A research paper of the Australian Productivity Commission.
Despite falling crime rates, imprisonment in Australia is at a historic high. There is no single reason why imprisonment in Australia has been increasing, but what we know is that ‘tough on crime’ policies have been a contributing factor.
This report looks at these trends and the underlying drivers. It also investigates the benefits and costs of imprisonment, and if there are any alternatives.
Executive Summary
Australia is locking up a record number of people. Our imprisonment rate has grown steadily since the 1980s and is around its highest level in a century (figure 1). On 30 June 2020, more than 40 000 Australians were in prison. Many more flow through the prison system each year. Over one third of prisoners are on remand, waiting for trial or sentencing. And nearly 60 per cent have been in prison before.
Figure 1 – Imprisonment is at historic highs, crime rates are fallinga,b,c
a. The imprisonment rate is the number of prisoners per 100 000 population aged 18 years and over. The homicide rate is the number of homicides per 100 000 persons. b. The homicide rate is considered a useful indicator of trends in the incidence of violent crime, as almost all homicides are reported to police and data are available over a long period (Bricknell 2008; Indermaur 1996). c. The fall in imprisonment during the COVID 19 pandemic appears to be due to a combination of falling prison receptions — due to a slowdown in court processing during lockdown periods — and an increase in prisoner discharge — due to a deliberate change of policies or practices that resulted in the release of more unsentenced prisoners on bail.
The increase in imprisonment cannot be explained solely by changes in either the amount or type of crime. It is, at least in part, a policy choice.
As a policy, imprisonment serves multiple objectives — deterring crime, removing dangerous individuals from the community, punishing and rehabilitating offenders, and supporting the rule of law. But it is also expensive. This raises a key economic question for policy makers. Is the current policy of increased use of imprisonment producing benefits for Australia that outweigh the costs? And what, if any, are the alternatives?
In this paper — the Productivity Commission’s first venture into research on the criminal justice system — we highlight the information, data and options that policy makers need to answer these questions. The Commission has used an economic approach to help guide policy makers in weighing up the benefits of criminal justice policies against their costs. Even though this is only one perspective, it provides valuable insights into the complex trade-offs facing policy makers.
Why are more people in prison?
Two broad changes are affecting Australia’s imprisonment rate.
Changes in the nature and reporting of crime: the level of imprisonment has changed due to changes in the level and mix of crime. There has been an increase in some types of serious crime, such as sexual assault and drug trafficking. But there has also been a decrease in other types of serious crime such as homicide and robbery. There is also evidence of increased reporting of crime, which raises the level of imprisonment. For example, in the past, there appears to have been under-reporting of some serious crimes, such as domestic violence and sexual assault, due to social stigma and cultural norms.
Changes in criminal justice policy: for example, in a number of states and territories, policies have made bail harder to access and remand the default position for a wide range of offences. Also, many jurisdictions have introduced prison-based mandatory sentencing. These policy changes mean that, for a given rate of crime, more people will spend more time in prison.
The evidence in this paper suggests that both of these changes underpin Australia’s current high imprisonment rate. However, the story is complex.
In part, the complexity reflects that criminal justice policy is largely a state-based issue. Australia has nine different criminal justice systems and the key drivers of increased imprisonment are different across these jurisdictions.
There is also a lack of reliable data that can be used to determine the importance of each type of change. Data gaps are pervasive at each point in an individual’s ‘prison journey’ — arrest, remand, trial, sentencing, and parole.
Even so, it is clear that increased imprisonment is partly the result of policy choices.
The trade-offs for prison policy
Governments have a range of policy levers that influence the level of imprisonment and the criminal justice system more broadly. Governments make laws and regulations that define what is a criminal offence and set some parameters for sanctions. They also manage and fund the main components of the criminal justice system: law enforcement, courts and corrective services.
Governments face trade-offs when designing prison policy. There are multiple, sometimes conflicting, objectives. Longer prison sentences or widening the range of crimes punishable by imprisonment, for example, might deter crime. It also might meet the community’s desire for justice for victims or to show its repugnance for some kinds of crime.
But a longer sentence could be disproportionate to the seriousness of the crime or may severely punish an individual for a one-time mistake. Longer imprisonment may also raise the likelihood of reoffending after release so that imprisonment may sometimes tradeoff short- and long-term safety of the community.
Different policies also have different costs. Prisons are expensive, costing Australian taxpayers more than $5 billion per year, or more than $330 per prisoner per day. In contrast, alternative punishments, such as community corrections orders, may have much lower costs. A community corrections order can cost as little as $30 per prisoner per day, but compared to imprisonment, changes the risks facing the community.
There are also indirect costs. As a deterrent to crime and punishment for crime, imprisonment imposes costs on prisoners, including through lost employment, poor health and family separation. However, some of these costs are likely to fall on prisoners’ families and society more generally.
Many of these costs are significant, but hard to measure. And it is people from society’s most disadvantaged groups, who are significantly over-represented in prisons, who tend to bear the brunt of these costs. In contrast, alternative punishments, such as diversion from prison, or reduced imprisonment, together with offenders engaging in ‘restorative justice’ with their victims, can significantly reduce these indirect costs.
Governments need to consider these trade-offs when designing prison policy. To do this, governments need information on the costs and benefits of both imprisonment and its alternatives.
What we do (and don’t do) in this paper
Prison policy is contentious. Views diverge widely on how best to balance the various objectives of the criminal justice system — be it keeping the community safe, punishing offenders or giving offenders a second chance through rehabilitation.
While this paper considers some of the complex trade-offs that policy-makers face, it does not reach conclusions about whether the ‘right’ trade-offs are being made.
Nor does this paper consider the root causes of crime, as important as these are. Similarly, it does not focus on the critical issues around youth justice, or the interaction between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the criminal justice system. These issues have been examined in detail in several recent reviews and are the subject of ongoing research.
Rather, this paper focuses on imprisonment, its costs and benefits, and some potential alternatives.
The paper begins with a detailed analysis of the data and trends underpinning Australia’s increased rate of imprisonment. The increase in the likelihood of receiving a prison sentence and longer sentences have consistently put upward pressure on imprisonment rates in most jurisdictions. Similarly, an increase in the number of prisoners on remand due to changing bail laws and length of court cases could be an important driver of rising imprisonment rates.
We then apply an economic framework to the underlying objectives and trade-offs in the prison system. This highlights the complex interactions that policy makers must consider when making decisions about criminal justice. At the same time, the paper draws out some of the key evidence gaps that prevent policy makers from making fully informed decisions.
Finally, we look at some alternative approaches to prison, drawing on case studies from Australia and overseas. Some are about diversion programs that can involve alternative courtroom setups and processes (for example, Victoria’s Assessment and Referral Court); alternative sanctions to prison for low- to moderate-risk offenders (for example, Operation Checkpoint in the United Kingdom); and restorative justice conferences (for example, the New Zealand model). Some, such as the Australian Capital Territory’s extended throughcare model, which provides continued support to prisoners for 12 months after their release, appear to be effective in reducing recidivism. Sometimes outcomes can be improved in prison, such as through intensive drug treatment or cognitive behaviour therapy (Washington State case studies).
These case studies aim to highlight alternatives for further investigation. Jurisdictions will need to carefully trial and evaluate any policy initiative to ensure that it works, is scalable and meets community expectations.
1.Building the evidence base — a critical first step
Empirical evidence is key to a proper assessment of the merits of new approaches in different jurisdictions, as well as to good program design and implementation. The Commission has come across some striking gaps in undertaking this project. As an example, the data do not provide a clear picture of how long people stay on remand. Nor is there a good understanding of reoffending patterns once people leave prison.
Some efforts are underway to fill these gaps. A joint project by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and several Australian Government agencies — the Multi-Agency Data Integration Project — is linking correctional data with other data sources, although data will not be available under this initiative for some time. Some jurisdictions, such as Victoria and Queensland, are also developing linked datasets using administrative data from the criminal justice system.
While there is some compelling Australian-based research, there are few systematic studies with sufficient empirical depth and theoretical ambition to inform large-scale policy reform and evaluation. Systematic studies of criminal justice processes and decision making (covering policing, prosecution, sentencing, correction and parole) in the Australian context are largely missing.
We also need more longitudinal studies of pathways through the criminal justice system and how these affect outcomes for different cohorts. As part of this, there remain important questions about the high rate of incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the fast-increasing female imprisonment rate in several jurisdictions.
There is also an emerging need to look at how new technologies interact with criminal justice: changing the opportunities for criminal behaviour, the ability to detect crime and apprehend criminals, and the range of effective sanctions for criminal behaviour.
While interdisciplinary collaboration is necessary to answer many of these research questions, the economic approach used in this paper provides some valuable insights.
Read the full Australia’s Prison Dilemma report.
