But what about the kids?

A decarceration movement has taken hold in the United States over the last several years. One powerful argument used by decarceration advocates evokes concern for the family. The argument is that putting a parent in jail causes so much harm to the person’s child or children that the benefits to the community of incarceration are outweighed by the negative impact on the child and family. Specifically, that the child is deprived of emotional and financial support, which then perpetuates the cycle of poverty and dysfunction.

Maybe.

The decarceration argument assumes that the incarcerated parent was providing or will provide proper emotional and financial support to begin with. This necessary premise is rarely acknowledged. Yet, the reality is that leaving the criminal parent in the home is going to cause more harm to the child most of the time.

The percentages differ from study to study, but a survey of studies reveals that between 40 and 70 percent of people in prison meet the criteria for anti-social personal disorder. This is compared to a 1 to 3 percent prevalence among the general population.

Additionally, studies suggest that as much as 85% of the prison population abuses drugs. Obviously, there is significant overlap in the anti-social and drug-abusing populations. The two disorders combined make a very dangerous cocktail.

If the overriding goal is to keep families intact, then there is a better than fifty percent chance that you are placing the child with an anti-social drug abuser. Anti-social, drug abusing parents, it should come as no surprise, have a negative impact on a child’s well-being and long-term chances for success. The research establishes that the child is better off with that kind of parent absent.

The Indiana sentencing statute requires judges to contemplate the impact on children when a parent is incarcerated. The statute allows the judge to mitigate a sentence when incarceration would be an undue hardship on the child or family. Some cases interpreting the statute highlight the qualifier, “undue,” and note that incarceration always impacts the family. These cases hold that the hardship must be extraordinary before mitigation can be found. The statute and cases allow plenty of room for judges to contemplate whether the child is better off with or without the criminal parent in the home.

The clamor for decarceration says that an intact family is paramount. The research and common sense say that the kind of person headed to prison is harmful to the people around them. Our duty is to tune out the clamor and follow the truth.

This article is influenced heavily by the work of Rafael Mangual, the head of research for the Policing and Public Safety Initiative at the Manhattan Institute. Mr. Mangual recently released a book exploring this and related issues. The book is called Criminal (In)Justice, and is excerpted in a recent article he published. You can read the article here.