Pubdate: Thu, 08 May 2003
Source: Las Vegas Mercury (NV)
Copyright: 2003 Las Vegas Mercury
Contact:  http://www.lasvegasmercury.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2595
Author: Randall G. Shelden
Note: Randall G. Shelden is a criminal justice professor at UNLV. His 
latest book is Criminal Justice in America: A Critical View (Allyn and Bacon).

LOCAL VIEW: CRIME BENEFITS THE CRIME CONTROL INDUSTRY

The number of people in American prisons and jails passed 2 million last 
year. That figure reflects the results of the "get tough," 
ultra-conservative crime polices that began in the early 1970s. The effect 
of these policies is that the crime rate today is about the same as it was 
in the early '70s. Yet during this same period the incarceration rate has 
increased by more than 400 percent, while annual expenditures on the 
criminal justice system went up by 1,500 percent (approaching $200 billion).

The incarceration rate is now more than 700 per 100,000 population, higher 
than any other country in the world. (Nevada ranks 10th in the country, 
while the county detention center had a daily population average of 2,538 
in 2001, with the dubious distinction of having the highest rate of 
overcrowding in the nation at 171 percent above rated capacity.) The rising 
incarceration rate has done considerable damage to the black population, as 
blacks are about eight times more likely than whites to be locked up. The 
incarceration rate for women (with minorities leading the way) has 
increased the most, going up by more than 700 percent over the past 25 years.

While many researchers have blamed the drug war for this sorry state of 
affairs, there is another reason for the growth in imprisonment rates, 
which is less obvious.

I am referring to what has been called the crime control industry.

In recent years controlling crime has become a big business, an "industry" 
like other industries such as manufacturing and retail trade.

Literally thousands of companies are seeking profits in this booming industry.

The criminal justice system alone provides a steady supply of career 
possibilities for police officers, prison guards, probation officers and 
many more. Most of these jobs offer not only good starting pay, but 
excellent benefits and a promise of future wage increases and job security.

The police, the courts and the prison system have become huge, self-serving 
and self-perpetuating bureaucracies with a vested interest in keeping crime 
at a certain level.

They need victims, they need criminals, they need customers, even if they 
have to invent them. (Prison construction is a booming business too. An ad 
by an investment group states: "While arrests and convictions are steadily 
on the rise, profits are to be made--profits from crime.

Get in on the ground floor of this booming industry now!")

In a sense, private industry and the criminal justice system cannot afford 
to put a large dent in the crime problem, because it would have such a 
negative impact on the industry.

Two words sum it up: politics and economics.

Politics in the sense that elected officials want to be re-elected, and 
sounding "tough on crime" gets votes; economics in the sense of not only 
the money to be made by businesses but the number of jobs created.

Part of the problem can be summed up by way of a parable.

Imagine a large river with a high waterfall.

At the bottom of this waterfall hundreds of people are working frantically 
trying to save those who have fallen into the river and have fallen down 
the waterfall, many of them drowning.

As the people along the shore are trying to rescue as many as possible, one 
individual looks up and sees a seemingly never-ending stream of people 
falling down the waterfall, and he begins to run upstream.

One of his fellow rescuers hollers "Where are you going?

There are so many people who need help here." To which the man replies, 
"I'm going upstream to find out why so many people are falling into the river."

Now imagine the scene at the bottom of the waterfall represents the 
criminal justice system, responding to crimes that have been committed and 
dealing with both victims and offenders.

If you look more closely, you will begin to notice there are more people at 
the bottom of the stream, that they work in relatively new buildings with 
all sorts of modern technology and that those working here get paid rather 
well, with excellent benefits.

The money keeps flowing into this area, with all sorts of businesses lined 
up to provide various services and technical assistance. If you look 
upstream, you will find something far different.

There are not too many people, the buildings are not as modern, nor is the 
technology. The people working there do not get paid very much and their 
benefits are not as good as those provided down below.

Nor do they find businesses coming their way with assistance. They are 
constantly having to beg for money.

A researcher, writing about our health care system, observed that 
capitalism "finds it more profitable to treat illness rather than prevent 
it." He notes that "preventive care measures, such as decent sewage and 
water systems, draining swamps near cities, education, regulated food 
handling, and universal vaccinations bring little in terms of profit for 
pharmaceutical companies or the larger capitalist system." The American 
medical industry has a financial stake in treating rather than preventing 
diseases.

If we pretend for a moment that crime is a disease (in a way it is), then 
this analogy makes perfect sense.

Simply put, reacting to crime is far more profitable for business and other 
interests than preventing crime.

Our criminal justice system is designed to fail to reduce crime, because, 
although citizens would be greatly benefited from less crime (just as 
citizens would greatly benefit from fewer health problems), the crime 
control industry would not benefit.

If you want a lower crime rate, you must spend more money upstream.

In order to do this, however, the interests that now control the criminal 
justice system would have to be convinced that there is a larger profit to 
be made from investing upstream, rather than downstream.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart