The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
It's Time to Confront Failures of Justice (Part III)
Counting the many costs of failures of justice.
This is the third in a five-part series where we're guest blogging about our new book Confronting Failures of Justice: Getting Away With Murder and Rape, available here. The last two posts introduced the problem of failures of justice (instances of unpunished or inadequately punished crime) and discussed how the problem is not solving itself. Now it's time to talk about costs. Why should we care about failures of justice? One cost is moral—we, along with most people, believe that there is a moral obligation to punish serious crime. This argument could also be made in social contract terms—the government has a duty to its people to punish those who victimize them.
But in addition to these moral costs, failing to punish serious crime produces enormous real-world harms. These include trauma to victims and co-victims, as well as increased crime through loss of incapacitation, reductions in deterrence, and, perhaps most importantly, the consequences of a decline in the law's moral credibility with the community. Consider an excerpt from our book discussing the harms caused to victims and their families.
Many serious, violent crimes leave victims alive but scar them with emotional trauma, especially when justice is not served. Surviving a rape or attempted murder is merely the beginning of suffering for most victims. A victim may well find some measure of solace and healing in the thought that their attacker has been caught and punished, but most victims of serious crime never experience that comfort…. It is impossible to quantify the suffering victims experience when their victimizers escape justice, but the cost is real and significant.… Studies have found that rape victims are more likely to experience post-traumatic stress disorder if they have "negative experiences with the criminal justice system" compared with those who have positive experiences with the system or even those who had no interaction with the system. The knowledge that one's attacker still walks free can be infuriating and crippling to many victims.…
Rape is not the only crime with enormous personal costs. When a murderer or other serious violent offender gets away without deserved punishment, the victims' families and friends are emotionally scarred. The relatives and friends of someone lost to homicide are often referred to as "co-victims," a term that acknowledges that victimization extends far beyond the person killed. Anyone who has had a friend or a family member murdered will have to deal with lifelong grief, but a failure of justice adds anger, upset, and fear to that pain through the constant knowledge that the killer is free.
In the United States, it is estimated that roughly 9% to 15% of adults are co-victims of homicide and that roughly 8% to 18% of youths are co-victims of homicide. Since justice fails in more than half of such cases, around 5% or more of the population suffer from the knowledge that the killer of their loved one got away with murder. Worse, the co-victimization rates are staggeringly higher for other crimes, such as rape or aggravated assault, where the punishment rates are extremely low, even trivial.
But failing to punish serious crime does more than traumatize victims and their families. It also breeds more crime through several mechanisms.
First, low punishment rates decrease deterrence as criminals or would-be perpetrators correctly believe they are unlikely to be punished for any given crime. Another cost is failing to stop repeat offenders, since much, if not most, serious crime is committed by repeat offenders.
Failures of justice commonly leave the uncaught criminal free to reoffend, thus adding to the cost of crime which is estimated at a staggering 2.6 trillion dollars each year in America. Criminals rarely escalate from nothing to murder, and most serious crimes are committed by repeat offenders who have escaped justice repeatedly in the past. If the justice system was more effective in solving and punishing crime, repeat offenders would often have their careers ended earlier, avoiding a string of later crimes. Given the enormous costs of repeat criminals to society (even excluding the costs to victims and co-victims of letting offenders go free), allowing criminals to escape justice is unlikely to save societal resources on net. Doing justice ultimately more than pays for itself in the long run.
In addition to reducing deterrence and incapacitation, failing to justly punish crime carries another criminogenic cost through eroding the law's moral credibility with the community.
Communities that witness repeated failures of justice commonly lose faith in the criminal justice system, which undermines the criminal law's ability to gain compliance, deference, and assistance and, perhaps most importantly, to get people to internalize its norms. Instead of inspiring cooperation, a criminal justice system with reduced credibility provokes resistance, subversion, and rejection. This leads to increased lawbreaking and can provoke a justice-seeking backlash in the form of vigilantism … where members of the community take the law into their own hands and undertake to do justice where the system seems unwilling or unable to do it. Of all the pernicious effects of failures of justice, the criminal justice system's loss of moral credibility with the community may be the most damaging because it creates a vicious cycle in which lost credibility produces more crime and less justice, which in turn reduces the system's credibility further.
It should be common sense that when the justice system fails to do justice in most cases of serious crime, people notice and lose faith in that system. This dynamic is particularly noticeable in many of America's urban neighborhoods where high rates of crime go together with high rates of crime non-reporting, witness non-cooperation, vigilante killings, and distrust in official justice system processes.
It is important to note that all the above costs apply regardless of whether a criminal completely escapes punishment or whether they are convicted and punished in a way the community sees as insufficient. Sometimes delivering a flagrantly inadequate punishment may be worse than delivering no punishment at all. For example, if an individual rapist escapes justice, it is unlikely to attract public attention. By contrast, the case of a rapist who is convicted but receives a slap on the wrist sentence (e.g., community service) is likely to spark far greater public outrage and cynicism because it showcases that the system is unable or unwilling to do justice even when a perpetrator is caught.
Yet another cost of failures of justice, and one that should be especially compelling to liberals and progressives, is the disparate impact unpunished crime has on poor and minority communities.
One final factor that makes the societal cost of justice failures all the more tragic and unjust is its disparately large impact on racial minorities and the economically disadvantaged.… Crime clearance rates are significantly lower in poorer areas with high racial minority populations than they are in White middle-income and high-income areas.… One analysis of 52 of the US's largest cities found that police arrested someone in 63% of homicides that killed White victims, compared with just 47% of homicides of Black victims, a 16-percentage-point difference in clearance rates. Data from Chicago indicates that homicide cases involving a White victim are solved 47% of the time, cases involving a Hispanic victim are solved 33% of the time, and cases involving a Black victim have a clearance rate of a mere 22%.
There are several factors that likely contribute to these disparities (such as the type of killing, with street shootings being especially hard to solve), but regardless of the causes, the effect is clear: poor neighborhoods and minority communities suffer failures of justice at highly disproportionate rates to their share of the population.… Too often the same advocates who protest against police violence and decry the injustices caused by systemic racism in the legal system are nowhere to be found on the issue of solving and punishing crime.
No society should ignore the costs of failures of justice, particularly a modern liberal society that seeks to value and promote the rights and wellbeing of all its citizens. Unfortunately, justice failures may not receive the attention they deserve because academics, politicians, and society's wealthy and powerful members are much less impacted by crime (and its subsequent lack of punishment) than are society's worst-off members. The criminal justice system's current policies and rules reflect a poor balance of societal interests that leaves most victims without justice and many communities locked in spirals of crime. The next post discusses the question of how to balance societal interests in criminal justice policy and who should do that balancing.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Maybe I'm missing something, but the fact is that the US incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than any other Western country. Our sentences are longer than in other Western countries. Our incarceration numbers are comparable to China.
In any justice system run by humans there will always be cases with unjust results, and that includes both wrongful convictions and wrongful acquittals. But seriously, being tough on crime does not appear to be a problem in the US.
One thing that would help would be to end the war on drugs, which would free up resources to deal with actual crime.
Has anyone found a good alternative to incarceration yet?
I would like to see a restitution-based legal system in which compensating the victim is the top priority. Some people are violent sociopaths who simply need to be locked away, but I think a lot of people doing time could be outside, and working to compensate their victims. I’d keep incarceration as a backup to encourage them to actually compensate their victims. Kind of like child support, same general dynamic.
And think of the savings to the taxpayer by shutting down all the prisons we could then close.
There's a lot to be said for a more widespread use of GPS tracking collars as an alternative to incarceration; In principle it would enable repeat offenders to be placed at the scene of any crimes they committed. It would require a pretty hefty strict liability penalty for any attempt to defeat them, though.
But for violent crime there's no substitute for incapacitation.
1. The most harmful aspects of violent crimes, and the ones that we are generally most concerned about, can’t be readily reduced to economic damages. And of course many crimes that we want to deter cause no economic harm at all.
2. The offenders who commit these crimes tend to to be people who aren’t capable of working a job that generates a substantial surplus income: it’s very unlikely that they will be able to pay any meaningful restitution even if they do make a good faith effort to hold down a job.
3. The crimes that are most readily reduced to economic damages are also committed by offenders who are most likely to be able to pay restitution: white collar fraud, financial crime, and regulatory offenses. Allowing those defendants to buy their way out of jail time is not a dynamic that most people find very palatable.
1. Absolutely true. Violent crimes are probably the last crime where we'd want to avoid incarceration, because restitution isn't possible, all you can do is prevent future crimes, and incapacitation accomplishes that.
2. Violent criminals tend to have really poor impulse control, that's their chief distinguishing characteristic. That doesn't necessarily imply an inability to do anything remunerative, but it does render them hard to employ. Maybe if the profits from prison labor went to remunerating victims, rather than just fattening the state's coffers?
3. But it's also the case that white collar crimes are relatively easily dealt with by licensing; An accountant can't embezzle again if they're not allowed to do accounting work anymore, even if they're not behind bars.
In fact, I think most people would be OK with full remuneration and depriving the convict of the right to be employed in any job susceptible to similar crimes. The thought of a bank president reduced to pushing a broom after conviction probably warms the cockles enough. It does mine, anyway.
Yesterday evening the state of Missouri murdered Marcellus Williams. Accessories to the murder were AG Andrew Bailey, Gov. Mike Parsons, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanagh, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. The original prosecutor in the case opposed the murder.
The murder occurred partly due to the insane illogic of the American justice system which "reasons" that when someone has been convicted of a crime, to be acquitted later it is not sufficient to prove that the evidence used to inculpate a defendant was in fact worthless or no longer valid - which in a rational state (or country) would mean that there is no basis for preserving the conviction. The fact of conviction is itself taken as evidence of guilt.
The murderers will go unpunished. Indeed, some of the murderers may have helped commit the murder because they will gain politically from it.
Make your case, then.
See for example: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/24/missouri-to-execute-marcellus-williams-prosecutors-objections-innocence-claims
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/marcellus-williams-missouri-execution-prosecutors-innocent-rcna172234
Why are they coming forward now, after so many years? The prosecutors were so certain then, and got a conviction. But later changed their minds?
Seems fishy.
The politically-ambitious Soros prosecutor saw an opportunity to burnish his progressive bona fides. That’s all.
Is George Soros in the room with you now?
There are a lot of antisemitic conspiracy theories about George Soros. But he’s also a real person who spends his real money trying to advance real political causes, one of which is helping other real people, like Wesley Bell, win real elections to serve as real prosecutors. This isn’t a secret: Soros presumably thinks this is a good thing and doesn’t try to hide it: on the contrary, he wrote on op ed bragging about it.
It's kind of funny, in a way. Apparently the guy is immune from criticism because he's too stereotypical a villain. He's Jewish and a banker, it doesn't matter what he actually does, attacking him is automatically antisemitic.
Prosecutors are often certain at the time. Yet plenty of people get exonerated. Hence that certainty proves nothing.
Why are they coming forward now, after so many years?
Because you don't account for all the instances where people come forward earlier, or not at all.
Here's the opposing case.
The AG's claim is that inconclusive DNA evidence is irrelevant, because the evidence he was actually convicted on the basis of is undisputed:
"In addition, all the evidence the jury relied on to convict the defendant remains intact. The victim’s personal items were found in Williams’s car after the murder. A witness testified that Williams had sold the victim’s laptop to him. Williams confessed to his girlfriend and an inmate in the St. Louis City Jail, and William’s girlfriend saw him dispose of the bloody clothes worn during the murder. All of the evidence in question was available at trial."
Do I know if he was actually guilty? Nope. But let's not pretend there wasn't evidence that he was. People have been convicted on far less evidence than this.
One of them is actually running for President right now, so I've had repeated lectures on exactly how little evidence is required to reach a perfectly valid finding of guilt...
Because it isn’t inconclusive: the profile obtained was consistent with the prosecution team.
It was certainly inconclusive in the sense that excessive handling meant they couldn't rule out some of his DNA being on the knife.
Marcellus Williams was an incredibly guilty murderer. The only injustices in the case are that his execution took so long, that he wasn’t in prison already at the time of the murder despite his 15 prior felony convictions, and that progressives (one of whom is about to become congressman) have the indecency to try to score political points by lying about it.
If you want to argue that he was a career criminal who deserved death because of that, make your case.
The evidence that he was a murderer doesn't stand up.
There's a good rule - when the government doesn't want an investigation in possible innocence to continue, or key forensic evidence to be tested, it's not because they think the convict is guilty, but because they think he's innocent. Parsons closed down an independent investigation. (See also Cameron Todd Willingham - executed where there wasn't even a crime.)
I said that his prior crimes should have led to him being in prison for much longer, long enough that he wouldn’t have been able to commit the murder (because he would have been in prison). The reason he deserved to be executed is that he committed this murder.
He had the victim’s property that was stolen during the murder and confessed to multiple people, who provided the police with non-public information about the crime. What do you think is unreliable about that?
But in this case, they did do the forensic testing he wanted, and it didn’t exculpate him.
A Republican governor also in the past was concerned about the case. Not just “progressives,” not that “progressive” is some convincing slur that means their judgment should be rejected.
There can also be reasonable disagreement. So, you can cite evidence & the other side has their own reasonable doubt evidence. The net result will be unclear.
As to “political points,” that charge can be applied to the Republicans that pushed to reject a deal the victim’s family agreed to & then defend it by appealing to the same family’s interests.
The victim’s family signed off on the deal to commute the sentence to life in prison. The person would have still been punished.
OTOH, execution warrants a special level of assurance that does not appear to be met, even if there is a lot of evidence.
There can—but as is all too often the case when the death penalty is involved, the people defending this murderer are resorting instead to mendacity, deception, and spin.
What “reasonable doubt evidence” do you have in mind?
The guilt of this murderer is extremely clear. That’s the point.
One place that provides the particulars:
https://innocenceproject.org/cases/marcellus-williams/
Not the only place.
I doubt this format is going to provide an ideal place to provide the in-depth analysis one way or the other to settle the question.
“Spin” is present on both sides. So, you reference “scoring political points,” when, BOTH SIDES can be charged on that front. It is as likely there is a basic honest disagreement on principle.
The opposition here has a lower standard to meet. They agreed to a plea deal that would have avoided the death penalty but still had life in prison. The victim’s family signed on to it.
Since the government is taking a life, a special level of clarity is necessary. Some people thinking it ‘extremely’ clear is not enough, especially those tossing comments about “progressives,” when they are not the only ones involved.
That too Is part of “the” point. OTOH, I don’t think there is just one.
I’m not sure that I would consider “Mr. Williams is devoutly religious and an accomplished poet” to be probative of much.
What are the particulars that you think are relevant here?
I haven’t seen any spin on the side of the people correctly noting that Williams is guilty. As opposed to his partisans, who have been actively deceptive about the facts of the case.
I’m not sure I follow.
Why does the fact that the guy was willing to abandon his claim of innocence and accept life imprisonment demonstrate that he’s innocent? As far as I know, no one has seriously argued that it’s unjust to execute him if he did commit the murder.
the fact is that the US incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than any other Western country
We're extremely soft on the criminals we catch and getting away with murder in more urban areas can be a better than 50% proposition. No fair comparing incarceration rates without also comparing murder rates; rural America has murder rates comparable to western Europe. Urban America is substantially more dangerous and drives the incarceration rate, because that's where the murder and other crime is. And, similarly, you can't blame the guns; rural America manages to have the guns without the murder.
Any time you have people piled on top of one another like we do in urban areas you will have more disputes which leads to more crime. That is completely unsurprising, and would be the case no matter who populates the cities. Urban areas have always had higher crime rates.
And with respect to guns, people who live in rural areas typically own guns for different reasons than people who live in urban areas. It's easy for someone living in a rural area whose entire experience with guns is hunting and skeet shooting to assume that guns aren't part of the problem. People living in urban areas, whose primary experience with guns is gang bangers and muggers, might have a different point of view. So rather than having a one-size-fits-all approach of guns are guns are guns, I'm not sure it's entirely unreasonable to recognize the reality that urban gun ownership produces different results than rural gun ownership does.
And no, we are not soft on crime. Not when we incarcerate nearly 1% of our population. In contrast, Canada's incarceration rate is 1 in 100,000.
While I agree that living piled up on top of one another drives a lot of our social pathologies, and you can't find an amendment in the Bill of Rights guaranteeing a right to live at high population densities, I can just imagine how Somin would react to any attempt to put a stop to it.
Anyway, you're not being granular enough here. Even in cities, murder rates vary by a hundred fold from one neighborhood to another, and that's not because people in the high crime areas have 100 times as many firearms.
You're trying to attribute differences to constant factors. If you really want to figure out why murder is a problem, you need to look at the differences between locations that have high and low murder rates, not the similarities. Rates of gun ownership is one of the similarities, not one of the differences.
I doubt this. I have lived in a few large cities -- Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, now Orlando -- and I doubt that Mattapan and Beacon Hill have the same rate of gun ownership. Or the Gold Coast and South Chicago. Maybe they do.
You're right that there is more violent crime in Watts than there is in Beverly Hills, but that has more to do with economics than anything else. And it doesn't dispel my underlying point that maybe areas in which there is a lot of gun violence should treat guns differently than areas that don't.
The same rate? Maybe not. A hundred times different? I kind of doubt that. I might buy 20%.
" And it doesn’t dispel my underlying point that maybe areas in which there is a lot of gun violence should treat guns differently than areas that don’t."
And you might actually have a legal point, if gun ownership weren't an explicitly guaranteed civil liberty. It's really, really hard to justify saying, "This is a civil liberty, but we're just going to let some cities violate it." Civil liberties don't work that way, or at least haven't since we abolished Jim Crow.
So, maybe just stop attacking the explicit civil liberty, and show a bit more interest in the factors that might actually be driving the mind bogglingly huge difference in crime rates?
You know, gun controllers like claiming gun violence should be treated as a medical problem. But if murder really were a result of a disease, we wouldn't be going after guns. We'd be quarantining murder hotspots, evacuating them while sorting out the safe people from the potential murderers. Not pretending that some common article found everywhere in the country was mysteriously responsible for murder, but only in certain places, and not elsewhere.
We've had this discussion before. Being a constitutional right does not mean that it can't be regulated or is absolute. There's a constitutional right to travel, but that doesn't mean I can drive a car without a driver's license.
Plus I'm not advocating a ban on guns. That's a straw man. There are some people who would ban guns outright but not many.
Yes, we’ve had this discussion before. Being a constitutional right does mean it gets treated like a constitutional right, not a privilege.
I seriously think that people who look at jurisdictions with wildly different crime rates and similar gun ownership rates, and say “it’s the guns”, are like people who look at a neighborhood where the houses flood every time there’s a storm, and say “it’s the rain!”, and don’t have any interest in looking at the roofs. It’s just not the way you’d approach something like this if you hadn’t started out hostile to gun ownership.
When a community has a local crime rate a hundred times higher than someplace half a mile away, the cause is never going to be something they have in common. It’s going to be something that distinguishes them.
I sometimes think there's a fundamental category error going on here. Maybe people are confusing "criminal blaming" and "victim blaming", they don't want to focus on what's going on in the community where the crime rate is sky high, because that seems to them like blaming the people suffering from the crime?
But often the people suffering from the crime are also the people perpetrating the crime. Most murder victims are criminals!
No constitutional right is absolute. Does a free press mean I get to publish child porn?
I don't think anyone believes that regulating guns (or, for that matter, even banning them outright) would be a panacea that would fix all of our violent crime problems. But making it harder for bad actors to use guns to commit bad acts would help. There are lots of other factors too, and I've never claimed to the contrary, and those factors need to be addressed as well.
But I don't have the near pathological phobia of some on the right about toward gun regulation. The easy availability of the wrong kind of guns by the wrong kind of people is part of the problem, even if it's not all of the problem.
"And no, we are not soft on crime. Not when we incarcerate nearly 1% of our population. In contrast, Canada’s incarceration rate is 1 in 100,000."
Population 38 million, and by your math, there are 380 incarcerated people only?
Alert the world, because all searchable data reports the incarcerated population is more like 38,000.
So 1:100,000 is off by only two orders of magnitude. Nice guess though.
That was a typo. I meant 127 per 100,000.
You're welcome to respond to my underlying point should you choose to do so.
And, from colonial times, heavily populated areas, as well as public places, were treated differently than a rural farm.
"In the United States, it is estimated that roughly 9% to 15% of adults are co-victims of homicide and that roughly 8% to 18% of youths are co-victims of homicide."
My understanding is that only approximately one person in 250 gets murdered in the US. So, if you assume any given person has about 25 people close enough to them to count as 'co-victims', I guess those numbers work out about right. If you assume murders are randomly distributed.
Only, murder is a very heterogeneous crime, with the rate varying by several orders of magnitude from place to place and group to group.
So the reality of the matter is that there is a group of people who are what you might call "multiple co-victims", and a larger group whose odds of co-victimhood is close to 100%, but that for most of the population, the odds of being a "co-victim" is a lot smaller than that.
I came here to complain that the authors spent their first three posts trying to make the point that rape and murder are bad—surely everyone agrees with that, and we can move on to the policy changes they’re proposing?
Having read the comments, I now see why doing this legwork was necessary.
I think a basic point here needs to be how we determine what is "just."
An unfair and extreme criminal justice system, e.g., will lead to concerns about helping the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of criminals.
I recall a short story in school where a man wanted a fair time in court. He lost his civil case but was satisfied.
But a perfectly fair and moderate criminal justice system will still lead to concerns about helping the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of criminals, on the part of criminals.
As I pointed out in a previous post on this topic, whenever you're trying to investigate the sort of crimes that mostly happen to criminals, the victims and witnesses will likely also be criminals, and so unwilling to aid the police lest their own crimes accidentally come to light.
You really can't analyze these things as though crime were randomly distributed. It has actual patterns of occurrence that help to explain why enforcement is difficult. When the Bloods and the Crips go to war with each other, you've got a lot of crimes and victims, but the police aren't going to get a lot of crime reports from the victims, or help from the witnesses.
And that's NOT because the police are wrongly oppressing the Bloods and the Crips. It's because they're rightfully 'oppressing' them!
"Too often the same advocates who protest against police violence and decry the injustices caused by systemic racism in the legal system are nowhere to be found on the issue of solving and punishing crime."
... if your experience with the justice system is that it is actively hostile to your community, doesn't solve crimes, lets folks who murder and assault you go free and --in many cases-- celebrates those folk as heroes...
Why would you be a part of discussions to further push that (in)justice system on your community?
You have to rebuild trust first. Expecting a community to be strong partners in an increased-police initiative while the community still feels harassed and attacked by the police is to expect them to act in an irational manner.
Good point.
Some of the critics very well are concerned about “solving and punishing crime.” They might approach it differently.
For instance, “defund the police” advocates promote alternative methods of addressing crime, including arguing certain structural problems should be addressed & the result will be less crime.