NCPA


Policy Issues

NCPA Publications

Both Sides

Editorial Opinions

Audio/Visual


NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS
HOME / DONATE / ONE LEVEL UP / ABOUT NCPA / CONTACT US
Crime and Punishment in Texas: Update
Policy Report

No. 202

January, 1996

 Download this page in PDF format

Adobe Acrobat LogoGet Adobe Acrobat Reader
by Morgan O. Reynolds
  1. Executive Summary
  2. Introduction
  3. Lesson: Punishment Works
  4. How Prison Capacity Affects Expected Punishment
  5. Comparing Texas With the Rest of the Nation
  6. Other Factors Affecting the Crime Rate
  7. The Cost of Prisons
  8. The Cost of Not Building Prisons
  9. Employment of Prisoners: Factories Behind Fences
  10. Conclusion
  11. Notes
  12. Appendix
  13. About the Author
Executive Summary
Texas, which suffered from a 29 percent increase in the rate of serious crime during the 1980s, is experiencing a dramatic improvement in the 1990s:
  • The overall rate of serious crime has been cut by 35 percent and now is the lowest since 1973.
  • Compared to 1991, the lower crime rate means that 1,140 fewer Texans will be murdered in 1996 and 450,000 fewer crimes against person and property will be reported to the police.
Why the sharp declines? Punishment works. Incarceration works. Overall:
  • A four-year building boom has raised prison capacity from 49,000 to 150,000.
  • The state’s prison population per 100,000 residents has increased from close to the national average to 64 percent above the national average, the highest in the nation.
  • The average (mean) time served for all serious crimes, 1.9 years in 1990, climbed to 3 years by 1994.
  • Whereas prisoners released in 1990 served 20 percent of their sentences on the average, those released in 1994 served 28 percent on the average.
One reason why prisoners are spending more time in prison is that far fewer prisoners considered for parole are actually paroled.
  • Of 71,074 prisoners considered for parole in 1990, 56,442, or 79.4 percent, received approval.
  • Of 51,439 considered in 1994, only 11,469, or 22.3 percent, received approval.
Primarily because of the longer sentences actually served per crime, expected punishment has risen in recent years. Expected punishment is a way of measuring the effectiveness of the justice system. It is expressed as the amount of prison time criminals can expect when they commit crimes, given the probabilities of being apprehended, convicted and sent to prison and given the median sentence served per crime.
  • The expected punishment for serious crimes rose from 8.2 days in 1988 to 10.5 days in 1991 and then to 33.2 days in 1994, a fourfold increase over six years.
  • Expected punishment rose 360 percent for murder (24 months to 9.2 years) and 266 percent for rape (5.3 months to 19.4 months).
  • Expected punishment rose 167 percent for larceny (0.9 days to 2.4 days), 360 percent for aggravated assault (8.2 days to 37.7 days) and 299 percent for burglary (6.7 days to 26.7 days).
  • Expected punishment for robbery rose 220 percent (2 months to 6.4 months) and for motor vehicle theft 222 percent (2.7 days to 8.7 days).
  • Overall, the expected punishment for a crime of violence is 168 days and for a property crime 8.7 days.
Still, more needs to be done. A serious crime problem remains. More than 250,000 Texans are victims of violent crimes each year and more than 2 million are victims of property crime. Based on 14 risk factors, Texas was rated the sixth most dangerous state in which to live in 1993. And despite the rise in expected punishment, there has been a dramatic decline in arrest rates over the past 34 years, even for the most serious crimes.

 To continue reducing crime, the state must continue to raise expected punishment, which does not come cheap. Prison construction and operating costs can be minimized by privatization. Further, the state should remove the remaining legal and bureaucratic hurdles so that prisoners can work for productive, for-profit firms. Work in prison benefits nearly everyone — relieving tedium and enabling prisoners to acquire marketable skills. Income from work enables them to pay victim compensation and to contribute to their own and their families’ support while they are in prison.

 Reducing crime — or even holding it at its current level — requires continuing vigilance. The continued rise of violent juvenile crime is an especially troubling trend that poses a threat to public safety. The Texas Legislature has taken a positive step in adopting a new juvenile code that holds juveniles accountable for their behavior.
Next
12770 Coit Rd., Suite 800 - Dallas, TX 75251-1339 - 972/386-6272 - Fax 972/386-0924
601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 900 South Building, Washington, DC 20004 - 202/220-3082 - Fax 202/220-3096
Copyright © 2002 National Center for Policy Analysis