THIS ISSUE BRIEF – on proposals to impose a moratorium in new prison construction or expansions — is part of a series examining a variety of controversial local and national issues, focusing on specific policy proposals that are under active consideration. The premise of these essays, as outlined here and here, is that many important public policy issues are more complicated than the most fervent adherents to either side usually acknowledge, a dynamic that often hinders our ability to engage in thoughtful debate.
Earlier essays in the series have addressed proposals for free community college; free MBTA service; the state’s right-to-shelter law; allowing municipalities to enact rent control; whether the state should legalize supervised injection sites; whether to give school librarians more control over book selection while limiting the say of school committees and parents; whether Massachusetts should establish a reparations commission; and whether to require voters to produce an ID before casting their ballot.
For each proposal in the series, I provide some basic background, with a high-level framing of the disagreement and the polarized “bumper sticker” arguments on both sides. I then present what I believe to be the most reasonable evidence-based cases, pro and con. Each issue brief concludes with reflections on possible avenues for finding common ground or higher ground and some basic data points, with links to useful resources, to help facilitate a rational and civil dialogue, ideally leading to agreement or at least understanding, if not in the halls of power, then maybe just around the dinner table.
The Proposal:
Impose a moratorium on new prison construction or expansions.
Background:
There are over 1 million Americans who are currently imprisoned, a per-capita rate that ranks sixth highest in the world and far higher than the average for other Western democracies. In Massachusetts, the state prison population stands at about 6,200, the lowest per-capita incarceration rate in the country and a decline of almost half since the peak in 2012. An average of 8,000 people are also typically housed in the state’s county jails.
As a result of the steady decline in the number of state prisoners, several facilities have been decommissioned by the Department of Correction, including the recent closure of the state’s oldest men’s prison, MCI-Concord. Besides reducing prison capacity to match the shrinking number of prisoners, there have been calls for prison closures from proponents of “de-carceration,” especially in the aftermath of the 2020 George Floyd killing.
In Massachusetts, Sen. Joanne Comerford and Rep. Chynah Tyler have introduced a bill that would impose a five-year moratorium on any plans to build new facilities or expand existing jail or prison capacity. A similar bill passed in the Legislature in 2022 but was vetoed by then-Gov. Charlie Baker. Routine repairs or renovations to improve living conditions would still be allowed under the proposal, but the Healey administration’s plan to invest $50 million to build a new women’s prison to replace MCI-Framingham, the country’s oldest women’s prison, would be put on hold.
Sticking Points and Bumper Stickers:
Although there are significant fiscal issues associated with prison capacity and construction, the argument between advocates over a moratorium on new or expanded correctional facilities is centered on the role of incarceration in the criminal justice system.
Defund the Prisons! Advocates for prison closures or even “abolition” assert that most imprisonment is inherently dehumanizing, and too many criminal offenses are the result of race-based oppression, which should be addressed through an end to “over-policing,” fewer prosecutions of non-violent offenses, and more robust social services. They argue that closing prisons will force the criminal justice system to change by reducing or eliminating prison sentences as a viable option.
Don’t Do the Crime, If You Can’t Do the Time! Activists opposed to prison closures argue that justice demands that people who commit crimes be punished with jail time sufficient to send a clear message that illegal behavior has consequences and to take them off the streets to prevent them from causing further harm.
Evidence-Based Case in Favor:
There are three basic rationales for imprisonment: punishment, prevention, and rehabilitation. Punishment reflects primarily a social impulse to express a moral judgment regarding the violation of law, based on a principle of individual responsibility. Prevention is based on the expectation that the threat of prison provides a deterrent to potential repeat offenders as well as to others who might otherwise consider committing a crime. And rehabilitation is grounded in the belief that time in prison provides an opportunity for individuals to turn their lives around so they can become productive or at least law-abiding members of society upon their release.
Unfortunately, most prisons are effective only in punishment, with little to show for prevention or rehabilitation.
According to a 2021 study of 24 states by the US Department of Justice, over 80 percent of people released from state prisons in 2008 had been arrested at least once within the next 10 years, with almost two-thirds being arrested within just three years. On average, these former prisoners were arrested more than five times within 10 years of their release.
Other studies have indicated that imprisonment may actually increase the likelihood of future criminal behavior, especially among young people who are forced to live in close quarters with other criminals. The Justice Department’s National Institute of Justice states directly that “the data show long prison sentences do little to deter people from committing future crimes.”
These findings suggest that not only is prison time by itself not a deterrent to law-breaking, but that rehabilitation efforts inside prison are largely ineffective, too.
The consensus opinion from most studies in the 1960s and 1970s was that “nothing works” when it comes to prisoner rehabilitation programs, a finding that helped inform subsequent efforts to focus on harsher prison sentences instead. More recent criticism of the effects and efficacy of “mass incarceration,” as well as the costs, has led to renewed interest in a variety of initiatives, especially those related to the widespread and growing social and mental health challenges of today’s prison population.
Although many of these newer therapeutic and educational strategies are promising, at least on a small scale, there is little solid evidence of their overall efficacy. Moreover, it is not at all clear that they are as effective as they could be in a community setting, away from the isolated and inhospitable environment of prison, which can be a barrier to healing or personal growth.
Besides the ineffectiveness of prison regarding prevention and rehabilitation, there are serious humanitarian and safety concerns regarding incarceration, not just for prisoners, but also for staff. State prison death rates in the US related to suicide, homicide, and overdoses have almost tripled since 2001. A 2020 investigation by the Department of Justice found that mental health services in Massachusetts state prisons fail “to provide adequate mental health treatment to prisoners experiencing a mental health crisis and instead exposes them to conditions that harm them or place them at serious risk of harm.” In addition, according to Massachusetts Department of Correction data, there were over 700 cases of assault against prison personnel from 2020 to 2023.
Even if one accepts the need for punishment, the rates of imprisonment in Massachusetts based on race and ethnicity suggest that there are deep-seated inequities in the state’s criminal justice system that are resulting in excessive prison time for people of color. According to The Sentencing Project, Massachusetts ranks 12th worst among all states in terms of the differential in Black-White imprisonment rates and last in terms of the Latino-White gap. At least one recent study suggests that this inequality exists in part because of disparities in both charging and sentencing decisions, tied to the race or ethnicity of the accused.
Today, Massachusetts state prisons are operating at about 60 percent capacity and there would be even more available space if prison were limited to only those violent predators or hardened criminals for whom there may be no other option.
Building or rebuilding state prisons to sustain, let alone expand, existing capacity is unnecessary and diverts scarce resources away from non-custodial programs that offer a better chance of success both in turning around the lives of convicted criminals and improving safety and stability in their communities.
Evidence-Based Case Opposed:
For more than a decade, the Massachusetts prison population has been steadily declining, Today, Massachusetts has the lowest imprisonment rate of any state. At the same time, the share of state inmates imprisoned for non-violent offenses has shrunk to just 25 percent.
Taken together, these data points confirm that claims of “mass incarceration” do not apply to Massachusetts in 2024.
As a result of these long-term trends, the Commonwealth has been reducing and repurposing its state prisons, closing underutilized facilities and investing in upgraded or dedicated spaces for health and social services. Given the fact that Massachusetts has some of the oldest prison buildings in the country, capital improvements sometimes require full replacement, rather than simply renovation.
A case in point is MCI-Framingham, which first opened its doors almost 150 years ago, when Rutherford B. Hayes was in the White House. It has been cited by the state Department of Public Health for numerous repeat violations of health and safety codes and has been a focus for the state’s capital planners who recommend building an entirely new facility. The Healey administration’s proposal to fully replace MCI-Framingham would actually shrink its current capacity and enable more robust on-site rehabilitative services.
Due in large part to the shrinking prison population and relatively high wage rates for corrections officers, the Department of Correction spends almost $140,000 per inmate per year, as much or more than any other state. These costs include spending on education and training, as well as behavioral and mental health services.
Although there is no silver bullet to prevent recidivism or ensure successful re-entry, there is reason to believe that well-designed and executed rehabilitative programs can produce positive results.
For example, a recent study by the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security found clear benefits to male prisoners who lacked a high school diploma and also had substance abuse problems if they successfully completed the “Correctional Recovery Academy” while earning a high school equivalency credential. These prisoners had a one-year recidivism rate that was 60 percent lower than similar prisoners and even one-third lower than those prisoners who didn’t have a substance abuse problem and already had a high school diploma.
A broader 2013 RAND meta-analysis found that “inmates who participate in correctional education programs have 43 percent lower odds of returning to prison than those who do not.”
While prison can provide opportunities and resources for individuals to address their challenges and become more productive and law-abiding citizens, it also has the important direct effect of reducing crime and victimization by removing habitual criminals at least temporarily from society, often referred to as “incapacitation.” Relatively few long prison sentences are meted out to first-time felony offenders, and many receive no prison time at all. Most prisoners have been arrested and even convicted multiple times before they are sentenced to jail. Left on the streets they would undoubtedly continue to break the law.
Opponents of new prison construction are correct in pointing out the Commonwealth’s expensive excess capacity. There truly is no need for more space. Indeed, the Department of Correction would be better off financially and operationally with less. Nevertheless, the mismatch between the outdated existing spaces and the appropriately higher expectations for humanely housing and supporting today’s prison population makes a moratorium on new construction counterproductive.
Potential for Common Ground or Higher Ground:
Although activists view prison construction through an ideological or moral lens, there is little disagreement over the practical reality that Massachusetts needs to right-size and modernize its prison space to match a smaller, higher need population, whether or not a moratorium bill is enacted. While there may be limited solid evidence for significantly or sustainably reducing recidivism at scale through rehabilitation services, there is broad agreement that prison operating cost savings could be used to pilot and support evidence-based strategies, both in prison settings and in community-based programs.
Efforts to ensure an effective and non-discriminatory criminal justice system that can prevent excessive or inequitable imprisonment also have bipartisan support, as witnessed by lopsided votes in 2018 to pass the federal First Step Act and Massachusetts’s own Criminal Justice Reform Act. Implementing those laws in good faith and ensuring that policing, prosecution, and sentencing practices are fair and just will require ongoing data collection, evaluation, and oversight.
Jim Peyser served most recently as Massachusetts secretary of education under Gov. Charlie Baker.
Data:
Massachusetts criminal justice statistics
State prison population: 6,215 (August 2024), down 29 percent since 2019.
State prison population by race and ethnicity (January 2024): White (39 percent); Black (30 percent); Hispanic (28 percent); Other (3 percent).
Rates of serious mental illness among state prisoners: 36 percent (December 2023), up from 24 percent in 2019.
Percentage of state prisoners without a high school diploma or equivalency: 52 percent (January 2024), down slightly from 53 percent since January 2019.
Three-year recidivism rate of prisoners released from state prisons: 30 percent (2016 release cohort), unchanged since 2011 release cohort.
Annual violent crime offenses: 19,252 (2023), unchanged since 2018.
Annual property crime offenses: 146,723 (2023), up 18 percent since 2018.
Average capacity utilization in state prisons: 59 percent (August 2024), down from 75 percent in August 2019.
Sources and Resources:
Massachusetts Department of Corrections Reports (https://www.mass.gov/report/department-of-correction-reports).
Pew Research Center (https://www.pewresearch.org/topic/politics-policy/political-issues/criminal-justice/).
National Institute of Justice (https://nij.ojp.gov/).
Bureau of Justice Statistics (https://bjs.ojp.gov/).
The post Should we impose a moratorium on new prison construction or expansions? appeared first on CommonWealth Beacon.