Reason Magazine

reason.org

reason.com

reason.tv

donate

previous link

REASON.TV VIDEO:The
Big Scrum: How Teddy Roosevelt Saved Football - Q&A with… (6.9)

REASON.TV VIDEO:3
Reasons Not to Fund Art with Taxes (& Yes, There's a Weiner… (6.8)

REASON.TV VIDEO:How
Cultural Innovation Happens: Q&A with Anthropologist Grant… (6.7)

REASON.TV VIDEO:Jefferson
Memorial Dance Dance Revolution - 6/4/2011 (6.4)

REASON.TV VIDEO:Veronique
de Rugy: The Facts about the Government's Medicare… (6.3)

REASON.TV VIDEO:Universidad
Francisco Marroquin (aka University of Free… (6.2)

REASON.TV VIDEO:MSNBC vs Sarah
Palin vs The Flag vs Sanctimonious BS (6.1)

REASON.TV VIDEO:Bitcoin
& The End of State-Controlled Money: Q&A with Jerry… (6.1)

REASON.TV VIDEO:North
Carolina Bans Rare Burgers! Nanny of the Month (May 2011) (5.31)

REASON.TV VIDEO:Veronique
de Rugy Tells the Truth about Taxes & Entitlements (5.27)

next link

✕

Loading...

more sharing

StumbleUpon

Digg

Reddit

close video

Subscribe

Print

E-Reader

Android
App

iPhone App

Reason E-Mail
Lists

Reason
Stuff

Subscriber
Services

Share

Reason on
Facebook

Reason on Twitter

Reason on Youtube

Reason
RSS

About

About

Contact

Privacy

Reason Foundation

Staff

Staff

Contributors

Archives

Archives

Print Issues

Cover Gallery

Hit & Run Blog

Brickbats

Topics

Poll

Feeds

Podcasts

RSS

Events

Advertise

Donate

Print|Email

Locked
Up, Locked Out

The social costs of incarceration

Bruce Western from the July 2011 issue

Do prisons make us safer? By taking would-be offenders off the streets,
prisons clearly have reduced crime in the short run. In the long run, though,
imprisonment erodes the bonds of work, family, and community that help preserve
public safety.

Three effects are fundamental. First, former prisoners do worse economically
than if they had never been incarcerated. We can see some evidence in a study I
conducted in 2004 with the Princeton sociologist Devah Pager. We ran an audit
experiment that sent trained testers to apply for more than 1,000 entry-level
jobs throughout New York City. The fake job applicants were dressed similarly,
gave similar answers, and provided résumés with identical education and work
experience. At each job interview, however, one randomly chosen tester would
tick the application box indicating a criminal record and submit a résumé that
mentioned a prison and provided a parole officer as a reference.

White testers who were assigned a criminal record received call-backs or job
offers from employers only half as often as testers with clean records. For
African Americans, a criminal record reduced employment opportunities by
two-thirds. Labor force data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
paint a similar picture of incarceration’s negative effects: Wages fall by about
15 percent after prison, yearly earnings are reduced by about 40 percent, and
the pay of former prisoners (unlike compensation for the rest of the labor
force) remains stagnant as they get older.

The second important effect of imprisonment falls not on ex-inmates but on
their families. About half of all prison and jail inmates are parents with
children under 18. By 2008 about 2.6 million children had a parent in prison or
jail. By age 17, one in four African-American youth has a father who has been
sent to prison.

Because of their poor job prospects, formerly incarcerated fathers are less
able to contribute financially to their families. Because incarceration strains
marital relations, those fathers are also less involved as parents. Compared to
otherwise similar kids whose parents haven’t been behind bars, the children of
incarcerated parents are more likely to be depressed, behave aggressively, and
drop out of high school. These problems appear to be more common for boys than
girls. Incarceration, it seems, is weakening the bonds between fathers and
sons.

The third important effect of incarceration is cultural, shaping how the
institutions of law and order are viewed in high-crime/high-incarceration
neighborhoods. The prison population is drawn overwhelmingly from low-income
inner-city areas whose residents come to associate police and the courts with
the surrounding social problems of violence and poverty. Police are viewed as
unhelpful, and often unaccountable, contributing to what the Harvard sociologist
Robert Sampson calls “legal cynicism” in troubled, crime-ridden
neighborhoods.

Part of the power of punishment as a deterrent to crime is the shame and
stigma of a criminal record. Where incarceration has become commonplace, as it
has in poor African-American communities, the righteousness of the police is no
longer assumed and a prison record is not distinctive. The authority of the
criminal justice system has been turned upside down, and the institutions
charged with maintaining safety become objects of suspicion.

The negative effects of incarceration reduce the penal system’s capacity to
control crime. Drug dealing and other illegal activities are more attractive to
people with prison records, who have few legitimate prospects. Children of
incarcerated parents, without a secure and predictable home life, are at risk of
delinquency and school failure. And a community, soured on a capricious and
unaccountable police force, is less likely to call for help or assist in
investigations.

Because of the mounting social costs of incarceration, the benefits of prison
have reached a point of diminishing returns. Sixty percent of state inmates are
re-arrested within three years of being released from prison. Recidivism rates
have not fallen despite a fourfold increase in incarceration rates since the
1970s.

We may care little about the job prospects of ex-cons. We may not even care
much about their children or neighborhoods. But if the social costs of
imprisonment grow without limit along with the prison population, mass
incarceration becomes a self-defeating strategy for crime control.

Reducing these social costs is an urgent priority. Successful programs now
offer transitional jobs to released prisoners, support the children of
incarcerated parents, cultivate police-community relations, and send fewer
people to prison in the first place. Measures like these reduce the social
damage of mass incarceration and promise a sustainable public safety.

Bruce Western
([email-masked]) is a professor of sociology and director of the
Program in Inequality and Social Policy at Harvard University.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Tweet

more sharing

StumbleUpon

Digg

Reddit

Try
Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are
not completely satisfied.

See
all 40 comments | Leave
a comment

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.

Gilbert Martin|6.6.11 @ 4:49PM|#

Well we could always go back to the system they had in the middle ages.

They didn't need any jails or prisons because the sentence for almost every
offense was the same - death. And it was carried out with dispatch.

reply to this

Rich|6.6.11 @
4:52PM|#

Death is kinda harsh. How about just the pillary and stocks for most
offenses?

reply to this

Rich|6.6.11 @
4:53PM|#

Except for spelling mistakes, of course.

reply to this

EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|6.6.11 @ 4:58PM|#

There were also exiles (temporary and permanent), though these often amounted
to the same thing.

And, in England, a method by which the accused could in essence plea down to
exile by obtaining the protection of the church.

reply to this

Michael Ejercito|6.6.11 @
9:59PM|#

Well we could always go back to the system they had in the middle
ages.

They didn't need any jails or prisons because the sentence for
almost every offense was the same - death. And it was carried out with
dispatch.

But I keep hearing the death penalty is more expensive than prison.

reply to this

Federal Dog|6.6.11 @ 5:55PM|#

Good luck persuading the prison guard unions.

reply to this

The Derider|6.6.11 @ 6:13PM|#

Good luck persuading "law and order" Republicans.

reply to this

DoubleU|6.6.11 @ 7:32PM|#

Good luck persuading "law and order" democrats.

reply to this

Federal Dog|6.7.11 @ 6:56AM|#

Barack Obama is not a Republican.

reply to this

Sku|6.6.11 @
7:04PM|#

“Successful programs now offer transitional jobs to released prisoners,
support the children of incarcerated parents…”

So Reason is for giving more state aid to criminals than to honest,
law-abiding working-class people?

How about we don't give them aid, but we also don't imprison them (except for
murder or serial rapists or the like), and instead do more of the eye for eye
tooth for tooth style of punishment - make the punishment directly correspond to
the crime - pay back two-fold for theft, castration for rape, death penalty for
murder, public shaming via the stocks for corruption, and the like.

reply to this

|6.6.11 @ 8:07PM|#

Barney Frank, stropped, tarred and feathered. I'd vote for you.

reply to this

Thoughtcriminal|6.7.11 @ 8:44AM|#

QUOTE: "Compared to otherwise similar kids whose parents haven’t been behind
bars, the children of incarcerated parents are more likely to be depressed,
behave aggressively, and drop out of high school."

You follow this with a non-causa-pro-causa conclusion. Consider the
possibility that the genetic predisposition to poor impulse control is behind
the kids' differences and the fathers' imprisonment. Weak "reasoning" discredits
the whole article.

reply to this

herp|6.7.11 @
8:54PM|#

Drink!

reply to this

|6.6.11 @ 8:59PM|#

How about reserve prison for repeat offenders and those who are likely to
repeat serious crimes, and get rid of all victimless laws?

Use public humiliation, such as stocks, for first time offenders.

What good does it do to throw Madoff in prison? Confiscate all his
possessions, then let him get a job at 7-11.

reply to this

Doubleu|6.6.11 @ 9:23PM|#

I think congress, while in session, should be placed in stocks.

reply to this

|6.6.11 @ 9:38PM|#

I dunno; they are more likely to want to be repeat offenders. Now if they
spent their entire term in the stocks ...

reply to this

Gilbert Martin|6.6.11 @ 11:33PM|#

I expect most of them have already been placed in stock.

Stock of General Electric, stock of GM, etc.

reply to this

cynical|6.6.11
@ 10:32PM|#

Flogging too, please.

reply to this

|6.6.11 @ 9:00PM|#

"...imprisonment erodes the bonds of work, family, and community that help
preserve public safety."
What has happened to Reason over these last few
months or so. It is no longer libertarian style with an understanding of the
complexities & hypocrisies of the world. It has become a predominately
loonie left mag.

reply to this

ARM|6.6.11 @
11:57PM|#

huh? This sounds conservative, not lefty. Community, family, and work?
C'mon.

Plus all the studies on crime show that offenders are much less connected to
work, family, and other community organizations (eg clubs, churches, schools,
etc) than are non-offenders. So isolating people further from mainstream
institutions and networks is likely to increase crime.

reply to this

WTF?|6.7.11 @
1:58AM|#

For a magazine called reason....

But seriously, what the fuck are you talking about?

reply to this

|6.7.11 @ 8:20AM|#

I thought conservatives wanted people to be bonded to family and
indepdendent, private community institutions (such as churches), instead of
bonded to the government?

Who could be more bonded to the government than a person whose shelter, food,
and medicine is all provided to him by the government?

To me, it is entirely in keeping with conservativism to question whether
state action is the best way to address a problem.

reply to this

Michael Ejercito|6.6.11 @
10:01PM|#

Here is a solution.

Outlawry

reply to this

cynical|6.6.11
@ 10:31PM|#

I'm not sure the experiment backs up the article -- simply indicating a
criminal background is probably the key signal to an employer. Prison time
doesn't help, but I imagine you would get similar results if you got community
service or a flogging as a sentence instead. It might be an argument for not
criminalizing everything under the sun.

reply to this

ARM|6.6.11 @
11:49PM|#

The audit study shows that criminal records reduce chances of employment,
especially for African Americans. This fits with Western's argument that
incarceration detaches offenders from work and other social ties. Western and
Pager had applicants declare a felony (noted elsewhere), which nearly always
means prison time. It is also increasingly common to receive prison or jail time
rather than other punishments, so it is particularly important punishment to
study its effects.

We cannot tell from the study if other forms of punishment would have the
same effect. Prison terms may carry particularly stigmatizing meaning to
employers compared to community service or fines (which usually mean lesser
offenses). In addition, prison removes people from the labor market, which other
punishments don't. This may also play a role in employers' thinking.

reply to this

|6.6.11 @ 11:38PM|#

Keep up the glib, arrogant remarks. In two days, I go to be sentenced in
federal court on a felony charge "Theft related to healthcare in an amount
exceeding $100". My actual crime? While working as a contract pharmacist in the
Indian Health Services, I was contacted one afternoon by a provider in the
clinic at which I was stationed. This provider, also a tribal member, stated
that one of our EMT's had come into the clinic with his dog, which had ingested
a massive amount of D-Con (rat poison). The provider stated the obvious, that we
don't normally treat animals, but this EMT was on call, couldn't leave the
immediate area, and could find no one to transport his animal 45 miles to the
nearest vet's office (no surprise there, as she was bleeding profusely from
every orifice at this point, and likely would not have survived transport at any
point). The provider asked if I had any injectable vitamin K on hand, the
antidote for this poisoning, and, if I did, if I would be willing to bend the
rules and dispense it to this EMT so that he might save his companion's life. I
did have it in stock, I did the footwork (i.e. figured out the appropriate dose,
etc.), dispensed the medication to this fellow with instructions for
administration, and thereby became a felon in the eyes of the U.S. federal
government. The cost of the medication? $143, enough, the AUSA in SD felt, to
qualify me for prosecution under this asinine, nebulous and draconian law. I
attempted to reimburse the clinic the following morning, but was rebuffed. For
$143 of "misappropriation", the federal government has decided it prudent to
ruin my career, my finances, my life, may family's life and any piece of mind or
faith in the American system we might have had (which was not much to begin
with). The feds will spend roughly $100,000 over 3 years to prove a $143 point,
and that's IF I don't wind up in prison for 2 years. I won't know until the day
after tomorrow.

Before you accuse me of being some tree hugging animal activist type,
understand the reasoning that went into my decision. On the Pine Ridge
reservation, where I was stationed when this occurred, the average life
expectancy of a male is 47.5 years. The suicide rate among males age 14 to 22
varies, depending, from FOUR TO TEN TIMES THE NATIONAL AVERAGE. Who knows what
might precipitate that outcome in a 23 year old young man? Watching your friend
die a horrible and completely preventable death because some bureaucratic
asshole wouldn't reach across a counter might do it. I had an ethical obligation
to my profession and my patients (the man and his dog), and I acted in good
faith and good conscience. And I am destroyed for it.

Of course there's more (there's always more), but you get the gist.

The problem isn't just that our government uses prison too freely, it's that
the prosecution in this country has been given free rein with respect to who is
indicted, and what the penalty on plea bargain will be. If it ever even existed
(and I have my doubts), presumed innocence is a cruel joke at this point in the
American jurisprudence system. So, before you make your next smug comment,
consider. The next person so affected could be you. Or your son or daughter. Do
you think it'd be so funny then? Because I stopped laughing when the federal
marshals showed up on my front porch 10 months ago and pointed guns at my wife
and me. They could've phoned and I would've turned myself in. Not nearly "Cops"
enough, I suppose.

This issue transcends socioeconomic boundaries at this point (to some extent;
I may have a college education, but I'm still poor white trash, just like I
always have been). And if we don't come to a consensus, find some common ground
and get this sort of nonsense under control, there's no hope for this country.
No hope at all.

reply to this

cynical|6.7.11
@ 12:46AM|#

Glib or not, you're more likely to find sympathy for being a victim of
government assholery here than anywhere, even if it isn't actually expressed.
Sorry that they dicked you over. I hope the judge shows you some of the
compassion you showed to the dog and its owner.

reply to this

|6.7.11 @ 8:02AM|#

[My actual crime? While working as a contract pharmacist in the Indian Health
Services,]

I wholeheartedly agree. Throw the fucking book at you.

reply to this

|6.7.11 @ 1:34AM|#

So black people commit more crimes.. gotcha

reply to this

|6.7.11 @ 2:31AM|#

I look forward to the day we have real starships. We could just use a planet
as a penal colony for the real bad ones (repeats, rapists, killers...).

Three weeks of survival training, one of those shiny survival blankets and a
knife. BOOT! Out the airlocks. Australia turned out ok, and getting rid of of
the truly violent types might reduce the strain on the prison system and reduce
some of the stigma attached to doing time. After all, the real dangerous guys
get shipped off planet. Only petty criminals and white collar types would spend
time in the joint.

reply to this

Almanian|6.7.11
@ 2:53AM|#

Al the real dangerous guys end up in government. See strapmonkey's glib
post.

So put congress on another planet? I'm listening...

reply to this

|6.7.11 @ 3:28AM|#

Sorry. Not trying to be a dick. Just WAY stressed out at the moment. Usually,
I'm the glib one. Not presently. I have found a modicum of comfort here over the
last few months. It is good to know that not everyone in this country has gone
completely off their nut.

Prison or no, I am a convicted felon at this point, which means I will never
own a firearm again (a HUGE deal for me, the gov't. essentially stripped me of a
substantial firearm collection left me by my father when he died in July of '09
- the week before the OIG busted me out of South Dakota, and that sucked, then
when they came to the house to arrest me in September of last year it was less
than a week after we spent 3 days in the hospital with my spouse's father while
he lay dying) and I will never vote again (not such a big deal, I'm of the
George Carlin school of thought there - the only people who deserve to bitch are
those who didn't elect the assholes to office in the first place). To say
nothing of trying to find employment at this stage of the game.

If I had a quarter of a million dollars in the bank, or if I was some
senator's wife's second cousin, this would've turned out quite differently. And
the sad part is, as much as I've bitched about this here and at home, I'm
probably getting off light. I could potentially spend 10 years in prison and
$250,000 to repay my $143 debt to society, though I probably won't. And none of
this reflects on the people I had the honor of serving during my tenure on the
Pine Ridge. I'd still be there if I could.

"Justice is blind" means something else entirely than that which was taught
in school.

reply to this

Michael Ejercito|6.7.11 @
8:59PM|#

Prison or no, I am a convicted felon at this point, which means I
will never own a firearm again (a HUGE deal for me, the gov't. essentially
stripped me of a substantial firearm collection left me by my father when he
died in July of '09 - the week before the OIG busted me out of South Dakota,
and that sucked, then when they came to the house to arrest me in September of
last year it was less than a week after we spent 3 days in the hospital with
my spouse's father while he lay dying) and I will never vote again (not such a
big deal, I'm of the George Carlin school of thought there - the only people
who deserve to bitch are those who didn't elect the assholes to office in the
first place). To say nothing of trying to find employment at this stage of the
game.

Aside from having the Eighth Circuit or Supreme Court court vacate your
conviction, your only remedy would be a presidential pardon.

I wonder if your lawyer considered a constitutional challenge to the statute
asserting a violation of the due process right to privacy a la Griswold
.

reply to this

|6.7.11 @ 8:08AM|#

[I'd still be there if I could.]

Not repentant?

What is it with you guys that suck off the public tit anyway?? Whether it's
an elected or contracted position to piss away someone else's money it's all the
same. I'd give you 20 years just for having that job.

reply to this

|6.7.11 @ 1:21PM|#

We're even then. I'd give you 20 for being a fucking moron.

reply to this

|6.7.11 @ 4:15PM|#

Reducing these social costs is an urgent priority.

For whom? Sure as hell not for me. I stayed in school; I worked hard, I
stayed away from stuff that would fuck up my life, I have a good job, I live in
a nice house in a nice neighborhood. The ones that don't can kiss my ass. I was
an inner-city kid raised in a roach-infested tenement by a single alcoholic
mother. The poor downtrodden criminals had the same or even better choices than
I did.

Successful programs now offer transitional jobs to released prisoners,
support the children of incarcerated parents, cultivate police-community
relations, and send fewer people to prison in the first place. Measures like
these reduce the social damage of mass incarceration and promise a sustainable
public safety.

Or here's a novel idea: how about they just not commit crimes? How about a
"successful program" where we expect people to be responsible for their choices
and accept the consequences of lousy ones themselves?

Seems the author's idea of a "successful program" is not one that prevents
crime (he offers no measures of whether his "successful programs" ever achieve
that), but a program that prevents career losers and the kids they've
unfortunately burdened the planet with from feeling the consequences of their
actions. Not my definition of "successful."

I really don't give a shit about the "social damage of mass incarceration."
You make your bed, you lie in it, you breed, your whole family lies in it. Not
my problem.

reply to this

cga1234|6.7.11
@ 4:37PM|#

The more convictions, the more prisons, and the more prison workers, and
union members, and municipalities that get relatively high paying government
jobs. The real reason we put so many black people in prison? There's a huge
constituency for prisons, and blacks are easy.

Just keep in mind all you law and order types: There was a recent study done
that says with the proliferation of new federal government laws and regs, a high
percentage of Americans have broken the law within the last year, often
unknowingly, at a level which could justify incarceration.
Vote libertarian.
The ass you save may be your own.

reply to this

|6.7.11 @ 5:38PM|#

Niggers are more violent. They commit more domestic violence and theft than
all the other races combined.

reply to this

|6.7.11 @ 5:41PM|#

http://www.findcounseling.com/journal/domestic-violence/domestic-violence-references.html

reply to this

|6.7.11 @ 8:22PM|#

The more convictions, the more prisons, and the more prison workers, and
union members, and municipalities that get relatively high paying government
jobs.

Assuming we stick with government-run prisons, and keep locking people up for
"offenses" that cause harm or loss to no one but the offenders.

The real reason we put so many black people in prison?

Because they commit more crimes?

reply to this

Leave a Comment

* NAME:

EMAIL: WEBSITE: Remember name, email, and website on this
computer for 30 days? * COMMENT:

Related Articles (Crime, Criminal Justice)

The
Persecution of John Edwards, Steve Chapman, June 9, 2011

Prison
Math, Veronique de Rugy, June 8, 2011

Ends and
Means, Jacob Sullum, June 8, 2011

Wrongful
Convictions, Radley Balko, June 7, 2011

Declare
Defeat and Go Home, A. Barton Hinkle, June 7, 2011

Latest Articles on Reason Online

The
Cancer of Government Regulation, John Stossel, June 9, 2011

Ron
Paul’s Radical Vision, Brian Doherty, June 9, 2011

The
Persecution of John Edwards, Steve Chapman, June 9, 2011

Reason.tv:
3 Reasons Not to Fund Art with Taxes (& Yes, There's a Weiner
Connection!), June 8, 2011

Prison
Math, Veronique de Rugy, June 8, 2011

The
Trouble with ObamaCare, David Harsanyi, June 8, 2011

More
Central Planning: The Failed Panacea for Health Care Reform, Ronald
Bailey, June 8, 2011

Latest Posts on Hit & Run

"Medicare
spends a fortune each year on procedures that have no proven benefit and
should not be covered.", Peter Suderman, June 9, 2011

In
Order to Comply With Obama's Transparency Pledge, NSA Declassifies a
200-Year-Old Document, Mike Riggs, June 9, 2011

Tennessee
Probably Doesn't Want You Watching Human Centipede II Either,
Peter Suderman, June 9, 2011

Cicada
Ice Cream: Crunchy, Delicious, and Banned, Katherine Mangu-Ward,
June 9, 2011

ICE
Raids Small-Town Colorado Dairy and Locks Up Undocumented Dads in the Name of
National Security, Mike Riggs, June 9, 2011

Ayn
Rand, Herbert Spencer, and ObamaCare, Damon W. Root, June 9, 2011

Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey

Differences on Social
Security Reform (5.27)

Poll Shows Age Gap On
Social Security Reform (5.25)

Even Government Workers
Support a Flat Tax (5.24)

Differences of Opinion
Over Private Sector, Government Worker Benefits (5.24)

Half of Americans Say
Government Workers Get Better Benefits Than Private Sector Workers
(5.24)

Most Popular Stories

Viewed

Commented

Emailed

No
Really: SWAT Team Raids House at 6 AM and Handcuffs Father of Three Young Kids
to Execute a Dept. of Education Search Warrant for Estranged Wife's Defaulted
Student Loans (6.8)

Dept.
of Education SWAT Raid Update: Not for a Student Loan, DoE Says (6.8)

The
Lessons of Weinergate (6.7)

UPDATE:
Weiner admits to it all, says he won't resign! Probably About Time to Say
Goodbye to Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) (6.6)

Declare
Defeat and Go Home (6.7)

No
Really: SWAT Team Raids House at 6 AM and Handcuffs Father of Three Young Kids
to Execute a Dept. of Education Search Warrant for Estranged Wife's Defaulted
Student Loans (6.8)

Federal
Judge: “Taken seriously, Citizens United requires that corporations
and individuals be afforded equal rights to political speech,
unqualified.” (6.8)

Reason
Morning Links: Sandbags, Bitcoins, and "Total War" (6.9)

Miami
Police Shoot Man to Death, Attempt to Steal/Destroy All Video Evidence of
Shooting Man to Death (6.8)

Should
Rep. Weiner Resign? Get the Heave-Ho? Keep Serving His District? Two Views
(6.7)

No
Really: SWAT Team Raids House at 6 AM and Handcuffs Father of Three Young Kids
to Execute a Dept. of Education Search Warrant for Estranged Wife's Defaulted
Student Loans (6.8)

Wrongful
Convictions (6.7)

Dept.
of Education SWAT Raid Update: Not for a Student Loan, DoE Says (6.8)

Prison
Math (6.8)

Locked Up,
Locked Out (6.6)

advertisements

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

First Name
Last Name Email Manage your Reason e-mail list
subscriptions

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

(310) 367-6109

Editorial & Production Offices:

3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310)
391-2245

Home|About|Advertise|Privacy|Contact
Copyright 2011, Reason
Magazine