David Brooks: Correctional Contrarian

In his latest op-ed for The New York Times, David Brooks attempts to interject a more nuanced approach to explaining the exponential growth of The United States’ prison population. Brooks, a founding senior editor of the über-conservative Weekly Standard, has long played the role of center-right Devil’s Advocate in response to liberal talking points. His latest effort provides establishment conservatives and “blue dog” Democrats alike a rebuttal to arm themselves with should Liberals' conventional wisdom on prison reform make its way round the water-cooler.

According to Brooks, the war on drugs and the prevalence of mandatory minimum sentencing are little more than scapegoats for the problem, taking the lion’s share of public attention while deeper, more systemic causes continue to be ignored. In many respects, Brooks is right on the money: there is no easy catch-all solution to be found by simply eliminating the war on drugs or mandatory minimums. There is also plenty need to focus on the other causes he lists, such as the tactics of overzealous prosecutors and the social blight experienced by underprivileged communities.

That being said, it's not too clear what Brooks is advocating, other than a closer examination of the problem. If he believes that the ultimate solution for The United States’ absurdly high incarceration rate is an aggregate of smaller reforms, then why cast aside the push to end the war on drugs and mandatory minimum sentencing? Brooks, quoting an article in Slate, asserts that a mass exodus of drug offenders from the prison population would only reduce it by about 300,000. One must ask, is releasing a group of incarcerated U.S. citizens equivalent to the population of Cincinnati really just a drop in the bucket? Brooks also writes that the theory of mandatory minimum sentencing driving an increase in prison populations is “problematic” because most prisoners only serve three to five years, but many mandatory minimums imposed by federal law range from one to five years for non-violent offenses, and small change adds up.

In the end, Brooks’s editorial succeeds in providing a little more substance to the discussion on prison reform, advocating the need for a myriad of various solutions, not simply one great overhaul. Still, until his argument provides actual suggestions on policy, his incredulity concerning the reforms already touted by many seems to be throwing out the baby while keeping the bathwater.