Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
2
1 The Economics of Crime and Justice
3
2
4
3 The News w Gangs w Drugs
5
4
6
5
7
6
8
7 Tu Feb 7, 07
9
8
10
California Government ANA Matasantos
11
UC Budget From CA General Fund 1968-69 2000-01
12
UC Budget from CA General Fund Arnie Davis
19
18
22
21 1968-69 2010-11
24
CA Government Vs. CA Economy
27
26 Outline w UCR Offenses Per Capita by State w The Meth Epidemic w Crime in California
28
UCR Offenses Per Capita By State w Crime Generation: OF = f(CR,SV, SE, MC) w OFPC = (PRPC, SE,MC), i.e offenses per capita varies with prisoners per capita, causal variables and moral compliance w SE: causal variables Human capital: % of students above basic grade 4 reading, deaths per 100,000 from heart disease,% of children below poverty w MC moral compliance % catholic, % weekly church attendance 27
29
28 No control Bad Health (low human capital) decreases crime
30
29
31
30 No Control Education Reduces crime Moral compliance ditto Less Poverty ditto Health insignificant
32
31 Expenditures Per Capita UCR Offenses Per Capita CCT Income Education Moral Compliance Less poverty
33
32 Front Line: The Meth Epidemic w http://www.pbs.org Assignment for class http://www.pbs.org w 1.5 million addicts in the US Worldwide more addicts than for horse and coke, combined w Different than heroin and cocaine No natural supply Synthetic 9 factories in the world manufacture pseudoephedrin w Could focus on Supply Limit availability of pseudoephedrin Roadblock: pharmaceutical lobby
34
33 50 % of children In Oregon are there Because of meth- Addicted parents
35
34
36
35 Prison Building since 80’s: Some Ideas w Death Penalty Controversy in the 70’s Was death penalty effective? Was death penalty moral? w Ignoring incentives Expected cost of punishment deters everybody Detention only controls those you catch w The law of unforeseen consequences Relying on detention means the gulag w The power of ideas The “Constancy of Imprisonment” hypothesis The “Serious Offender”
37
36 Four Periods: #1 1930-1983 except WWII, constancy # 2 WWII #3 1984-1998, expansion #4 1999-
38
37 Crime in California w Causality and Control w Corrections: Dynamics and Economics w Correctional Bureaucracy
39
1952-2004
40
39 Use the California Experience w Crime rates Have Fallen. Why Haven’t Imprisonment rates? w Apply the conceptual tools developed prior to the midterm Criminal justice system schematic crime control technology
41
Crime Generation Crime Control Offense Rate Per Capita Expected Cost of Punishment Schematic of the Criminal Justice System: Coordinating CJS Causes ?!! (detention, deterrence) Expenditures Weak Link “The Driving Force”
42
41 What are the facts? w Expenditures per capita on the CA criminal justice system
43
42
44
43
45
44 What are the facts? w Expenditures per capita on the CA criminal justice system Expenditures per capita in real $ are rising steadily The big ticket items are enforcement and corrections w Offenses per capita
46
45 Trends In Crime in California Source: Crime and Delinquency in California, 2002 http://caag.state.ca.us/ Social Welfare Lecture (#1 LP) Growth level 19801992 1952
47
46 Crime in California 2007
48
47 Homicide in California 2007
49
48 What are the facts? w Offense rates per capita rose rapidly until 1980 w Leveled off in the 1980’s w Declined in the nineties w Are relatively stable in this decade
50
49
51
50 Can we identify the causes? w The factors that cause crime might have been getting better in the latter 90’s
52
51 Crime Generation Crime Control Offense Rate Per Capita Expected Cost of Punishment Schematic of the Criminal Justice System; Death Penalty Causes ? (detention, deterrence) Expenditures Weak Link Variable, up & down Steady increase
53
52 Crime Generation Crime Control Offense Rate Per Capita Expected Cost of Punishment Schematic of the Criminal Justice System; Jobs and Crime Causes ?:Economic Conditions (detention, deterrence) Expenditures Weak Link
54
53
55
54
56
55 Note: w The misery index bottoms out in 1998 and the crime rate bottoms out in 1999 w There is visual evidence that there may be a connection
57
Jobs and Crime
58
57 2002 1952 1980 1954 Jobs and Crime Lec #2 LP
59
Jobs and Crime
60
59 What are the facts? w Control variables Imprisonment as a measure of detention and deterrence
61
Crime Generation Crime Control Offense Rate Per Capita Expected Cost of Punishment Schematic of the Criminal Justice System: Coordinating CJS Causes ?!! (detention, deterrence) Expenditures Weak Link “The Driving Force”
62
61
63
62 The number of prisoners per capita is leveling off w Is this why the crime rate is turning up?
64
63
65
64 Note w When prisoners per capita was flat, offenses per capita was growing w When prisoners per capita started growing, offenses per capita leveled off and then declined
66
65
67
66 What is Affecting Crime Rates? w Economic Conditions? w Imprisonment Rates? w Both?
68
67 Model Schematic Crime Generation: California Index Offenses Per Capita Causality: California Misery Index Crime Control: California Prisoners Per Capita
69
68 CA Crime Index Per Capita (t) = 0.037 + 0.00036*Misery Index (t) – 3.60*Prisoners Per Capita (t) + e(t) where e(t) = 0.95*e(t-1)
70
69 Ln CA Crime Index Per Capita (t) = -5.35 + 0.17*ln Misery Index (t) -0.23 ln Prisoners Per capita (t) +e(t) where e(t) = 0.93 e(t-1)
71
70 California Forecasts w Using the Fitted Model to Forecast Year CA Crime Index Per Capita 120050.018812 220060.018247 320070.017193 420080.018947 520090.019276
72
71
73
72
74
73
75
Institutional Population Projections 74 2008
76
75
77
76 California Department of Corrections: Institutional Population http://www.cdc.state.ca.us/reports/populatn.htm
78
77 Crime in California w Causality and Control wCwCorrections: Dynamics and Economics
79
78 Prison Dynamics and Economics w Admissions * mean years served = prisoners
80
79 Relationships Between Stocks and Flows: Coordinating CJS w In equilibrium: Inflow = Outflow w The outflow is proportional to the stock Outflow = k * Stock constant of proportionality, k, equals one divided by mean time served –Admits * mean years served = stock of prisoners
81
80 The Stock of Prisoners InflowOutflow Stock of Prisoners New Admissions from Court Released to Parole Coordinating CJS
82
81 45 degrees Constraint: Admits per year*Average years served = Prisoners Average Years Served Admits per Year Coordinating CJS
83
82 California Department of Corrections: Total Felon Admissions http://www.cdc.state.ca.us/reports/populatn.htm
84
83
85
84 Prison Realities w We can not build prisons fast enough to increase capacity soon enough w The public wants more convicts sent to prison w But prisons are full w So, what happens?
86
85 Consequence w Release violent offenders w Innocent children are kidnapped, raped and murdered: example-Polly Klass
87
86 Consequence w Polly’s father campaigns for three strikes law
88
87 Consequence w More convicts are sent to prison
89
88
90
89 Capital constraint: Coordinating CJS w admits per capita per year * average years served = prisoners per capita w Prisoners per capita is limited by prison capacity w If you increase admits per capita per year, then average years served decreases until prison capacity catches up
91
90 Prison Dynamics and Economics wAwAdmissions * mean years served = prisoners Dynamics wPwProduction Possibility Frontier Economics
92
91 Abstraction (Model) of the Criminal Justice System Enforcement Prosecution Defense Courts State Prisons New Admits Mean Years Served
93
92 Admits per Year per capita average years served Tradeoff Between Criminal Justice System Outputs tan = admits per year per capita/average years served
94
93 Resource constraint w expenditure per capita on CJS = expenditure per capita on enforcement, prosecution, and adjudication plus expenditure per capita on corrections w admits per year per capita depends on expenditures per capita on enforcement, etc. w average years served depends on expenditures per capita on corrections
95
Admits per Capita Expenditures per capita on Enforcement Average Years Served Expenditures per capita on Corrections production function production function Expenditures per capita on Corrections Expenditures per capita on Enforcement Total Expenditures per capita on Criminal Justice System
96
Total Expenditure per capita on CJScapita on CJS Expenditures per capita, Corrections Expenditures per capita, Enforcement Admits per capita Average Years Served Production Function
97
96 Abstraction (Model) of the Criminal Justice System Enforcement Prosecution Defense Courts State Prisons New Admits Mean Years Served
98
Total Expenditure per capita on CJScapita on CJS Expenditures per capita, Corrections Expenditures per capita, Enforcement Admits per capita Average Years Served Production Function
99
98 Admits per Year per capita, AD average years served, S A Shifting Mix In Criminal Justice System Outputs tan = admits per year per capita/average years served Facts 1. spend more 2. Admit more 3. shorter time served Prison Capacity Constraint
100
1952 1986 1994 1975
101
100 Crime in California w Causality and Control wCwCorrections: Dynamics and Economics wCwCorrectional Bureaucracy
102
101 California Corrections Bureaucracy w Prisoner and Parole Populations Stocks w Felon New Admissions From Court Inflow to Prison w Prisoners Released to Parole Outflow from Prison/Inflow to Parole w Parole Violators Outflow from Parole w Discharges from Parole and Deaths Outflow from Parole
103
California Department of Corrections 1996 Prisoners 145,565 Parolees 100,935 Felon New Admits 46,487 Releases to Parole 111,532 Discharged and Died 27,691 57,984 Parole Violators Returned to Custody Parole Violators With a New Term 17,525 Parolees At Large 18,034 Discharged and Died 3,984 Absconded 29,376
104
103 Correctional Trends in California: Custodial Populations w Prisoners Per Capita Institutional Population Felons Civil Narcotics Addicts w Parolees Per Capita Parole and Outpatient Population Supervised in California
105
104
107
106 California Department of Corrections: Total Parole and Outpatient Population
109
108 Correctional Trends in California: Inflows to Prison w Felon New Admissions from Court w Parole Violators Returned to Custody w Parole Violators With a New Term
111
110 “Charlie on the MTA” w http://www.google.com http://www.google.com Song: “Charlie on the MTA” w www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXgo2GTKPEg www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXgo2GTKPEg w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VMSGrY- IlU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VMSGrY- IlU w www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXgo2GTKPEg www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXgo2GTKPEg
112
111
113
California Department of Corrections 1996 Prisoners 145,565 Parolees 100,935 Felon New Admits 46,487 Releases to Parole 111,532 Discharged and Died 27,691 57,984 Parole Violators Returned to Custody Parole Violators With a New Term 17,525 Parolees At Large 18,034 Discharged and Died 3,984 Absconded 29,376
114
113 Two Policy Issues w Composition of New Admissions from Court w Large Volume of Parole Violators Returned to Prison
115
114
116
115
117
116
118
117 CA Department of Corrections Projections
119
118 CA Department of Corrections Projections
120
119
121
120 CA Crime Rate Forecast 2006, 2007
122
121
123
122
124
1955 1998 1980
125
1955 1998 1980
126
1955 1980 1998
127
126
129
128 Forecasting Prisoners Per Capita w Model Schematic Close the loop: 2-way causality
130
129 Causal Model Forecasts: OF Unemployment rate inflation rate, prisoners per capita * Forecasts from Economic Forecasts, 2001-, www.dof.ca.gov # Forecasts from California Department of Corrections
131
130
132
131
133
132 Model Schematic Crime Generation: California Index Offenses Per Capita Causality: California Misery Index Causality: Time Trend Crime Control: California Prisoners Per Capita
134
133 Model Schematic Crime Generation: California Index Offenses Per Capita Causality: California Misery Index Crime Control: California Prisoners Per Capita
135
134
136
135
137
136 Brain scan study At UCLA Effect on The body
138
137
139
138
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.