The bullet comparing OAG and USAO prosecution rates should probably read "of 56% is 12% *percentage points* higher than" as I think it's comparing 44% to 56% as shown in the chart below the text.
Also, a wise man once wrote to the DC Council and said "when certain crimes of violence are committed by using or displaying a firearm, there should be a **5-year minimum penalty** [bold in original] for that offense."
Hopefully some reporters could get some current for former prosecutors to talk about that but if I had to guess I would think it's some mix of:
- For years the prosecution rates fell and NOTHING bad happened to the prosecutors responsible for that trend. That almost certainly "trained" the USAO that that metric didn't matter politically (and it didn't until this year) and so they prioritized other metrics that would advance them within DOJ.
- I do find it plausible that DC juries have gotten more skeptical in recent years (which is something people say but is impossible to quantify) so that likely increased prosecutors' fear of taking cases to trial. This then incentivizes dropping more marginal cases and/or offering very generous plea bargain to eliminate the risk of a loss at trial.
- With organizational churn there are likely very few prosecutors still at USAO-DC that were there when violent crimes and homicides were more common. I suspect that (on the margin) likely reduced the urgency to press charges and push for serious sentences for violent crimes.
That paragraph from the USAO is maddening. They first say they acknowledge the research saying longer sentences don’t help deter crime much, but then just say “well, there are 2 other reasons” and handwave that whole thing away as though it doesn’t matter if the OTHER two achieve anything. (Also there’s “rehabilitation” as a 4th reason for incarceration in the philosophy, which I guess they don’t even bother to claim we try.)
For incapacitation, it’s also true AFAIK that it is helpful to separate violent offenders for a period, but this isn’t carte blanche for unlimited prison; offenders “age out” of this behavior and so lengthy sentences just keep middle-aged to old guys who are long past their criming days in prison.
That argument is part of the reason for the Second Look stuff the USAO and those folks are always so mad about - if the person has been in for 25 years already and are 45 now you’re not achieving any useful incapacitation (and a judge has to determine that for each case before anyone is released).
Finally, there’s “retribution” (they say “punishment” but that’s really the overarching term). Societies decide how much just being vengeful is what they want to do; but in no event does this help “fight crime.” Giving 20 years vs 10 or life vs 25 because you think they “deserve it” doesn’t make the city any safer; any safety benefit is included in “deterrence” and “incapacitation.” So any claim that we need longer sentences under the “retribution” prong as part of a bill to get crime rates down is meaningless.
Good points, I find the glibness with which they pivot from "certainty" to "incapacitation" pretty obnoxious when they have one of the highest declination rates in America. And I agree on the limited incapacitation benefit of super-long sentences (especially for older offenders)...I alluded to it with the point about the level of risk but didn't state it explicitly.
The political class' obsession with maximum possible sentences is very counterproductive. The point I was trying to focus on is that getting some prison time for violent crimes and firearms offenses is the kind of sentence that is most likely to have an incapacitation benefit; far more than tacking on an extra 5 years to a 20 year sentence. But the USAO's actions don't even live up to their own standard for protecting the public. I recognize that kind of cedes some terms of the debate to them (and I do intend to write more about CSOSA and CSS' rehabilitation failures...) but I think showing that they are failing even on their own terms has some revelatory value.
I don't mean to derail this thread too far from the main points Mr. Friday laid out above, but there are details in your comment where I disagree.
I find that many people intuitively underestimate the effect that age has on likelihood of criminality, as well as underestimate the levels of recidivism in general. According to the BJS (table 3 in the link below) 43% of released state prisoners are rearrested within a year, and 83% are rearrested within 9 years. And for various reasons one can read in the footnotes of the link, these are minimum estimates, to say nothing of the fact that they ignore crimes which the releasee commits but is not arrested for.
But for all releasees aged 40+ the 1 year rearrest rate falls from 43% to just 37%, and the 9-year rearrest rate drops from 83% to only 76%. Given that age and good behavior in prison are already taken into account by parole boards, judges, sentencing algorithms, etc. it seems to me that there's not a lot of juice left to squeeze by further reducing sentences to account for age. It also seems like the social and community damage prevented by incarceration is vastly underestimated.
I also think that the punishment or retribution benefit has a closer link with crime prevention than you are allowing for. When the state lacks the ability or will to punish crimes, victims of crime are more likely to attempt to inflict that punishment themselves. You can look no further than gang disputes and retaliatory crew violence to see this play out in real-time and in the reality of the US today.
Of course I don't mean to suggest that I know the proper length of sentence that any community thinks is just and requires no retaliation from the victim, and there may be no difference between 15 years and 20 years as far as I know. But it's wishful thinking to pretend that many victims will seek to enact their own justice if sentences are perceived to be too light, which they may be in some cases.
The bullet comparing OAG and USAO prosecution rates should probably read "of 56% is 12% *percentage points* higher than" as I think it's comparing 44% to 56% as shown in the chart below the text.
Also, a wise man once wrote to the DC Council and said "when certain crimes of violence are committed by using or displaying a firearm, there should be a **5-year minimum penalty** [bold in original] for that offense."
https://www.scribd.com/document/607568374/Council-of-DC-RCCA-10-20-2022-1
Yes you are correct. I generally use absolute % points since "% of a %" can often be misleading.
What is your analysis of the incentives USAO has to be less effectively "tough" on crime than their rhetoric or the past?
Hopefully some reporters could get some current for former prosecutors to talk about that but if I had to guess I would think it's some mix of:
- For years the prosecution rates fell and NOTHING bad happened to the prosecutors responsible for that trend. That almost certainly "trained" the USAO that that metric didn't matter politically (and it didn't until this year) and so they prioritized other metrics that would advance them within DOJ.
- I do find it plausible that DC juries have gotten more skeptical in recent years (which is something people say but is impossible to quantify) so that likely increased prosecutors' fear of taking cases to trial. This then incentivizes dropping more marginal cases and/or offering very generous plea bargain to eliminate the risk of a loss at trial.
- With organizational churn there are likely very few prosecutors still at USAO-DC that were there when violent crimes and homicides were more common. I suspect that (on the margin) likely reduced the urgency to press charges and push for serious sentences for violent crimes.
That paragraph from the USAO is maddening. They first say they acknowledge the research saying longer sentences don’t help deter crime much, but then just say “well, there are 2 other reasons” and handwave that whole thing away as though it doesn’t matter if the OTHER two achieve anything. (Also there’s “rehabilitation” as a 4th reason for incarceration in the philosophy, which I guess they don’t even bother to claim we try.)
For incapacitation, it’s also true AFAIK that it is helpful to separate violent offenders for a period, but this isn’t carte blanche for unlimited prison; offenders “age out” of this behavior and so lengthy sentences just keep middle-aged to old guys who are long past their criming days in prison.
That argument is part of the reason for the Second Look stuff the USAO and those folks are always so mad about - if the person has been in for 25 years already and are 45 now you’re not achieving any useful incapacitation (and a judge has to determine that for each case before anyone is released).
Finally, there’s “retribution” (they say “punishment” but that’s really the overarching term). Societies decide how much just being vengeful is what they want to do; but in no event does this help “fight crime.” Giving 20 years vs 10 or life vs 25 because you think they “deserve it” doesn’t make the city any safer; any safety benefit is included in “deterrence” and “incapacitation.” So any claim that we need longer sentences under the “retribution” prong as part of a bill to get crime rates down is meaningless.
Good points, I find the glibness with which they pivot from "certainty" to "incapacitation" pretty obnoxious when they have one of the highest declination rates in America. And I agree on the limited incapacitation benefit of super-long sentences (especially for older offenders)...I alluded to it with the point about the level of risk but didn't state it explicitly.
The political class' obsession with maximum possible sentences is very counterproductive. The point I was trying to focus on is that getting some prison time for violent crimes and firearms offenses is the kind of sentence that is most likely to have an incapacitation benefit; far more than tacking on an extra 5 years to a 20 year sentence. But the USAO's actions don't even live up to their own standard for protecting the public. I recognize that kind of cedes some terms of the debate to them (and I do intend to write more about CSOSA and CSS' rehabilitation failures...) but I think showing that they are failing even on their own terms has some revelatory value.
I don't mean to derail this thread too far from the main points Mr. Friday laid out above, but there are details in your comment where I disagree.
I find that many people intuitively underestimate the effect that age has on likelihood of criminality, as well as underestimate the levels of recidivism in general. According to the BJS (table 3 in the link below) 43% of released state prisoners are rearrested within a year, and 83% are rearrested within 9 years. And for various reasons one can read in the footnotes of the link, these are minimum estimates, to say nothing of the fact that they ignore crimes which the releasee commits but is not arrested for.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/18upr9yfup0514.pdf
But for all releasees aged 40+ the 1 year rearrest rate falls from 43% to just 37%, and the 9-year rearrest rate drops from 83% to only 76%. Given that age and good behavior in prison are already taken into account by parole boards, judges, sentencing algorithms, etc. it seems to me that there's not a lot of juice left to squeeze by further reducing sentences to account for age. It also seems like the social and community damage prevented by incarceration is vastly underestimated.
I also think that the punishment or retribution benefit has a closer link with crime prevention than you are allowing for. When the state lacks the ability or will to punish crimes, victims of crime are more likely to attempt to inflict that punishment themselves. You can look no further than gang disputes and retaliatory crew violence to see this play out in real-time and in the reality of the US today.
Of course I don't mean to suggest that I know the proper length of sentence that any community thinks is just and requires no retaliation from the victim, and there may be no difference between 15 years and 20 years as far as I know. But it's wishful thinking to pretend that many victims will seek to enact their own justice if sentences are perceived to be too light, which they may be in some cases.