Running Header: Crime Data Manipulation/Case Study on Incarceration 1

Introduction
Does incarceration work at being effective at reducing violent crimes? Is the return for

society better with more people in the prison system than out on the streets? The case study by

Brennan Center for Justice addresses these questions and the vast fiscal and social toll created.

The empirical analysis acknowledges there are many variables to the research; however, the

study finds that incarceration does not comport to a decline in crime. Increased incarceration

accounted for approximately 6 percent of the reduction in property crime in the 1990s (this could

vary statistically from 0 to 12 percent) and accounted for less than 1 percent of the decline in

property crime this century. Increased incarceration has had little effect on the drop in violent

crime in the past 24 years. In fact, large states such as California, Michigan, New Jersey, New

York, and Texas have all reduced their prison populations while crime has continued to fall

(page 15).

The Brennan study looked at incarceration and policing approach and used a

methodology of review of past research and data; a regression analysis over a span of time;

formal and informal interviews with practitioners from law, economics and criminologists; as

well as examined 14 popular theories for the decline in crime over the last two decades. Today,

the crime rate is about half of what it was at its height in 1991. Violent crime has fallen by 51

percent since 1991, and property crime by 43 percent. (page 8) This report finds that

incarceration in the U.S. has reached a level where it no longer provides a meaningful crime

reduction benefit. Most notably, the trends do not show a consistent relationship (page 8).

The report had three main findings which include that increased incarceration at today’s

levels has a negligible crime control benefit; one policing approach, CompStat, played a role in

bringing down crime in cities (5-15%); and there were certain economic, social and

environmental factors that impacted the decline in crime. In this assignment, I considered the
 Running Header: Crime Data Manipulation/Case Study on Incarceration 2

study, a survey on the New York Police Department’s manipulation of data and the Three Strikes

law to create a relational manipulation of data in this overarching umbrella of both policing and

political agendas. Although the data shows there was no meaningful benefit to increased

incarceration, CompStat, was deployed across the nation in the last two decades in 1994 and

used to execute strategies based on robust data collection to reduce and prevent crime (page 10).

However, a criticism of CompStat is that the robust data collection it has incentivized “a

numbers game” to show a reduction in crime. In a 2010 survey of retired NYPD officers,

criminologists found that more than half of those responding admitted to “fudging numbers,”

thereby misrepresenting crime data in relation to their police work (page 68). Additionally, the

study found that much of the increase in incarceration has been driven by the imprisonment of

nonviolent and drug offenders. Today, half of state prisoners are serving time for nonviolent

crimes. Almost half of federal prisoners are serving time for drug crimes. (page 25). In 1994,

California legislators and voters approved a major change in the state’s criminal sentencing law,

(commonly known as Three Strikes and You’re Out). The theory behind the legislation was to

decrease violent crime from repeat violent offenders. However, the “proportionality rule” in

sentencing has created a pattern of lessor crimes committed by repeat offenders to receive

harsher penalties and sentences for nonserious or nonviolent felonies. The incarceration rate

jumped by more than 60 percent from 1990 to 1999, while the rate of violent crime dropped by

28 percent. In the next decade, the rate of incarceration increased by just 1 percent, while the

violent crime rate fell by 27 percent.

What are the real numbers? I do not have the answer. However, the “numbers game” is

easily manipulated based on how data is gathered, how it is organized, and how it is presented

which sways the outcome. What the study did reflect is how politically this legislative and legal
 Running Header: Crime Data Manipulation/Case Study on Incarceration 3

chasm has been leveraged on varying datasets which has driven policing and incarceration

impacts based on the premise to reduce crime.

Why would data be manipulated? It impacts policy, budgets, demographics, economy,

consumer confidence, political and law enforcement careers, creates fear and demand for law

enforcement safety and security. Interestingly, the same data has shifted in the political climate

in a reversal around incarceration policy. In 2013, noted that not too long ago, “[t]here was a

time when even a hint of a policy that might have resulted in prison releases or reductions in

sentencing would have spelled certain political death. Today, at least thirteen states are closing

prisons after reducing prison populations. That this kind of policy is no longer political anathema

is a leading indicator of how much has changed.”(pg 26)

Regarding lessons learned, law enforcement leaders have an enormous burden of

responsibility that impacts the landscape of the country. We no longer have the luxury of being

simply “cops” we have to be analysts, criminologists, researchers, and protectors of the integrity

of our profession. We need to enhance our internal and external resources for leadership

development for our personnel acquire different skills, knowledge and understanding of a

broader role. Understanding that we are not just guardians of the physical community but we

must guard the future of our communities. Our role has deep social impacts in the communities

we serve. We as law enforcement leaders have a front row seat along with our staff on what we

are doing to balance the scales of justice daily. This study along with the information on NYPD,

CompStat and the Three Strikes You’re Out law are just a glimpse of the interwoven

manipulation of crime data to meet agendas whether political, to suppress or control, or to have

trophy rights.
 Running Header: Crime Data Manipulation/Case Study on Incarceration 4

References

Fritsvold, Eric (2017). LEPS 550 Community Assesment - Presentation 1.1. Retrieved

from: https://ole.sandiego.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_5

2191_1&content_id=_1144262_1

Mosher, Clayton J, Miethe, Terrance, D, and Hart, Timothy C. (2011). The Mismeasure of

Crime. (2nd ed.). California. Sage 2011.

Roeder, O. & Eisen, L. & Bowling, J. (2015, February 12). What Caused the Crime Decline?

Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved from

https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/what-caused-crime-decline

Ruderman, Wendy. (2012, June 28). Crime Report Manipulation Is Common Among New York

Police, Study Finds. Retrieved on http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/nyregion/new-

york-police-department-manipulates-crime-reports-study-finds.html

Legislative Analyst Office. (2005). A Primer: Three Strikes - The Impact After More Than a

Decade. Retrieved from http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/3_strikes/3_strikes_102005.htm