The Economist - USA (2020-03-28)

26 United States The EconomistMarch 28th 2020

2

1

of hygiene “extremely dangerous”. The cur-

rent crisis at least is raising public aware-

ness of “severe overcrowding and unsani-

tary conditions” for those locked up, says

Inimai Chettiar, of Justice Action Network,

which campaigns for reform.

In Harris County some pregnant in-

mates have been released. Those protest-

ing in Rikers want detainees aged 50 or old-

er sent home. Ohio’s chief justice has said

that people at highest risk of infection

must be isolated outside jails. Ms Oliver

notes that older inmates are both at risk

and pose little threat, as they are unlikely to

reoffend. A bill, hr4018, which was unani-

mously passed by the House last year and is

waiting to go before the Senate, would

make it easier for elderly prisoners to serve

the final third of their sentences at home.

Another effort in many states aims to

prevent people entering jails in the first

place. Sheriff Dart in Chicago says daily ar-

rivals have recently fallen by nearly half,

from 100, as police issue more citations

and arrest fewer offenders. That is becom-

ing common in dozens of counties and cit-

ies. In Baltimore the state attorney, Marilyn

Mosby, has told prosecutors to stop charg-

ing non-violent offenders such as those

caught dealing drugs, trespassing or ille-

gally selling sex. In Los Angeles, where

17,000 are in jail on an average day, officials

are aiming to get the population down by

2,000. Daily arrests there have dropped

from 300 to 60, says the sheriff.

Amid all this, there is an opportunity to

release those whose detention does little

for public safety. Of the 1.29m in state pri-

sons, according to the Prison Policy Initia-

tive, a think-tank, nearly half are held for

non-violent crimes. Three-quarters of the

631,000 in jails are awaiting trial, mostly on

non-violent charges. Those held for break-

ing parole conditions or not posting bail,

and those nearing the end of their sen-

tences, may all be let out early. Montana’s

chief justice has called for judges to free “as

many prisoners as you are able” in such

categories. One county jail in Kentucky re-

leased 120 of its 697 detainees this month.

The remaining population will be hard-

er to reduce, but some individuals who are

classed as “violent offenders” probably

also pose little threat to public safety, says

Julian Adler at the Centre for Court Innova-

tion in New York. He points out that some

defendants strike plea bargains and get a

record as violent, though they have never

inflicted or threatened physical harm on

any victim. “Statistics can mislead,” he

says. A getaway driver, convicted as an ac-

cessory to a robber, may count as a violent

felon. So may someone who brawled in a

bar. Mr Adler hopes the current push to re-

think who should be kept inside will

change public attitudes in the longer term.

This wish may not be forlorn. Efforts are

under way in several states to change laws

soastoshrinktheincarceratedpopulation:

bydoingawaywithcashbail,forexample,

orbygettingpolicetocarryoutfewerar-

restsfor misdemeanours. Such existing

programmesareroutinelybackedbyboth

politicalpartiesandhavemadeiteasierto

respondquicklyinthefaceofcovid-19,ac-

cordingtoLaurieGarduqueof theMac-

ArthurFoundation,whichfundsresearch

onjailreform.Thespeedyactionofmany

courts,sheriffsandotherofficialsinthe

pastweekorsoshedescribesasadmirable.

Thepandemicbringsa reminderthatsoci-

ety’smostvulnerable—thepoor,homeless

and mentally ill—commonly end up in

jails.Effortstohelpthemnoware“notrad-

ical”,saysMsGarduque,“butarepushing

inthesamedirectionthatweknewfrom

before.”Afterthepandemic,shepredicts,

“wecangoevenfurther.”^7

Behindbarschart

UnitedStates,shareoffederalandstateinmates*

Byselectedgroups,2020,%

Sources:PrisonPolicyInitiative;PewTrusts *Jailsandprisons

Immigrantdetention

Youths(<18)and

seniors(55+)

Notconvicted

Non-violentoffenders

6040200

Total,’000

42

208

636

909

B

y conventionalmeasures, American

teenagers have become prudish. Less

than half of high-school students are hav-

ing sex, with fewer partners and more con-

traception than the generation before

them. Teen-pregnancy rates have never

been lower. But those indicators no longer

offer a complete picture: online, teens are

bucking the trend. In 2019, among 12- to 17-

year-olds, 14% reported sending nude im-

ages, compared with 12% three years earli-

er; 23% received them, up from 19%. The

steady climb may reflect rising smart-

phone use and changing social norms.

What it certainly reflects, says Justin

Patchin, of the University of Wisconsin-

Eau Claire, is that “the current approach to

stop this isn’t working.”

For a decade, the prevailing advice to

teens about sexting has been straightfor-

ward: don’t. In about half of states it is ille-

gal for under-18s to sext, on child-pornog-

raphy grounds. Legal punishments for

minors are rare, but widely publicised in

hard-line sex-education literature. One

sexting-prevention programme in Con-

necticut, sponsored by the state’s criminal-

justice division, warns would-be sexters

that “your family members are eventually

very likely to see any images you send elec-

tronically,” and friends may be “ashamed

to be associated with you.” Public-school

lesson plans from one county in Florida are

bluntly entitled “Sexting Over the Net! stop

it now” and “Safe Sexting: No Such Thing.”

Those reactions are understandable.

But they are based on misconceptions of

the problem. “We wasted so much time try-

ing to figure out why kids were sexting,” la-

ments Joris Van Ouytsel of the University of

Antwerp, who began studying the topic in

2013. More important, researchers now
      broadly agree, is the context in which chil-
      dren are doing it. Just as it is offline, con-
      sent is vital. Things go wrong when teen-
      agers pressure and coerce others, most
      often girls and younger teenagers, to send
      nude photos; or forward them to someone
      else, as happens in 4% of cases.
      Conflation of abusive and non-abusive
      sexting has led to an oversimplified re-
      sponse. The onus of most interventions
      has been on the sender. But Jeff Temple, of
      the University of Texas Medical Branch at
      Galveston, notes that such thinking ig-
      nores the fact that sext-senders are often
      the victims of harassment. It also lets off
      teenagers who demand sexts or share them
      without permission, and leaves out the re-
      cipients of unsolicited ones who have been
      “cyber-flashed”. In some places sexting
      laws lump together teenagers who take
      nude photos of themselves, technically
      creating child pornography, with adult
      predators. Some states, including New
      Mexico and Washington, have begun decri-
      minalising sexting between minors—a
      good first step.
      “We have to stop being distracted by the
      fact that sexting involves digital technol-
      ogy,” says Elizabeth Englander, director of
      the Massachusetts Aggression Reduction
      Centre. Instead, she argues, it is “part and
      parcel of sexual development”. The inter-
      net has spawned novel abuses with wider-
      than-ever reach, but they tend to mirror
      those in the real world. For instance, more
      than a quarter of teenagers in relationships
      suffer “digital-dating abuse”, where one
      partner uses technology to snoop on,
      threaten or stalk the other; 35.9% of teen-
      age victims have also suffered that offline.
      Yet most sex education is stuck in ana-
      logue. New Jersey is rare in covering sext-
      ing problems in its curriculum; in Decem-
      ber a bill was introduced to incorporate it
      in Illinois, too. The question that remains
      is what they should be teaching. To find
      out, researchers discussed some anti-sext-

WASHINGTON, DC

American teenagers are having less

real sex, but more of a virtual kind

Teenage sexting

Sharing and not

caring