Minnesota’s case for incarceration
Shaping policy
The common argument from progressive criminal justice system academics and policy makers is that incarceration is a costly and ineffective tool to control crime. In Minnesota, progressive academics have controlled this narrative and our state correctional and sentencing policies have been largely borne out of it.
As a result Minnesota has consistently been among the states with the lowest imprisonment rate (below 50% of the national average), and the highest community supervision (probation) rate in the nation.
The pertinent question is, “does having one of the lowest incarceration rates in the nation serve law abiding Minnesotans well?” The data persuasively demonstrates our low incarceration rate serves law abiding Minnesotans poorly, by failing to punish, deter, or rehabilitate offenders or keep the public safe.
Role of incarceration
There are generally four purposes recognized for incarcerating a criminal offender:
- Retribution — ensuring that an offender pays a price and is punished for the crime
- Deterrence — discouraging an offender from committing crime for fear of losing their liberty
- Rehabilitation — focusing on reforming an offender by helping them develop personal and workforce skills that will reduce the likelihood of recidivism
- Incapacitation — removing an offender from society and preventing continued criminal offending through incarceration.
Some argue that we can achieve retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation without the need for incarceration. I counter that the only sure way to achieve success in these areas is through swift and certain incarceration.
That’s not to say there isn’t room for improvement with our current correctional system. We should all recognize and support the investment in rehabilitation while we have offenders incapacitated. If offenders leave prison in worse condition than they entered, we are not only failing offenders by increasing the likelihood they will re-offend, but also failing ourselves by ensuring a more dangerous society.
The correlation
Two important variables in public safety are our violent crime rate and our incarceration rate.
While it’s true that a correlation between two variables does not prove a cause and effect, the relationship between increased incarceration rates and decreased violent crime rates is often clearly observable and should not be easily dismissed.
We can be confident that progressive academics would not dismiss the relationship of violent crime rates dropping in concert with reduced incarceration rates — if it existed. Conservatives should remain equally steadfast in noting when increased incarceration rates appear in concert with a drop in violent crime rates.
The following chart plots Minnesota’s violent crime rate in contrast with the state’s incarceration rate over the past ten (10) years. (Note: the violent crime rate reflects murder, robbery, aggravated assault, and rape. The incarceration rate reflects all adult and juvenile offenders in state prison).
The data
Despite political and media efforts to suggest Minnesota has experienced dramatic decreases in crime, those decreases are only realized in the context of comparing them to the huge spikes in crime following the “uprising” of 2020. A more complete examination reveals Minnesota’s violent crime rate remains nearly 5% higher than it was 10 years ago, and 15% higher than in 2018. Violent crime in Minnesota’s urban areas remains even worse, with the violent crime rate in Minneapolis remaining 45% higher than in 2018.
A cause-and-effect relationship becomes difficult to dismiss when looking at the pivotal years of 2019-2021. During this time progressive correctional policy led to a dramatic 25% drop in Minnesota’s incarceration rate. This corresponds to an even more dramatic 38% increase in Minnesota’s violent crime rate.
Then, in slightly less dramatic fashion, between 2021-2024 things flipped and Minnesota’s incarceration rate increased by 11% corresponding to a nearly 17% drop in the violent crime rate.
The takeaway
It is perfectly reasonable to consider it likely that a cause for the massive increase in violent crime was related to the massive decrease in those incarcerated (nearly 1,000 felony level offenders released to the street). It’s equally reasonable to conclude that the decrease in the violent crime rate between 2021-2024 was in part due to the increased incarceration rate.
If the violent crime rate had dropped at the same time as the decreased incarceration rate between 2019 and 2021, it would have been hailed by progressives as a clear indication of the merits of decreasing incarceration.
Instead, the seemingly obvious cause and effect of a 25% drop in Minnesota’s incarceration rate leading to a 38% increase in Minnesota’s violent crime rate is dismissed as being coincidental and complicated.
Crime and incarceration are just too closely connected to be dismissed so easily.
This should serve as a solid reminder to double down on skepticism when we are told “it’s complicated.” Sometimes it just isn’t.