The Texas crime statistics tell an amazing story about the ability of punishment, even of the mildest variety, to reduce crime. It’s almost a controlled experiment in the efficacy of incarceration and punishment.

"The most dramatic change has occured in the ability of government to imprison criminals."

The Texas Prison Boom. Why the big declines? Punishment works. Incarceration works. It’s that simple. Elected on a “more cops on the street” pledge, Houston Mayor Bob Lanier attributes the continuing decline to “increased law enforcement and an increase in state action on prisons and paroles.”10 The mayor cautions, however, “We are down to a rate where progress will come slower.”11

Among all the tools available to combat crime, the most dramatic change has occurred in the ability of government to imprison criminals. Texas’ prison capacity has tripled in the last five years:12

• In September 1990, Texas prisons had a design capacity of 49,000.

• With the completion of a $1.5 billion construction program in December 1995, the design capacity has increased to 150,000.

The prison-building binge has raised the Texas prison population per 100,000 citizens from average among the states to the highest in the nation13 at 659 per 100,000 as of June 30, 1995, 64 percent above the national average of 403. The state has sharply reduced its 30,000-prisoner backlog in county jails, and the Texas Commission on Jail Standards says there are 14,000 empty beds in the state’s county jails.14 County jails now recruit paying tenants from out of state (dubbed by some the “rent-a-cell” program).

One consequence of the expansion of prison capacity is that Texas now has more criminals under state supervision — in prison, on probation or on parole — than any other state:15

• Currently, one of every 111 adult Texans is in a state prison — not in jail, not on probation or parole, but in prison.16

• Texas also has the largest number of adults on probation and parole with more than 503,000 under such supervision, followed by California with 370,000.

• At the end of 1994, one of every 26 adult Texans was on probation or parole.

Effects on Average Time Served. The expansion of prison capacity had an effect. Probably the most important change was that people convicted began serving longer prison sentences for every crime. As Figure II shows:17

• The estimated average (median) sentences served by inmates convicted of murder, rape or robbery more than tripled between 1988 and 1994.

• The average sentences served by inmates convicted of aggravated assault, burglary or theft went up more than fourfold.

One reason why prisoners are spending more time in prison is that far fewer prisoners considered for parole were actually paroled. Figure III compares parole approval in 1994 with 1990.

• 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.

"At the end of 1994, one of every 26 adult Texans was on probation or parole."

Historically, the Board of Pardons and Paroles granted paroles to about 25 percent of eligible cases that came before it. But under pressure of federal lawsuits over prison crowding, the board increased its approval rate to 79 percent in 1990, releasing more prisoners than it kept behind bars. With the new prison capacity, approval rates have fallen to the historic level.

"The average (median) sentences server for murder, rape or robbery more than tripled between 1988 and 1994."

Debate Over the Results. The governor’s Criminal Justice Policy Council has questioned the cause-and-effect relationship between greater imprisonment and the reduction in crime. In an October 1995 report, the council labeled Texas “the most punitive state in the country” suggesting that “the case for more incarceration...made on the basis of crime reduction” is weak.18 “Texas continues to have one of the highest crime rates in the nation,” Dr. Tony Fabelo, the executive director, wrote, “in spite of a dramatic increase in the incarceration rate.” Dr. Fabelo argued that “most offenders are incarcerated after their criminal career has peaked, limiting the impact of more incarceration on the crime rate.” He speculated that “perhaps funding meaningfully early interventions in the juvenile justice system...will achieve better returns on lowering crime for each new dollar spent.”19

"The average sentences for aggravated assault, burgulary or theft went up more than fourfold."

This conclusion seems to contradict the council’s more ebullient opinion, expressed only 10 months earlier in a publication that praised expanded prison capacity. At that time Dr. Fabelo wrote, “Policies adopted by the legislature since 1987 are having a positive outcome in reducing crime, increasing time served in prison for violent offenders and providing adequate correctional capacity to meet demands for tougher penalties.”20

"By 1994, far fewer prisoners considered for parole were actually paroled."

Of course, reduction in the crime rate is not the only reason for punishing those who commit crimes. There is a powerful feeling in society that predators and other crooks should be punished on principle. Law is an entirely appropriate instrument of organized retribution. There is strong evidence that tougher policies on crime have produced much larger gains in public safety than Dr. Fabelo recognizes. By contrast, while the rehabilitation and prevention strategies he proposes may appeal to our best instincts, their record for repairing and reconstructing souls has been abysmal.21

How does the expansion of prison capacity affect the decision calculus of people who are considering committing a crime? And how do we know that the increased risk of imprisonment has not been offset by some other change? To answer these questions, we need a full accounting of all of the factors that affect the “expected punishment” for committing a crime.