EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

D E C A R C E R A T I O N I N C A L I F O R N I A

DecarcerationPolitical possibility, social sentiment, and structural reality

Vanessa Barker, Senior EditorS t o c k h o l m U n i v e r s i t y

The San Andreas Fault makes California a major site of continental transformation

and combustion. The same might be said of its fiscal policies and imprisonmentrates—public policies that are literally crushing the state. Faced with a federal

court order to reduce its prison population by 25% and a $20 billion budget deficit,

state officials in California are under tremendous pressure to govern differently, spend less,

and imprison less. Under such twin pressures, California could become a major site ofdecarceration. This moment is noteworthy because it could indicate a break in, if not a

reversal of, 20 years of prison growth in California. In addition, it could provide critical

support to an emerging movement toward “penal moderation,” which is the movement

toward less repressive and milder penal sanctions, evident in more than half of the U.S.states and in Europe. In 2009, for example, 26 states reduced their prison populations

(Greene and Mauer, 2010). Large-scale changes in California and elsewhere could offer a

powerful rebuke to the policies and practices of mass incarceration, policies that have left

many people, especially young minority men, permanently excluded from sustainable socialand economic life (Clear, 2007; Petersilia, 2003).

The following set of policy essays offers readers a vivid portrayal of the policy dynamics

behind decarceration, placing the reduction of the prison population in social and political

context. Rosemary Gartner, Anthony N. Doob, and Franklin E. Zimring (2011, this issue)make a compelling case that decarceration is a distinct possibility in California but not

a certain outcome. They offer this assessment based on a gripping, yet detailed, analysis

of a major prison population reduction under Governor Ronald Reagan—an unexpected

development in the late 1960s. The authors then trace the policy lessons from the case studyto understand better the political possibilities and impediments to reform under the current

Direct correspondence to Vanessa Barker, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden (e-mail:Vanessa.barker@sociology.su.se).

DOI:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2011.00708.x C© 2011 American Society of Criminology 283Criminology & Public Policy � Volume 10 � Issue 2

Editor ia l Introduction Decarcerat ion in Cal i fornia

administration. In her policy response, Mary Bosworth (2011, this issue) makes the case

that prison population reductions are desirable on democratic and moral grounds and are

connected to broader movements toward “penal moderation” evident in the United Statesand in Europe. In contrast, in his response, Shawn D. Bushway (2011, this issue) raises

cautionary notes about decarceration. He asks plainly whether decarceration is actually

desirable, pointing to concerns about crime control and the purpose of criminal justice.

Specifically, Gartner, Doob, and Zimring (2011) identify the following key criminaljustice policies that significantly reduced California’s prison population:

1. Decreased probability of a prison sentence

2. Increased rate of release from prison3. Decreased rate of imprisonment for parole revocation

In other words, state officials decreased the prison population by sending fewer people to

prison, releasing more people from prison at a faster rate, and sending fewer people backto prison who violated parole. These responses are straightforward policy mechanisms that

slowed the growth of the prison population at the front end with less input as well as at the

back end with greater output and less reentry. Gartner et al. make it clear that what is crucial

for prison population reduction, particularly one with magnitude and relative speed, was theconfluence of these three mechanisms operating at the same time. Just implementing one

of the depressants for prison populations is not likely to lead to any substantial reductions.

Gartner et al.’s (2011) identification of the policies that decreased the prison population

is a major contribution to criminology (see Bushway, 2011), but as they are quickto point out, contemporary reformers cannot simply mimic these earlier policies, as

they were created under a different set of political conditions than are operable today.

Decarceration was possible in California in the late 1960s in part because the structure

of state government allowed for more decision-making power in the executive branchand insulated civil servants; both features enabled Reagan to realize certain aspects of

fiscal conservatism and allowed the parole board to play a definitive role in reducing

the prison population without public backlash. Today, the capacity of the governor and

legislature is limited by fiscal constraints imposed through the initiative process, determinantsentencing laws (which also eliminated the discretionary power of the parole board to

release inmates), and other anticrime initiatives such as the Victims Bill of Rights and

Three Strikes Law—policies and politics that have fundamentally transformed that policy-

making environment in California, making it less pragmatic and more volatile. Becauseimprisonment seems to be the “inevitable and appropriate response to crime” (Gartner

et al., 2011), the authors write that considerable ideological obstacles need to be overcome.

Within these constraints, they still to point to areas of policy reform that could lead to

significant reductions in the prison population (the introduction of nonrevocable paroleand increased good time credits). They explain that changes to the determinant and

284 Criminology & Public Policy

Barker

truth-in-sentencing laws are also necessary but depend on a change in the state’s political

climate.

In her policy essay, Mary Bosworth (2011) presents a more hopeful view of changingpolitical climates that could and do support penal moderation. She provides readers with

a thoughtful analysis of some of the emotional, cultural, and social sentiment necessary

for decarceration. She reminds readers that changes in penal policy depend not only on

proximate sentencing policies but also on deeper emotional expression and support (Loader,2010) and that public sentiment is not inherently punitive (Barker, 2009; Green, 2006) as

often assumed. Bosworth shows how public support can be nationalistic and populist as

well as support more lenient penal sanctioning as in the case of Scotland. She also shows

how public concern for civil liberties and due process has led to penal moderation under aright center coalition in England and Wales. Bosworth makes it clear that penal moderation

is politically possible but must include public debate and public engagement.

In his policy essay, Shawn D. Bushway (2011) offers a critical view of decarceration.

First, he points out that decarceration does not necessarily mean that offenders exit thecriminal justice system (arrest and conviction rates do not disappear). Decarceration just

shifts the venue and changes the type of treatment of criminal justice sanctioning. The

increased use of probation or parole still subjects offenders to criminal justice supervision

and control—control that can be highly intrusive. He wants clarification about the nature,form, and purposes of alternatives to incarceration before they are assumed to be better,

more effective, or less repressive than the prison. At the same time, however, Bushway is

not a radical abolitionist. He does suggest that imprisonment might serve an important

crime-control function. Imprisonment might be necessary, he explains, just as probationmight be unnecessary, depending on the goals of criminal justice. What he seeks is an open

debate about the nature and purposes of all forms of criminal justice sanctioning and not

just a critique of the prison.

In the pages that follow, readers will find a lively and informed debate about theunderlying politics of decarceration, a discussion of the social sentiment necessary to sustain

it, and a critical view of the movement itself.

ReferencesBarker, Vanessa. 2009. The Politics of Imprisonment: How the Democratic Process Shapes the

Way America Punishes Offenders. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bosworth, Mary. 2011. Penal moderation in the United States? Yes we can. Criminology &Public Policy, 10(2): 335–343.

Bushway, Shawn D. 2011. So policy makers drive incarceration–Now what? Criminology& Public Policy, 10(2): 327–333.

Clear, Todd R. 2007. Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvan-taged Neighborhoods Worse. New York: Oxford University Press.

Volume 10 � Issue 2 285

Editor ia l Introduction Decarcerat ion in Cal i fornia

Gartner, Rosemary, Anthony N. Doob, and Franklin E. Zimring. 2011. The past asprologue? Decarceration in California then and now. Criminology & Public Policy,10(2): 291–325.

Green, David. 2006. Public opinion versus public judgment about crime: Correction and“comedy of errors.” British Journal of Criminology, 46: 131–154.

Greene, Judith and Marc Mauer. 2010. Downscaling Prisons: Lessons from Four States.Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.

Loader, Ian. 2010. For penal moderation: Notes towards a public philosophy of punishment.Theoretical Criminology, 14: 349–368.

Petersilia, Joan. 2003. When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. New York:Oxford University Press.

Vanessa Barker is an associate professor of sociology at Stockholm University. Her book

The Politics of Imprisonment: How the Democratic Process Shapes the Way America PunishesOffenders (Oxford University Press 2009) received a 2009 PASS Award from the National

Council on Crime and Delinquency. She is working on a new book on globalization,

immigration, and penal order in Europe, supported in part by the National Science

Foundation Law and Social Sciences Program.

286 Criminology & Public Policy