The US prison population seems to be in slow decline. Data reported in this

chapter suggest as much. Not all states have seen shrinkages, but the ma-

jority have. Indeed, four statesNew Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and

Californiahave reduced their prison populations by 20 percent. Even some

Southern states, which are traditionally harsh on crime, have reduced their

prison populations. Mississippi and South Carolina have reduced their prison

populations by 18 and 11 percent, respectively.

What is behind the reductions? One obvious answer is the high cost of

incarceration. In response, most states have adopted reforms intended to

reduce mandatory minimum sentencing. For example, California voters ap-

proved initiatives in 2012 and 2016 to reduce prison populations. The 2012

initiative reformed the state's punitive three-strikes law. The 2016 initiative

expanded parole eligibility and placed limits on trying juveniles as adults. Vot-

ers in the Golden State also authorized changes in the way certain offenses

were classified.

At its peak in 2006, California had nearly 175,000 inmates behind

bars in the state's 33 prisons. In 2008, it was ranked second in the nation

in prison spending. Many of its prisons exceeded capacity by as much as

300 percent. These developments led Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to

declare a "Prison Overcrowding State of Emergency." The deplorable con-

ditions in California's prisons prompted a three-judge panel to decide they

violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual pun-

ishment. And in 2011, the US Supreme Court, in Brown v. Plata, affirmed the

lower court's decision and ordered California to reduce its prison capacity

by 137 percent, which translated into about 33,000 inmates. In response,

Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the California Public Safety Realign-

ment Act. The act moved several felons from state prisons to state jails,

changed parole rules, and reformed the way in which probation and parole

technical violations were dealt with.

Some would say California did what it had to do. But what effect did

realignment have on crime? Wouldn't releasing inmates, especially those

convicted of serious crimes, lead to a surge in crime? These are empirical

questions. In an interesting study, Jody Sundt and her colleagues compared

crime trends in California to those from the population of all 50 states.

The results of various statistical models revealed that realignment had no

effect on crime in multiple time periods. This prompted the researchers

to conclude:

Significant reductions in the size of prison populations are possi-

ble without endangering public safety. Within just 15 months of its

passage, realignment reduced the size of the total prison population

by 27,527 inmates, prison crowding declined from 181 percent to

150 percent of design capacity, approximately $453 million was

saved, and there was no adverse effect on the overall safety of

Californians. With a mixture of jail use, community corrections,

law enforcement and other preventive efforts, California counties

have provided a comparable level of public safety to that previously

achieved by state prisons.

In fairness, few studies have examined the effects of realignment. It is

likely that more time and study are necessary before we can conclude with

certainty that California's approach to reducing prison populations was suc-

cessful. But other researchers, such as Magnus Lofstrom and Steven Raphael

at the Public Policy Institute of California, have reached similar conclusions,

so perhaps it is high time to get "smarter" with incarceration.

1. Should other states replicate California's realignment initiative?

Why or why not?

2. How should parole be reformed to reduce prison populations?

3. Will a new presidential administration resurrect tough-on-crime

policies and lead to future surges in the incarcerated population?