Santa Clara law professor W. David Ball has recently posted an interesting draft paper that breaks down California incarceration statistics county-by-county. He compares Alameda County to Southern California’s San Bernardino County, and finds a striking difference in how often these counties sentence offenders to state prison:
Overall crime rates are nearly identical: Alameda is a little more violent and San Bernardino is a little worse for property crime. Both counties are part of the same state, governed by the same penal code and state judicial system, yet ten-year averages of prison usage for that time show two radically different outcomes: San Bernardino’s prison population was more than twice as high, on average, as Alameda’s, and it sent an average of more than three times as many “new felons” to prison each year. ….
These two counties, then, are almost identical in material ways when it comes to crime, but they are incredibly different when it comes to their usage of state prison resources. For new felon admissions alone, San Bernardino costs the state, on average, $93,045,566 more each year than Alameda; its total prison population costs the state, on average, an extra $236,761,677 each year. This is not a difference that can be explained by reference to reported crime rates. The state is paying for San Bernardino’s decision to treat crime with prison, but Alameda—indeed, any California citizen who does not live in San Bernardino—has no say in electing the people who design San Bernardino’s criminal justice policies. Why should the state pay for a decision only some of its citizens make, when residents of other counties make different decisions?
Continue reading →