The letter below was
written by Michael Liebowitz in response to a previous letter written to Wethersfield
Chief of Police James Cetran. Liebeowitz is the author, along with Brent McCall,
of “Down The Rabbit Hole” reviewed
in Connecticut Commentary nearly
a year ago.
Leibowitz here
addresses the very touchy and much discussed question of crime and punishment:
specifically, does punishment deter crime? The short answer is “yes,” provided the
punishment, a necessary check on criminal behavior, most especially in the case
of juvenile delinquents, is accompanied with therapeutic resources.
As usual, Liebowitz
attacks the question compassionately but vigorously, and his citations are
footnoted. It is not often one has the chance to view such questions from
inside the horse’s mouth. Fair readers, Connecticut Commentary reckons, will
conclude that his analysis is fair-minded and enlightening. The Wethersfield
Police Department evidently thought so when it printed Leibowitz’s hand-written
letter – typewriters are not one of the amenities provided by Connecticut’s
prison system to its prisoners – on the Department’s Facebook page.
An Open Letter to Anyone Concerned About Juvenile Crime
By Michael Liebowitz #
252419, a Connecticut prisoner for the past 21 years, currently housed at
MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in Suffield, Connecticut.
I’m writing in response to the recent op-ed entitled
“Wethersfield Police Chief Paints Inaccurate Picture of Youth” by one of your
correspondents.
There are many good things in this piece. Incarcerating kids
should only be done as a last resort. Juvenile delinquents should be shown
compassion: they are, after all, kids. Our communities do deserve to feel and
be safe, and education and opportunities are positive things.
There are, however, at least four faulty premises inherent
in the analysis. To these I now turn.
1) The first faulty premise is that punishment doesn’t deter
crime. Your correspondent writes, “Multiple studies have shown that [incarcerating
juveniles] is damaging and, importantly, doesn’t make our communities safer.” Sources
are not cited, and so I don’t know what studies are referred to. However, I do
know that the debate over this issue has a long history, and the results are
far from clear.
For the sake of clarification, it is important to
distinguish general from specific deterrence. General deterrence is the
preventative effect that punishment has on the overall population. In other
words, when people know there is a chance they will suffer negative
consequences for a given behavior, many of them won’t engage in that behavior.
Specific deterrence, on the other hand, is the effect that punishment is
supposed to have on the future behavior of the person who may be punished. For
instance, if a woman goes to jail for shoplifting, it is presumed likely to
deter her from stealing in the future.
It is impossible to know the effect of general deterrence
with any degree of certainty. Available statistics can tell us how many crimes were
committed, but not how many people were deterred from committing them. However
common sense tells us that there must be at least some people who don’t break
the law out of fear of the consequences. As Lawrence M. Friedman writes,
“Deterrence is a fact, not a mere theory; there is no reason to doubt that
deterrence works."[1]
When it comes to the effects of specific deterrence, the
evidence is mixed. Studies do show that purely punitive policies fail to reduce
recidivism.[2]
But there are also studies that, when combined with treatment, do produce a
reduction[3].
Other studies indicate that, while the severity of a punishment may not deter
offenders, the certainty that punishment will occur and the swiftness with
which it is applied do have a deterrent effect[4].
Ultimately, these studies suggest the notion that incarcerating juvenile
offenders will not make communities safer, while containing a modicum of truth,
is a bit of an overstatement
2) The second faulty premise inherent in the position of
your correspondent is that punishment and treatment are mutually exclusive. The
writer advocates treatment in place of incarceration. But, ideally, punishment
and treatment should work together. After all, it is the experience of, and
fear of, negative consequences that will impel these kids to take on the
difficult task of reforming themselves. But if they knew there were no negative
consequences, why would they bother? They must learn that the cost of living an
anti-social lifestyle far outweighs any benefits such a lifestyle provides them.
Let me be clear, I am not suggesting that every 13-year-old
who gets caught stealing a soda should be locked up. Nor do I believe that this
is what Chief Cetran is recommending. We need to keep in mind that the
juveniles who sparked his comments were guilty of car theft, robbery, and
assault. These are pretty serious offenses by any measure.
I am also not saying that the only way to get juvenile
offenders to change is to incarcerate them. What I am saying is that to get
some offenders to sincerely participate in the kind of evidence-based programs your
correspondent talks about, there must be at least a credible threat of
incarceration. If there is no such threat, many of these kids will believe they
have a license to commit crimes.
3) The third faulty premise is that poverty causes crime. Your
correspondent writes, “When juvenile crime does occur, it should spur us to
unite as communities across the state to address the root causes with programs
that instill true accountability.”
The problem is that no one has ever discovered the “root
causes” of crime[5],
nor is anyone likely to[6].
In fact, the writer does not specifically
identify what he root causes may be. I believe poverty is indicated, because that
is what has been traditionally meant by a “root cause,” and also because of the
“solutions” presented.
The author writes writes, “We… need to come together and
prioritize the physical, mental, and economic health of young people and their
families…” In addition, we need “ books in schools, warm clothing for young
people who lack it, and essential education for all.”
People have suggested addressing such root causes of crime such
as poverty for over a century. However, “… almost every type of measure
currently advocated [as of 1977] to improve social conditions for the purpose
of eliminating and preventing crime is decades old. The same kinds of programs
have been recommended and implemented again and again[7].”
Yet crime is still a problem more than forty years after that was written.
The fact is the majority of poor people don’t commit crimes[8].
Furthermore, many criminals, I among them, aren’t poor. Also, studies using
self-report data have found the relationship between income inequality and
social class to be nearly nonexistent[9].
Other studies have shown that while there is a correlation between income
inequality and murder, there isn’t one between income inequality and property
crime[10].
The bulk of studies have also shown no relationship between crime and
unemployment[11].
But perhaps the strongest evidence against the hypothesis that poverty causes
crime is the fact that between 1963 and 1993 billions of tax dollars went
towards reducing poverty, and while the poverty rate fell by approximately 23
percent during this time, the crime rate rose by approximately 350 percent[12].
None of the above should be construed as meaning that we
shouldn’t be advocating for kids to have warm clothes, better schools and more
opportunities; only that achieving these goals is unlikely to have the remediating
effects on juvenile offending that is suggested by the correspondent’s remarks.[13]
4) The fourth and final faulty premise is that juvenile
delinquents hold the same values as youths who aren’t delinquents. This is
implied by the correspondent’s belief that delinquents would want to
participate in the programs and better schools that are recommended. But
delinquents simply aren’t interested in these things. They’d much rather be
committing crimes and raising hell. And, mind you, I’m not some ivory tower
academic. I was a juvenile delinquent and have known many others. School was
available, but I didn’t want to go, and neither did many of my friends. Many
people tried to help me, but I didn’t want their help. As hard as it may be to
understand, crime was rewarding for me, as it is for other delinquents.[14]
This is why the threat of punishment is essential. Again the cost of committing
crimes must outweigh the perceived benefits.
The fact that those who continually commit crimes think and
value differently than those who don’t has been painstakingly demonstrated by
doctors Yochelson and Samenow,[15]
as well as by Glenn Walters.[16]
Also, criminologist Wright and Decker refer to the “psychic rewards” burglars
get from committing burglaries. In fact, these psychic rewards are so great
that Wright and Decker doubt that job programs could be of much appeal to
burglars. The burglars simply value committing burglaries too much to give them
up.[17]
Finally, in addition to the four faulty premises mentioned
above, the writer is short on specifics concerning the “programs proven to
work” that are recommended. To be sure, there are such programs; the writer
just doesn’t tell us much about them. As I believe it is incumbent on those who
criticize to offer solutions as well, allow me to share what I’ve learned about
effective programs.
These programs are directed towards juvenile offenders;[18]
they take place in the community;[19]
they employ cognitive-behavioral techniques;[20]
they address the anti-social attitudes, values and beliefs of offenders;[21]
and they are intensive, taking from three to nine months and “occupying 40 to
70 percent of the offender’s time.[22]
Effective programs have been shown to reduce recidivism by
up to 30 percent.[23]
To appreciate the significance of this, consider that “the average high-risk
youth will cost society an estimated $1.7 to $2.3 million. Depending on when
intervention takes place (how early) and what the absence of such early
intervention programs costs, a treatment program can “pay for itself.”[24]
With such prospects, shouldn’t we, as a society, seek to implement such programs?
Multi-systemic therapy,[25]
a program created by Scott Henggeler and associates, satisfies the bulk of the
criteria noted above. Space constraints preclude me from giving a detailed
account of this program, but among its features are that it is empirically
based and rooted in social psychology. It is geared towards juveniles. Among
the techniques it employs is cognitive-behavioral therapy. It involves
offenders and their families in three to five months of intensive programming,
during which the anti-social characteristics of the offender are addressed and
parents and/or other caregivers are provided training in how to deal with the
offender. The goal of the program is to avoid incarcerating kids. Finally, the
program has achieved significant success in reducing recidivism.
In closing, I would like to thank the thoughtful
correspondent and Chief Cetran for their interest in this issue. I believe both
are sincere in their concern for the state’s communities and kids. I also think
they could probably find a lot of common ground between them. As such, it would
be great to see the two of them, as well as those of us who share their
concerns, work together to achieve a safer society. Thank you.
[2]
Cullen, Francis t. and Gendreau, Paul, Assessing Correctional Rehabilitation:
policy, Practice and Prospects
[7]
Yochelson, Samuel and Samenow, Stanton E he Criminal Personality Volume 1 pg.
67. pg.25
[8]
Ibid
[9]
Walters, Glen D, The Criminal Lifestyle pg. 27
[10]
Ibid
[11]
Ibid
[12]
Walsh, Anthony, Criminology: The Essentials pg. 72
[13]
Yochelson, Samuel and Samenow, Stanton E. The Criminal Personality, Volume 2 p.
31
[14]
Walters, Glen D. The Criminal Lifestyle Pg. 173
[15]
Yochel, Samuel and Samenow, Stanton E. The Criminal Personality Volume 1
[16]
Walters, Glen, The criminal Lifestyle
[17]
Walsh, Anthony, Criminology: the Essentials, pg. 206
[18]
Culen, Francis T. and Gendreau, Paul, Assessing Correctional Rehabilitation: Policy,
Practice and Prospects
[19]
Ibid
[20]
Halgin, Richard p and Whitbourne, Susan Kraus, Abnormal Psychology p362; Walsh,
Anthony, Criminology: The Essentials pg. 125; Walters, Glen D The Criminal
Lifestyle ; Yochelson, Samuel and Samenow, Stanton E. The Criminal Personality,
Volume 2
[21]
Cullen, Francis t. and Gendreau, Paul, Assessing Correctional Rehabilitation:
Policy, Practice and Prospects
[22]
Ibid
[23]
Ibid
[24]
Ibid
Comments