Victories by several Democratic Socialists of America-affiliated candidates have revived attention for proposals to dismantle the American criminal-justice system. In 2020–21, following the killing of George Floyd, Black Lives Matter promoted schemes to “defund the police” and shut down American prisons. These extreme ideas seemed to fade in the succeeding years. But like a movie monster, even a stake through the heart doesn’t preclude a sequel.
For some advocates, the animus toward criminal justice is motivated by ignorance about the true nature of the system. For others, the extremism is rooted in a hatred of American institutions. The ignorance is readily challenged and easily dispelled, but the extremism is ideological and harder to refute, since it stems from an unshakeable belief that the American system is designed to suppress the working class. The assumption is that prisons filled with the poor function as weapons of class suppression, maintained by the entire criminal-justice apparatus, including courts and police.
Finally, a reason to check your email.
Sign up for our free newsletter today.
Sometimes, this old-fashioned class warfare argument is updated with a racial or ethnic overlay. Since an outsize proportion of blacks and Hispanics are poor relative to other racial and ethnic demographics and also make up a disproportionate number of the incarcerated, contemporary socialists merge class suppression and racial/ethnic suppression in their narrative.
This ideological view cannot be rebutted by reasoned argument since the class/race conflict thesis is taken as a given and serves as the basis for the radical proposals that follow. It can, however, be rejected by public opinion and elections, which are more likely to be influenced by facts about the realities of the criminal-justice system. Here are some relevant examples of those facts:
A substantial majority of state prisoners (62 percent) were sentenced for violent crimes, such as murder, rape, robbery, and assault. Only 13 percent were imprisoned for drug-related offenses.
Blacks account for 14 percent of the U.S. population but 33 percent of state and federal prisoners. Hispanics make up 22 percent of state prisoners, roughly the same as their percentage of the population. Blacks and Hispanics together constitute a majority of these prisoners (55 percent). Non-Hispanic whites represent 56 percent of the nation’s population but only 29 percent of state prisoners.
Over two-thirds of black prisoners (68 percent) had been sentenced for violent crimes. Fifty-four percent of white and 71 percent of Hispanic inmates also were violent offenders.
Sixty-one percent of nonlethal violent incidents with black victims were perpetrated by blacks. For murders, almost 90 percent of black victims were killed by other blacks.
Most prisoners are career criminals. Before they went to prison, they averaged 11 arrests per inmate. After release from prison, 83 percent got arrested again, nearly half in their first year of freedom.
Socialists are correct to claim that most prisoners are poor, but they overlook the poverty of their victims. Are we to ignore the impoverished victims in favor of indigent criminals? Likewise, while a disproportionate number of the incarcerated are minorities, so are the victims of their crimes. Blacks made up a shocking 56 percent of homicide victims in 2023, four times their percentage of the nation’s population.
Socialist claims would gain more cogency if they offered an alternative to prison, but the principal left-wing proposal—restorative justice—is totally inadequate. RJ calls for a meeting of crime victims and perpetrators under the direction of a trained facilitator. The aim is to arrive at a way for the perpetrator to make the victim feel whole again, or at least acknowledge the harm caused by the crime.
For low-level offenses such as harassment or minor theft, RJ may be effective. But perpetrators of these offenses are usually put on probation, so the benefits in terms of reducing incarceration are insignificant. For the most serious crimes, however, especially crimes of violence, RJ may be useful, but only as a supplement to incarceration. Serious offenders are a danger to the community who must be incapacitated and deterred. Crimes of this magnitude require punishment, not only for these purposes, but also for retribution or basic justice. Meetings with victims will not satisfy the public that justice is being served for rapists, robbers, or attempted murderers. It won’t be adequate for nonviolent prison inmates either, such as gun-law violators, drug dealers, drunk drivers, burglars, or major thieves. For the first two (or even the first three), there is not always a victim with whom to make amends. For the last two, restitution (making good the losses) probably will be more desirable to victims than statements of regret.
One possible way to reduce imprisonment is by expanding the use of technology. E-carceration, or electronic monitoring with an ankle bracelet or a special wristwatch, can surveil offenders and report their location to authorities. This could deter them from entering forbidden areas, such as a victim’s residence or workplace, or, for a child sex offender, a playground. Electronic monitoring could also encourage positive behaviors, such as attending a substance-abuse program or showing up for a job.
E-monitoring should be used with prisoners on parole to encourage rehabilitation. If effective, it will result in fewer reimprisonments which, given the enormous recidivism rates of ex-prisoners, could reduce incarcerations. It also might be advisable, though expensive, to e-carcerate probationers, at least those who committed violent crimes. Of course, since probation is a non-incarcerative sentence, this would not directly affect prison numbers, but it might reduce future prison entries by discouraging reoffending. A similar benefit might be obtained by using electronic monitoring instead of bail for those not yet adjudicated. Since the Left has long opposed bail on grounds that it discriminates against the poor, it is strange that socialists don’t support electronic monitoring.
In fact, socialists oppose all uses of e-carceration, though they don’t say why. This seems to be a case of the perfect being an enemy of the good.
E-carceration is not a cure-all. No current technology can detect crimes in progress, and until it can, prisons will be necessary. Even with crime detection, punishment is needed to deter would-be offenders and sanction the undeterred. Wearing an ankle bracelet is unpleasant and inconvenient, but it is not punitive enough to penalize or deter heinous crimes.
The truth is, most socialists don’t really care about such reforms. They want to destroy the system—and not just the criminal-justice system.