The U.S. has the second-highest prison population rate, according to the Institute for Criminal Policy Research and the World Prison Brief. While the U.S. touts itself as the “home of the free,” this seems contradictory to American values. Mass incarceration is a lose-lose problem: Those who are needlessly incarcerated lose the ability to integrate easily into society and the taxpayers are footing the bill for something that ultimately does not make us any safer. According to the University of Chicago Crime Lab, the costs for housing an inmate can be around $30,000 a year, but this does not take into account the social costs of high rates of incarceration.
Each person imprisoned is a missing family or community member. It seems logical that longer jail sentences for more criminals will make people safer, but this is an oversimplification. While the political climate may seem more polarized than ever, according to Matt Ford’s article “Can Bipartisanship End Mass Incarceration?” efforts to end mass incarceration have bipartisan support, even getting backing from Koch Industries — unfortunately, as “tough-on-crime” rhetoric also once has bipartisan support.
With such widespread support for a solution to mass incarceration, one would think a solution would already be in the works, and the issue would not be up for discussion anymore. Sadly, that’s not the case. On the Democratic side, there is a difference of opinion when it comes to what the root of the problem really is. Chelsea Clinton, when campaigning for her mother, emphasized how she believes the solution is about jobs and education, not at the prison level, which is essentially saying, “those people shouldn’t have gotten arrested in the first place.”
It completely disregards the external factors that contribute to high incarceration, such as mandatory minimum sentences, long sentences for nonviolent drug offenses and “three-strikes” rules. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have an incentive to take this approach, as Politico reported she has received contributions from prominent for-profit prison lobbyists. For these institutions, more prisoners equal more profits. Although donations are not always quid pro quo, this makes it clear where Clinton’s interests lie on this issue.
In contrast, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., takes into account how external factors affect whether a person ends up incarcerated, such as race. According to Sanders’ website, when he spoke to a crowd in Des Moines Sanders said, “From Ferguson to Baltimore and across this nation, too many African-Americans and other minorities find themselves subjected to a system that treats citizens who have not committed crimes as if they were criminals, and that is unacceptable.” The problems of mass incarceration and racism are completely intertwined: When there is such a high burden to avoid police suspicion, it’s no wonder which group ends up with higher rates of incarceration.
African-Americans are much more likely to be incarcerated, get longer sentences for the same crimes and are more often arrested for drug offenses, according to German Lopez’s article “Mass incarceration in America, explained in 22 maps and charts.” While Sanders is widely projected to do best in whiter states, Clinton’s position on this policy shows she doesn’t see how multilayered the problem of mass incarceration is. Although the Democratic candidates agree on a lot of issues, this is one that clearly distinguishes them from one another and shows how different a Sanders presidency would be from a Clinton presidency.
Nicole Dan is a UF political science sophomore. Her column appears on Mondays.
