Llad Phillips1 Review for the Final: I Concepts and Analytics.

Llad Phillips 1

Review for the Final: IReview for the Final: I

Concepts and AnalyticsConcepts and Analytics

Llad Phillips 2

Part ICoordinating the Components of

the Criminal Justice System

Part IIThe Serious Offender

Part ICoordinating the Components of

the Criminal Justice System

Part IIThe Serious Offender

Llad Phillips 3

Questions About CrimeQuestions About Crime

Can we explain trends in crime and trends Can we explain trends in crime and trends in expenditure on the criminal justice in expenditure on the criminal justice system?system?

What is the right mix of enforcement and What is the right mix of enforcement and corrections?corrections?

Llad Phillips 4

California Index Offenses and Criminal Justice System . Expenditures, both per capita, 1967-68:1992-93

1992-93

1980-81

1967-68

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04

Index Offenses Per Capita .

19

92

$ P

er

Cap

ita

Crime Generation

Crime Control

OffenseRate PerCapita

ExpectedCost ofPunishment

Schematic of the Criminal Justice System

Causes ?!!

(detention,deterrence)

Expenditures

Weak Link

“The Driving Force”

Llad Phillips 6

ConclusionsConclusions

Causal conditions continue to get worseCausal conditions continue to get worse As a consequence we have to spend more As a consequence we have to spend more

real dollars per person to keep crime levels real dollars per person to keep crime levels from risingfrom rising

Crime acts like a taxCrime acts like a tax Californians spend $450 (1992$) per person on Californians spend $450 (1992$) per person on

criminal justice to keep things from getting criminal justice to keep things from getting worseworse

Llad Phillips 7

QuestionQuestion

What happened around 1980 to differentiate What happened around 1980 to differentiate the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s from the 80’s and the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s from the 80’s and 90’s?90’s? was there a change in behavior?was there a change in behavior? was there a change in policy?was there a change in policy?

Llad Phillips 8

State Department of Corrections as a Proportion of California Corrections .

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%7

3-7

4

75

-76

77

-78

79

-80

81

-82

83

-84

85

-86

87

-88

89

-90

91

-92

Fiscal Year

Sh

are Cities and Counties, CYA

Dept. of Corrections

Llad Phillips 9

California Prisoners Per Capita, 1952-1994 .

0

0.0005

0.001

0.0015

0.002

0.0025

0.003

0.0035

0.0045

2

55

58

61

64

67

70

73

76

79

82

85

88

91

94

Year

Per

Cap

ita

Llad Phillips 10

Law Enforcement

Prosecution

Courts Public Defense

State Prisons Other Corrections

Llad Phillips 11

Abstraction (Model) of the Criminal Justice System

EnforcementProsecutionDefenseCourts

State Prisons

NewAdmits

Mean Years Served

Llad Phillips 12

Admitsper Yearper capita

average years served

Tradeoff Between Criminal Justice System Outputs

tan = admits per year per capita/average years served

Llad Phillips 13

Capital constraintCapital constraint

admits per capita per year * average years admits per capita per year * average years served = prisoners per capitaserved = prisoners per capita

Prisoners per capita is limited by prison Prisoners per capita is limited by prison capacitycapacity

If you increase admits per capita per year, If you increase admits per capita per year, then average years served decreases until then average years served decreases until prison capacity catches upprison capacity catches up

Llad Phillips 14

California Index Crimes, Weighted Median Years Served, . Prisoners First Released to Parole

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

19

52

19

54

19

56

19

58

19

60

19

62

19

64

19

66

19

68

19

70

19

72

19

74

19

76

19

78

19

80

19

82

19

84

19

86

19

88

19

90

19

92

19

94

Year

Years

Llad Phillips 15

45 degrees

Constraint: Admits per year*Average years served =Prisoners

Average Years Served

Admitsper Year

Coordinating CJS

Llad Phillips 16

Admitsper Yearper capita,AD

average years served, S

A Shifting Mix In Criminal Justice System Outputs

tan = admits per year per capita/average years served

Facts1. spend more2. Admit more3. shorter time served

Prison Capacity Constraint

California: New Admits per Capita Vs. Median Years Males .

0

0.0002

0.0004

0.0006

0.0008

0.001

0.0012

0.0014

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

Median Years Sered

New

Ad

mit

s P

er

Cap

ita

1952

1986

1994

1975

Llad Phillips 18

Part IIPart II The Serious OffenderThe Serious Offender

a few serious criminals account for most crimesa few serious criminals account for most crimes if free, each serious offender would commit crimes at the rate if free, each serious offender would commit crimes at the rate

of of per yearper year if there are N serious offenders, they would commit if there are N serious offenders, they would commit *N *N

offenses per year, if freeoffenses per year, if free if there are PR serious offenders in prison, then we save if there are PR serious offenders in prison, then we save *PR *PR

offenses per yearoffenses per year the net observed offenses per year is:the net observed offenses per year is:

OF = OF = *N - *N - *PR = *PR = (N -AD*S)(N -AD*S)

Llad Phillips 19

Population

Serious Offenders, N

Prisoners, PR

Llad Phillips 20

Population

Serious Offenders, N

Prisoners, PR

If the Serious Offender Population grows faster than the PrisonPopulation then crime gets worse

Llad Phillips 21

Likelihood of Going to Prison in a Lifetime

1/4

1/6

1/23

1/10

For

Newborn

Prevalence of Imprisonment in the U. S. Population, 1974-01Source:

Llad Phillips 22

Social Control

Population

Formerly In 10%

In

Llad Phillips 23

Llad Phillips 24

Social Control of CitizenrySocial Control of Citizenry

Civil law and authorityCivil law and authority First line of defense: moral compliance and good First line of defense: moral compliance and good

citizenshipcitizenship Second line of defense: deterrence (the threat of Second line of defense: deterrence (the threat of

punishment)punishment) Third line of defense: detentionThird line of defense: detention

Martial law and authorityMartial law and authority Fourth line of defense: National Guard and the ArmyFourth line of defense: National Guard and the Army

Llad Phillips 25

PercentControl

MoralCompliance

Deterrence Detention

Riot

Civil LawMartialLaw

National Guard

Llad Phillips 26

Is Criminal Justice Just?Is Criminal Justice Just?

Llad Phillips 27

Questions About CrimeQuestions About Crime

Are there Inequities by Income class?Are there Inequities by Income class? for victims?for victims?

Are there ethnic or racial injustices?Are there ethnic or racial injustices? for victims?for victims? for offenders?for offenders?

% Families % Income0 0

20 4.240 14.260 29.980 53.295 79.9100 100

US Family Income, 1994

Lorenz Curve: United States Families, 1994 .

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

% Families

% I

nco

me

Equal

Uniform

Family

Source: US Statistical Abstract

Llad Phillips 30

Why is Income Distributed So Unevenly?Why is Income Distributed So Unevenly? Labor Income is Unevenly DistributedLabor Income is Unevenly Distributed Part-time workPart-time work

less than 50 weeks per yearless than 50 weeks per year less than 36 hours per weekless than 36 hours per week

Trends In US Family Income Shares, . Top 5%, Top 20%, Bottom 40%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

% Families

% I

nco

me

Top 5 %

Top 20 %

Bottom 40%

Victimization Rates by Income ClassVictimization Rates by Income Class

Income Class Burglary Rate* RobberyRate†

-$7500 86 97,500-9,999 60 7

10,000-14,999 67 515,000-24,999 59 525,000-29,999 54 530,000-49,999 58 4

50,000- 56 3 * Per 1000 Households † Per 1,000 Persons

Source: Report to the Nation on Crime and Justice, Second edition

Lorenz Curves For Robbery and Burglary Victims .

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

% Families

% V

icti

ms

Burglary

Robbery

Equal

HValue

Crime

%Zoned

Crime

Housing Value

% Zoned forLots > 25,000 Sq. Ft.

Census Tracts in Towns in the Boston Area

Public Goods and Private GoodsPublic Goods and Private Goods

Private GoodsPrivate Goods consumption uses them upconsumption uses them up

what you eat is not available to nourish otherswhat you eat is not available to nourish others

Public GoodsPublic Goods consumption does not use them upconsumption does not use them up

national defensenational defense safe streetssafe streets educated citizenryeducated citizenry

PublicGoods

Private Goods

Optimal Mix

Too Few Public Goods

Slope of the Production PossibilityFrontier:Marginal Cost of Public Goods÷ Marginal Cost of Private Goods

How Much Government Should There Be?What is the right mix of public goods and private goods?

Llad Phillips 37

The Family and DelinquencyThe Family and Delinquency

Llad Phillips 38

The Family and DelinquencyThe Family and Delinquency

What is the role of the family in causing or What is the role of the family in causing or preventing delinquency?preventing delinquency?

How important is the family in considering How important is the family in considering possible causes of delinquency?possible causes of delinquency?

US Families Headed By Women in Percent .

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1940 1950 1960 1970 1983

Year

Perc

en

t

White

Black

Source: Glenn C. Loury, Ch 1 of Families, Schools, and Delinquency Prevention, eds. James Q. Wilson and Glenn C. Loury

Father’s Income

R

J

Daughter’sIncome

A

If the father is sufficientlyaltruistic, then the daughter’senlightened self-interest is to prefer point A, and she can be induced to behave in a cooperative way, allowing pointJ that leads to point A

Llad Phillips 41

Probability of Ever Being Charged Vs. Family Income .

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000

Family Income

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Father Present

Father Absent

Llad Phillips 42

Where does Criminal Justice go from here?Where does Criminal Justice go from here? CaliforniaCalifornia

Strong economy leads to lower property crime Strong economy leads to lower property crime ratesrates

Higher imprisonment rates lead to lower rates Higher imprisonment rates lead to lower rates of violent crimeof violent crime

National PolicyNational Policy Drug treatment programsDrug treatment programs Eisenhower Report(1999): More PreventionEisenhower Report(1999): More Prevention

Llad Phillips 43

Rearrest rates for CA prisonInmates rise to 67% within3 years after release.