Mass Incarceration: Debunking the Top Ten Myths and Uncovering Why Taxpayers are Unaware of the $182 Billion Spent on Imprisonment. Does Incarceration – Prison Truly Enhance Public Safety?

A myth is a widely held but false belief or idea. It often involves a traditional story, typically involving supernatural events or beings, that explains natural phenomena, customs, or historical events. In a more general sense, a myth can also refer to any misconception, false belief, or exaggerated narrative that is passed along as truth, even though it may not be based on facts or evidence. Myths can be cultural, societal, or personal, and they often persist because they align with certain ideologies or interests, even when contradicted by facts.

Are Most People in Jail Legally Innocent?

The answer is surprisingly nuanced. On any given day, local jails hold nearly 475,000 people who have not been convicted of a crime. This means a significant portion of those in jail are legally innocent, awaiting trial, often because they cannot afford bail. The median bail amount, around $10,000, represents an insurmountable barrier for many, particularly those with annual incomes near or below that figure. The result? A system where poverty, not guilt, determines freedom.

The United States is often criticized as the world’s leader in incarceration, and the Prison Policy Initiative’s annual report, Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2024, sheds light on the scale, drivers, and consequences of this system. With over 1.9 million people incarcerated across a fragmented patchwork of federal, state, local, and tribal facilities, understanding the big picture is essential to initiating meaningful reforms.

Breaking Down the Numbers

The report illustrates the complexity of the U.S. criminal legal system. It encompasses:

• State Prisons: 1,566 facilities holding the majority of incarcerated individuals.
• Local Jails: Over 3,100 facilities, which serve as the “front door” to incarceration, with over 7 million annual admissions.
• Federal Prisons: Housing offenders convicted of federal crimes, dominated by drug-related offenses.
• Youth and Immigration Detention: Thousands of minors and migrants are held in facilities that often escape broader reform discussions.
• Other Facilities: Including military prisons, civil commitment centers, and psychiatric hospitals.

This fragmented system costs taxpayers $182 billion annually, a staggering sum that fails to translate into improved public safety or meaningful rehabilitation for those incarcerated.

The First Myth: Private Prisons Are the Core of Mass Incarceration

Contrary to popular belief, private prisons are not the driving force behind mass incarceration. In reality, only 8% of incarcerated individuals are housed in private facilities. The majority reside in publicly-owned prisons and jails. While private prisons have influenced policies to sustain high incarceration rates, they are more of a parasite feeding on the vast public prison system rather than its foundation.

Profit Beyond Private Prisons

Despite their smaller footprint, private industries and even public agencies continue to profit from mass incarceration. For example:

• Space Leasing: City and county jails frequently rent space to entities such as state prison systems, the U.S. Marshals Service, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
• Privatized Services: Contracts for food and healthcare in prisons are often awarded to private companies, which frequently deliver substandard services, leading to major lawsuits.
• Telecom and Commissary Industries: Private firms managing prison telecom services and commissaries have turned these functions into multi-billion-dollar industries.

By privatizing essential services such as phone calls, medical care, and commissary, correctional facilities shift the financial burden of incarceration onto incarcerated individuals and their families. This strategy reduces institutional costs while imposing severe social and economic costs on the people least equipped to bear them.

A Parasite, Not the Root Cause

Private prisons act as a parasite on an already massive publicly-owned correctional system. Some states do house a significant number of people in private facilities, but these prisons merely capitalize on a much larger and more entrenched system. The focus on private prisons often distracts from the real issue: the public sector’s massive role in sustaining mass incarceration.

The Second Myth: Prisons Are “Factories Behind Fences” Exploiting a Vast Slave Labor Force

A common misconception about mass incarceration is that prisons operate as massive industrial complexes providing private companies with a cheap, exploitative labor force. While prison labor exploitation is a real issue, it is not the driving force behind mass incarceration, nor is it as widespread as often assumed.

The Reality of Private Company Employment in Prisons

Only about 6,000 incarcerated individuals, representing less than 1% of the prison population, work for private companies under the federal Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP). This program requires these companies to pay at least minimum wage, though deductions for taxes, victim restitution, and other fees often leave workers with very little.

A slightly larger portion of incarcerated individuals — around 6% of those in state prisons — work for state-run “correctional industries,” which typically pay far less than minimum wage. Despite public perceptions, private companies profiting directly from prison labor represent only a small fraction of prison jobs.

The True Labor Force Behind Prison Operations

The majority of prison labor is not for private companies but for the prisons themselves. Incarcerated individuals perform essential tasks such as food service, laundry, and facility maintenance. This work is often compulsory, poorly compensated, and subject to minimal oversight.

According to a 2017 study:

• The average wage for prison jobs ranged between $0.86 and $3.45 per day.
• In at least five states, prison jobs paid nothing at all.

Refusing to work can result in disciplinary actions, including solitary confinement or loss of privileges, further emphasizing the coercive nature of prison labor.

The Hidden Cost of Incarceration

While incarcerated individuals are paid meager wages, they are often required to spend those earnings on basic necessities such as:

• Medical visits
• Hygiene products
• Phone calls and commissary items

This financial burden shifts the true cost of incarceration onto the incarcerated and their families, obscuring the real expenses from the general public. By doing so, prisons avoid budget increases while perpetuating a cycle of economic exploitation and inequality.

Conclusion

The narrative of prisons as “factories behind fences” misrepresents the scope of private company involvement in prison labor. Instead, the real issue lies in the systemic exploitation of incarcerated individuals for prison operations, where they are underpaid, overworked, and stripped of basic labor protections. Addressing these practices requires a deeper examination of the prison system’s reliance on low-cost labor and its broader impact on incarcerated individuals and their families.

I want to pause here and address the issue of slavery inside the prison system. Some people claim that there’s widespread slavery within the system, but the reality is that only 1% of the entire inmate population is involved in any form of private-sector labor, which is less than 1% of prisoners overall. One person who’s particularly vocal and outspoken about this issue is a man serving a 46-year sentence for an extensive violent crime – Defund D.O.C., Daniel Simms. He claims there’s a widespread slavery problem in the system, yet, interestingly, he himself doesn’t even have a job in prison. He calls himself a “legal beagle,” though I’m not a fan of that term or the organization. I tried working with them, but they seem to be more focused on attacking the Department of Corrections (DOC) rather than collaborating with them for meaningful change.

Now, is it fair to let someone like Daniel Simms—who doesn’t even work and lives off his wife’s money—speak on the issue of prison labor? He’s advocating for changes in a system he’s not actively engaging with, which seems somewhat contradictory. He wants to be a self-styled “legal beagle,” but doesn’t seem to contribute in a productive way within the system. His approach feels like an oxymoron, especially when considering the broader agenda they’re pushing.

When it comes to sentencing reform, I’m genuinely curious how they think it’s possible to make those changes, especially since their efforts seem to be backfiring. If they can pull it off, it would be groundbreaking, but from my perspective, their approach seems more about resistance than solution. It’s crucial to be cautious about myths and the voices that claim to advocate for those behind bars without offering real, positive support.

The Third Myth: Releasing “Nonviolent Drug Offenders” Won’t End Mass Incarceration

It’s a comforting belief: if we simply release those incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses, the problem of mass incarceration will be solved. This narrative, though popular, oversimplifies the issue and ignores the broader complexities of the U.S. criminal legal system. While the harsh treatment of drug offenders remains a pressing concern, it is not the root cause of America’s overreliance on incarceration.

The Reality of Drug Offenses in Mass Incarceration

It is undeniable that drug offenses have had a devastating impact on individuals and communities. Over 360,000 people are currently incarcerated for drug-related charges, with drug convictions being a defining feature of the federal prison system. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, law enforcement was making over 1 million drug possession arrests annually. These arrests disproportionately targeted over-policed communities, creating cycles of harm. Criminal records resulting from minor drug offenses significantly hinder employment opportunities and often lead to longer sentences for subsequent offenses.

However, the data reveals a more complicated picture. Drug offenses account for just 1 in 5 incarcerations. The other 4 out of 5 people in prisons or jails are locked up for either more serious offenses—such as violent crimes—or less serious infractions. This disproves the idea that mass incarceration is driven primarily by nonviolent drug offenses.

Rethinking Our Approach to Crime

To address mass incarceration effectively, we must shift our focus to the broader criminal legal system and the societal responses to a range of offenses. While reform efforts have often centered on nonviolent drug offenses, they frequently exclude individuals convicted of violent crimes. This exclusion creates a false binary between “nonviolent” and “violent” offenders, ignoring the nuances of crime, context, and rehabilitation.

Many so-called “violent” offenses are complex and situational, involving circumstances that do not make individuals an ongoing threat to society. For example, a single altercation in someone’s past can lead to decades of imprisonment without consideration of their rehabilitation or lack of recidivism risk. Meaningful reform must include rethinking how we define and sentence violent offenses.

Additionally, we must stop criminalizing benign behaviors. The U.S. incarcerates individuals for a wide range of minor infractions, from technical probation violations to actions that could be resolved through community-based interventions. This overcriminalization contributes to overcrowded prisons and jails while failing to improve public safety.

The Path Forward

Ending mass incarceration requires a holistic approach that goes beyond addressing drug offenses. Key steps include:

1. Rethinking Sentences for Violent Crimes: Policymakers and the public must confront the stigma surrounding violent offenses. Sentencing reform should focus on individualized assessments of harm, rehabilitation, and risk, rather than blanket punitive measures.
2. Decriminalizing Minor Offenses: Behaviors that do not pose a threat to public safety should not result in imprisonment. Redirecting resources toward community-based solutions can address the root causes of these actions more effectively.
3. Investing in Prevention and Reentry: Strengthening education, mental health care, housing, and employment opportunities reduces the likelihood of crime and recidivism, creating safer communities without overreliance on incarceration.
4. Eliminating Racial Disparities: Communities of color are disproportionately impacted by policing, arrests, and sentencing. Addressing these disparities is crucial to any reform effort.

Beyond the Myth

The focus on nonviolent drug offenders as the key to ending mass incarceration is well-intentioned but ultimately inadequate. To dismantle the system of mass incarceration, society must address the deeper, systemic issues driving over-policing, harsh sentencing, and the criminalization of poverty and marginalized communities. Releasing those incarcerated for nonviolent drug offenses is a necessary first step—but it cannot be the last. Ending mass incarceration requires bold, comprehensive reform that reimagines justice, accountability, and public safety for all.

The Fourth Myth: “Violent Crime” Always Involves Physical Harm

The terms “violent” and “nonviolent” crime are often misleading and unhelpful when discussing policy. In public debates about crime, these labels are commonly used to distinguish between serious and less serious offenses, which is itself a flawed approach. Worse, these terms are frequently used as coded language, sometimes racialized, to categorize individuals as either inherently dangerous or non-threatening.

The Reality of “Violent Crime”

In truth, the legal definition of “violent crime” is much broader than the public typically perceives. State and federal laws apply the label “violent” to a wide range of offenses that do not involve physical harm. For example, in some states, crimes like purse-snatching, manufacturing methamphetamines, or stealing drugs are classified as violent. Burglary, which is generally a property crime, can also be considered violent depending on the circumstances — such as when it occurs at night, in a home, or with a weapon involved. In these cases, even if no one was physically harmed or present, the individual may still be convicted of a “violent” crime and face a long prison sentence.

Misunderstanding “Violent Crime”

The misunderstanding surrounding the definition of “violent crime” is a significant obstacle to meaningful reform of the criminal legal system. When policymakers treat all “violent” crimes as equally severe, they often exclude individuals convicted of these offenses from reform efforts. This approach affects nearly half (47%) of the prison population, as many people are incarcerated for offenses classified as violent. These exclusions undermine the effectiveness of reforms aimed at reducing incarceration rates.

To make real progress toward reducing prison populations and creating fairer systems, we must rethink how we categorize and respond to violent crime. First, we need a clearer understanding of what this term actually means, and how it often has little to do with the actual harm caused. Only then can we begin to address the true causes of mass incarceration.

The Fifth Myth: People in Prison for Violent or Sexual Crimes Are Too Dangerous to Be Released

It’s a widely held belief that individuals convicted of violent or sexual offenses are too dangerous to be released from prison. The logic often goes: if someone has committed a violent crime, they must be inherently dangerous and incapable of change. While it’s undeniable that many individuals convicted of violent offenses have caused serious harm, this assumption overlooks the complexities of criminal behavior and the possibility of rehabilitation.

The Flawed System: Offense Type vs. Individual Circumstances

The current criminal legal system often evaluates the risk that an individual poses to society based solely on the nature of their crime rather than their personal circumstances, history, or potential for change. This approach relies on the harmful myth that people who commit violent or sexual offenses are beyond redemption and must be punished for decades, or even life, regardless of their efforts to rehabilitate. This blanket judgment fails to consider the possibility that someone who committed a violent crime in the past may no longer be a danger, especially if they have shown remorse, participated in rehabilitation programs, and demonstrated changed behavior.

Moving Beyond the “Non-Non-Non” Strategy

As public opinion shifts and lawmakers recognize the flaws in past policies, there is growing support for reforms that extend beyond simply addressing those convicted of “non-non-nons” — individuals convicted of non-violent, non-serious, non-sexual offenses. The real challenge is to also consider how we address people convicted of more serious offenses. If we are serious about reducing mass incarceration, we must reconsider how we respond to those convicted of violent crimes, taking into account not only the offense but also the person they are today.

The Truth About Recidivism

One of the most frequently cited reasons for keeping people convicted of violent or sexual offenses incarcerated for extended periods is the fear that they will reoffend. This fear is often rooted in recidivism statistics, but the reality is more complicated than commonly believed. Research shows that individuals convicted of violent and sexual offenses are actually among the least likely to be rearrested once they are released. In fact, those convicted of rape or sexual assault have rearrest rates that are 20% lower than individuals convicted of other types of offenses.

Why is this the case? One key factor is age. Studies show that the risk for violent behavior peaks in adolescence or early adulthood and declines significantly with age. Yet, many people convicted of violent crimes are incarcerated well beyond the point at which their risk for reoffending has decreased. As they age, individuals tend to become less violent, especially when they are provided with the right opportunities for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Reevaluating Public Safety and Rehabilitation

The assumption that people who have committed violent crimes cannot change is not only misleading but also harmful. It overlooks the capacity for personal growth, the role of rehabilitation, and the fact that public safety is not served by simply punishing individuals without considering their progress and their ability to reintegrate into society.

It is essential that we shift the focus from crime labels to individual circumstances, acknowledging the potential for change while balancing that with public safety concerns. Releasing individuals who have demonstrated a commitment to rehabilitation and who pose minimal risk to society is not only a more humane approach but also one that may lead to safer, healthier communities in the long run.

If we are truly committed to addressing the root causes of mass incarceration and creating a more just system, we must challenge myths like the belief that people convicted of violent crimes are forever dangerous. Instead, we should focus on evidence-based practices, individualized assessments, and a justice system that values rehabilitation and second chances over perpetual punishment.

The Sixth Myth: Reforming the Criminal Legal System Leads to More Crime

The idea that criminal justice reforms lead to an increase in crime has become a central talking point in political debates, media commentary, and public discourse. This narrative is often fueled by exaggerations and misleading interpretations of crime trends, but it doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. While the violent crime rate saw a slight uptick in 2020, it has since dropped dramatically in 2023. In fact, violent crime has remained relatively stable over the past 15 years, and property crime has decreased significantly, now hovering near historic lows—aside from a rise in auto theft. Overall, the national crime rate is at its lowest point since 1963.

Prison and jail populations, meanwhile, have been rising again toward pre-pandemic levels. This increase isn’t due to a surge in crime, but rather because pandemic-related delays in the system have been resolved. The real driving factors behind the recent uptick in incarceration lie in political pressures, not in crime trends. Some law enforcement officials, conservative politicians, and even certain Democrats have tried to blame recent reforms for slight shifts in crime statistics. Their goal is to revive the same “tough on crime” policies that failed in the 1980s and ’90s. The combination of restored court capacity and a return to outdated crime policies, not bail reform, progressive prosecutors, or other popular reforms, best explains why more people are in jail today than in recent years.

Research contradicts the claims that reforms are to blame for rising crime. Several studies show:

• There is no evidence linking progressive prosecutors to the increase in homicides during the pandemic or in the years prior.
• In 2020, murder rates were 40% higher in “red” states than in “blue” states. From 2000 to 2020, the average murder rate was 23% higher in red states.
• Releasing people pretrial does not jeopardize public safety. In fact, increases in certain crimes were observed across cities that hadn’t enacted bail reforms.
• Far from being “defunded,” police budgets have actually increased in most cities and counties. Even in places that maintained high police funding and resisted reforms, homicides still rose in 2020 and 2021.

While crime rates remain near historic lows, what has changed most is the public’s perception of crime, driven less by direct experience and more by the false narratives promoted by those opposed to reform. These misleading claims are purposefully stoked to roll back the evidence-based, commonsense reforms that have begun to reduce mass incarceration and improve the criminal justice system. The truth is that the data shows no clear connection between reform efforts and rising crime; instead, these reforms are a necessary step toward creating a fairer and more effective system.

The Seventh Myth: Harsh Punishments Deter Crime and Make Us Safer

A common misconception is that long prison sentences, combined with harsh and even brutal conditions, serve as a deterrent to crime. However, research has consistently shown that severe punishments do little, if anything, to prevent future crime. A 2016 review by the National Institute of Justice found that prison sentences, particularly lengthy ones, are not effective in deterring future offenses. In fact, studies suggest that incarceration, when compared to non-custodial forms of punishment, often has little to no effect—or worse, a “mildly criminogenic impact” on future criminal behavior. In other words, while prison may incapacitate someone temporarily, it actually increases the likelihood of reoffending after release.

Jails and prisons are notorious for their deplorable conditions, which negatively impact the success of individuals once they are released. Medical neglect is common, often leading to severe health consequences, and upon release, the strain on families and public health systems grows as former inmates seek care. Poor nutrition, inadequate healthcare, exposure to dangerous conditions like pests or extreme temperatures, and unsanitary water exacerbate health issues that many incarcerated individuals face.

The physical and psychological toll of incarceration—especially conditions leading to Post-Incarceration Syndrome (similar to PTSD)—makes reintegration into society difficult. Individuals often struggle to maintain stable employment or housing, perpetuating cycles of re-incarceration. Essentially, the harms caused inside the prison walls do not end when an individual is released. The consequences of incarceration ripple through families and communities, making it clear that harsh prison conditions don’t create a safer society but instead perpetuate harm for everyone involved.

The Eighth Myth: Crime Victims Support Long Prison Sentences

Policymakers, judges, and prosecutors often cite crime victims as justification for lengthy prison sentences, particularly for violent offenses. However, this narrative doesn’t reflect the reality for most victims of violence. In fact, the majority of victims prefer violence prevention strategies over incarceration. Harsh sentences do not deter violent crime, and many victims recognize that incarceration can sometimes increase the risk to public safety. National surveys reveal that most victims support alternatives to incarceration, such as investments in social services and violence prevention programs that address the root causes of crime, rather than expanding carceral systems that often cause more harm.

A 2022 survey of violent crime victims showed the following preferences:

• 75% of respondents favored holding individuals accountable through options other than imprisonment.
• 80% preferred investing in mental health treatment rather than in prisons and jails.
• 72% supported offering incentives for pre-release rehabilitation, like time credits for earlier release, instead of requiring completion of a full sentence.
• 71% favored reducing jail populations through pretrial release, diversion programs, community service, or treatment.

These findings suggest that victims and survivors of crime are more concerned with community health and safety than with retribution or punitive measures.

Moreover, many individuals convicted of crimes are also victims themselves, complicating the moral argument for severe punishment. The distinction between perpetrators and victims is not as clear-cut as it may seem; people who commit crimes often have their own histories of trauma and violence. The saying “hurt people hurt people” underscores this reality. Victims of crime understand that breaking the cycle of harm requires a focus on healing and community investment, not perpetuating the damage through harsh incarceration policies.

The Ninth Myth: Some People Need to Go to Jail to Receive Treatment and Services

It’s true that many individuals caught in the criminal legal system have significant unmet needs, especially related to mental health and substance use. However, jails and prisons are not the right environments for recovery. These facilities are designed for punishment, not for providing care. Local jails, in particular, are filled with people who require medical and social services, but jails have consistently failed to meet these needs.

For example, while about two-thirds of individuals in local jails struggle with substance use disorders, very few jails offer medication-assisted treatment (MAT), the gold standard for opioid addiction care. Instead of providing the necessary treatment, jails often interrupt ongoing drug treatment by cutting individuals off from their medications. Between 2000 and 2018, the number of people who died from intoxication in jail increased by nearly 400%, with most of these deaths occurring within just one day of admission.

Jails are also notorious for their poor handling of mental health issues. Many individuals with mental health problems are placed in solitary confinement, given limited access to counseling, or left unmonitored due to staffing shortages. As a result, suicide is the leading cause of death in local jails, and death rates are significantly higher than in the general U.S. population.

Given this record, the idea of creating “mental health jails” in response to years of underinvestment in community-based services is deeply concerning. Jails are not safe places for detoxification, nor can they provide the therapeutic environment required for long-term recovery. Even in areas where mental health and substance use treatment options are limited, policymakers should not rely on correctional settings to provide the necessary care.

The Tenth Myth: Expanding Community Supervision is the Best Way to Reduce Incarceration

Community supervision, which includes probation, parole, and pretrial supervision, is often presented as a more lenient alternative to incarceration. The idea is that by allowing individuals to remain in the community, they will have the chance to reintegrate and avoid the harms of prison. However, while staying out of prison is generally preferable, the conditions imposed on those under community supervision are often so stringent and punitive that they set people up for failure.

Supervision comes with long terms, numerous requirements, and constant surveillance, which often result in frequent “failures.” Individuals can be penalized for minor infractions, like missing curfew or failing to pay unaffordable supervision fees. As of the latest count, over 128,000 individuals are incarcerated for such non-criminal, “technical violations” of probation or parole. These violations account for 27% of all admissions to state and federal prisons. In fact, the Bureau of Justice Statistics has found that almost a quarter (24%) of people in state prisons were on probation at the time of their arrest, highlighting how this “alternative” often merely delays, rather than prevents, incarceration.

Moreover, newer methods of community supervision have further blurred the line between punishment and rehabilitation. The use of electronic monitoring, or “e-carceration,” has expanded significantly in recent years, especially in pretrial supervision and immigration enforcement. Proponents claim that this technology enhances compliance with court orders and improves public safety. However, studies have shown that these devices are unreliable, leading to false alarms and security breaches. More importantly, electronic monitoring frequently results in technical violations, which can ultimately send individuals back to jail. Rather than reducing the number of people incarcerated, electronic monitoring expands the reach of correctional control.

The High Costs of Low-Level Offenses

Many people in the U.S. criminal legal system are not charged with serious crimes but rather with misdemeanors or non-criminal violations. Even these minor offenses can lead to incarceration and other severe consequences, draining public resources that could otherwise be spent on community-driven safety initiatives.

One often overlooked factor contributing to mass incarceration is the “holds” placed on people for minor probation or parole violations. When someone is suspected of violating their supervision conditions, a “detainer” or “hold” can be placed, making them ineligible for release on bail. This practice can destabilize an individual’s life, especially as many people are locked up for non-criminal violations. In fact, nearly 1 in 5 (19%) people in jail are there for probation or parole violations, and in some places, this number is even higher. These holds don’t only affect local jails — almost 1 in 4 people in state prisons are incarcerated due to supervision violations.

Another troubling trend is the increase in “holds” for people awaiting transfer to psychiatric facilities. Thousands of individuals with serious mental illness are languishing in jails for months or even years, waiting for a bed in a state hospital. These individuals, who need evaluation or restoration of competency to stand trial, are at heightened risk of victimization, self-harm, and further criminal charges stemming from their untreated mental illness. The criminalization of mental health issues and lack of investment in mental health infrastructure make these “holds” not only unnecessary but deeply harmful.

Misdemeanors: Minor Offenses with Major Consequences

The U.S. criminal legal system is often criticized for overcriminalizing minor offenses, with an estimated 13 million misdemeanor charges filed annually. These offenses, from jaywalking to sitting on a sidewalk, may seem trivial but have significant personal, financial, and social costs. Misdemeanants often don’t receive proper legal representation and are pressured into pleading guilty in exchange for a probation sentence to avoid jail time. This results in innocent individuals pleading guilty, receiving a criminal record, and being subjected to the risks of future incarceration due to probation violations.

The massive misdemeanor system contributes to harmful cycles of overcriminalization and unnecessary incarceration. Misdemeanor charges may seem inconsequential, but they add to the systemic issues of mass incarceration, especially when individuals are jailed or imprisoned for minor infractions, leading to a permanent mark on their lives.

“Low-Level Fugitives” Living in Fear

Another significant consequence of the overreliance on community supervision is the creation of “low-level fugitives.” When individuals fail to appear in court or miss payments for fines and fees, judges can issue a “bench warrant” for their arrest. These warrants often lead to people being jailed for non-criminal actions, further complicating their lives. In places like Monroe County, New York, more than 3,000 active bench warrants are issued at any time — a staggering number compared to the county’s jail population.

For many, the threat of an arrest warrant means living in constant fear of incarceration. These individuals often go into hiding, quit their jobs, and avoid public spaces, all in an effort to avoid jail. This creates a vicious cycle, as the fear of arrest leads people to abandon their responsibilities, making it even harder to rebuild their lives.

Conclusion

Expanding community supervision in the hope of reducing incarceration may sound promising, but in practice, it often has the opposite effect. Rather than providing a genuine alternative to incarceration, the conditions imposed on those under supervision can be just as punitive and destructive. In many cases, supervision simply serves to delay incarceration, adding to the burden on individuals, their families, and communities. Instead of focusing on punitive measures, it’s crucial to invest in solutions that address the root causes of crime, promote rehabilitation, and help people successfully reintegrate into society without the threat of re-incarceration hanging over them.

The Myths of Criminal Justice Reform: Who Benefits from the Lies?

In conclusion, the myths surrounding the criminal justice system and the push for reform are often rooted in misinformation, intentional or otherwise, and it’s clear that these false narratives are perpetuated by those who benefit from mass incarceration. The questions of who creates these myths and why remain largely unanswered, but they seem to be driven by a system that profits from keeping people behind bars. As advocates and activists, we must continue to challenge these myths, especially when legislators, judges, and the public rely on them without fact-checking or fully understanding the consequences.

Take, for example, Colorado’s Proposition 128, which mandates 85% of time served for violent crimes. But what truly defines a “violent crime”? The line between violent and nonviolent crimes is often blurred, and many of those incarcerated for nonviolent offenses still face the harsh realities of the system. This myth of a clear divide between violent and nonviolent crimes only feeds the narrative that we need to lock more people up, without addressing the deeper issues of rehabilitation, mental health, and wrongful convictions.

We must ask ourselves why taxpayers allow their money to be spent on a system that prioritizes punishment over rehabilitation. The vast majority of those in prison are not violent criminals, yet they are subjected to the same harsh treatment, often for offenses that could be better addressed through alternative means. For those with mental health issues, the question remains: should they be in prison at all, or would a treatment facility offer a better chance for recovery and reintegration into society?

The most pressing issue, however, is the lack of accountability within the system. Public defenders, district attorneys, and legislators often focus more on “creating numbers” than ensuring justice is served. The myths they perpetuate only further obscure the truth, and it’s time for us to demand transparency and fairness. If we cannot trust those in power to make decisions based on facts, then who can we trust? The need for change is clear, and it’s up to us, as a society, to fight for a justice system that is truly just for all.

“Prisons Make Us Safer” by Victoria Law challenges the widely held belief that mass incarceration makes society safer. Instead, Law argues that the U.S. criminal justice system, which disproportionately incarcerates marginalized communities, often does more harm than good. She critiques the prison system for failing to rehabilitate offenders and highlights the long-term social consequences of widespread incarceration, including the destabilization of families and communities. Law’s work focuses on alternatives to incarceration, such as restorative justice and community-based initiatives, which she believes can lead to better outcomes for both individuals and society. She also tackles the myth that all incarcerated individuals are violent or deserving of their sentences, drawing attention to the many people behind bars for nonviolent offenses or due to systemic injustices.

The full source of this publication is from Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2024 by Wendy Sawyer and Peter Wagner, published on March 14, 2024.