One of the more contentious debates about the relationship between crime and incarceration has centered on what the nature of the link is between increased/decreased crime rates and increased/decreased rates of incarceration. Does locking more people up reduce crime? Is there a demonstrable or direct relationship between the two?

The answer is complex, and those that have tried to understand this link have struggled to capture the data in a way that impacts public policy. But, there are a few things we do know: (1) crime has gone down substantially both in states that experienced growth in incarceration rates as well as those in which the incarceration rate decreased; (2) there is increasing evidence that alternatives to incarceration seem to produce a better return on our investment than incarceration; and (3) we need to be “smart” about what works more than we need to be “tough” about what works – and yet, some policy makers demand relatively little evidence of success from the most costly forms of intervention, namely incarceration.

Two relatively recent publications from the Justice Policy Institute highlight some of the news about these issues. First, The Costs of Confinement: Why Good Juvenile Justice Policies Makes Good Fiscal Sense contrasts the costs-benefits of confinement with the costs-benefits of good community based practices; and, a recent posting that highlights the 2010 FBI Uniform Crime report data showing that even as incarceration rates fall crime continues to go down substantially.

As policy-makers in Wisconsin go down the road of revoking provisions for Earned Release and other practices that at least show overall promise (despite anecdotes to the contrary), we have to ask what direction we are headed in and wonder whether anyone can stand up to the attitude that high rates of incarceration are justified by the evidence about what works.