In July 1, 2003, Tuesday in USA TODAY

States may regret reforms


July 1, 2003, Tuesday, FIRST EDITION


LENGTH: 397 words

BYLINE: John Lott


Prison deters crime. It also keeps violent criminals off the street. Research by economists consistently indicates that while most of the drop in violent crime during the 1990s occurred because of more arrests and convictions, longer prison sentences also played a role, albeit a lesser one.

As crime has fallen, we have had more and more resources devoted to catching and punishing fewer and fewer criminals. That further raises the likelihood of detection, punishment and reducing crime.

Unfortunately, after years of large increases in state government expenditures, many states face big deficits. Although expenditures on incarceration make up less than 4% of state budgets, the pressure to cut is still there. Some states are considering eliminating mandatory minimum sentencing, revisiting three-strike rules or reforming sentencing guidelines.

Whatever the budget implications, some welcome the changes simply because they believe many penalties are too harsh. A number of studies indicate that three-strike rules significantly reduce crime, and states that have implemented them experience thousands of fewer violent crimes. Stiffer penalties for repeat criminals may also be justified simply because there is less doubt that the party being punished is really guilty.

But not all increases in penalties are equally successful in reducing crime. Some misguidedly focus on how the crime is committed -- such as with a gun -- rather than on the crime itself. Criminals frequently enough can change the weapon used in a crime. Unfortunately, none of the studies examining statutory minimums for using a gun in a crime has found a significant reduction in violent rates.

Sentencing reforms have produced some perverse results. For example, the primary goal of sentencing guidelines was to reduce the disparity among criminals who committed the same crime. Yet, by equalizing only prison sentences, the guidelines make it impossible for judges to equalize the "total" penalty, which can include fines and restitution. How these are imposed can vary dramatically among criminals.

Sentencing can be improved, and some penalties are too high, but if the reformers get their way, expect one thing: higher violent crime rates. John Lott is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank, and the author of The Bias Against Guns. LOAD-DATE: July 01, 2003

States may regret reforms
Home (description of book, downloadable data sets, and discussions of previous controversies)

Academic papers:

Social Science Research Network

Book Reviews:

For a list of book reviews on The Bias Against Guns, click here.

List of my Op-eds

Posts by topic

Appalachian law school attack

Baghdad murder rate

Arming Pilots

Fraudulent website pretending to be run by me

Ayres and Donohue

Stanford Law Review

Mother Jones article

Vin Suprynowicz quote


Craig Newmark

Eric Rasmusen

William Sjostrom

Dr. T's

Interview with National Review Online

Lyonette Louis-Jacques's page on Firearms Regulation Worldwide

The End of Myth: An Interview with Dr. John Lott

Cold Comfort, Economist John Lott discusses the benefits of guns--and the hazards of pointing them out.

An interview with John R. Lott, Jr. author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws

Some data not found at

Updated Media Analysis of Appalachian Law School Attack

Since the first news search was done additional news stories have been added to Nexis:

There are thus now 218 unique stories, and a total of 294 stories counting duplicates (the stories in yellow were duplicates): Excel file for general overview and specific stories. Explicit mentions of defensive gun use increase from 2 to 3 now.

Journal of Legal Studies paper on spoiled ballots during the 2000 Presidential Election

Data set from USA Today, STATA 7.0 data set

"Do" File for some of the basic regressions from the paper