California has historically had one of the highest incarceration rates in the U.S., and has a larger prison population than many other countries around the world.However, budget shortfalls and massive overcrowding in California prisons led to a Supreme Court decision in 2011 requiring the state to reduce overcrowding and massively reduce imprisonment rates in CA.California prisons were designed to hold approximately 85,000 inmates and were running at more than 200% capacity.They were ordered to reduce state incarceration to 137.5% of design capacity by 2013.To reach this goal, they dramatically reduced new prison admissions for drug and minor offenses (along with several other strategies they implemented... see the table and link below if you would like to find out more on the California Realignment).

According to Deterrence theory, how might this impact crime in California in the future?Explain how and why these changes in incarceration might influence crime according to deterrence/rational choice perspectives.

What would labeling theory say about these changes in incarceration?Briefly describe the main points of labeling perspectives on crime.Then, tell me how these changes in imprisonment might impact crime according to labeling theory.Are there reasons why this sharp decline in imprisonment might not increase crime?

Related to Question 2 above, what other theories we've discussed this semester do you see as compatible with labeling theory?Are there other theories that seem to help explain the labeling process and can explain why punishment could increase crime?Describe these connections.

Last, are there ways in which punishment could be done without labelling?In other words, how might we better avoid criminal labels while still punishing harmful behavior and trying to deter crime?Explain AND do you think this is what is happening (or will) happen in CA... why or why not?