When Institutional Reform Litigation Backfires: The Case of Prison Overcrowding

• In Event: 036 - Section on Sociology of Law Paper Session. Legal Mobilization and Institutional Politics

Abstract

Attempts to reform prisons through the courts were sparked by civil rights and prison rights movements and spearheaded by the ACLU. Although frequently victorious in court, most prison reform litigation took place during the ‘tough on crime’ era and expansion of the prison system. What are the possibilities and limits of achieving the aims of social movements through the courts in an unfavorable political environment? This paper uses the case of prison overcrowding litigation in the U.S. to examine this question. We use insights derived from the endogeneity of law perspective to develop expectations about the likely impact of overcrowding litigation on five outcomes: prison admissions, prison releases, spending on prison capacity, prison crowding and incarceration rates. Using newly available data on prison overcrowding litigation cases joined with panel data from U.S. states from 1971-1996, we offer a novel and comprehensive analysis of the impact that overcrowding litigation has had on U.S prisons. We find that it had no impact on admissions or release rates and did not lead to any reduction in prison crowding. Litigation did, however, lead to an increase in spending on prison capacity and incarceration rates. We discuss the implications of these results for endogeneity of law theory, attempts to achieve reform through litigation, and the politics of prison construction.

Authors

• Josh Guetzkow, Hebrew University

• Eric W. Schoon, University of Arizona