Prison admissions rose 3% in district attorney election years during 'tough on crime' era

• For Journalists
• News Releases
• Latest Releases
• News Release

Prison admissions rose 3% in district attorney election years during 'tough on crime' era

Study suggests district attorneys running for office acted on voter preferences

• District attorney election years raised prison admissions by roughly 3%
• Resulting in roughly 63,000 additional prison admissions over the study period
• Effects depend on county political ideology and are larger in Republican counties

CHICAGO - New research from Northwestern Pritzker School of Law suggests that public sentiment associated with "tough on crime" politics may be tied to increases in the number of people admitted to state prisons during election years.

The U.S. incarcerates more people than any other country, and "tough on crime" campaigns have long been part of the political landscape. Nowhere is it more apparent than in county contests for district attorney (DA), who is elected to represent the public in prosecuting those accused of committing crimes.

The 1990s are the most punitive decade on record. In the 70s and prior, the numbers of incarcerated people rose and fell with wars, depression and economic fluctuation. But as new jails opened in the 80s and 90s, the number of prisoners soared, regardless of the crime rate.

Examining the period of 1986 to 2006, the study found that election years increased per capita admissions and months sentenced to state prisons, with admissions rising 3%, or by approximately 63,000 additional prison admissions over the period.

"District attorneys are often considered the most influential person in the entire criminal legal system," said Chika Okafor, economist and assistant professor of law at Northwestern Pritzker Law, who led the study.

"Prosecutor Politics: The Impact of Election Cycles on Criminal Sentencing in the Era of Rising Incarceration," was published on September 17 in the Journal of Public Economics.

Method

Okafor compiled names from the National Directory of Prosecuting Attorneys of more than 4,200 district attorneys in office during the steepest rise in incarceration in U.S. history, roughly 1986-2006. He decided to focus on DAs because prosecutors are the ones who decide on whether to charge an individual, what those charges are, plea bargains, recommendations on how long a sentence should be, and they decide if charges should be dropped or not.

Sentencing data across nearly 40 states came from the National Corrections Reporting Program, which records offender-level prison admissions. Okafor counted admissions to state prisons, not jails, and accounted for admissions rather than total prison populations.

The election data information was sourced from states, counties, and other sources, with prosecutor characteristics taken in part from the Database on Ideology, Money in Politics, and Elections (DIME). Comparing the datasets, he estimated the effects of election cycles on the decision-making of district attorneys.

Findings

During the "War on Drugs" of the 1980s and through the passage of the 1994 Crime Bill, public sentiment on crime was more punitive, said Okafor. Politicians often tried to be viewed as "tough-on-crime." In turn, DAs may have also felt incentives to be more aggressive toward crime.

Okafor found that the estimated effects of an election year on the admission rates are statistically significant - approximately 3% higher compared with all non-election years (or 4.3% higher than admission rates in the year immediately preceding the election). The estimated effects of an election year on months sentenced are also statistically significant - approximately 3% higher (or 4.0% higher compared to the prior year).

"District attorneys are critical in promoting justice within the criminal legal system. One responsibility is consistency: an office should charge and make plea offers the same way in an election year as in any other year," Okafor said. "The study provides evidence consistent with prosecutors having responded to perceived voter preferences. That is why efforts to change public attitudes toward punishment deserve as much attention as efforts to change policies or officeholders."

Some may argue that public-elected officials are supposed to do what their constituents want, but Okafor said that the role of a district attorney is very different from what is required of a president or senator.

"A prosecutor's primary obligation is to seek justice," Okafor said, pointing to the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which describe the prosecutor as having "the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate."

"These obligations differ from those of many other elected offices. Is justice defined purely by public opinion or should it be based on more stable, timeless standards?" he said. "My view is that prosecutors' role is to administer justice - being accountable to the public, but recognizing a voting majority cannot singularly define what is just."

The election-year effects were largest in the South and in Republican-leaning counties and shrank as national support for harsher punishment softened after the mid-1990s, according to the study.

As we approach the midterm elections, Okafor said we should pay more attention to the role that public opinion plays when it comes to some of the most influential actors in politics who guide our society.

"Collective approaches to hearts and minds-to shifting public opinion around punishment-may be as important as technocratic approaches to public policy when it comes to improving our criminal legal system and wider society," he said.