Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

America is guilty of over-incarceration

Person's hands holding prison bars
Victor de Schwanberg/Science Photo Library/Getty Images

Cooper is the author of “How America Works … and Why it Doesn’t.

A huge number of Americans — disproportionately those from underprivileged backgrounds — are trapped in a senseless system of mass incarceration. According to New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, “The United States has less than five per cent of the world’s population and nearly one-quarter of its prisoners. Astonishingly, if the 2.3 million incarcerated Americans were a state, it would be more populous than 16 other states. All told, one in three people in the United States has some type of criminal record. No other industrialized country comes close.”

But America doesn’t just imprison too many people. While incarcerated, people are often subject to terrible conditions. Long-time political prisoner Nelson Mandela once said, “No one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones.”


America’s performance under this standard is abysmal. Our jails are consistently overcrowded and lacking proper oversight. The Department of Justice, for example, recently detailed conditions in Alabama’s state-run prisons.

“The violations are severe, systemic, and exacerbated by serious deficiencies in staffing and supervision,” the Department of Justice explained. There was “a high level of violence that is too common, cruel, of an unusual nature, and pervasive.”

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The costs of this system, moreover, are significant. As the Brennan Center explained, “Mass incarceration has crushing consequences: racial, social, and economic. We spend around $270 billion per year on our criminal justice system. In California it costs more than $75,000 per year to house each prisoner — more than it would cost to send them to Harvard.” And, the Brennan Center continued, the socio-economic impact is pernicious: “Mass incarceration exacerbates poverty and inequality, serving as an economic ball and chain that holds back millions, making it harder to find a job, access public benefits, and reintegrate into the community.”

Worse still, many with criminal records can’t vote. This prevents truly free and fair elections and undermines reform initiatives in Washington and state capitals. A constituency that can’t vote is, of course, unlikely to achieve meaningful reform.

Mass incarceration has several underlying causes. Mandatory minimum sentences require judges to sentence defendants convicted of certain crimes to often excessive sentences. In her book “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness,” Michelle Alexander describes the resulting injustice: “All of us violate the law at some point in our lives. In fact, if the worst thing you have ever done is speed ten miles over the speed limit on the freeway, you have put yourself and others at more risk of harm than someone smoking marijuana in the privacy of his or her living room. Yet there are people in the United States serving life sentences for first-time drug offenses, something virtually unheard of anywhere else in the world.”

Legal representation for underprivileged defendants, moreover, is often subpar. Poor defendants are typically saddled with overburdened and incompetent attorneys. And the court system often produces unfair results. Judges can be overworked. Prosecutors often have large budgets, broad discretion to pursue charges and legal immunity for bad acts. And juries often render erroneous verdicts.

A functioning society does, of course, need a robust criminal justice system. Enforcing laws fairly deters criminal behavior. And many guilty people deserve punishment. But the degree of over-incarceration in America is an unforgivable failure of both policy and conscience.

Read More

The Trump Administration’s Current Approach Discards the Rule of Law

A gavel and book.

Getty Images, May Lim / 500px

The Trump Administration’s Current Approach Discards the Rule of Law

President Donald Trump signed over 70 Executive Orders during the first thirty days of his second term, the most in a President’s first 100 days in 40 years. Many of the Executive Orders were sweeping in their scope and intentionally designed to fundamentally reshape the federal government and shatter the existing world order. Critics immediately claimed that many of the Executive Orders exceeded the President’s constitutional authority or contravened existing federal law.

At the same time, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—without Congressional authorization—has swept into multiple agencies, frozen Congressionally authorized appropriations, and terminated thousands of federal employees, many of whom are protected by civil service laws and collective bargaining agreements.

Keep ReadingShow less
Supreme Court Ruling Offers a Glimmer of Hope for the Rule of Law
Getty Images, David Talukdar

Supreme Court Ruling Offers a Glimmer of Hope for the Rule of Law

Tuesday, February 25, was a good day for Richard Glossip and the American people. On that day, the Supreme Court ordered a new trial for Glossip, who has been on Oklahoma’s death row since 1998. It also showed that even a MAGA-friendly court would still defend the rule of law when official misconduct was sufficiently egregious.

As CNN notes, “The Glossip case is arguably the highest-profile death penalty case to reach the court in years.” The decision was a surprise given the Court’s previous enthusiastic defense of death sentences and its willingness to turn the other cheek when confronted with cases in which public officials pushed to and beyond the limits of legality.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Time to Choose Sides

A gavel and a scale of justice.

Getty Images, Witoon Pongsit

A Time to Choose Sides

Donald Trump posted a picture of himself on social media next to a quote: “He who saves his Country violates no Law” [sic]. Attributed to Napoleon, the quote means that, with the right intentions, nothing should constrain executive power. It echoes statements by Vice President Vance and others that the administration need not abide by court orders blocking their illegal and unconstitutional actions.

These statements are nothing less than a complete rejection of the American system of government. As Americans see this rejection for what it is, they aren’t going to like it. A poll, released lastweek from Marquette University Law School, found that 83% of those surveyed—including 77% of Republicans—believe that the President must abide by court orders. It’s why it is critically important for all Americans to see these comments in this light, and act accordingly. Many people are doing it already. Here’s what everyone needs to understand.

Keep ReadingShow less
Rule of Law: Why it matters

A courthouse.

Getty Images, StanRohrer

Rule of Law: Why it matters

“Rule of Law.” I remember my first in-depth conversation about the phrase while working in Latin America—which says a lot since I took that job immediately AFTER law school.

The concept is, of course, integral to the U.S. Constitution, our founding documents, and our ideals—but I’d simply not heard the phrase, “rule of law”, used so often. Instead, we'd focused on branches of government, separation of powers, and checks and balances.

Keep ReadingShow less