wisconsin imprisons many defendants who would get probation in Minnesota, leading to a much smaller probation population in the former than the latter. But Indiana seems to incarcerate the same way that Wisconsin does, without any accompanying reduction in the probation numbers.<\/p>\n

For that reason, Indiana\u2019s total supervised population of 167,872 is the largest of the three states (although Minnesota, with the smallest overall population of three, still has a somewhat larger per capita <\/em>supervised population, thanks to its enormous per capita probation number).<\/p>\n

Indiana also leads the way in crime.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Among the three states, Indiana has highest rate of violent crime, property crime, and homicide. Higher crime rates may in some sense help to account for Indiana\u2019s higher incarceration and supervision numbers. For instance, to use a rough measure of the crime-incarceration link, Indiana had 1.5 prisoners in 2010 for each violent crime committed that year. This is about the same as Wisconsin\u2019s 1.6. It is thus plausible to suppose that Wisconsin\u2019s prison population would match Indiana\u2019s if Wisconsin had the same number of violent crimes as the Hoosier state.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, Minnesota only had about 0.8 prisoners per violent crime, suggesting that the differences between Indiana and Minnesota are not merely the result of different crime rates.<\/p>\n

In any event, it is probably too simplistic to assume a one-way relationship between crime and imprisonment. Imprisonment itself may be crimogenic. The sorts of life experiences and collateral consequences that flow from incarceration may increase the recidivsm risks of many offenders. Additionally, some criminologists argue that mass incarceration can have negative cultural effects in some communities; for instance, incarceration may become a source of pride, rather than social stigma, for young men.<\/p>\n

For these reasons, it may be as accurate to say that Wisconsin\u2019s lower imprisonment rate leads to its lower crime rate, as it is to say that Wisconsin\u2019s lower crime rate leads to its lower imprisonment rate. There is probably a certain amount of truth to both propositions.<\/p>\n

Thus, Indiana and Wisconsin should both consider whether there are lessons that can be learned from Minnesota. With a violent crime rate only a little lower than Wisconsin\u2019s, our Gopher nieghbors have half the rate of imprisonment. Could our imprisonment rate be cut in half without any appreciable increase in our crime rate?<\/p>\n

One potential benefit would be a decrease in corrections costs. Our per capita corrections costs are twice Minnesota\u2019s. Adding Indiana to the mix, however, creates a puzzle: Indiana\u2019s per capita corrections costs are closer to Minnesota\u2019s than Wisconsin\u2019s. Indeed, in absolute terms, even though Indiana\u2019s prison and probation populations are both larger than Wisconsin\u2019s, Indiana\u2019s corrections budget is $500 million less. This large and unexpected disparity, which might be worth exploring in more detail in a later post, might perhaps be due to different ways of counting the money. Or, on the other hand, it may reflect real policy differences in the amount of money spent per offender. If the latter, is Indiana too stingy, Wisconsin too generous, or both?<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s now take a look at how Indiana does with racial<\/em> disparities. Interestingly, Indiana fares much better in this regard than either of its northern neighbors. Although it has the highest white incarceration rate of the three states, its black incarceration rate is actually much lower than Wisconsin\u2019s. As a result, the ratio of its black to white incarceration rates is easily the lowest at 5.5, as compared to Minnesota\u2019s 9.1 and Wisconsin\u2019s 10.6. If Wisconsin could bring its black incarceration rate down to Indiana\u2019s, the result would be a reduction in the incarcerated population of more than 6,000.<\/p>\n

In the next post in this series, I will consider how the “racial threat” hypothesis applies to the three states.<\/p>\n

All of the data discussed in this post, and then some, are set forth in the table below. Note that I used an estimate for Indiana\u2019s 2005 prison population. Because this number seems not to be available, I averaged Indiana\u2019s 2004 and 2006 prison populations in order to estimate the 2005 population.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\u00a0<\/td>\n\n

WI<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

MN<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

IN<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Population (2010)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5,686,986<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5,303,925<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6,483,802<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Prison Population (2010)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

22,019<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9,429<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

29,818<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Imprisonment Rate (2010, per 100,000)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

387.2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

177.8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

459.9<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Jail Population (2005)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14,304<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7,023<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

17,567<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Incarcerated Population (2005)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

36,024<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

15,897<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

42,617<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total Incarceration Rate (2005, per 100,000)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

651.7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

310.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

680.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Probation Population (2009)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

47,421<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

121,446<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

130,207<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Parole\/Extended Supervision Population (2009)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

19,344<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5,453<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10,527<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Total Supervised Population (2005)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

120,604<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

145,805<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

167,872<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Supervision Rate (2005, per 100,000)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2,182<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2,844<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2,679<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Incarcerated, as Percentage of Supervised Population (2005)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

30%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

15%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Corrections Budget (2009, $mm)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

$1,265<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

$521<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

$753<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Per Capita Corrections (2009)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

$233.70<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

$98.93<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

$117.23<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Violent Crime (2010)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14,142<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12,515<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

20,389<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Violent Crime Rate (2010, per 100,000)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

249<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

236<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

315<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Property Crime (2010)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

142,612<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

136,431<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

197,260<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Property Crime Rate (2010, per 100,000)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2,508<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2,572<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

3,042<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Homicide (2010)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

155<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

96<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

292<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Homicide Rate (2010, per 100,000)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.7<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1.8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

White Incarceration Rate (2005 data, per 100,000)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

415<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

212<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

463<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Black Incarceration Rate<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4416<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1937<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2526<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Black Incarceration Rate as Multiple of White<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10.6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Juveniles in Detention (2006)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

849<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

960<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1,731<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Admissions to Treatment Facilities for Drug and Alcohol Abuse (2010)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

29,358<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

50,830<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

24,054<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

\u00a0<\/div>\n
Cross posted at Life Sentences<\/a>.<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the first post in this series, I explored the large gap between the incarceration rates of Minnesota and Wisconsin. In the second, I discussed racial disparities in the incarcerated populations of the two states. The disparities in both states are wide, although Wisconsin\u2019s are somewhat larger. In this entry, I add a third state, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ocean_post_layout":"","ocean_both_sidebars_style":"","ocean_both_sidebars_content_width":0,"ocean_both_sidebars_sidebars_width":0,"ocean_sidebar":"","ocean_second_sidebar":"","ocean_disable_margins":"enable","ocean_add_body_class":"","ocean_shortcode_before_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_after_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_before_header":"","ocean_shortcode_after_header":"","ocean_has_shortcode":"","ocean_shortcode_after_title":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_bottom":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_bottom":"","ocean_display_top_bar":"default","ocean_display_header":"default","ocean_header_style":"","ocean_center_header_left_menu":"","ocean_custom_header_template":"","ocean_custom_logo":0,"ocean_custom_retina_logo":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_height":0,"ocean_header_custom_menu":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_family":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_subset":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_size":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_unit":"px","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_line_height":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_unit":"","ocean_menu_typo_spacing":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_unit":"","ocean_menu_link_color":"","ocean_menu_link_color_hover":"","ocean_menu_link_color_active":"","ocean_menu_link_background":"","ocean_menu_link_hover_background":"","ocean_menu_link_active_background":"","ocean_menu_social_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_links_color":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_color":"","ocean_disable_title":"default","ocean_disable_heading":"default","ocean_post_title":"","ocean_post_subheading":"","ocean_post_title_style":"","ocean_post_title_background_color":"","ocean_post_title_background":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_image_position":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_attachment":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_repeat":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_size":"","ocean_post_title_height":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay":0.5,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay_color":"","ocean_disable_breadcrumbs":"default","ocean_breadcrumbs_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_separator_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_hover_color":"","ocean_display_footer_widgets":"default","ocean_display_footer_bottom":"default","ocean_custom_footer_template":"","ocean_post_oembed":"","ocean_post_self_hosted_media":"","ocean_post_video_embed":"","ocean_link_format":"","ocean_link_format_target":"self","ocean_quote_format":"","ocean_quote_format_link":"post","ocean_gallery_link_images":"on","ocean_gallery_id":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[30,122,14],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15934","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-criminal-justice","category-public","category-criminal-law","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15934","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15934"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15934\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15934"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15934"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15934"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}