A New Project Exile
By Dan Gelernter
It is hardly surprising that, as the population in the United States continues to increase, and as we continue to incarcerate a greater percentage of criminals, the prison populations are swelling. A 2004 report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics gives us the most recent information available on “correctional populations”: there are a total of nearly seven million men in prison or jail or on probation or parole. Twenty years earlier, in 1984, the total was well under three million.
It seems that we must either continue to build more prisons to hold more criminals, or allow more men who deserve prison time to roam free.
One of the major problems in our justice system is the phenomenon of recidivism – that is, of convicted criminals relapsing into crime time and time again. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2002 “Profile of Jail Inmates,” a full 41% of men in jail had a current (pending arraignment) or prior violent offence. According to the most recent study of recidivism, which tracked prisoners released in 1994, 67.5% – more than two thirds! – of prisoners released that year were re-arrested on new charges within three years. (The highest rate was for those possessing or selling stolen property – 77.4%). The recidivism report states, “The 272,111 offenders discharged in 1994 had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.” That works out to about 18 charges per criminal. In 2002, 5.9% of jail inmates had 11 or more prior sentences. These impressive numbers tell us that, while there are relatively few criminals in the US, those that are here tend to be devoted to their work.
Instead of keeping these moral degenerates in prison for their entire lifetimes, intermittently letting them out so they can steal something or kill someone, we could ship them elsewhere. Felony convicts already loose a fundamental chunk of their rights as a citizen – they cannot vote. In four states, felony convicts loose the right to vote for life. Here is a new proposal: a second felony conviction costs a criminal all of his rights as a citizen and he is deported. Permanently.
The practice of exiling criminals (“transportation” is the correct term) isn’t new – during the 1800s the British exiled some 161,000 convicts to penal colonies in Australia. Since about 1860, however, the idea of sending criminals to forced labor camps has become unpopular in the west (though it is still the practice in dictatorships such as North Korea and China). What I am proposing is not a labor camp – in fact, my scheme doesn’t even have to involve imprisonment.
We would find some obliging, relatively desolate and remote country to accept our two-time felony convicts, paying that country an agreed price per capita. We would, of course, be humane, and offer to ship criminals along with their immediate families, if they so desired, and furthermore we’d grant full citizenship to children born in exile and allow them to return the US if they choose. For the purposes of this gedanken experiment I chose Chad as the receiving country – it has one of the lowest population densities of any nation, and yet plenty of space for people – including criminals – to kick around in. (In addition to which, it would not be the greatest catastrophe if a few of the deportees happened to wander into neighboring Sudan or Niger). Chad’s population density is about 20 people per square mile, compared with 80 people per square mile in the US and the world average of 124. Chad could accept 30 million prisoners before its population density would equal the United States’ and 52 million before they reached the world average – not that we’d have nearly that many to send.
Use the figure of 41% for two-time violent offenders in jail and apply it to our criminal population at large (minus those on probation) and we’d have around 1.2 million criminals awaiting banishment. If each criminal brings along three members of his immediate family, that would be about 5 million total. It’s quite possible that Chad would be happy to accept our rejects in exchange for $5 billion – or $1000 per head. That’s about $200 million more than Chad’s annual GDP at the official exchange rate, according to the CIA’s World Factbook site.
Such a plan would have many positive effects, including a lessening of the strain on our prisons (I think they’re called “correctional facilities” now) and a pincer attack on the crime rate from two angles: First, we would never again return dedicated criminals to our streets. Second, a criminal will know right up front what he is risking in committing a felony. Recall “Project Exile”, an anti gun-crime program that began in Richmond, Virginia in 1997. As Senator Sessions explained in a July 28, 2005 speech to the Senate, “In 1997, there were 140 homicides in Richmond. Just one year after the project was initiated, the overall murder rate dropped 36 percent, the number of firearm homicides dropped 41 percent, and robberies dropped by one-third. In 2000, 3 years after Project Exile was implemented in Richmond, there were only 72 homicides during the year 2000, close to a 50-percent reduction… Billboards all over Richmond broadcast it: An illegal gun gets you 5 years in Federal prison. It resonated throughout the community. Police and criminals knew the stories of what was happening on the streets. The criminals would throw away guns when officers approached.” It helps to let a criminal know exactly what he’s getting into.
It might also be worth noting that, since Crime and Human Nature by Wilson and Herrnstein puts the average IQ of a criminal at 85, and IQ researchers Lynn and Vanhanen put the average IQ in Chad at 72, transporting our felony convicts would result in a very slight IQ increase in both countries.
We could call this the “Second Chance Law” (“Project Exile” is already taken). If you commit a felony, you serve your prison time and get a second chance to behave like a normal citizen. If you commit a second felony, the public gets a chance to be safe from you forever. The message to the potential outlaw would be crystal clear: America will not tolerate a criminal. If you can’t live by our laws, then we don’t want you here.
Anyone up for a holiday in Chad?
-
5 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (5)
Not surprisingly, you've offered another thoughtful (and provocative) piece. That said, I'm not sure if I'm ready to endorse your prisoner "transportation" scheme.
First, let me mention a small quibble I have with your proposition to target the nation of Chad. Their population density is extremely low due, in large part, to the fact that much of the country is uninhabitable. The Sahara desert and barren mountains dominate much of Chad's terrain. So that disrupts your equation a bit.
But here are my larger questions:
1) While American criminals (who are US citizens) are stripped of certain liberties upon imprisonment, do they not retain other Constitutionals rights--even behind bars? In regards to your proposed punishment, the phrase "cruel and unusual" comes to mind. Do you propose stripping all repeat criminals of their citizenship, thus negating all of their rights, in order to carry out this plan?
2) Aside from money, what incentive does Chad (or any other country) have to accept America's hardened criminals? You said that these prisoners would not actually be held in captivity after deportation...so where would they go, exactly? It seems like you're suggesting that these felons would be free to roam about Chad, presumably to commit crimes willy-nilly (based on the recidivism statistics you referenced). This would amount to a guaranteed spike in Chad’s national crime rate, placing new burdens on local law enforcement.
3) Would the US government assign a standard set of financial resources to each criminal in order that he have the capacity to start a life in a foreign land? Would rich criminals' personal fortunes be confiscated prior to deportation? If not, wouldn't your policy favor wealthier inmates who could afford to simply get the hell out of Chad, whereas indigent criminals would be forced to languish there for years? Come to think of it, what—if any—steps would be implemented to ensure that our criminals stay in Chad? I suppose we’d try to prevent them from re-entering the US, too. How would this work? As many conservatives are well aware, our immigration enforcement is not exactly spectacular.
4) You said that we’d “allow” these criminals’ offspring to return to the US from Chad if they chose to do so. Would this choice be offered at age 18? Why would any of them have chosen to be transplanted in the first place? This leads to anther issue: Who would make the decisions about who goes and who stays in the deportation process? The convicted felon?! Wouldn’t this also constitute a grave injustice to any minors who were transported against their will? I can’t imagine there’s much of an English-speaking public education system in Chad, thus placing any transported child at a distinct intellectual disadvantage should he choose to return to the US later in life (by the way, at whose expense?) It is immoral to punish the children or relatives of criminals for their relation’s deeds. Transporting an illiterate, malnourished 18-year-old back to the US after years away from home would put him in a very tight spot, indeed. I doubt he’d have many job prospects. I wonder how he might muster basic sustenance? Perhaps by “possessing or selling stolen property.” That sure sounds familiar.
5) Why drag IQ into this? I know that you are particularly interested in that subject, but I think that the national IQ of Chad (or the US, for that matter) should factor into our law-enforcement policy.
I’ll concede that you’re certainly right that the banishment plan would serve as a powerful deterrant, but couldn’t we also strengthen our laws as an alternative? That seems like the sensible thing to do in dealing with our own criminals.
In reply to your first point, it is true that any exile law is certain to be challenged. I wouldn’t exactly call the punishment “unusual” – I think “innovative” would be a better description. It would certainly be cruel from the criminal’s point of view (considering that he probably doesn’t want to go) but I would attempt to defend such punishment by invoking the necessary and proper clause (the “elastic clause”), Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and argue that, as it is the government’s duty to punish criminals, and since the high rate of recidivism and of crime in general demonstrates that our current methods are inadequate, it is both necessary and proper for a new form of punishment to be enacted (one that is not cruel because of our allowing families to go along etc.). I’m not sure if the defense would be tenable (it’s up to the lawyers) but it’s worth a try.
Chad’s only incentive is the money – an exceptionally substantial amount that is at least as great as their annual GDP. If they won’t accept our criminals, there must be some nation that would; perhaps we could make a number of deals to exile smaller numbers to a variety of countries. The specific target country doesn’t matter, but it seems reasonable to expect that one could be found. Once Chad accepts our criminals, of course, what the criminals do in Chad is Chad’s problem. Chad can let them wander all over the continent – it’s possible that many will end up in bordering desolate and remote countries. It’s likely that a smaller portion will sneak into Europe, and that a relatively very small number will sneak back into the US (despite out best attempts to keep them out). But the more they are spread out, to a certain extent, the better, and I quite frankly would prefer for criminals to criminalize against non-Americans (if we accept the premise that, unless we kill them, criminals will be criminals). I had even considered shipping the felons to Guantanamo and letting them overrun Cuba – that idea, admittedly, has a different goal. The basic scheme is to put them anywhere but where they are now.
This relates to your later point of the mal-nourished child as well: it might be a good idea for the US to take the money it no longer needs for prisons here, and to build shelters and food kitchens in Chad, which could be used by the criminals and Chadians as well.
I don’t believe that the US can confiscate the criminal’s money, but that it may be a good idea for the government to insure that each deportee has a certain amount (say at least $1000) before leaving. This expense, even coupled with the cost of transport and of buying the penal colony, must be less that it will cost to keep the men in prison for many years.
This policy would favor wealthier inmates. If they’ve stolen the money from somewhere, it will be confiscated; but if they’ve earned it, they can keep it – fair is fair.
I’d suggest that it be the choice of each person involved as to whether he should go or not, and that in the case of minors, the decision be made by the closest non-minor relative who is not the criminal himself. If the criminal is the only relative of a minor, a review board could be set up to determine whether he should go or not, as in a child-abuse case.
I site the point of IQ primarily as a curiosity. Remember though, that GDP correlates strongly to IQ (as documents in Lynn and Vanhanen’s IQ and the Wealth of Nations) and it is possible that the injection of higher IQ genes (criminal-prone as they are) could have good long-term affects for the Chadian economy.
Strengthening our laws would be an excellent idea; I’m sure that life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for two-time felony convicts would be an exceptionally powerful deterrent as well. It’s not as cost effective, but certainly something to think about. My underlying thesis is that we must stop tolerating criminals. Put them away for good – somewhere
A federal judge in Ohio recently ruled against InnerChange Freedom Initiative (IFI), a faith-based program aimed at reducing recidivism and transforming felons into good citizens. The program was sued by Americans United For the Separation of Church and State on constitutional grounds. Now, while I support the legal right of this program to operate, that is not the purpose of this comment at this time. As this article notes (subscription required):
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/12117
"After less than 10 years with the whole program, and only six years here in this Iowa facility, it's a little early to compare IFI recidivism rates with the national average of 65 percent. Yet early indicators, buttressed by external professional studies, suggest that graduates from Unit E and other IFI units have an astonishingly lower rate of returning to prison—perhaps as low as under 20 percent."
My question is this: assuming this program will be allowed to operate, and assuming that other similar programs can be launched around the country, is this approach a better solution to our criminal problem than shipping them off?