NEW YORK TIMES COLUMN: …[John Pfaff of Fordham Law School]’ research suggests that while it’s true that lawmakers passed a lot of measures calling for long prison sentences, if you look at how much time inmates actually served, not much has changed over the past few decades. Roughly half of all prisoners have prison terms in the range of two to three years, and only 10 percent serve more than seven years. The laws look punitive, but the time served hasn’t increased, and so harsh laws are not the main driver behind mass incarceration, either.
So what does explain it? Pfaff’s theory is that it’s the prosecutors. District attorneys and their assistants have gotten a lot more aggressive in bringing felony charges. Twenty years ago they brought felony charges against about one in three arrestees. Now it’s something like two in three. That produces a lot more plea bargains and a lot more prison terms.
I asked Pfaff why prosecutors are more aggressive. He’s heard theories. Maybe they are more political and they want to show toughness to raise their profile to impress voters if they run for future office. Maybe the police are bringing stronger cases. Additionally, prosecutors are usually paid by the county but prisons by the state, so prosecutors tend not to have to worry about the financial costs of what they do… (more)
This situation sounds like a good deal. Offenders are getting short sentences the first time around, then if they can’t control themselves, they can get locked up for longer. For the truly violent cons, the three strikes rule can kick in and they’re removed from society completely. Hopefully that happens before the convict kills or maims someone.
EDITOR: Often as not, the “third strike” (and possibly also the two previous ones) are not for violent crimes. It would be a different situation, as you suggest, if the subject were only violent crimes.