----------------------------------------_/~-

...
•

ALEC

. • I "'_ ·

.
'

,

,

, ,

,

,

, , .--.--,-.,.
----_._._--

•

•

•

•

•

• l

,

-------------------------------

------------

- ----

Report Card on Crime and PunlitJmegt1995'
Table of Contents
Foreword
Introduction
Executive Summary
Highlights
Chapter 1: A More Dangerous World for the Law-Abiding

~.

:

C (' i -~ I ~ f T R0

:..!.:!.2

: ::..::: ·;·:.

:

A Different Time, A Safer World
The Storm Gathers
Table 1.1: Crime in the United States: 1960-1992
Table 1.2 Percentage Change in Crime: 1960-1980-1992
Table 1.3: Your Chances of Becoming a Victim
Chart 1.1: Crime Trends in the United States: 1960-1992
Chart 1.2: Crime in the United States: Historical Trends
Chart 1.3: Crime Trends in the United States: Percentage Change in Crime Rates
Change in the 1980s
Chart 1.4: Violent Crime Trends in the United States: 1960-1992
Chart 1.5: Crime in the United States: Historical Violent Crime Trends
Chart 1.6: Crime Trends in the United States: Percentage Change in Violent Crime Rates
Experience in the state
The Threat Posed by Repeat Offenders....
Table 1.4: The Odds of Victimization
Table 1.5: Number of Violent Crimes Per Day - 1992
Table 1.6: Estimated Crimes Committed Per Day by Offenders on Probation,
Parole and Pretrial Release
Table 1.7: Total Crime Rates, Percentage Change and Rankings : 1960-1980-1992
Table 1.8 : Violent Crime Rates, Percentage Change and Rankings: 1960-1980-1992

Chapter 2: A More Conlfortable World for Criminals
A Less Risky World for Criminals
Chart 2.1: Prison Population Per 1000 Index Crimes: 1960-1992
Chart 2.2: Prison Population Per 1000 Violent Crimes: 1960-1992
A Better Standard of Living for Criminals
Table 2.1: Average Estimated Time Served by 'lYpe of Offense
Table 2.2: Cost Per Inmate
Table 2.3: Total Crime and Incarceration Rates, Percentage Change and Rankings
Table 2.4: Violent Crime Incarceration Rates, Percentage Change and Rankings

Chapter 3: Punishment as Protection and Prevention
What the Evidence Shows: Getting Tough Works
Chart 3.1: Prison Population Per 1000 Index Crimes: 1980-1992
Chart 3.2: Prison Population Per 1000 Violent Crimes: 1980-1992
Violent Crime
Table 3.1: Growth in Incarceration Rates and Changes in Crime Rates
Social Spending and Crime
Gun Availability and Crime

Chapter 4: Juveniles and the Recent Increase in Crime Rilles
Table 4.1: Juveniles and Crime: 1972-1992

Conclusion
Appendix AI:
Appendix A2:
Appendix A3:
Appendix A.4:
Appendix A.5:
Appendix A6:
Appendix A7:
Appendix A8:
Appendix A9:

1
3
5
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
12
12
13
13
13
14
16

18
18
18
18
19
20
21
22
24

26
26
26
26
27
27
27
27

28
28

29
State Ranking Tables: Total Crime Rates: 1960-1980-1992
State Ranking Tables: Percentage Change in Total Crime Rates: 1960-1980-1992
State Ranking Table;;; Violent Crime Rates 1960-1980-1992
State Ranking Tables: Percentage Change in Violent Crime Rates: 1960-1980-1992
State Ranking Tables: Total Crime Incarceration Rates: 1960-1980-1992
State Ranking Tables: Percentage Change in Total Crime
Incarceration Rates: 1960-1980-1992
State Ranking Tables: Violent Crime Incarceration Rates: 1960-1980-1992
State Ranking Tables: Percentage Change in Violent Crime
Tncarceration Rates: 1960-1980-1992
State Ranking Tables: Per Inmate Prison Costs 1960-1992 and Percentage Change

30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38

Acknowledmements:
Principal Investigators:
Dr. Michael Block, Professor of Economics, University of Arizona
Mr. Steve Twist, Senior Fellow, the ALEC Foundation
Project Staff:
Dr. Dennis Bartlett
Mr. Tim Beauchemin
Ms. Molly Bordonaro
Mr. Noel Card
Mr. Panya Chua
Mr. Wendell Cox
Mr. Jose Lobera
Mr. William Myers
Mr. Michael Schwartz
Ms. Elizabeth Van Lanen

U.S. Department of Justice
Natlonallnstltute of Justice

152752

This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the
p~rson or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stated in
thiS do~~ment ~~e those o! t.he authors and do not necessarily represent
the offiCial POSition or policies of the National Institute of Justice.
Permission to reproduce this copyrighted material has been
granted QY

.AInerJ.can I.egislative Exchange
Council

to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS).
Further reproduction outside ofthe NCJRS system requires permission
of the copyright owner.

The Report Card on Crime and Punishment
© October 24,1994
ALEC Foundation
910 17th StreetN.W.
Fifth Floor
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 466-3800
The Report Card Oft Crime and Pltftishmeftt is published by the ALEC Foundation, in conjunction as part of its mission to discuss, develop and
disseminate public policies which expand free markets, promote economic growth, limit govemment and preserve individual liberty.

The ALEC Foundation is classified by the Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) non-profit public policy research and education organization.
Individuals, philanthropic foundations, corporations, companies, or associations are eligible to support the ALEC Foundation through tax-deductible gifts. Nothing written herein is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of the ALEC Foundation, its Board of Directors,- or its
officers, or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before the Congress or in state legislatures.
•

Cover photos by Greg Rummel and Ward Bolt

L

Report Card on Crime and Punishment

FOREWORD

•

Fighting Crime: A Question of Will and Priorities
With the publication of this first Report Card on American Crime and Punishment, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) presents a remarkable insight into the history of crime and punishment over the last three decades, the sea change which divides the period into two distinct eras, and the
effects of these changes on the innocent and the law abiding.
The Report shows that the seeds of the present disorder were sown thirty years ago, and that societal
order, once lost, is difficult and costly to restore. But ALEC has also shown, through its critical analysis, a way out.
There are 50 different state criminal justice systems in America. In the summer of 1992, as U.S.
Attorney General, I reported to the President on 24 recommendations to strengthen the criminal justice
systems in the states. In Combating Violent Crime, it was recognized that violent crime was "still
primarily a state and local problem... 95 percent of violent crime is prosecuted by state and local authorities."

In this volume ALEC has documented the validity of those recommendations by demonstrating the
powerful, indeed singular, effects that punishment rates have on crime rates. The message clearly is
that getting tough works. This study makes a strong case that increasing prison capacity is the single
most effective strategy for controlling crime.
Over the course of the last thirty years, most notably from 1960 to 1980, America lost its moorings. On
criminal justice policy, it adopted a "blame-society-first" attitude that abandoned punishment and moved
toward social spending and rehabilitation programs as the response to crime. However well motivated,
these policies failed. The pain of those failures was not felt by the inanimate state, but rather by the
victims of the crime wave which engulfed America and, indeed, by all law-abiding Americans. No one
in this country remains untouched by this crisis of crime.
And so the question arises -- what must be done? ALEC points the way. States must reform their justice
systems to ensure that the interests of the law-abiding are paramount. This means, fust and foremost,
that prison capacity must be sufficient in each state to imprison every violent and repeat offender and to
keep them for terms more closely approaching the sentences imposed.
In order to utilize that capacity effectively the laws must insert needed discipline into the system by
mandating prison terms for the most serious violent offenders.
At the U.S. Justice Department, we observed regUlarly that the problem of violent crime in America
was largely the problem of the repeat violent offender. The consequences of this revolving door are
found in ALEC's assessment of the level of crime committed by criminals we have caught and then set
then set free on bail or parole. A free civil society cannot long endure a justice system which returns
violent predators to the streets. Yet today, as this report is issued, and tomorrow, and every day this
October 1994

~

_ _~

~~

1

I

Report Card on Crime and Punishment

year, 14 people will be murdered, 48 women will be raped, and 578 people will be robbed by a criminal
we have caught, convicted, and then returned to the streets on probation or parole. Indeed, when you
add pre-trial release, almost 2,000 violent crimes will be committed every day by criminals on probation, parole, or pre-trial release.
These are self-inflicted wounds that America can no longer suffer. While we have made some progress
over the course of the 1980s, the challenges remain profound. The recent federal crime bill shows we
are not up to meeting them. If we are to build on the successes of the eighties we must learn the lessons
of the ALEC study. There is recorded here substantial evidence that the eighties worked and the sixties
didn't, It does not take a rocket scientist to decide which path to follow.

William P. Barr
October 20, 1994

William R Barr served as the 77th Attomey General ofthe United States. He is currently the Senior Vice President and
General Counsel for GTE Corporation.
2

_ _~

~

AMERICAN LEGlSLATfYE EXCHANGE COUNCIL

Report Card 011 Crime alld Punishmellt

1

INTRODUCTION

•

Getting Tough on Violent Crime:
A Matter of Common Sense
Samuel A. Brunelli
President of the ALEC Foundation

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), with this publication, presents the first comprehensive historical review ever accomplished of crime and punishment in the states.
It is fitting for ALEC to have undertaken this review. As America's largest individual membership
organization of state legislators, ALEC has a special connection to the states and their crucial role in the
nation's front line in the war on crime.
There is no single criminal justice system in America, but rather SO separate systems, each defined by
the laws and practices of the several states. No effort to restore order to the streets and neighborhoods
ofAmerica can possibly succeed without a critical study of the experiences in the states and the differences among them. Such is the purpose of this study.
The data reveal a history that is as dispiriting as it is hopeful.
Today, inAmerica, 65 people will be murdered, 299 women will be raped, 1,842 people will be robbed,
and more than 3,000 people will be the victims of an aggravated assault.
From 1960 to 1992, America became a much more dangerous place to live. The chance of becoming a
victim of a violent crime, or a woman's chance ofbeing raped, increased by more than three times from
1960 to 1992. By 1992 the chance of being a victim of a violent crime was 1 in 132; the chance of a
woman being raped was 1 in 2,300.
Documenting the dimensions of this more dangerous world is only a small part of the story. Within the
data presented here a much more important finding becomes clear. The years from 1960 to 1992 are
separated by a "sea change" in criminal justice policy which appeared in 1980. It is a tale of two eras
-- the worst of times, followed by slightly better times.
Between 1960 and 1980 the crime rate in America went up 215 percent. The murder rate doubled.
Property crimes went up 210 percent, with burglaries increasing 231 percent. And crime touched and
changed each American.
While these trends were found in each of the states, the differences among them are also significant.
The crime rate in Michigan during the 1960 to 1980 era went up 151 percent, but in New Hampshire it
went up at an even greater rate - 579 percent. What accounted for the difference?
Without doubt, the most powerful explanation for the difference is found in the punishment rate variations throughout the period. While New Hampshire was pacing the nation with its crime rate increases,
October 1994

~_~

~_~

_

3

I

Report Card on Crime and Punishment

its imprisonment rate fell by more than 80% - the third sharpest decline of any state. In Michigan, the
imprisonment rate fell, as well, but by only 47%. Consequently, Michigan's crime rate increase was
actually one of the lowest in the nation.
Then came the 1980s. From 1980 to 1992 New Hampshire experienced one of the greatest reversals in
policies of all the states. It actually increased its incarceration rate more than any other state, and
during the very same period New Hampshire experienced the greatest decline in crime rates in the
country.
The differences between 1960 and 1992 are marked by an unmistakable breakdown of order. But the
dividing line within the period is clear: an era of tumblIng punishment rates divided from an era of
increasing punishment rates. Correspondingly, it divides an era of runaway crime from an era of leveling, and in some categories and some states an actual diminishment, of crime rates.
The message here is unequivocal. Leniency is associated with higher crime rates; getting tough brings
crime rates down.
This is the hopeful part of the ALEC Report Card. We now know that there is a policy choice that
promises to make America safer. It places common sense and consequence at the center of criminal
justice policy. It is built on criminal laws that send violent and repeat offenders to prison and legislatures that will ensure the prison capacity to keep them locked up.
America in 1994 remains a country with a serious crime problem. Despite some encouraging progress,
the war against crime, especially violent crime, needs to be waged with a new sense of purpose and
diligence. This Report Card shows what most people feel in their hearts: there is no place in society for
violent criminals, and the most effective strategy we can employ is to arrest, convict, and incarcerate
criminals for long periods of time. Neither welfare spending nor laws that deny to law-abiding citizens
the right to bear arms show any crime control effects. The right policy choice places the right of crime
victims and honest citizens at its epicenter. If this principle is not the central element of our crime
fighting strategy, then the strategy is doomed to fail. And failure, in this case, is paid in the form of the
lives of the innocent and law abiding. It is a price that is too high to pay.
ALEC has produced a 10-PointAgenda to Fight Crime which is found in the Executive Summary of the
Report Card on Crime andPunishment. Ifthese reforms were enacted throughoutAmerica, they would
restore justice in the courts and order in the neighborhoods. Nothing government does could possibly
be more important.

Samuel A. Brunelli is President of the ALEC Foundation and Executive Director of the American Legislative Exchange
Council (ALEC). ALECis the nation's largest bipartisan association ofstate legislators, with more than 2,600 members
nationwide.

4

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~

AMERICf'..N LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL

......

•

Report Card on Crime and Punishment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The issue of crime has been thrust on the national agenda by a citizenry outraged by the explosion of crime,
particularly violent crime, over the last 30 years. Crime has captured the headlines in every community across
the nation, and has succeeded in trapping many law abiding citizens behind locked doors, left to live in fear.
Compared to the relative calm of the postwar period of the 1950s, America is a far more dangerous place to live
in today.
•:. The 1992 total crime rate was three times that of 1960.
•:. Of even greater concern, the 1992 violent crime rate was almost five times the rate in 1960.
•:. The murder rate nearly doubled, while rapes, robberies and assaults were up by more than four times.
But the escalation of crime in America over the last three decades has not been <;onstant. There were two distinct
periods. Most of the increase in violent crime occurred between 1960 and 1980, while all of the increase in the
total crime rate (FBI "index" crime) occurred in that period.
•:. From 1980 to 1992 the violent crime rate rose 27 percent. This, alone, would be cause of alarm were it not
that the rate of increase had been ten times greater in the previous 20 years (271 percent).
•:. From 1980 to 1992, the total crime rate dropped by 5 percent. This would be cause for celebration if the
crime rate in 1980 had not been so outrageously high (the total crime rate rose by 215 percent from 1960 to
1980).
While the explosive crime rate increases of the 1960s and 1970s appear to be a thing of the past, crime in
America remains at intolerably high rates.
During the 1960s and 1970s, imprisonment was used less and less as a punishment for crime. Between 1960 and
1980 the ratio of prisoners to violent crimes (incarceration rate) dropped by 68 percent, while the ratio of
prisoners to total crimes dropped by 62 percent. Part of the reason behind the dropping incarceration rates was
adoption of policies based upon "root-cause" theories. These theories advanced the view that crime was caused
by societal ills, especially poverty, and that if these root causes were addressed, crime would be brought under
control. And indeed, social spending rose rapidly during the 1960s and 1970s, accompanying, rather than
reducing, crime rates. In fact, the more effective crime control of the 1980 to 1992 period was associated with a
lower rate of social spending increase. Since 1980, incarceration rates have generally increased, and exceed
1960 levels in some states. In large measure, the "get tough" policies adopted during that period, and especially
the increased reliance on punishment through imprisonment, are responsible for the progress made in crime
control.
Nonetheless, crime remains well above the existing levels before the drop in incarceration rates began in the
1960s. This illustrates the difficulty of reversing the trends in crime. In the post-war years there were far fewer
crimes, and the chances of punishment by prison were much greater. This created strong incentives, both personal and societal, to not commit crime. Repeat offenders were also far more likely to be in prison. But the
behavior that the 1960s and 1970s tolerance for crime produced is not so easily eliminated. When public policy
began again to emphasize punishment by incarceration, the leniency of the previous decades had already attracted many more to criminal activity. Old habits are hard to break, both for individuals and for society. And
while there can be no doubt that the greater certainty of effective punishment has contributed to the nation's
success in arresting the crime explosion, there is much more progress that needs to be made.

October 1994

_~

~

_ _~

~_~

5

[ Report Card on Crime and Punishment

During the same period, corrections operating costs per inmate rose markedly. From 1960 to 1992, the average
taxpayer cost per inmate nearly doubled (an inflation-adjusted increase of 96 percent). But this increase was by
no means consistent among the states. The cost per inmate declined in three states, and was less than 10 percent
in three more states. In 18 states, the cost per inmate rose more than 100 percent. If corrections operating costs
per inmate had risen at the inflation rate, nearly $5.5 billion additional would have been available in 1992 alone
to increase prison capacity (or to reduce taxes or pay for other public services).

A:LEC's 10 POINT AGENDA TO FIGHT CRIME
1 .. KEEPING DANGEROUS DEFENDANTS OFF THE STREETS. Authorize judges to deny bail to defendants who pose a danger
to an individual or to society. End pre-trial release "on own recognizance:' and require supervised, secured bail, for
defendants charged with a violent felony; repeat offenders; or defendants rearrested while on pre-trial release, probation
or parole.
2 .. MINIMUM SENTENCES FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS AND SERIOUS CRIMES. Establish mandatory minimum sentences for
repeat felons and other serious offenders, including those convicted of a felony involving intentional or knowing infliction of serious physical injury; a felony sexual assault; or a felony for involving minors in the activities of a criminal
syndicate or street gang.
3 .. "ACTUAL CONDUCT" SENTENCING. In those cases where a plea bargain has resulted in a defendant's conviction of a
lesser crime, require courts to sentence for "actual conduct," where it is shown at the time of sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence that the crime involved the intentional or knowing infliction of serious physical injury or a deadly
weapon was used.
4 - THREE STRIKES, YOU'RE OUT. Mandate life imprisonment without release for the third conviction of a violent or
serious felony, including murder, manslaughter, sexual assault, armed robbery, aggravated assault, arson, child molestation, and kidnapping.
5 • TRU'rH IN SENTENCING. Reform sentencing and prison release policies to reqUire every inmate to serve no less than 85
percent of the prison sentence imposed by the court.
6- TREAT JUVENILES AS ADULTS FOR SERIOUS CRIMES. Treat juvenile offenders as adults for committing serious offenses,
including a felony involving the use of a deadly weapon; a felony involving the intentional or knowing infliction of
serious physical injury; felony sexual assault; or repeat serious felony offenses.
7- ALLOW JUVENILES' CRIMINAL HISTORIES TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT. Permit a juvenile's criminal history to be
admitted and considered in adult court proceedings.
8 • GUARANTEE VICTIMS' RIGHTS. Establish constitutionally-guaranteed, comprehensive and enforceable rights for victims, including: the right to justice and due process; the right to be treated with respect, fairness and privacy; the right to
be present at all proceedings where the defendant has the right to be present; the right to be heard at any proceeding
involving a post-arrest release decision, negotiated plea, sentencing, or post-conviction release; the right :0 be informed
of all proceedings and any change in the criminal's status, such as parole, release or escape; the right to a speedy trial or
disposition; and the right to full restitution.
9 .. CITIZENS' RIGHT TO KNow. Government should inform the public on the practices and performance of their criminal
justice system by publishing, annually: the average sentence served, by type of crime, for offenders released from prison
during the preceding year; the "failure to appear" rate for defendants on pre-trial release; the rearrest rate of defendants
on pre-trial release and for offenders on probation or parole; and similar information.
10 .. MAXIMIZING THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE FOR THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. Use all available strategies, such as
prison privatization, electronic home detention, boot camps for juveniles, and video remote arraignment, to maximize
resources.

6

_ _ _ _ _ _ _-'--

AMERlCAN LEGlSLATlVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL

•

Report Card on Crime and punishment]

HIGHLIGHTS
In 1960:
.:. There was a total of 3,384,200 million crimes reported to law enforcement authorities.
•:. The chance of being a victim of a crime was 1 in 53.
•:. There was a total of 288,460 million violent crimes reported to law enforcement authorities.
•:. The chance of being a victim of a violent crime was 1 in 622.
•:. While crimes were escalating throughout the 1960s, the actual prison population was on the decline; the aggregate
national prison population fell from 190,000 in 1960 to 174,000 in 1972.
By 1980:
.:. There were 13,408,300 million crimes reported to law enforcement authorities.
•:. The crime rate had risen over 215 percent above its 1960 level.
.:. The chance of being a victim of crime was 1 in 17.
•:. There were 1,344,520 million violent crimes reported to law enforcement authorities.
•:. The violent crime rate had risen over 270 percent. The chance of being a victim of a violent crime was 1 in 168.
•:. From 1960 to 1980, the states that had the largest increases in imprisonment rates had the smallest increases in crime
rate&; while the states that had the sharpest decline in their incarceration rates had the largest increases in crime rates. The
trend continued from 1980 to 1992.
•:. While the trends in each state are consistent, great differences exist among the states as to the degree of change.
Between 1960 and 1980 the crime rate in California increased more than 125 percent, while in New Hampshire the crime
rate increased over 579 percent.
By 1992:
.:. Crime rates had increased but had been curbed. There was a total of 14,438,200 million crimes reported to law
enforcement authorities.
•:. The crime rate was 200 percent above its 1960 level.
.:. The chance of being a victim of a crime was 1 in 18.
•:. Violent crime had soared to 371 percent above its 1960 level.
.:. There were 1,932,246 million violent crimes repoIt;d to law enforcement authorities.
•:. The chance of being a victim of a violent crime was 1 in 132.
•:. Since 1987, the percentage of juvenile arrests for violent crimes has increased more than 50 percent.
.:. In 1991, people under the age of 21 were responsible for more than one-third of all murders in the country.
•:. Today, a woman faces four times the chance of being raped than in 1960. In 1960 a woman's chance of being raped
was 1 in 10,400; in 1980 it was 1 in 2,717.
•:. In the ten states with the highest increases in incarceration rates between 1980 anrl1992, crime rates were substantially
reduced. Even so, in all ten states their crime rates are more than double their 1960 levels. The states are: New Hampshire,
New Jersey, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Arizona, Rhode Island, Idaho, Alaska, and Delaware.
•:. Approximately, one-third of all violent crimes are committed by an offender who is on probation, parole or pretrial
release. This year more than 1,200 violent crimes will be committed every day by convicted felons on probation or parole;
almost 700 more will be committed by a defendant on pretrial release.
•:. In 1990, the average prison sentence for all felony offenses which resulted in a prison sentence was 6 years, months.
However, the actual time served in prison for that sentence was 2 years, 1 month, only one-third of the sentence imposed.
•:. In 1990, the average prison sentence for violent offenses which resulted in a prison sentence was 9 years, 11 months;
the time served was 3 years, 9 months, or 38 percent of the sentence imposed.
•:. From 1960 to 1991 the correctional expenditure per adult inmate increased by nearly double.
October 1994 _ _~_ _~ ~

~

_

7

Report Card on Crime and Punishment

Chapter 1
A MORE DANG·EROUS WORLD
FOR THE LAW-ABIDING
A DIFFERENT TIME; A SAFER WORLD
1960. Dwight Eisenhower was in the White House,
Fred Flintstone began his life in Bedrock, the last
Edsel came off the assembly line, "Father Knows
Best" was the top-rated show on television, the
United States won the Olympic gold medal in
hockey, the average cost ofa new 3-bedroom home
was $13,725, and a first-class stamp cost 4 cents.

these "causes" of crime and rehabilitate the "sick"
offender.

In 1960, just under 3.4 million crimes! were reported to law enforcement authorities in America;
1,887 for every 100,000 people. Among these,
about 290,000 were violent crimes, or roughly 8.5
percent of the total. The chance of being the victim of a crime in 1960 was 1 in 53; and the chance
of being a victim of a violent crime was 1 in 622.

And America was a much safer place to live.
This is a tale of two eras in American life and of
THE STORM GATHERS
the sea change that divides them. It is the story of
the abandonment of order and the long and costly By 1970, this world of relative safety had gone.
struggle to restore it once lost.
The total number of violent crimes increased more
than two-and-a-half times; the rate of violent crime
The first era began in 1960 and closed in the mid- more than doubled. The number and rate of robto-late 1970s. On criminal justice matters, it was beries almost tripled, and the rate of aggravated
an era of increasing skepticism about both the util- assaults almost doubled. Both the number and rate
ity and morality of punishing criminals. More and of rapes doubled. In 1970 the chance of being the
more throughout this period, crime policy was victim of a violent crime had increased to 1 in 276;
driven by the notion that "society" was somehow the chance of being the victim of an index crime
responsible for crime, not the criminal, and address- was 1 in 25. Throughout the decade criminal jusing the "root causes" of crime was the best strat- tice policy continued to be driven by the skeptics
egy. Therefore, "solving" the problems of unem- of punishment.
ployment, poor education, poor housing, and inadequate diet, was seen as the most effective anti- 1980. The average 3-hedroom home cost $64,600,
crime strategy. And so a grand experiment was "60 Minutes" was the top rated television show,
begun.
American diplomats were being held hostage in
Tehran, the U.S. boycotted the Moscow Olympics,
Tom from its moral and utilitarian foundations, the and Mount St. Helens erupted.
criminal justice system relied less on punishment
and more on social programs designed to alleviate And America was a far more dangerous place to
live.
I Unless otherwise specified "crimes" refers to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) felony "index" crime categories which include murder and
non-negligent homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, and motor vehicle: theft. The numbers of offenses life those reported to law
enforcement authorities during the year and then compiled annually by the FBI. More recently, the victimization surveys conducted by the U.S. Justice
Department's National Institute of Justice suggest higher numbers of victimizations than those reported to the authorities. Where distinctions need to be
drawn between the two measures they will be noted.

8

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~

--~--- AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL

•

----------------

-

---------------

-------------

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,I
Report Card on Crime and Punishment

[

TABLE 1.1: CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES: 1960 • 1992
HISTORICAL TRENDS

1960
3,384,200
TOTAL CRIME
TOTAL VIOLENT CRIME
288,460
Murder
9,110
Rape
17,190
Robbery
107,840
Aggravated Assault
154,320
TOTAL PROPERTY CRIME ..•.•••..•. 3,095,700
Burglary
912,100
Larceny I Theft
1,855,400
Motor Vehicle Theft..
328,200
TOTAL CRIME RATE*
1887.2
VIOLENT CRIME RATE*
160.9
Murder
5.1
Rape
9.6
Robbery
60.1
Aggravated Assault.
86.1
1,726.3
TOTAL PROPERTY CRIME
Burglary
508.6
Larceny I Theft
1,034.7
Motor Vehicle Theft..
183.0

1970
1980
1990
1992
8,098,000
13,408,300 •....•... 14,475,600..•.• 14,438,200
738,820 ..•.••..••• 1,344,520 ••...•..... 1,820,130.••.... 1,932,246
16,000
23,040
23,440
23,760
37,990
82,990
102,560
109,060
349,860
565,840
639,270
672,480
334,970
672,650
1,054,860
1,126,970
7,359,200 ••.•.••.• 12,063,700
12,655,500••.•• 12,505,900
2,205,000
3,795,200
3,073,900
2,979,900
4,225,800
7,136,900
7,945,700
7,915,200
928,400
1,131,700
1,635,900
1,610,800
3984.5 ••.•••.•••.•..•• 5950.0
5820.3
5660.2
363.5
596.6
731.8
757.5
7.9
10.2
9.4
9.3
18.7
36.8
41.2
42.8
172.1
251.1
257.0
263.6
164.8
298.5
424.1
441.8
3,621.0
5,353.3 ...•.•...•.•... 5,088.5
4,902.7
1,084.9
1,684.1
1,235.9
1,168.2
2,079.3
3,167.0
3,194.8
3,103.0
456.8
502.2
657.8
631.5

TABLE 1.2: PERCENTAGE CHA.NGE IN CRIME
1960-1980
TOTAL CRIME RATE*
215%
VIOLENTCRIMERATE*
271%
Murder
100%
Rape
283%
Robbery
318%
Aggravated Assault
247%
TOTAL PROPERTY CRIME ••.•.•.......••..•..•.•• 210%
Burglary
231%
Larceny I Theft
206%
Motor Vehicle Theft.
174% ,

1980-1992
-5%
27%
-9%
16%
5%
48%
-8%
-31%
-2%
26%

1960-1992
200%
371%
82%
346%
339%
413%
184%
130%
200%
245%

*Crimes pet 100,000 persons

TABLE 1.3: YOUR CHANCES OF BECOMING A VICTIM*
CRIME TYPE
INDEX CRIME

ODDS IN 1960
1 IN 53

ODDS IN 1970
1 IN 25

ODDS IN 1980
1 IN 17

ODDS IN 1992
1 IN 18

VIOLENT CRIME

1 IN 622

1 IN 276

1 IN 168

1 IN 132

MURDER

1 IN 19,608

1 IN 12,658

1 IN 9,804

1 IN 10,753

RAPE

1 IN 10,417

1 IN 5,348

1 IN 2,717

1 IN 2,336

ROBBERY

1 IN 1,664

1 IN 581

1 IN 398

1 IN 379

ASSAULT

1 IN 1,161

1 IN 607

1 IN 335

1 IN 226

PROPERTY CRIME

1 IN 58

1 IN 28

1 IN 19

1 IN 20

*Crimes reported to the FBI .
Source for Tables 1.1, 1.2, 1.3: Uniform Crime Report, Federal Bure?u of Investigation.

October 1994

------~

~

_

9

[ Report Card on Crime and Punishment

By 1980, the crime rate in America had
risen more than 215 percent above its 1960
level; the violent crime rate had risen more
than 270 percent. In 1980, there were 13.4
million crimes reported to law enforcement
authorities; almost 6,000 for every 100,000
people. The total number of violent crimes
had risen from 290,000 to almost 1.35 million; the number of rapes had increased
by almost five times, to almost 83,000 from
17,000 in 1960. One out of every 10
crimes reported in 1980 was violent. The
chance of being the victim of a violent
crime in 1980 was 1 in 168, almost four
times greater than in 1960. A women's
chance of being raped was 1 in 2,720,
nearly four times the 1960 rate of 1 in
10,400.

Chart 1.1

._

..

_-

Crime Trends in the United States
1960-1992
6,000.0

r

5,000.0

10

a: 3,000.0
CIl

I

E

'i:

(J

,..- V

2,000.0

11~ /'

j

~

4,000.0
CIl

i'--

;'"""'-.

I--" V

/

~..../

1,000.0
0.0
0

C\l
CD

V

CD
CD

co

0

C\l

;t

co

CD

0

co

C\l

co

<l'

co

CD

co

Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
'"Cl .,..Cl'" ~ .,..Cl'" .,..Cl'" .,..Cl .....Cl .....Cl .,..Cl
.,..
.,..
..... .....
.....
.....

CD

Cl

CD

CD

co
co

0

Cl

Cl
Cl

~

~

C\l

Cl

~

Year

Chart 1.2

During the intervening two decades,
America had become better-educated, better-fed, and better-housed. And America
had become a much more dangerous place
to live. In every year since 1960 there had
been a steady, unrelenting, and dramatic
growth both in the absolute amount of
crime and in the rate of crime.

CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES
Historical Trends

350.0% . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
300.0%

~ 250.0%

~

e
z

200.0%
150.0%

~ 100.0%

a:
~

50.0%
0.0%
-50.0% .L-

In 1974 the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology reported that a boy born in
1974 stood a greater chance of being the
victim of a homicide than a soldier in
World War IT stood of dying in combat.

Total Crime
Aate

--.J

Aape

Aggravated
Assault
11I196CJ..19BO

larcenylThelt

o 19BCJ..1992I

Chart 1.3

In the early 1980's the National Institute
of Justice, studying then-current crime
rates, reported that five out of six twelveyear-oIds would become victims of violent crime in their lifetimes.

CRIME TRENDS IN THE UNITED STATES
Percentage Change in Crime Rates
250.0% , . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
215.3%
200,0%
IIJ

CJ

~

Perhaps n.ever before in history hadAmericans experienced such a collapse of socialorder. Never before had the fear of
crime so altered their lives.

150.0%

IIJ

~ 100.0%

ffio

a:

50.0%

IIJ

c..

0.0%
-50.0%

-4.9%
--I

.L......

1960-19BO

19BCJ..1992
TIME PERIOD

10

-

AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL

•

Report Card on Crime and Punishment

CHANGE IN THE 1980s

Chart 1.4
Violent Crime Trends In the United States

But the seeds of discontent were being
sown in state legislatures across the country, as more people were speaking out
about crime. Public policy shifts were evident from the late 1970s with the enactment of "get-tough" crime bills that began to impose mandatory prison terms for
the most violent and chronic offenders.

1960-1992

-....

..................•..........

800.0
700.0

17 . . "-[7

600.0

~

a: 500.0

)/

G)

.5

U

400.0

C
oS! 300.0
0

:>

Once again, these policy shifts produced
consequences. The substantial increases
in crime and crime rates that had characterized, indeed defined, the years since
1960 were arrested. In fact, the crime rate
in 1990 was lower than it had been in 1980.
While up in some categories, notably
"other violent crime" rates, the murder rate
was lower, the burglary rate significantly
lower, and the overall property crime rate
reduced. These trends continued through
1992.

I

200.0

f-- l--"

v

1/

100.0
0.0
0

co

C>
~

C\l

~

'<t

~

~

'"~
~

co
~
~

0

C\l

C>

OJ

OJ

~

~

~

'<t

"" "" ""~

~

co 0
C\l
co ti5 '"
co :g @
S; co
C>
OJ
C>
OJ
C>
~

~

~

~

~

~

C\I
C>

~

Year

Chart 1.5
CRIME IN THE UNITED STATES
Historical Violent Crime Trends
350.0% .,.-----~-----~-----__'___,
300.0%
~ 250.0%

The rise in violent crime rates during the
later 1980s were affected by crime reporting and recording policies. For example,
until the 1980s calls to the police from battered spouses were usually recorded as
"civil disputes." Now, as the result of effective efforts by domestic violence coalitions, these calls are more often reported
and recorded as aggravated assaults.
While the actual number of these crimes
may not have risen, nor the rate, the report
ofthe offenses may have gone up dramatically. Indeed, the rise in violent crime in
the later half of the 1980s is attributable
largely to increases in reports of aggravated assaults.

z

~ 200.0%

~

150.0%

~ 100.0%

a:

~

50.0"k
0.0%
.50.0%

.1.-.-

~~~

Murder

Rape

~

__

~___I

Aggravated
Assault

Robbery

1111960-19801:11980-19921

Chart 1.6
CRIME TRENDS IN THE UNITED STATES
Percentage Change in Violent Crime Rates
300.0% "'--~-'--:2=70=.87."%-------~-~~-

w

250.0%

Cl
Z

~ 200.0%

o

Sinrilarly, the rise of juvenile violence is
contributing substantially to the overall recent rise in violent crime. And yet, few
violent, albeit juvenile, criminals are subjected to the adult criminal justice system.

w

~ 150.0%

!z

~ 100.0%

a:
w

Q.

50.0%

27.0%

0.0%
1980-1992

1960·1980
TIME PERIOD

October 1994

~~_

11

----------------------------

-

---

Report Card on Crime and Punishment

EXPERIENCE IN THE STATES
The national experience, recorded in these data, of
substantial increases in crime rates throughout the
1960s and 1970s is replicated in every state, in
many cases in even more dramatic fashion. However, the story of criminal justice in the states is a
tapestry of different colors and hues. Understanding the differences among the states is a key to understanding the larger national picture.
From 1960 to 1980 the index crime rate rose in
Michigan by more than 150 percent; in California
by more than 125 percent. But in New Hampshire,
the crime rate rose over 578 percent, more than
four times as much as California. Indeed, New
Hampshire1s enormous increase in its crime rate
was the worst record of any state. Vermont was
not far behind with a 504 percent increase, the third
worst record in the country.
And then came the 1980s. Comparing 1980 to
1992, New Hampshire had the most dramatic drop
in its crime rate of any state in the country (down
34 percent), and Vermont had the second largest
drop (down 32 percent). In fact, between 1980
and 1992, 37 states had decreases in their crime
rates; only 13 had increases, and those increases
were modest compared to the crime rate explosions
of the 19608 and 1970s. For example, Mississippi
had the highest percentage increase between 1980
and 1992 with a 25 percent rise in its crime rate,
but that increase was less than the smallest crime
rate increase during the 1960 to 1980 period (California).
The differences in violent crime rates over the same
periods were even more significant. From 1960
to 1980, New Hampshire had a 1,248 percent increase in its violent crime rate, andVermont paced
the nation with a 1,784percentincrease. But, dur~
ing the 1980s, both Vermont and New Hampshire
had reversals. Violent crime rates fell in Vermont
by almost 40 percent and in New Hampshire by
more than 30 percent.

12

~

In 1992, WestVIrginia had the lowest crime rate of
any state; North Dakota and South Dakota the second- and third-lowest respectively. But it would
be wrong to characterize any of these places as
"safe" today because all of them would have ranked
among the top six most-dangerous states in the nation if they had exhibited these rates in 1960. Indeed, their 1992 crime rates are more than twice
as high as the 1960 crime rates of 18 states. By
the standards of 1960, none ofthese places are safe
in any sense.
Among the states, significant differences are found,
but similar patterns emerge. The focus of the next
chapter is how America, through its states, abandoned punishment. The consequences ofthat abandomnent are found in these numbers, but more
importantly, and tragically, they are found in the
faces and lives of the hundreds of thousands of victims who endured the collapse of American justice and order.

THE THREAT POSED BY
REPEAT OFFENDERS
Approximately one-third of all violent crimes is
committed by an offender who is on probation,
parole, or pretrial release. This repeated violence
by criminals who have been caught and then released threatens every American.
This year it is expected that more than 1,200 violent crimes will be committed every day by convicted felons on probation or parole, and almost
700 more by a defendant on pretrial release.
By whatever measure, America remains an intolerably lawless and dangerous place. While the
rapid crime increases of the 1960s and 1970s were
stemmed during the 1980s, America remains a
much more dangerous world for the law-abiding.
To understand why, and to understand the differences which mark the 1980's from the earlier two
decades, is the story of the second chapter.

__

~~

AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL

•

Report Card on Crime and Punishment

TABLE 1.4: THE ODDS OF
VICTIMIZATION

I

TABLE 1.5: NUMBER OF VIOLENT
CRIMES PER DAY: 1992

(The 1 in X chance of being a victim of a crime in 1992)

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vennont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

October 1994

Total
19
18
14
21
15
17
20
21
12
16
16
25
17
21
25
19
30
15
28
16
20
18
22
23
20
22
23
16
32
20
16
17
17
34
21
18
17
29
22
17
33
19
14
18
29
23
16
38
23
22

Violent
115
151
149
173
89
173
202
161
83
136
387
355
102
197
360
196
187
102
764
100
128
130
296
243
135
589
287
144
795
160
107
89
147
1200
190
161
196
234
253
106
514
134
124
344
913
267
187
473
363
313

Murder

65

Rape

299

Robbery

1,842

Assault

3,088

Violent

5,294

TABLE 1.6: ESTIMATED CRIMES
PER DAY COMJ.\1ITTED BY
OFFRNDERS ON PROBATION,
PAROLE AND PRETRIAL RELEASE
Probation

Parole

Pretrial
Release

Total

9

5

7

21

34

14

17

66

Robbery

350

228

298

876

Assault

459

153

336

948

Violent

852

399

658

1,909

Murder

Rape

Source for Tables 1.4 and 1.5: Uniform Crime Report, Federal Bureau
of Investigation.
~~

_

13

Report Card on Crime and Punishment

TABLE 1.7: TOTAL CRIME RATES*, PERCENTAGE CHANGE AND RANKINGS:
1960~1980~1992
Total Crime Rates

Percentage Change in Crime Rates

State

1960 Rank

1980 Rank

1992 Rank

Alabama

1,222 .,. 33

4,934

32

5,268

23

Alaska

1,649

23

5,646

21

5,570

Arizona

3,014

3

8,171

3

Arkansas

1,034

44

3,811

California

3,474

1

Colorado

2,172

Connecticut

1960- Rank
1992

1960- Rank
1980

1980- Rank
1992

331.1 % ..... 8

303.7% ..... 9

6.8% ..... 11

20

237.7% ... 20

242.3% ... 23

-1.3% ..... 16

7,029

3

133.2% ... 41

171.1% ... 39

-14.0% ..... 33

44

4,762

30

360.5% ..... 3

268.5% ... 14

24.9% ....... 3

7,833

4

6,679

4

92.3% ... 48

125.5% ... 49

-14.7% ..... 36

12

7,333

6

5,959

12

174.3% ... 31

237.6% '" 25

-18.7% .....43

1,157

40

5,882

19

5,053

27

336.9% ..... 7

408.6% ..... 3

-14.1% ..... 34

Delaware

2,160

13

6,777

9

4,848

29

124.4% ... 43

213.7% ... 30

-28.5% ..... 47

Florida

2,705

4

8,402

2

&,358

1

209.0% ... 25

210.7% ... 31

-0.5% ..... 14

iliorgia

1,408

30

5,604

22

6,405

7

355.0% ..... 4

298.0% ... 10

14.3% ....... 6

Hawaii..

2,298

9

7,482

5

6,112

11

165.9% ... 35

225.6% ... 28

-18.3% ..... 42

Idaho

1,771

20

4,782

36

3,996 .41

125.6% ... 42

170.0% ... 40

-16.4% ..... 39

Illinois

2,342

8

6,269

14

5,765

17

146.2% ... 39

167.7% ... 41

-8.0% ..... 26

Indiana

1,554

25

4,930

33

4,687

31

201.7% ... 26

217.3% ... 29

-4.9% ..... 21

Iowa

1,124

42

4,747

37

3,957

42

252.1% ... 18

322.4% ..... 7

-16.6% .....40

Kansas

1,395

31

5,379

27

5,320

22

281.4% ... 13

285.6% ... 13

-1.1% ..... 15

Kentucky

1,213

36

3,434

46

3,324

46

174.1% ... 32

183.1 % ... 34

-3.2% ..... 18

Louisiana

1,495

27

5,454

23

6,546

5

337.8% ..... 6

264.7% ... 16

20.0% ....... 4

Maine

1,188

37

4,368

42

3,524

43

196.5% ... 28

267.6% ... 15

-19.3% ..... 44

Maryland

1,670

21

6,630

12

6,225

8

272.7% ... 15

297.0% ... 11

-6.1% ..... 22

Massachusetts ......... 1,219 ... 35

6,079 ... 16

5,003 .... 28

310.4% ... 11

398.7% ..... 4

-17.7% .....41

Michigan

2,659

5

6,676

11

5,611

19

111.0% ... 47

151.1% ... 44

-16.0% ..... 38

Minnesota

1,466

29

4,799

34

4,591

34

213.1% ... 24

227.4% ... 27

-4.3% ..... 20

Mississippi

705

48

3,417

47

4,282

40

507.7% ..... 1

384.9% ..... 5

25.3% ....... 1

*FBI Index crime rates

14

AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL

-

•

Report Card on Crime and Punishment

Total Crime Rates and Rankings

Percentage Change in Crime Rates

State

1960 Rank

1980 Rank

1992 Rank

Missouri

1,973

18

5,433

25

5,097

25

158.4% ... 37

175.4% ... 38

-6.2% ..... 23

Montana

2,053

15

5,024

29

4,596

33

123.9% ... 44

144.8% ... 47

-8.5% ..... 28

Nebraska

1,220

34

4,305

43

4,324

37

254.5% ... 17

253.0% ... 21

0.4% ..... 13

Nevada

3,441

2

8,854

1

6,204

9

80.3% ... 49

157.3% ...43

-29.9% .....48

690

49

4,680

38

3,081

47

346.6% ..... 5

578.5% ..... 1

-34.2% ..... 50

New Jersey

1,491

28

6,401

13

5,064

26

239.7% ... 19

329.4% ..... 6

-20.9% ..... 45

New Mexico

2,387

7

5,979... 17

6,434

6

169.6% ... 33

150.5% ... 46

7.6% ....... 9

6,912

5,858

14

N/A .......

N/A .......

-15.2% ..... 37

New Hampshire

New York

N/A

8

1960- Rank
1992

19601980

Rank

1980- Rank
1992

North Carolina ........ 1,179 ... 38

4,640 ... 39

5,802 .... 16

391.9% ..... 2

293.4% ... 12

25.0% ....... 2

North Dakota

891

45

2,964

49

2,903

49

225.9% ... 21

232.6% ... 26

-2.0% ..... 17

Ohio

1,559

24

5,431

26

4,666

32

199.3% ... 27

248.4% ... 22

-14.1% ..... 35

Oklahoma

2,015

16

5,053

28

5,432

21

169.5% ... 34

150.7% ... 45

7.5% ..... 10

Oregon

1,977

17

6,687

10

5,821

15

194.4% ... 29

238.2% ... 24

-13.0% ..... 32

Pennsylvania

1,049

43

3,736

45

3,393

45

223.3% ... 22

256.0% ... 19

-9.2% ..... 29

Rhode Island

2,072

14

5,933

18

4,578

35

120.9% ... 46

186.3% ... 33

-22.8% ..... 46

South Carolina ........ 1,500 ... 26

5,439 ... 24

5,893 .... 13

292.8% ... 12

262.6% ... 18

8.3% ....... 8

South Dakota

1,164

39

3,243

48

2,999 .48

157.6% ... 38

178.6% ... 36

-7.5% ..... 25

Tennessee

1,241

32

4,498

41

5,136

24

314.0% ..... 9

262.6% ... 17

14.2% ....... 7

Texas

2,217

11

6,143

15

7,058

2

218.3% ... 23

177.1% ... 37

14.9% ....... 5

Utah

2,541

6

5,881

20

5,659

18

122.7% ... 45

131.4% ... 48

-3.8% ..... 19

Vermont

825

46

4,988

30

3,410

44

313.1% ... 10

504.4% ..... 2

-31.6% ..... 49

Virginia

1,653

22

4,620

40

4,299

39

160.1% ... 36

179.5% ... 35

-7.0% ..... 24

Washington

2,232

10

6,915

7

6,173

10

176.5% ... 30

209.8% ... 32

-10.7% ..... 31

721

47

2,552

50

2,610

50

262.1 %

16

254.0%

20

2.3%

12

Wisconsin

1,146

41

4,799

35

4,319

38

277.0%

14

318.9%

8

-10.0%

30

Wyoming

1,924

19

4,986

31

4,575

36

137.8% ... 40

WestVirginia

159.1% ... 42

-8.2% ..... 27

Source: Unifonn Crime Report, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

October 1994

15

]

Report Card on Crime and Punishment

TABLE 1.8 :VIOLENT CRIME RATES, PERCENTAGE CHANGE AND RANKINGS:
1960-1980-1992
Violent Crime Rates
1960 Rank

1980 Rank

Percentage Change in Violent Crime Rates

1992 Rank

1960-92 Rank

1960-80 Rank 1980-92 Rank

Alabama

187

7

449

24

872

9

367.0%

35

140.3%

46

94.3%

2

Alaska

104

21

436

25

660

19

533.0%

22

317.8%

29

51.5%

9

Arizona

208

6

651

9

671

18

223.0%

44

213.4%

40

3.1%

40

Arkansas

108

20

335

34

577

24

435.3%

29

211.2%

41

72.0%

3

California

239

2

894

4

1120

3

368.6%

34

274.0%

32

25.3%

24

Colorado

137

17

529

17

579

23

321.6%

,40

285.0%

30

9.5%

35

Connecticut..

37

.42

413

27

495

31

1253.2%

2

1026.9%

5

20.1%

30

Delaw;Jre

84

28

475

20

621

22

639.3%

14

465.1 %

16

30.8%

22

Florida

223

4

984

2

1207

1

440.4%

28

340.3%

25

22.7%

25

Georgia

159

11

555

14

733

15

361.7%

36

249.7%

35

32.0%

20

Hawaii

22

46

299

38

258

43

1085.1 %

3

1273.2%

2

-13.7% ." 44

Idaho

38

.40

313

35

281

40

636.4%

15

719.9%

8

-10.2%

43

TIlinois

365

1

808

6

977

6

167.7%

47

121.3%

47

20.9%

27

Indiana

85

27

378

31

508

30

501.0%

24

346.5%

24

34.6%

18

Iowa

24

45

200

43

278

41

1068.4%

,4

742.2%

7

38.7%

17

Kansas

58

33

389

30

511

28

774.9%

9

566.8%

11

31.2%

21

Kentucky

97

24

267

39

535

25

450.2%

26

174.0%

45

100.8%

1

Louisiana

153

12

665

7

985

5

542.6%

20

334.0%

26

48.1%

14

30

44

193

44

131

47

338.9%

37

548.6%

12

-32.3%

49

151

13

852

51000

4

561.1%

17

463.4%

17

17.3%

31

Maine
Maryland

Massachusetts ....... 49 ..... 36

601 ..... 13

779 ...... 11

Michigan
Minnesota

1496.7% ....... 1

1132.4% ....... 4

29.6% ... 23

218

5

640

10

770

12

253.7%

42

193.7%

43

20.4%

28

42

37

228

40

338

37

704.2%

13

441.8%

19

48.4%

13

Mississippi.......... 103 ..... 22

342 ..... 33

412 ...... 33

301.1 % ....,41

233.1 % ..... 37

20.4% ... 29
I

Missouri

16 _ _~

173

9

554 ..... 15

~

740 ...... 14

328.3% ..... 39

220.7% ..... 39

33.5% .... 19

AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL

.-

•

Report Card on Crime and Punishment

Violent Crime Rates
1960 Rank

Percentage Change in Violent Crime Rates

1980 Rank

1992 Rank

1960-92 Rank

1960·80 Rank 1980-92 Rank

Montana ................ 67 ..... 31

223 ..... 42

170 ...... 46

153.1% .....48

231.6% ..... 38

-23.7% ... 47

Nehraska ............... 42 ..... 38

225 ..... 41

349 ...... 36

733.8% ..... 11

437.2% ..... 20

55.2% .... 5

Nevada ................ 146 ..... 14

913 ....... 3

697 ...... 16

377.9% ..... 32

525.9% ..... 13

-23.6% ... 46

New Hamp............ 13 ..... 48

180 ..... 47

126 ...... 48

842.2% ....... 8

1247.6% ....... 3

-30.1% ... 48

New Jersey .......... 114 ..... 18

604 ..... 12

626 ...... 20

447.7% ..... 27

428.9% ..... 21

3.6% ... 39

New Mexico ....... 143 ..... 16

615 ..... 11

935 ........ 8

553.8% ..... 19

330.0% ..... 28

52.0% .... 8

New York ........... N/A .........

1030 ....... 1

1122 ........ 2

N/A .........

N/A .........

9.0% ... 36

North Carolina .... 223 ....... 3

455 ..... 23

681...... 17

204.7% ..... 45

103.6% ..... 48

49.7% ... 11

North Dakota ........ 14 ..... 47

54 ..... 50

83 ...... 50

485.6% ..... 25

279.1 % ..... 31

54.5% .... 6

Ohio ...................... 84 ..... 29

498 ..... 18

526 ...... 27

528.7% ..... 23

495.6% ..... 14

5.6% ... 37

Oklahoma ............. 97 ..... 25

419 ..... 26

623 ...... 21

542.2% ..... 21

332.5% ..... 27

48.5% ... 12

Oregon .................. 70 ..... 30

490 ..... 19

510 ...... 29

632.5% ..... 16

604.0% ..... 10

4.0% ... 38

Pennsylvania ......... 99 ..... 23

364 ..... 32

427 ...... 32

331.4% ..... 38

267.7% ..... 33

17.3% ... 32

Rhode Island ......... 37 ..... 41

409 ..... 28

395 ...... 34

973.1% ....... 6

1011.2% ....... 6

-3.4% ... 41

South Carolina.... 144 ..... 15

660 ....... 8

944 ........ 7

557.2% ..... 18

359.2% ..... 23

43.1% ... 16

South Dakota ........ 41 ..... 39

127 ..... 49

195 ...... 45

369.4% ..... 33

206.1% ..... 42

53.3% .... 7

Tennessee .............. 91 ..... 26

458 ..... 22

746 ...... 13

719.0% ..... 12

402.8% ..... 22

62.9% .... 4

Texas ................... 161 ..... 10

550 ..... 16

806 ...... 10

400.7% ..... 31

241.7% ..... 36

46.5% ... 15

Utah ...................... 54 ..... 35

303 ..... 37

291 ...... 39

434.6% ..... 30

458.2% ..... 18

-4.2% ... 42

Vermont .................. 9 ..... 49

179 ..... 48

109 ...... 49

1053.6% ....... 5

1783.7% ....... 1

-38.8% ... 50

Virginia ............... 184 ....... 8

307 ..... 36

375 ...... 35

104.1% .....49

67.3% ..... 49

22.0% ... 26

Washington ........... 57 ..... 34

464 ..... 21

535 ...... 26

843.8% ....... 7

719.8% ....... 9

15.1% ... 33

WestVrrginia ......... 65 ..... 32

185 ..... 45

212 ...... 44

228.0% ..... 43

187.0% ..... 44

14.3% ... 34

Wisconsin ............. 32 ..... 43

183 ..... 46

276 ...... 42

764.1% ..... 10

472.1% ..... 15

51.0% ... 10

Wyoming ............ 110 ..... 19

393 ..... 29

320 ...... 38

191.3% ..... 46

257.9% ..... 34

-18.6% ... 45

Source: Unifonn Crime Report, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

October 1994

~

~

~_~

_

17

I

Report Card on Crime and Punishment

Chapter 2
A MORE COMFORTABLE WORLD
FOR CRIMINALS
A LESS RISKY WORLD
FOR CRIMINALS

Chart 2-1

As America was becoming a more dangerous
society for the law-abiding throughout the
1960s and 1970s, it was becoming a strikingly
more hospitable place for criminals. The numbers record a significant collapse of punishment in every state.

Prison Population per 1000 Index Crimes

g

70

~

60
:ve.G)(/150 ~
C E
,g ,;:40

A

'\

-

'lUo
'3 )( 30
e.G)

For example in Arizona in 1960, there were
39 criminals in prison for every 1,000 crimes
reported to law enforcement. 2 In 1970 there
were 24 criminals in prison for every 1,000
crimes, and by 1980 there were 16.

6

--

"I""'--

~ ~20
10

(/I

';:

0

Q.

g

Ol
r

~

Ol
,.....

l8 Ol
PJ

Ol
,.....

,...

N

r-.
Ol
,.....

II)

r-.
Cl
..,...

/'

'-- V

co
r-.
Cl
,.....

--

-/

/
V

...
co

Ol
,.....

1960-1992

This collapse of punishment was no accident,
nor was it driven by forces beyond the power
of the states. It was the predictable result of
adopting policies that promoted "rehabilitative" alternatives to prison. Slowly the moral
and utilitarian foundations for any form of
punishment were being eroded by a growing
body of policy work suggesting that criminals
were not responsible for their conduct, and that
punishing them was simply vengeance.

Chart 2-2
Prison population per 1000 Violent Crimes

g ~~~ '--------------.....
r-.
....

:v

~500
>:400
'0
go 'E 300

\

Because most states did not mandate a particular punishment for the commission of a
crime, but rather left such matters to the "dis-

18

~

'\

Q. G)

6 :g200
,!!! >100

a:

I

(/I

Q.

One of the strongest critics of prison and punishment was the noted psychiatrist, Karl
Menninger. His book, the Crime of Punishment, was published in 1968. It is considered
the high water-mark of the intellectual case
against punishment, a case that had already
taken root in the sentencing practices of most
states. To hold a criminal accountable was, in
Dr. Menninger's view, itself "criminal" because offenders were not responsible for their
acts, but rather driven by forces and circumstances beyond their power to controL

I

r--..

~

...

~

.-I -

./

-

0
o

M

N

II)

Cl

Cl

Cl

Cl

Cl

Cl

Cl

Cl

...
co

v
co

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

w
r

m

m
m

Ol

m

r-.

r-.

co
r-.

Cl

r-.
co

m
~

0

m

Cl
~

1960·1992

This measure of prison population and total crime is the most direct measure of a
state's "punishment" level. Sometimes measures are expressed in terms of total prison
population in relation to total state population, but such a standard disconnects the
prison population from the level of crime experienced in a stute and is therefore less
useful. Prison population should be compared to crime, not the number of (largely
law-abiding) citizens.

2

AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL

•

Report Card on Crime and Punishment

cretion" ofjudges who themselves were buoyed by the
spirit of rehabilitation, prison was less and less a consequence that followed conviction for a serious crime.
The reductions in Arizona's imprisonment rate were
the norm for the country. In Arkansas, the 1960 imprisonment rate was 109; in 1980 it was 32. In California the 1960 imprisonment rate was 40; in 1980 it
was 13. Hawaii's imprisonment rate declined from 38
in 1960 to 8 in 1980; Idahos' from 46 to 15; Iowa from
71 to 18; and Wisconsin's from 61 to 17.
No state was immune to this "sea change" in public
policy; every state, to varying degrees, but all dramatic,
saw this retreat from punishment. Perhaps the most
startling examples of this retreat are found in the prison
population totals for each state. During years of steady
increases in crime rates, the prisoner populatior. in state
after state was declining.

In almost every state, there were fewer inmates in prison
in 1965 than in 1960, and fewer still in 1970 than in
1965. The absolute number of prison inmates declined,
even though the general population was growing and,
more importantly, crime was growing at the fastest rate
in history. In many states the anti-incarceration trend
lasted well into the 1970s. In 1960, the aggregate national prison census was 190,000. By 1970, it had declined to 176,000, and, by 1972, it reached its low at
174,000.
This was the conscious and predictable result of
America's anti-incarceration policy. It returned serious and repeat offenders to the streets, again and again,
and the country paid dearly for it.
These decreases were not halted until state legislatures,
responding to the increasing demand of local constituencies for "get-tough" reforms in criminal justice policies, began to enact mandatory sentencing laws. These
laws removed from judges the authority to suspend
prison sentences and to grant periods of probation following conviction for a serious felony. These new sentencing laws, which began to emerge in the mid-1970s,
mandated that judges send convicted criminals to
prison, thereby removing discretion on the disposition,
or "in or out," decision. Some states also tackled the
duration decision by passing new laws that set, within
a relatively narrow range, the length of the prison terms
that may be imposed.

October 1994

~~

~

Even with these policy changes, increases in prison sentences are only half the story. Because the length of
the sentence imposed bore less and less relationship to
the length of the sentence actually served, the "signal"
from the states was garbled, and the expected deterrent
effect was diluted.
For example, in 1990, the average prison sentence for
all felony offenses which resulted in prison sentences
was 6 years, 3 months. However, the actual time served
in prison for that sentence was 2 years, 1 month -- only
one-third of the sentence imposed.
For violent offenses, the average sentence was 9 years,
11 months; the time served was 3 years, 9 months, or
38 percent of the sentence imposed. The result has
been to dissipate somewhat the effects of higher imprisonment rates.

BETTER STANDARD OF LIVING FOR
CONVICTED CRIMINALS
For criminals who went to prison, living conditions
were rising dramatically. Indeed, they were rising faster
than those for the law-abiding.
To be sure, some of these improved conditions came as
a result of prisoner litigation, and some of the challenged conditions were deplorable. However, beginning in the 1960s, Federal Courts began to order states
to provide prison conditions that exceeded the requirements of the U.S. Constitution. Today judges. order, in
baroque detail, how prison officials manage their dayto-day affairs. For example:
.:. In North Carolina, the Federal Court has ordered
that the inmates in each prison unit of a correctional
institution be supplied with no fewer than five
frisbees.
.:. In Arizona, the Federal Court has enjoined prison
officials from serving a certain kind of meat loaf,
and dictated the weight (50 Ibs.) of Christmas packages which must be allowed each inmate.
.:. In Ohio and many other states, the Federal Court
has directed the number of volumes to be provided
in prison libraries.

--------

_

19

-----------

Report Card on Crime and Punishment

.:. In California, the Federal Court has dictated the number of changes of clothes
which must be provided inmates each week.
It is unlikely that this understanding of the
Eighth Amendment (which forbids "cruel and
unusual punishment") is within the intent of
the U.S. Constitution. The extraordinary burdens placed by Federal Courts on state corrections authorities have contributed to an escalation in prison costs. From 1960 to 1990,
per-inmate operating costs (current expenditures) nearly doubled (inflation adjusted.)
Immense savings in direct costs to the public,
as well as a significant reduction in crime with
its consequent savings in both financial cost
and human suffering, could be realized simply by putting and keeping more convicted offenders in prison. This is not an impossible
task.
If the cost per inmate had remained within the
inflation rate since 1960, nearly an additional
$5.5 billion would have been available in 1990
alone for additional corrections capacity, tax
reductions, or other public services. Some
states achieved this level of cost control and
better; the operating cost per inmate actually
decreased in New Hampshire, Delaware and
Oregon.
When prisoners are provided better institutionalliving conditions than they have available outside of prison, one of the primary purposes of punishment is undercut. "The infliction of disutility...is one of the objectives of
criminal punishment; only if the only objective of punishment were incapacitation could
it be argued that living conditions should be
as comfortable in prison as outside."3

TABLE 2.1: AVERAGE ESTIMATED TIME
SERVED BY TYPE OF OFFENSE

Offense

Percent of
Sentence
Served

Mean
Prison
Sentence

Estimated
Time
Served

All Offenses

33.0%

6 yrs., 3 mos

2 yrs., 1 month

Violent Offenses

38.0%

9 yrs., 11 mos

3 yrs., 9 mos.

Murdee

43.0%

20 yes., 3 mos

8 yes., 8 mos.

Rape

39.0%

13 yes., 4 mOS

5 yes., 2 mos.

Robbery

39.0%

9 yes., 7 mos

3 yes., 9 mos.

Aggeavated Assault

34.0%

6 yes., 6 mos

2 yes., 2 mos.

Othee

34.0%

7 YeS., 1 month

2 yes., 5 mos.

Property Offenses

29.0% ••••••• 5 yrs., 5 mos

Bueglary

32.0%

6 yes., 8 mos

2 yes., 2 mos.

Larceny

27.0%

4 yes., 1 month

1 year, 1 month

Feaud

28.0%

4 yes., 10 mos

1 year, 4 mos.

Drug Offenses

29.0%

5 yrs., 6 mos

1 year,7 mos.

Possession

27.0%

4 yes., 1 month

1 year, 1 month

Teafficking

31.0%

6 yes., 2 mos

1 year, 11 mos.

Weapons Offenses

40.0%

4 yrs., 2 mos

1 year, 8 mos.

1 year, 7 mos.

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Felony Sentellces irt State Courts, 1990"

.......
3Davenport~ DeRobertis, 844F.2d 1310,1313 (7thCir.1988)
(Posner, J.).

20 _ _~

~

~

AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL

•

Report Card on Crime and Punishmen(]

TABLE 2.2: COST PER-INMATE
(Current Operations)*

1960 Cost
Per-Inmate
(1990 Dollars)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
U.S

$3,501
N/A
$6,209
$3,191
$9,570
$10,328
$17,574
$29,342
$4,952
$2,348
$18,174
$8,122
$9,215
$6,429
$8,411
$7,414
$4,022
$7,068
$12,409
$8,420
$34,340
$8,757
$19,806
$4,031
$6,295
$14,858
$11,084
$9,675
$27,152
$10,033
$9,146
$10,801
$9,722
$21,452
$7,299
$4,628
$13,046
$8,923
$37,138
$4,890
$8,477
$5,139
$3,877
$13,580
$22,879
$5,300
$15,353
$4,428
$13,448
$11,638
$8,372

Rank
47

,

37
48
23
19
9
3
40
49
8
31
24
35
30
32
45
34
15
29
2
27
7
44
36
11
17
22
4
20
25
18
21
6
33
42
14
26
1
41
28
39
46
12
5
38
10
43
13
16

1990 Cost
Per-Inmate Rank
$8,117
$55,240
$17,517
$10,647
$18,147
$11,730
$21,319
$25,256
$13,619
$13,409
$34,923
$14,359
$15,971
$16,086
$22,492
$14,672
$11,293
$7,980
$25,245
$17,347
$35,794
$18,851
$31,994
$7,988
$10,169
$15,898
$16,164
$14,105
$20,881
$18,544
$28,020
$22,684
$18,694
$29,211
$12,799
$7,710
$12,102
$15,712
$37,425
$13,035
$13,098
$17,581
$12,514
$21,659
$31,160
$18,157
$22,074
$14,447
$20,849
$15,560
$16,431

47
1
24
45
22
43
15
9
36
37
4
34
28
27
12
32
44
49
10
25
3
18
5
48
46
29
26
35
16
20
8
11
19
7
40
50
42
30
2
39
38
23
41
14
6
21
13
33
17
31

Increase

Rank

131.9%
N/A
182.1 %
233.7%
89.6%
13.6%
21.3%
-13.9%
175.1 %
471.1%
92.2%
76.8%
73.3%
150.2%
167.4%
97.9%
180.8%
12.9%
103.4%
106.0%
4.2%
115.3%
61.5%
98.2%
61.5%
7.0%
45.8%
45.8%
-23.1 %
84.8%
206.4%
110.0%
92.3%
36.2%
75.3%
66.6%
-7.2%
76.1 %
0.8%
166.5%
54.5%
242.1 %
222.8%
59.5%
36.2%
242.6%
43.8%
226.3%
55.0%
33.7%
96.3%

14
8
4
23
42
41
48
10
1
22
25
28
13
11
20
9
43
18
17
45
15
30
19
31
44
35
36
49
24
7
16
21
39
27
29
47
26
46
12
34
3
6
32
38
2
37
5
33
40

Over
Inflation
(Millions)
$70.9
.
$155.8
$50.1
$807.3
$9.8
$29.1
$0.0
$384.7
$239.0
$28.6
$12.2
$185.9
$121.8
$55.9
$41.9
$65.6
$17.0
$19.0
$149.4
$11.5
$345.9
$38.7
$32.0
$57.9
$1.5
~. $11.6
$23.6
$0.0
$179.8
$57.9
$652.3
$159.4
$3.4
$175.0
$37.9
$0.0
$151.3
$0.5
$132.0
$6.2
$129.2
$432.2
$20.0
$5.6
$223.9
$53.7
$15.7
$54.3
$4.4
$5,461

*Current operations - excludes capital costs
Source: Calculated from Government Finance series, U.S. Bureau of the Census and Bureau of Justice Statistics.
October 1994

_ _~

~~~

~

~

21

Report Card on Crime and Punishment

TABLE 2.3: TOTAL CRIME* INCARCERATION RATES,
PERCENTAGE CHANGE AND RANKINGS
Total Crime Incarceration Rate
1960 Rank

Alabama

134

2

N/A

Alaska

1980 Rank

Percentage Change in Incarceration Rate

1992

Rank

1960-92

Rank

39

24

19

76

2

-43.2%

15

33

52

22

N/A

1960·80 Rank

1980-92 Rank

-82.5%

224.0%

16

236.3%

9

44

N/A

Arizona

39

41

16

32

59

16

52.3% ....... 5 ......... -58.0% ..... 15 .... 263.0% ...... 6

Arkansas

109

6

32

8

67

11

-38.6% ..... 33 ......... -70.5% ..... 28 .... 108.1% .... 36

California

40

40

13

40

51

24

Colorado

55

25

12

41

41

35

Connecticut..

51

29

14

38

51

23

Delaware

23

47

24

18

80

1

Florida

53

28

25

16

43

32

-19.0% ..... 24 ......... -53.1% ..... 11 ...... 72.6% .... 44

Georgia

126

4

39

3

57

19

-54.3% .....45 ......... -68.7% ..... 24 ...... 45.9% .... 46

Hawaii

38

44

8

49

24

49

-38.3% ..... 31 ......... -80.4% ..... 43 .... 214.0% ...• 18

Idaho

46

32

15

35

51

25

9.2% ..... 13 ......... -67.9% ..... 22 .... 240.8% ...... 8

TIlinois

38

43

15

36

47

30

22.9%

9

-61.8%

19

221.4%

17

Indiana

75

13

23

20

52

21

-30.7%

29

-68.9%

25

122.8%

33

Iowa

71

16............ 18

29

41

36

-42.9% ..... 38 ......... -75.2% ..... 38 .... 130.1% .... 31

Kansas

76

12

19

25

45

31

-40.9% ..... 36 ......... -74.8% ..... 36 .... 134.2% .... 29

Kentucky

98

8

29

11

70

9

Louisiana

77

11

33

7

58

18

-25.2% ..... 26 ......... -56.8% ..... 13 ...... 73.1 % .... 43

Maine

65

20

11

44

34

42

-47.7% ..... 42 ......... -83.1% ..... 45 .... 209.2% .... 19

103

7

27

13

61

15

-40.9% ..... 35 ......... -73.9% ..... 35 .... 126.1% .... 32

Massachusetts

31

45

9

48

32

43

5.3% ..... 15 ......... -71.5% ..... 30 .... 269.9% ...... 5

Michigan

46

33

25

17

74

4

60.9% ....... 4 ......... -46.5% ....... 6 .... 200.9% .... 20

Minnesota

41

39

10

47

18

50

-55.3%

Mississippi

129

3

31

9

69

10

-46.3% ..... 41 ......... -75.6% ..... 39 .... 120.6% .... 34

43

36

22

22

61

14

40.9% ....... 6 ......... -50.5% ....... 8 .... 184.3% .... 21

Maryland

Missouri

.

"%

7

-68.2%

23

305.3%

3

-25.0%

25

-77.4%

41

232.7%

12

0.2% ..... 18 ......... -73.4% ..... 34 .... 277.3% ...... 4
242.0%

-28.5%

1

27

..47

2.4%

-70.7%

-76.5%

1

29

40

234.1 %

143.5%

90.2%

10

26

39

*FBI Index Crimes

22

~

~

AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL

Report Card on Crime and Punishment

Total Crime Incarceration Rate

•

1960 Rank

1980 Rank

Percentage Change in Incarceration Rate

1992 Rank

1960-92

Rank

1960·80 Rank

1980-92

Rank

Montana

43

35

18

30

39

38

-10.9%

22

-59.5%

16

120.0%

35

Nebraska

74

14

21

24

37

39

-49.7%

44

-72.0%

32

79.9%

41

Nevada

42

38

26

14

71

7

68.0%

3

-39.1%

5

176.0%

22

New Hampshire 43

37

7

50

52

20

22.0%

11

-83.8%

46

654.9%

1

New Jersey

47

31

12

43

48

29

2.3%

16

-75.0%

37

309.6%

2

New Mexico

55

24

12

42

31

45

-43.7%

40

-78.2%

42

158.4%

24

18

28

58

17

N/A

225.2%

15

5

53

1

50

26

-54.8%

.46

-52.1% ..•.... 9

-5.7%

50

New York

N/A

North Carolina 111
North Dakota

44

34

14

37

27

48

-38.4%

32

-69.0%

26

98.7%

38

Ohio

73

15

22

21

74

3

0.7%

17

-69.4% •.... 27

229.1%

14

Oklahoma

57

23

30

10

70

8

22.6%

10

-47.5%

7

133.6%

30

Oregon

49

30

18

27

30

46

-39.1%

34

-62.6%

21

62.8%

45

Pennsylvania

66

19

18

26

61

13

-6.7%

20

-72.0%

31

233.0%

11

Rhode Island

14

48

11 .•... 45

37

40

156.9%

2

-25.2%

2

243.4%

7

South Carolina .. 58

22

40

2

72

5

23.7%

8

-31.1%

3

79.6%

42

South Dakota

66

18

28

12

71

6

6.6%

14

-57.8%

14

152.7%

25

Tennessee

71

17

33

5

42

34

-41.3%

37

-52.7%

10

24.2%

49

Texas

53

26

34

4

49

28

-7.8%

21

-35.5%

4

43.0%

47

Utah

24

46

11

46

28

47

14.1%

12

-56.3%

12

161.0%

23

Vermont

84

10

13

39

42

33

-49.4%

43

-84.7%

47

230.9%

13

VIrginia

88

9

33

6

62

12

-29.9%

28

-62.0%

20

84.6%

40

Washington

39

42

15

34

31

44

-18.7%

23

-60.4%

17

105.5%

37

180

1

26 ....• 15

35

41

-80.3%

.48

-85.8%

48

38.7%

48

Wisconsin

61

21

17

31

40

37

-34.2%

30.:

-72.6%

33

140.1%

27

Wyoming

53

27

21

23

50

27

-6.3%

19

-60.6%

18

137.9%

28

U.S

55

-

21

-

52

-

-6.4%

-

-62%

-

146.2%

-

WestVirginia

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, and the Uniform Crime Report, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

October 1994

~

_

23

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /I
Report Card on Crime and Punishment

TABLE 2.4: VIOLENT CRIME INCARCERATION RATES,
PERCENTAGE CHANGE AND RANKINGS
Violent Crime Incarceration Rate

1960

1980

Rank

1992

Rank

1960-92

Rank

1960-80 Rank

1980-92

Rank

Alabama

134

2

24

19

76

2

-43.2%

39

-82.5%

44

224.0%

16

Alabama

880.6

31

259.2

24

.461.4

27

-47.6%

21

-70.6%

20

78.0%

28

198.5

38

434.9

31

0.0%

119.0%

22

560.7 •.... 45

203.5

37

616.6

15

10.0%

2

-63.7%

11

202.9%

6

Alaska
Arizona

0.0

0.0%

Arkansas

1047.8

25

366.4

12

553.8

19

-47.2%

20

-65.0%

14

51.1%

34

California

576.7

44

110.6

49

305.1

43

-47.1%

18

-80.8%

30

175.8%

8

Colorado

863.0

32

170.6

43

421.2

36

-51.2%

24

-80.2%

28

146.9%

18

1613.1

13

193.4

39

522.0

22

-67.6%

35

~88.0%

42

170.0%

10

Delaware

602.7

42

342.4

16

625.7

14

3.8%

3

-43.2%

3

82.7%

26

Florida

640.4

39

212.0

32

296.5

45

-53.7%

27

-66.9%

16

39.9%

38

Georgia

1115.5

24

397.5

7

502.0

23

-55.0%

28

-64.4%

12

26.3%

42

Hawaii

4043.5

2

188.3

41

559.7

18

-86.2%

48

-95.3%

48

197.2%

7

Idaho

2152.9

8

227.3

30

720.6

7

-66.5%

33

-89.4%

44

217.1%

4

Illinois

246.3

48

113.9

48

278.4

47

13.0%

1

-53.8%

6

144.4%

19

Indiana

1376.2

17

304.4

20

.479.0

25

-65.2%

31

-77.9%

25

57.4%

32

Iowa

3359.8

3

418.0

6

578.0

17

-82.8%

47

-87.6%

41

38.3%

39

Kansas

1818.4

12

265.2

23

468.1

26

-74.3%

39

-85.4%

38

76.5%

29

Kentucky

1218.5

20

369.5

11

433.7

32

-64.4%

29

-69.7%

18

17.4%

46

Louisiana

751.3

36

272.9

21

383.0

39

-49.0%

23

-63.7%

10

40.3%

37

Maine

2595.2

5

249.0

27

917.7

6

-64.6%

30

-90.4%

45

268.6%

3

Maryland

1133.2

23

208.6

34

377.4

40

-66.7%

34

-81.6%

31

80.9%

27

Massachusetts

764.3

35

88.0

50

206.8

50

-72.9%

38

-88.5%

43

135.0%

20

Michigan

560.6

46

256.3

25

538.2

21

-4.0%

4

-54.3%

7

110.0%

23

Minnesota

1434.8

15

203.7

36

249.7

48

-82.6%

46

-85.8%

39

22.6%

45

Mississippi

883.3

30

313.2

19

719.1

8

-18.6%

7

-64.5%

13

129.6%

21

Connecticut..

24

Rank

Percentage Change in
Incarceration Rate

AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL

•

Report Card on Crime and Punishment
Percentage Change in
Incarceration Rate

Violent Crime Incarceration Rate

•

1960

Rank

1980

Rank

1992

Rank

1960-92

Rank

Missouri

495.2

47

210.7

33

.420.9

37

-15.0%

6

-57.5%

8

99.7%

24

Montana

1328.9

19

397.1..

8

1047.1..

4

-21.2%

8

-70.1%

19

163.7%

13

Nebraska

2150.8

9

395.5

9

460.3

28

-78.6%

44

-81.6%

32

16.4%

47

992.8

26

248.5

28

629.4

13

-36.6%

14

-75.0%

24

153.3%

16

New Hampshire .2222.2

6

180.9

42 ..• 1285.6

2

-42.1%

17

-91.9%

46

610.7%

1

Nevada

1960·80 Rank

1980·92

Rank

New Jersey

618.0

40

125.3

45

392.2

38

-36.5%

13

-79.7%

26

212.9%

5

New Mexico

914.0

29

116.1

47

212.4

49

-76.8%

42

-87.3%

40

82.9%

25

120.1

46

303.7

44

0.0%

152.9%

17

543.7

3

.428.4

34

~27.0%

-21.2%

50

New York
NorthCarolina

0.0
587.0

43

North Dakota ..... 2755.6 ....... 4 ....... 750.0 ...... 1 ..... 945.3 ....... 5

0.0%
11

-7.4%

1

-65.7% .... 32 ...... -72.8% .... 22 ....... 26.0% .... 43

Ohio

1368.3

18

244.9

29

655.9

11

-52.1%

25

-82.1 %

35

167.8%

12

Oklahoma

1186.4

21

361.0

13

610.4

16

-48.6%

22

~69.6%

17

69.1%

30

Oregon

1388.0

16

249.6

26

339.9

42

-75.5%

40

-82.0%

34

36.2%

40

696.4

38

188.9

40

.486.9

24

-30.1%

12

-72.9%

23

157.7%

15

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island ........ 807.0 ..... 33 ....... 155.5 .... 44 ..... 426.7 ..... 35

-47.1% .... 19 ...... -80.7% .... 29 ..... 174.4% ...... 9

South Carolina ..... 607.5 ..... 41 ....... 330.4 .... 17 ..... 449.3 ..... 29

-26.0% .... 10 ...... -45.6% ...... 4 ....... 36.0% .... 41

SouthDalcota

1865.2

11

715.9

2

1091.1

3

-41.5%

16

-61.6%

9

52.4%

33

Tennessee

964.3

27

328.7

18

286.2

46

-70.3%

36

-65.9%

15

-12.9%

49

Texas

733.0

37

383.3

10

429.7

33

-41.4%

15

-47.7%

5

12.1%

48

Utah

1142.6

22

207.0

35

542.8

20

-52.5%

26

-81.9%

33

162.2%

14

Vermont

7270.3

1

356.7

14

1317.3

1

-81.9%

45

-95.1 %

47

269.3%

2

Vrrginia

792.6

34

503.3

4

708.3

10

-10.6%

5

-36.5%

2

40.7%

36

Washington ........ 1519.2 ..... 14 ....... 227.2 .... 31 ..... 362.0 ..... 41

-76.2% .... 41 ...... -85.0% .... 37 ....... 59.3% .... 31

WestVirginia ...... 2005.8 ..... 10 ....... 351.7 .... 15 ..... 436.7 ..... 30

-78.2% .... 43 ...... -82.5% .... 36 ....... 24.2% .... 44

Wisc,onsin

2207.8

7

443.2

5

634.1

12

-71.3%

37

-79.9%

27

43.1 %

35

Wyoming

933.7

28

266.2

22

713.9

9

-23.5%

9

-71.5%

21

168.2%

11

U.S

651.0

-

210.4

-

388.2..........

-40.4%

-

-67.7%

-

84.5%

-

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice and the Uniform Crime Report, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

October 1994

~~~

~

_ _ 25

Report Card on Crime and Punishment

Chapter 3
PUNISHMENT AS PREVENTION AND PROTECTION
Chart 3.1

A debate over criminal justice policy has reemerged in America, as those who favor a repeal of the mandatory sentencing laws have
called the laws too harsh and an improper invasion of the province of the courts.

IPrison Population!1 000 Total Crimes I
60

:s
{:.
0
0
0
....
..
Gl

Critics of these tougher sentencing laws have
said that there is no evidence that they have
had any crime control effects, and that the taxpayers can no longer afford to build the required prison space. The states are not sending convicted criminals to prison at rates that
are the highest in their history. In fact, 30 states
remain at levels well below their 1960 imprisonment rates. But it is clear that since 1980
there have been significant increases in the imprisonment rates of every state, and so the
question arises whether these increases are
correlated with any crime control effects.

~

./

50

E30

l-/

'C

0.0

~

c
0

20

0
1980

1986

1988

1990

1992

Chart 3.2
Prison Populationl1 000 Violent Crimes
400

8
S!

350
Gl 300
,e250

&

Ii ~200
o c
.!!! 150
c 0
g >100
;f
50

./

-

V

~

......-

-

ll.

o

gC)
~

26

1984

1982

1980-1992

Studying both the national data and data available for each of the states, one message is
clear: Leniency is associated with unrelenting increases in crime; "getting tough" works
to arrest and even lower crime rates.

From 1980 to 1992, the states with the largest
increases in their incarceration rates had the
most dramatic drops in their crime rates. The
states with more moderate increases had more
moderate declines or marginal increases in
crime rates. And the states with the smallest
increases in their incarceration rates contin-

~

..---

10

III

'C
ll.

WHAT THE EVIOENCE SHOWS:
GETTING TOUGH WORKS

From 1960 to 1980, the states with the slowest decline in their incarceration rates had the
smallest increases in their crime rates. The
states with moderate declines in their incarceration rates had higher increases in their
crime rates, while the states with the most severe declines in their incarceration rates had
the largest increases in their crime rates.

--

40
III
Gl

f---"'"

ro

C)

~
C)

2
C)

~
C)

~
C)

~
C)

~
C)

~
C)

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

~

m~ m~
C)

~.

C)

C)

~

~

~

~

1980-1992

ued to have higher increases in their crime rates, albeit at a slower
rate than that experienced in the earlier period.
As an example, from 1960 to 1980, New Hampshire had the
third sharpest decline in imprisonment rates of any state in the
country; correspondingly, it had the largest crime rate increase
of any other state during the same period, In fact, among the 20
states which had the largest drops in imprisonment rates from
1960 to 1980, 14 were also among the twenty experiencing the
highest increases in crime rates, However, of the 20 states which
exhibited the most restraint in decreasing their imprisonment
rates from 1960 to 1980 (only Delaware actually increased its
~

.

AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL

•

•

Report Card on Crime and Punishment

imprisonment rate over this time period), 16 were
among the 20 states with the slowest growth in their
crime rates.
There were only 14 states that showed an absolute increase in the crime rate during the 1980-1992 period,
and eight of them were among the 10 lowest in the rate
of increase in the incarceration rate. Alabama was the
only state with a growing crime rate which had a relatively high rate of increase in the incarceration rate.

VIOLENT CRIME
The same inverse relationship between crime rates and
incarceration rates holds true when applied to violent
crime. From 1960 to 1980, violent crime incarceration rates plummeted in alI 50 states, and violent crime
skyrocketed. However, the states which reduced their
violent crime incarceration rates the most experienced
the greatest increases in violent crime. Seventeen of
the 20 states which decreased their violent crime incarceration rates the most are among the 20 states that
experienced the highest increase in violent crime rates.
This relationship continued from 1980-92, albeit at a
slower rate. Of the top ten states that experienced declines in violent crime rates during this period, six were
among the top ten states in increasing their violent crime
incarceration rates.

TABLE 3.1: GROWTH IN
INCARCERATION RATES*
AND CHANGES IN CRIME RATES
Average Change
in Prison Population
Per 1000 Total Crimes
1960·80

Top 10 States
-38%
Middle States
-66%
Bottom 10 States -81%

1980·92

+303%
+162%
+51%

Average Change
in Prison Population
Per 1000 Violent Crimes
1960-80

Top 10 States
-47%
~75%
Middle States
Bottom 10 States -90%

1980-92

+250%
+98%
+15%

Average Change
in Total
Crime Rate
1960-80

203%
239%
313%

1980-92

-19%
-7%
+9%

Average Change
in Violent
Crime Rate
1960·80

1980-92

+231%
+379%
+925%

-8%
+26%
+51%

As these statistics show, the inverse relationship between crime rates and incarceration rates is very strong.
Each state's percentage change in crime rate and imprisonment rate shows a story as obvious as it is powerful.

SOCIAL SPENDING AND CRIME
Advocates of policies which would address the "root
cause" ofcrime suggest that broader taxpayer financed
social programs would reduce crime rates. However,
during the period in which the U.S. experienced the
greatest expansion in social welfare spending, arguably
begun with President Johnson1s "Great Society" programs in the mid-1960s and continuing until today,
crime rates soared by more than 200 percent, and violent crime rates rose more than 350 percent. Though
there is no evidence that this expansion of social welfare spending caused increases in crime rates, the very
fact that crime rates did not decrease during this period
suggests that large-scale social welfare programs are
not an effective strategy for fighting crime. In fact, it
is evident that much of the economic and social decay
found in American inner cities today, which includes
the departure of businesses and middle-class families,
is due to the high rates of crime in these areas.
In contrast, the clear relationship between crime rates
and incarceration indicates that if there should be a priority placed on scarce public funds, it should be on
increasing incarceration rates, particularly for violent
offenders.

GUN AVAILABILITY AND CRIME
Many have suggested that gun control would be an effective strategy to combat violent crime. However, placing gun availability and crime in an historical context
shows that tbere is no significant relationship. While
the proportion of violent crimes perpetrated with guns
decreased 3.7% from 1980-92 (when incarceration rates
were rising), firearms availability (firearms per capita)
increased by 18%. Therefore, the increase in the availability of guns did not manifest itself in the greater use
of guns for crime.

*Grouped by prison population per 1,000 total crimes and prison
population per 1,000 violent crimes.

October 1994

_~~~

_

27

I

Report Card on Crime and Punishment

Chapter 4

•

JUVENILES AND THE RECENT INCREASE
IN CRIME RATES

One out of every five persons arrested is under 18 years of age. Juveniles account for 42
percent of all arrests for arson and 24 percent
of arrests for motor vehicle theft.

(Percent of offenses cleared by arrest ofjuveniles)

Year

Total
Crime Index

Violent
Crime

Property
Crime

1972

27.3%

13.2%

33.8%

1973

30.6%

12.2%

35.9%

1974

31.3%

12.5%

36.3%

1975

30.0%

12.8%

34.4%

1976

28.6%

12.2%

32.7%

1977

28.4%

11.8%

32.8%

1978

28.1%

11.7%

32.6%

1979

26.6%

11.8%

30.9%

1980

24.4%

11.2%

28.2%

1981

21.4%

9.8%

24.7%

Juveniles accounted for 14 percent of murder
arrests, but an additional 20 percent of murder suspects were between 18 and 21. Fiftyfive percent of all murder arrests involved a
suspect under 25, 45 percent of robbery suspects were under 21, and 26 percent were under 18.

1982

20.6%

9.5%

23.8%

1983

20.1%

9.5%

23.2%

1984

20.1 %

9.8%

23.3%

1985

20.1 %

9.6%

23.4%

1986

19.1%

9.0%

22.6%

During most of the 1970s and early 1980s the
arrest rate for juveniles who committed violent crimes was low and remained generally
flat. However, between 1981 and 1990 murders committed by adults rose five percent
while murders committed by juveniles rose
60 percent. In 1990, people under the age of
21 were responsible for more than one-third
of all the murders in the country.

1987

18.1 %

8.5%

21.3%

1988

18.1%

8.9%

20.9%

1989

17.8%

9.5%

20.3%

1990

19.2%

11.2%

22.0%

1991

19.3%

11.4%

22.1%

1992

20.0%

12.8%

22.6%

In 1992,2,263,000 arrests were made for FBI
index crimes, of which 655,000 (29 percent)
were ofjuveniles. Arrests ofjuveniles for violent crimes increased by 57 percent from 1983
to 1992; the increase in arrests for property
crimes was 11 percent.
Arson is a crime that is particularly prevalent
among young offenders. Of the 16,000 per·
sons arrested for arson in 1992, almost half
were under 18 and 32 percent were under 15.
Juveniles also accounted for a large propor·
tion of motor vehicle thefts (44 percent), with
61.5 percent of such offenses committed by
suspects under 21. Half of all burglary arrests
involved suspects under 21, and 34 percent
were under 18.

28

TABLE 4.1: JUVENILES AND CRIME:
, 1972-1992

~

~

Source: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1992

AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL

-

•

Report Card on Crime and Punishment

From 1972 through 1987, the percentage of
juveniles arrested, as compared to the total of
all offenses cleared by arrest, declined steadily.
In fact, juveniles were declining in importance
as a factor in overall violent crime. But since
1987 this trend has reversed; the percentage
of juvenile arrests for violent offenses increased more than 50 percent.
The juvenile justice system is shrouded in secrecy. The offenders, the nature of their offenses, and the consequences that flow from
them are not routinely and systematically made
known to the pUblic. That is because in large
measure the system was designed to protect
the juvenile and not the public. It was designed
at a time when the "bad kids" threw rocks
through windows or shoplifted. It was designed to protect these kids from having a
"record" follow them for the rest of their lives
for making only one "mistake." There may
have been good reason for the system then and,
arguably, for the system now, insofar as the
minor first-time delinquent is concerned. It
is, however, a system wholly inadequate for
dealing with chronic violent juvenile criminals
-- those who have committed murder, rape,
robbery, aggravated assault, or other serious
offenses.
Much of the impetus to reform the juvenile
justice system comes from the public and from
crime victims who are demanding that juveniles charged with serious offenses be tried as
adults. Most recently, the Congress has enacted legislation to reduce the age at which
juveniles may be tried as adults. The more
important question, however, is not the process (adult trial or juvenile adjudication), but
rather the outcomes of a juvenile's criminal
acts. This issue has not received an appropriate level of attention.

CONCLUSION
The period form 1960 to 1992 was indeed marked by two distinct eras in American life. Beginning in the early 1960s, the
nation embarked on a social experiment, testing the notion that
by curing the "root causes" of crime, America would become a
more just and safer place to live. To achieve this end, government at all levels spent trillions of taxpayer funds on various
social welfare programs. In addition, government transformed
the criminal justice system from one that used incarceration as
a punishment, to one that favored process over truth, ignored
chronic juvenile criminals, and allowed distant federal bureaucracies to supplant the traditional roles of the states as the primary instrument of the criminal justice system.
The result was a greater dependency on government by millions of people, and crime rates that skyrocketed for a 20 year
period.
These conditions have created long-term effects. Falling incarceration rates not only created perverse incentives which made
crime "profitable," but also resulted in the early release of thousands of criminals who continued to practice their craft with
little fear or regard for the consequences. In the 1980s, the nation attempted to restore punishment as the consequence ofcrime
by increasing incarceration, and though the rate of increase in
crime rates dropped dramatically as a result, they still remained
substantially above 1960 levels.
Though the trend in crime rates is positive, the high crime rates
of today show that it is easier to get into trouble than to get out
of trouble. What we should learn from the experience of the
last 30 years is that incarceration works to reduce crime. In
order to restore America to the level of public safety it once
took almost for granted, criminal justice policy must continue
to emphasize incarceration as the punishment for crime, and
violent and repeat criminals should be singled out for longer
prison terms.

The current level of data on the juvenile justice system is not sufficient to allow definitive
reporting on state performance. Clearly, however, the challenge ofjuvenile crime is the most
pressing challenge faced by those who work
for a safer America.

October 1994

~~~_~~

~

_

29

I
-----------------Report Card Oil Crime alld Punishment

ApPENDIX A.1: STATE RANKING TABLES: TOTAL CRIME RATES:

1960-1980-1992
1960 Crime Rate

Rank

1980 Crime Rate

California ...................... 3474
Nevada .......................... 3441
Arizona ......................... 3014
Florida .......................... 2705
Michigan ....................... 2659
Utah .............................. 2541
New Mexico ................. 2387
Illinois ........................... 2342
Hawaii ........................... 2298
Washington ................... 2232
Texas ............................. 2217
Colorado ....................... 2172
Delaware ....................... 2160
Rhode Island ................. 2072
Montana ........................ 2053
Oklahoma ..................... 2015
Oregon .......................... 1977
MiSSOUri ........................ 1973
Wyoming ...................... 1924
Idaho ............................. 1771
Maryland ...................... 1670
Virginia ......................... 1653
Alaska ........................... 1649
Ohio .............................. 1559
Indiana .......................... 1554
South Carolina .............. 1500
Louisiana ...................... 1495
New Jersey .................... 1491
Minnesota ..................... 1466
Georgia ......................... 1408
Kansas ........................... 1395
Tennessee ...................... 1241
Alabama ........................ 1222
Nebraska ....................... 1220
Massachusetts ............... 1219
Kentucky ....................... 1213
Maine ............................ 1188
North Carolina .............. 1179
South Dakota ................ 1164
Connecticut ................... 1157
Wisconsin ..................... 1146
Iowa .............................. 1124
Pennsylvania ................. 1049
Arkansas ....................... 1034
North Dakota .................. 891
Vermont .......................... 825
West Virginia .................. 721
Mississippi ...................... 705
New Hampshire .............. 690
................................................

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Nevada .......................... 8854
Florida .......................... 8402
Arizona ......................... 8171
California ...................... 7833
Hawaii ........................... 7482
Colorado ....................... 7333
Washington ................... 6915
New York ...................... 6912
Delaware ....................... 6777
Oregon .......................... 6687
Michigan ....................... 6676
Maryland ...................... 6630
New Jersey .................... 6401
Illinois ........................... 6269
Texas ............................. 6143
Massachusetts ............... 6079
New Mexico ................. 5979
Rhode Island ................. 5933
Connecticut ................... 5882
Utah .............................. 5881
Alaska ........................... 5646
Georgia ......................... 5604
Louisiana ...................... 5454
South Carolina .............. 5439
Missouri ........................ 5433
Ohio .............................. 5431
Kansas ........................... 5379
Oklahoma ..................... 5053
Montana ........................ 5024
Vermont ........................ 4988
Wyoming ...................... 4986
Alabama ........................ 4934
Indiana .......................... 4930
Minnesota ..................... 4799
Wisconsin ..................... 4799
Idaho ............................. 4782
Iowa .............................. 4747
New Hampshire ............ 4680
North Carolina .............. 4640
Virginia ......................... 4620
Tennessee ...................... 4498
Maine ............................ 4368
Nebraska ....................... 4305
Arkansas ....................... 3811
Pennsylvania ................. 3736
Kentucky ....................... 3434
Mississippi .................... 3417
South Dakota ................ 3243
North Dakota ................ 2964
West Virginia ................ 2552

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49

30 _ _~

~_~

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44

45
46
47
48
49
50

1992 Crime Rate
Florida .................. 8358
Texas .................... 7058
Arizona ................. 7029
California .............. 6679
Louisiana .............. 6546
New Mexico ......... 6434
Georgia ................. 6405
Maryland .............. 6225
Nevada .................. 6204
Washington ........... 6173
Hawaii ................... 6112
Colorado ............... 5959
South Carolina ...... 5893
New York .............. 5858
Oregon .................. 5821
North Carolina ...... 5802
Illinois ................... 5765
Utah ...................... 5659
Michigan ............... 5611
Alaska ................... 5570
Oklahoma ............. 5432
Kansas ................... 5320
Alabama ................ 5268
Tennessee .............. 5136
Missouri ................ 5097
New Jersey ............ 5064
Connecticut ........... 5053
Massachusetts ....... 5003
Delaware ............... 4848
Arkansas ............... 4762
Indiana .................. 4687
Ohio ...................... 4666
Montana ................ 4596
Minnesota ............. 4591
Rhode Island ......... 4578
Wyoming .............. 4575
Nebraska ............... 4324
Wisconsin ............. 4319
Virginia ................. 4299
Mississippi ............ 4282
Idaho ..................... 3996
Iowa ...................... 3957
Maine .................... 3524
Vermont ................ 3410
Pennsylvania ......... 3393
Kentucky ............... 3324
New Hampshire .... 3081
South Dakota ........ 2999
North Dakota ........ 2903
West Virginia ........ 2610

AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL

•

•

Report Card on Crime and Punishment
ApPENDIX A.2: STATE RANKING TABLES: TOTAL CRIME PERCENTAGE CHANGE:

1960-1980-1992
Rank

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49

Percentage Change
1960-1992

Mississippi
507.7%
North Carolina
391.9%
Arkansas
360.5%
Georgia ........•............ 355.0%
New Hampshire
346.6%
Louisiana
337.8%
Connecticut
336.9%
Alabama
331.1%
Tennessee
314.0%
Vermont
313.1 %
Massachusetts
310.4%
South Carolina
292.8%
Kansas
281.4%
Wisconsin
277.0%
Maryland
272.7%
West Virginia
262.1 %
Nebraska
254.5%
Iowa
252.1 %
New Jersey
239.7%
Alaska
237.7%
North Dakota
225.9%
Pennsylvania
223.3%
Texas
218.3%
Minnesota
213.1 %
Florida
209.0%
Indiana
201.7%
Ohio
199.3%
Maine
196.5%
Oregon
194.4%
Washington
176.5%
Colorado
174.3%
Kentucky
174.1%
New Mexico
169.6%
Oklahoma
169.5%
Hawaii
165.9%
Virginia
160.1%
Missouri
158.4%
South Dakota
157.6%
Illinois
146.2%
Wyoming
137.8%
Arizona
133.2%
Idaho
125.6%
Delaware
124.4%
Montana
123.9%
Utah

Rhode I.land
Michigan
California
Nevada

October 1994

~~~

122.7%
120.9%
111.0%
92.3%
80.3%

Rank

1
2
3
4

5

Percentage Change
1960-1980
New Hampshire
Vermont
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Mississippi
New Jersey
Iowa
Wisconsin
Alabama
Georgia
Maryland
North Carolina
Kansas
Arkansas
Maine
Louisiana
Tennessee
South Carolina
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Nebraska
Ohio
Alaska
Oregon
Colorado
North Dakota
Minnesota
Hawaii
Indiana
Delaware
Florida
Washington
Rhode Island
Kentucky
Virginia
South Dakota
Texas
Missouri
Arizona
Idaho
Illinois
Wyoming
Nevada
Michigan
Oklahoma
New Mexico
Montana

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48 Utah
49 California

~

578.5%
504.4%
408.6%
398.7%
384.9%
329.4%
322.4%
318.9%
303.7%
298.0%
297.0%
293.4%
285.6%
268.5%
267.6%
264.7%
262.6%
262.6%
256.0%
254.0%
253.0%
248.4%
242.3%
238.2%
237.6%
232.6%
227.4%
225.6%
217.3%
213.7%
210.7%
209.8%
186.3%
183.1 %
179.5%
178.6%
177.1 %
175.4%
17 L1 %
170.0%
167.7%
159.1 %
157.3%
151.1%
150.7%
150.5%
I44.8%
131.4%
125.5%

~

Rank

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Percentage Change
1980-92
Mississippi
North Carolina
Arkansas
Louisiana
Texas
Georgia
Tennessee
South Carolina
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Alabama
West Virginia
Nebraska
Florida
Kansas
Alaska
North Dakota
Kentucky
Utah

Minnesota
Indiana
Maryland
Missouri
Virginia
South Dakota
Illinois
Wyoming
Montana
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Washington
Oregon
Arizona
Connecticut.
Ohio
California
New York
Michigan
Idaho
;
Iowa
Massachusetts
Hawaii.
Colorado :
Maine
New Jersey
Rhode Island
Delaware
Nevada
Vermont
New Hampshire
~

25.3%
25.0%
24.9%
20.0%
14.9%
14.3%
14.2%
8.3%
7.6%
7.5%
6.8%
2.3%
0.4%
-0.5%
-1.1 %
-1.3%
-2.0%
-3.2%
-3.8%
-4.3%
-4.9%
-6.1%
-6.2%
-7.0%
-7.5%
-8.0%
-8.2%
-8.5%
-9.2%
-10.0%
-10.7%
-13.0%
-14.0%
-14.1 %
-14.1 %
-14.7%
-15.2%
-16.0%
-16.4%
-16.6%
-17.7%
-18.3%
-18.7%
-19.3%
·20.9%
-22.8%
-28.5%
·29.9%
-31.6%
-34.2%
~_~

__ 31

Report Card on Crime and Punishment
ApPENDIX A.3: STATE RANKING TABLES: VIOLENT CRIME RATES:

Rank

Rank

Violent Crime
Rate

1960
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49

32

Illinois
California
North Carolina
Florida
Michigan
Arizona
Alabama
Virginia
Missouri
Texas
Georgia
Louisiana
Maryland
Nevada
South Carolina
New Mexico
Colorado
New Jersey
Wyoming
Arkansas
Alaska
Mississippi
Pennsylvania
Kentucky
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Indiana
Delaware
Ohio
Oregon
Montana,
West Virginia
Kansas
Washington
Utah
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Nebraska
South Dakota
Idaho
Rhode Island
Connecticut..
Wisconsin
Maine
Iowa
Hawaii
North Dakota
New Hampshire
Vermont

_~~

Violent Crime
Rate

1960-1980-1992

Rank

1980
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

365
239
223
223
218
208
187
184
173
161
159
153
151
146
144
143
137
114
110
108
104
103
99
97
97
91
85
84
84
70
67
65
58
57
54
49
42
42
41
38
37
37
32
30
24
22
14
13
9

~~

New York
Florida
Nevada
California
Maryland
Illinois
Louisiana
South Carolina
Arizona
Michigan
New Mex.ico
New Jersey
Massachusetts
Georgia
Missouri
Texas
Colorado
Ohio
Oregon
Delaware
Washington
Tennessee
North Carolina
Alabama
Alaska
Oklahoma
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Wyoming
Kansas
Indiana
Pennsylvania
Mississippi
Arkansas
Idaho
Virginia
Utah
Hawaii
Kentucky
Minnesota
Nebraska
Montana
Iowa
Maine
West Virginia
Wisconsin
New Hampshire
Vermont
South Dakota
North Dakota

Violent Crime
Rate

1992
1030
984
913
894
852
808
665
660
651
640
615
604
601
555
554
550
529
498
490
475
464
458
455
449
436
419
413
409
393
389
378
364
342
335
313
307
303
299
267
228
225
223
200
193
185
183
180
179
127
54

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Florida
New York
California
Maryland
Louisiana
Illinois
South Carolina
New Mexico
Alabama
Texas
Massachusetts
Michigan
Tennessee
Missouri
Georgia
Nevada
North Carolina
Arizona
Alaska
New Jersey
Oklahoma
Delaware
Colorado
Arkansas
Kentucky
Washington
Ohio
Kansas
Oregon
Indiana
Connecticut.
Pennsylvania
Mississippi
Rhode Island
Virginia
Nebraska
Minnesota
Wyoming
Utah
Idaho
Iowa
Wisconsin
Hawaii
WestVirginia
South Dakota
Montana
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
North Dakota

1207
1122
1120
1000
985
977
944
935
872
806
779
770
746
740
733
697
681
671
660
626
623
621
579
577
535
535
526
511
510
508
495
427
412
395
375
349
338
320
291
281
278
276
258
212
195
170
131
126
109
83

~ AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL

•

-.

•

Report Card on Crime and Punishment
ApPENDIXA.4: STATE RANKING TABLES: PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN VIOLENT CRIME RATES:

1960-1980-1992
Rank

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49

Percentage Change
in Violent Crime Rate
1960·92

Massachusetts
Connecticut
Hawaii
Iowa
Vermont
Rhode Island
Washington
New Hampshire
Kansas
Wisconsin
Nebraska
Tennessee
Minnesota
Delaware
Idaho
Oregon
Maryland
South Carolina
New Mexico
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Alaska
Ohio
Indiana
North Dakota
Kentucky
New Jersey
Florida
Arkansas
Utah
Texas
Nevada
South Dakota
California
Alabama
Georgia
Maine
Pennsylvania
Missouri
Colorado
Mississippi
Michigan
West Virginia
Arizona
North Carolina
Wyoming
Illinois
Montana
Virginia

October 1994

1496.7%
1253.2%
1085.1 %
1068.4%
1053.6%
973.1 %
843.8%
842.2%
774.9%
764.1 %
733.8%
719.0%
704.2%
639.3%
636.4%
632.5%
561.1%
557.2%
553.8%
542.6%
542.2%
533.0%
528.7%
501.0%
.485.6%
450.2%
447.7%
440.4%
435.3%
434.6%
400.7%
377.9%
369.4%
368.6%
367.0%
361.7%
338.9%
331.4%
328.3%
321.6%
301.1 %
253.7%
228.0%
223.0%
204.7%
191.3%
167.7%
153.1 %
104.1 %

Rank

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49

Percentage Change
in Violent Crime Rate
1960·80
Vermont
1783.7%
Hawaii
1273.2%
New Hampshire
1247.6%
Massachusetts
1132.4%
Connecticut
1026.9%
Rhode Island
1011.2%
Iowa
742.2%
Idaho
719.9%
Washington
719.8%
Oregon
604.0%
Kansas
566.8%
Maine
548.6%
Nevada
525.9%
Ohio ......•................... 495.6%
Wisconsin
.472.1 %
Delaware
465.1 %
Maryland
463.4%
Utah
458.2%
Minnesota
441.8%
Nebraska
437.2%
New Jersey
428.9%
Tennessee
402.8%
South Carolina
359.2%
Indiana
346.5%
Florida
340.3%
Louisiana
334.0%
Oklahoma
332.5%
New Mexico
330.0%
Alaska
317.8%
Colorado
285.0%
North Dakota
279.1%
California
274.0%
Pennsylvania
267.7%
Wyoming
257.9%
Georgia
249.7%
Texas
241.7%
Mississippi
233.1 %
Montana
231.6%
Missouri
220.7%
Arizona
213.4%
Arkansas
211.2%
South Dakota
206.1 %
Michigan
193.7%
West Virginia
187.0%
Kentucky
174.0%
Alabama
140.3%
Illinois
121.3%
North Carolina
103.6%
Virginia
67.3%

Rank

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Percentage Change
in Violent Crime Rate
1980·92
Kentucky
Alabama
Arkansas
Tennessee
Nebraska
North Dakota
South Dakota
New Mexico
Alaska
Wisconsin
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Minnesota
Louisiana
Texas
South Carolina
Iowa
Indiana
Missouri
Georgia
Kansas
Delaware
Massachusetts
California
Florida
Virginia
Illinois
Michigan
Mississippi
Connecticut
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Washington
West Virginia
Colorado
New York
Ohio
Oregon
New Jersey
Arizona
Rhode Island
Utah
Idaho
Hawaii...
Wyoming
Nevada
Montana
New Hampshire
Maine
Vermont

100.8%
94.3%
72.0%
62.9%
55.2%
54.5%
53.3%
52.0%
51.5%
51.0%
49.7%
48.5%
.48.4%
.48.1%
46.5%
43.1%
38.7%
34.6%
33.5%
32.0%
31.2%
30.8%
29.6%
25.3%
22.7%
22.0%
20.9%
20.4%
20.4%
20.1%
17.3%
17.3%
15.1%
14.3%
9.5%
9.0%
5.6%
4.0%
3.6%
3.1 %
-3.4%
-4.2%
-10.2%
-13.7%
-18.6%
-23.6%
-23.7%
-30.1 %
-32.3%
-38.8%

_

33

[ Report Card on Crime and Punishment
ApPENDIXA.5: STATE RANKING TABLES: TOTAL

CRIME INCARCERATION RATES

1960-1980-1992
Rank

Total Crime
Incarceration Rate

Rank

Total Crime
Incarceration Rate

1980

1960
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48

34

~

West Virginia
Alabama
Mississippi
Georgia
North Carolina
Arkansas
l'vtaryland
Kentucky
Virginia
Vermont
Louisiana
Kansas
Indiana
Nebraska
Ohio
Iowa
Tennessee
South Dakota
Pennsylvania
Maine
Wisconsin
South Carolina
Oklahoma
New Mexico
Colorado
Texas
Wyoming
Florida
Connecticut
Oregon
New Jersey
Idaho
Michigan
North Dakota
Montana
Missouri
New Hampshire
Nevada
Minnesota
California
Arizona
Washington
Illinois
Hawaii
Massachusetts
Utah

Delaware
Rhode Island

~

Rank

180
134
129
126
III
109
103
98
88
84
77
76
75
74
73
71
71
66
66
65
61
58
57
55
55
53
53
53
51
49
47
46
46
44
43
43
43
42
41
40
39
39
38
38
31
24
23
14

~

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Texas
Tennessee
Virginia
Louisiana
Arkansas
Mississippi
Oklahoma
Kentucky
South Dakota
Maryland
Nevada
West Virginia
Florida
Michigan
Delaware
Alabama
Indiana
Ohio
Missouri
Wyoming
Nebraska
Kansas
Pennsylvania
Oregon
New York
Iowa
Montana
Wisconsin
Arizona
Alaska
Washington
Idaho
Illinois
North Dakota
Connecticut
Vermont
California
Colorado
New Mexico
New Jersey
Maine
Rhode Island
Utah

Minnesota
Massachusetts
Hawaii
New Hampshire

__~~

Total Crime
Incarceration Rate

1992
53
40
39
34
33
33
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
26
25
25
24
24
23
22
22
21
21
19
18
18
18
18
18
17
16
15
15
15
15
14
14
13
13
12
12
12
11
11
11
10
9
8
7

~

__

I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Delaware
Alabama
Ohio
Michigan
South Carolina
South Dakota
Nevada
Oklahoma
Kentucky
Mississippi
Arkansas
Virginia
Pennsylvania
Missouri
Maryland
Arizona
New York
Louisiana
Georgia
New Hampshire
Indiana
Alaska
Connecticut
California
Idaho
North Carolina
Wyoming
Texas
New Jersey
Illinois
Kansas
Florida
Vermont
Tennessee
Colorado
Iowa
Wisconsin
Montana
Nebraska
Rhode Island
West Virginia
Maine
Massachusetts
Washington
New Mexico
Oregon
Utah
North Dakota
Hawaii
Minnesota

80
76
74
74
72
71
71
70
70
69
67
62
61
61
61
59
58
58
57
52
52
52
51
51
51
50
50
49
48
47
45
43
42
42
41
41
40
39
37
37
35
34
32
31
31
30
28
27
24
18

AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL

•

I

[

i

~

Report Card on Crime and Punishment

----------------"
ApPENDIX A.6: STATE RANKING TABLES: PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN TOTAL CRIME
INCARCERATION RATES:

Rank

1
2
3
4

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48

Percentage Change
Total Crime
Incarceration Rate
1960·1992

Delaware
Rhode Island
Nevada
Michigan
Arizona
Missouri
California
South Carolina
Illinois
Oklahoma
New Hampshire
Utah
Idaho
South Dakota
Massachusetts
New Jersey
Ohio
Connecticut.
Wyoming
Pennsylvania
Texas
Montana
Washington
Florida
Colorado
Louisiana
Kentucky
Virginia
Indiana
Wisconsin
Hawaii
North Dakota
Arkansas
Oregon
Maryland
Kansas
Tennessee
Iowa
Alabama
New Mexico
Mississippi
Maine
Vermont
Nebraska
Georgia
North Carolina
Minnesota
West Virginia

October 1994

242.0%
156.9%
68.0%
60.9%
52.30/0
40.9%
29.0%
23.7%
22.9%
22.6%
22.0%
14.1%
9.2%
6.6%
5.3%
2.3%
0.7%
0.2%
-6.3%
-6.7%
-7.8%
-10.9%
-18.7%
-19.0%
-25.0%
-25.2%
-28.5%
-29.9%
-30.7%
-34.2%
-38.3%
-38.4%
-38.6%
-39.1 %
-40.9%
-40.9%
-41.3%
-42.9%
-43.2%
-43.7%
-46.3%
-47.7%
-49.4%
-49.7%
-54.3%
-54.8%
-55.3%
-80.3%

~_~

Rank

1
2

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48

1960-1980-1992

Percentage Change
Total Crime
Incarceration Rate
1960·1980
Delaware
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Texas
Nevada
Michigan
Oklahoma
Missouri
North Carolina
Tennessee
Florida
Utah
Louisiana
South Dakota
Arizona
Montana
Washington
Wyoming
Illinois
Virginia
Oregon
Idaho
California
Georgia
Indiana
North Dakota
Ohio
Arkansas
Kentucky
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Connecticut
Maryland
Kansas
New Jersey
Iowa
Mississippi
Minnesota
Colorado
New Mexico
Hawaii
Alabama
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
West Virginia

~

2.4%
-25.2%

-31.1 %
-35.5%
-39.1%
-46.5%
-47.5%
-50.5%
-52.1 %
-52.7%
-53.1%
-56.3%
-56.8%
-57.8%
-58.0%
-59.5%
-60.4%
-60.6%
-61.8%
-62.0%
-62.6%
-67.9%
-68.2%
-68.7%
-68.9%
-69.0%
-69.4%
-70.5%
-70.7%
-71.5%
-72.0%
-72.0%
-72.6%
-73.4%
-73.9%
-74.8%
-75.0%
-75.2%
-75.6%
-76.5%
-77.4%
-78.2%
-80.4%
-82.5%
-83.1%
-83.8%
-84.7%
-85.8%

Rank

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Percentage Change
Total Crime
Incarceration Rate
1980-1992
New Hampshire
New Jersey
California
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Arizona
Rhode Island
Idaho
Alaska
Delaware
Pennsylvania
Colorado
Vermont
Ohio
New York
Alabama
Illinois
Hawaii
Maine
Michigan
Missouri
Nevada
Utah
New Mexico
South Dakota
Kentucky
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Kansas
Oklahoma
Iowa
Maryland
Indiana
Mississippi
Montana
Arkansas
Washington
North Dakota
Minnesota
Virginia
Nebraska
South Carolina
Louisiana
Florida
Oregon
Georgia
Texas
West Virginia
Tennessee
North Carolina

654.9%
309.6%
305.3%
277.3%
269.9%
263.0%
243.4%
240.8%
236.3%
234.1 %
233.0%
232.7%
230.9%
229.1%
225.2%
224.0%
221.4%
214.0%
209.2%
200.9%
184.3%
176.0%
161.0%
158.4%
152.7%
143.5%
140.1 %
137.9%
134.2%
133.6%
130.1 %
126.1 %
122.8%
120.6%
120.0%
108.1 %
105.5%
98.7%
90.2%
84.6%
79.9%
79.6%
73.1 %
72.6%
62.8%
45.9%
43.0%
38.7%
24.2%
-5.7%

~_~_~_~_~~~

35

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -I
Report Card on Crime and Punishment

ApPENDIX A.7: STATE RANKING TABLES:VIOLENT CRIME INCARCERATION RATES:

Rank

Violent Crime
Incarceration Rate

Rank

1960
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48

36

Vermont
,.,
Hawaii
Iowa
North Dakota
Maine
New Hampshire
Wisconsin
Idaho
Nebraska
West Virginia
South Dakota
Kansas
Connecticut.
Washington
Minnesota
Oregon
Indiana
Ohio
Montana
Kentucky
Oklahoma
Utah
Maryland
Georgia
Arkansas
Nevada
Tennessee
Wyoming
New Mexico
Mississippi
Alabama
Colorado
Rhode Island
Virginia
Massachusetts
Louisiana
Texas
Pennsylvania
Florida
New Jersey
South Carolina
Delaware
North Carolina
California
Arizona
Michigan
Missouri
Illinois

Violent Crime
Incarceration Rate

Rank

1980
,

7270.3
4043.5
3359.8
2755.6
2595.2
2222.2
2207.8
2152.9
2150.8
2005.8
1865.2
1818.4
1613.1
1519.2
1434.8
1388.0
1376.2
1368.3
1328.9
1218.5
1186.4
1142.6
1133.2
1115.5
1047.8
992.8
964.3
933.7
914.0
883.3
880.6
863.0
807.0
792.6
764.3
751.3
733.0
696.4
640.4
618.0
607.5
602.7
587.0
576.7
560.7
560.6
495.2
246.3

~

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

1960-1980-1992

Violent Crime
Incarceration Rate

1992

North Dakota
750.0
South Dakota
715.9
North Carolina
543.7
Virginia
503.3
Wisconsin
443.2
Iowa
418.0
Georgia
397.5
Montana
397.1
Nebraska
395.5
Texas
383.3
Kentucky
369.5
Arkansas
366.4
Oklahoma
361.0
Vermont
356.7
West Virginia
351.7
Delaware
342.4
South Carolma
330.4
Tennessee
328.7
Mississippi
313.2
Indiana
304.4
Louisiana
272.9
Wyoming
266.2
Kansas ....................•...., 265.2
Alabama
259.2
Michigan
256.3
Oregon
249.6
Maine .....•.............
249.0
Nevada
248.5
Ohio
244.9
Idaho
227.3
Washington
227.2
Florida
212.0
Missouri
210.7
Maryland
208.6
Utah
207.0
Minnesota
203.7
Arizona
203.5
Alaska
198.5
Connecticut...
193.4
Pennsylvania
188.9
Hawaii
188.3
New Hampshire
180.9
Colorado
170.6
Rhode Island
155.5
New Jersey ...................•... 125.3
New York
120.1
New Mexico
116.1
Illinois
113.9
California
110.6
Massachusetts
88.0

1
Vermont
2
New Hampshire
3
South Dakota
4
Montana
5
North Dakota
6
Maine
7
Idaho
8
Mississippi
9
Wyoming
10 Virginia
11 Ohio
12 Wisconsin
13 Nevada
14 Delaware
15 Arizona
16 Oklahoma
17 Iowa
18 Hawaii
19 Arkansas
20 Utah
21 Michigan
22 Connecticut
23 Georgia
24 Pennsylvania
25 Indiana
26 Kansas
27 Alabama
28 Nebraska
29 South Carolina
30 West Virginia
31 Alaska
32 Kentucky
33 Texas
34 North Carolina
35 Rhode Island
36 Colorado
37 Missouri
38 New Jersey
39 Louisiana
40 Maryland
41 Washington
42 Oregon
43 California
44 New York
45 Florida
46 Tennessee
47 Illinois
48 Minnesota
49 New Mexico
50 Massachusetts

r

~

1317.3
1285.6
1091.1
1047.1
945.3
917.7
720.6
719.1
713.9
708.3
655.9
634.1
629.4
625.7
616.6
610.4
578.0
559.7
553.8
542.8
538.2
522.0
502.0
486.9
479.0
468.1
461.4
460.3
449.3
436.7
434.9
433:7
429.7
428.4
426.7
421.2
420.9
392.2
383.0
377.4
362.0
339.9
305.1
303.7
296.5
286.2
278.4
249.7
212.4
206.8

AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL

•

J

Report Card on Crime and Punishment
ApPENDIX A.8: STATE RANKING TABLES: PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN
VIOLENT CRIME INCARCERATION RATES: 1960-1980-1992

Rank Percentage Change

Rank

Percentage Change

Illinois
Arizona
Delaware
Michigan
Virginia
Missouri
Mississippi
Montana
Wyoming
South Carolina
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
New Jersey
Nevada
Texas
South Dakota
New Hampshire
California
Rhode Island
Arkansas
Alabama
Oklahoma
Louisiana
Colorado
Ohio
Utah

Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Maine
Indiana
North Dakota
Idaho
Maryland
Connecticut
Tennessee
Wisconsin
Massachusetts
Kansas
Oregon
Washington
New Mexico
West Virginia
Nebraska
Vermont
Minnesota
Iowa
Hawaii

October 1994

Percentage Change

1960-1980

1960-1992
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48

Rank

13.0%
10.0%
3.8%
-4.0%
-10.6%
-15.0%
-18.6%
-21.2%
-23.5%
; -26.0%
-27.0%
-30.1 %
-36.5%
-36.6%
-41.4%
-41.5%
-42.1 %
-47.1%
-47.1 %
-47.2%
-47.6%
-48.6%
-49.0%
-51.2%
-52.1%
-52.5%
-537%
-55.0%
-64.4%
-64.6%
-65.2%
-65.7%
-66.5%
-66.7%
-67.6%
-70.3%
-71.3%
-72.9%
-74.3%
-75.5%
-76.2%
-76.8%
-78.2%
-78.6%
-81.9%
-82.6%
-82.8%
-86.2%

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48

North Carolina
Virginia
Delaware ;
South Carolina
Texas
Illinois
Michigan
Missouri
South Dakota
Louisiana
Arizona
Georgia
Mississippi
Arkansas
Tennessee
Florida
Oklahoma
Kentucky
Montana
Alabama
Wyoming
North Dakota
Pennsylvania
Nevada
Indiana
New Jersey
Wisconsin
Colorado
Rhode Island
California
Maryland
Nebraska
Utah

Oregon
Ohio
West Virginia
Washington
Kansas
Minnesota
New Mexico
Iowa
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Idaho
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Hawaii

~_~

1980-1992
-7.4%
-36.5%
-43.2%
-45.6%
-47.7%
-53.8%
-54.3%
-57.5%
-61.6%
-63.7%
-63.7%
-64.4%
-64.5%
-65.00/0
-65.9%
-66.9%
-69.6%
-69.7%
-70.1 %
-70.6%
-71.5%
-72.8%
~72.9%

-75.0%
-77.9%
~ 79.7%
-79.9%
-80.2%
-80.7%
-80.8%
-81.6%
-81.6%
-81.9%
-82.0%
-82.1 %
-82.5%
-85.0%
-85.4%
-85.8%
-87.3%
-87.6%
-88.0%
-88.5%
-89.4%
-90.4%
-91.9%
-95.1 %
-95.3%

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

New Hampshire
Vermont
Maine
Idaho
New Jersey
Arizona
Hawaii
California
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Wyoming
Ohio
Montana
Utah

Pennsylvania
Nevada
New York
Colorado
Illinois
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Alaska
Michigan
Missouri
New Mexico
Delaware
Maryland
Alabama
Kansas
Oklahoma
Washington
Indiana
South Dakota
Arkansas
Wisconsin
Virginia
Louisiana
Florida
Iowa
Oregon
South Carolina
Georgia
North Dakota
West Virginia
Minnesota
Kentucky
Nebraska
Texas
Tennessee
North Carolina
~~

610.7%
269.3%
268.6%
217.1 %
212.9%
202.9%
197.2%
175.8%
174.4%
170.0%
168.2%
167.8%
163.7%
162.20/0
157.7%
153.3%
152.9%
146.9%
144.4%
135.0%
129.6%
119.0%
110.0%
99.7%
82.9%
82.7%
80.9%
78.0%
76.5%
69.1%
59.3%
57.4%
52.4%
51.1 %
43.1%
40.7%
40.3%
39.9%
38.30/0
36.2%
36.0%
26.3%
26.0%
24.2%
22.6%
17.4%
16.4%
12.1 %
-12.9%
-21.2%
~

37

Report Card on Crime and Punishment
ApPENDIX A.9: STATE RANKING TABLES: PER INMATE PRISON COSTS
AND PERCENTAGE CHANGE: 1960-1992

Rank 1960 Cost Per Inmate*
1
2

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49

Rhode Island
Massachusetts
Delaware
New Hampshire
Vermont
,
North Dakota
Minnesota
Hawaii.
Connecticut...
Washington
Montana
Utah
Wisconsin
Oregon
Maine
Wyoming
Nebraska
New York
Colorado
New Jersey
North Carolina
Nevada
California
Illinois
New Mexico
Pennsylvania
Michigan
South Dakota
Maryland
Iowa
Idaho
,
Kansas
Ohio
Louisiana
Indiana
Missouri
Arizona
,
Virginia
Tennessee
Florida
South Carolina
Oklahoma
West Virginia
Mississippi
Kentucky
Texas
Alabama
Arkansas
Georgia

$37,138
$34,340
$29,342
$27,152
$22,879
$21,452
$19,806
$18,174
$17,574
$15,353
$14,858
$13,580
$13,448
$13,046
$12,409
$11,638
$11,084
$10,801
$10,328
$10,033
$9,722
$9,675
$9,570
$9,215
$9,146
$8,923
$8,757
$8,477
$8,420
$8,411
$8,122
$7,414
$7,299
$7,068
$6,429
$6,295
$6,209
$5,300
$5,139
$4,952
$4,890
$4,628
$4,428
$4,031
$4,022
$3,877
$3,501
$3,191
$2,348

Rank

1990 Cost Per-Inmate

1
2
3

Alaska
$55,240
Rhode Island
$37,425
Massachusetts
$35,794
Hawaii
$34,923
Minnesota
$31,994
Vermont
$31,160
North Dakota
$29,211
dew Mexico
$28,020
Delaware
$25,256
Maine
$25,245
New York
$22,684
Iowa
$22,492
Washington
$22,074
Utah
$21,659
Connecticut...
$21,319
New Hampshire
$20,881
Wisconsin
$20,849
, $18,851
Michigan
North Carolina
$18,694
New Jersey
$18,544
Virginia
$18,157
California
$18,147
Tennessee
$17,581
Arizona
$17,517
Maryland
$17,347
Nebraska ,
$16,164
Indiana
$16,086
Illinois
$15,971
Montana
$15,898
Pennsylvania
$15,712
Wyoming
$15,560
Kansas
$14,672
West Virginia
$14,447
Idaho
$14,359
Nevada
$14,105
, $13,619
Florida
Georgia
$13,409
South Dakota
$13,098
South Carolina
$13,035
Ohio
$12,799
Texas
$12,514
Oregon
$12,102
Colorado
$11,730
Kentucky
$11,293
Arkansas
$10,647
Missouri
$10,169
Alabama
$8,117
Mississippi
$7,988
Louisiana
$7,980
Oklahoma
$7,710

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49

Percentage Change
in Per-Inmate Cost 1960-1992
Georgia
Virginia
Tennessee
Arkansas
West Virginia
Texas
New Mexico
Arizona
Kentucky
Florida
Iowa
,
South Carolina
Indiana
Alabama"'
Michigan
New York
Maryland
Maine
Mississippi
Kansas
North Carolina
Hawaii
California
New Jersey
Idaho
Pennsylvania ,
Ohio
Illinois
Oklahoma
Minnesota
Missouri
Utah
Wisconsin
South Dakota
Nebraska
Nevada
Washington
Vermont
North Dakota
Wyoming
Connecticut
Colorado
Louisiana
Montana
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Oregon
,
Delaware
New Hampshire ,

, 471.1 %
, 242.6%
, 242.1 %
233.7%
226.3%
222.8%
206.4%
182.1%
180.8%
175.1%
167.4%
,
166.5%
150.2%
131.9%
115.3%
110.0%
106.0%
103.4%
98.2%
97.9%
92.3%
92.20/0
89.6%
84.8%
76.8%
76.1 %
75.3%
73,3%
66.6%
61.5%
61,5%
59.50/0
55.0%
54.5%
45.8%
45.8%
43.8%
, 36.2%
36.2%
33.7%
21.3%
13.6%
12.9%
7.0%
4.2%
0.8%
-7.2%
-13.9%
-23.1 %

*1990 inflation adjusted dollars

38 _ _~

~

~

_ _~

~~

AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL

•

-