The claim that American justice system engages in “mass incarceration” is now a cliche´, albeit one that seems entirely justified by both the number and rate of people who are behind bars. As a result, a large number of states and the federal government have engaged in wide-ranging reform efforts to shorten sentences, divert people from prison, and in general reduce incarceration numbers to more manageable levels. Although these efforts have made modest gains, there has been little discussion of whether their ultimate goal is feasible—reducing incarceration levels to a point where “mass” incarceration is no longer an apt description.This article explores the likelihood of a meaningful, sustained reduction in incarceration rates. It begins by asking what we really mean by mass incarceration and finds that while the definition is surprisingly complex, the label ultimately seems justified. Then, using existing and original compilations of data, the article examines some of the less-obvious obstacles to reducing prison populations. In particular, it highlights the difficulty of reducing incarceration rates without addressing the problems created by those convicted of violent crimes, something few reforms have been willing or able to do. It also argues that those who believe prison reform will lead to economic savings—a primary motivation in virtually every state—are misguided, and that illusion of economic savings might ultimately derail the reform efforts.The article then takes a further step and suggests that efforts to decrease incarceration levels will inevitably be frustrated unless the most influential per-son in the creation of mass incarceration, the prosecutor, is induced to play a more central role. To date, reform efforts have routinely targeted everyone in the process except prosecutors, and this article offers both suggestions on why this is so and an argument for why prosecutors are an indispensable part of any change. The article concludes with the sobering prediction that, as useful as recent reforms have been, as currently constructed they will ultimately be inadequate to erase the mass incarceration label for years to come.

中文翻译：

---

大规模监禁是不可避免的吗？

美国司法系统从事“大规模监禁”的说法现在已经是陈词滥调了，尽管从被关押的人数和比率来看似乎完全有道理。因此，许多州和联邦政府都进行了广泛的改革努力，以缩短刑期、将人从监狱中转移出来，并将监禁人数总体上减少到更易于管理的水平。尽管这些努力取得了一定的成果，但很少讨论其最终目标是否可行——将监禁水平降低到“大规模”监禁不再是恰当描述的程度。本文探讨了有意义的、持续的减少的可能性在监禁率方面。它首先询问我们所说的大规模监禁的真正含义是什么，并发现虽然定义出奇地复杂，但这个标签最终似乎是合理的。然后，使用现有的和原始的数据汇编，文章检查了减少监狱人口的一些不太明显的障碍。特别是，它强调了在不解决被判犯有暴力罪行的人所造成的问题的情况下降低监禁率的困难，很少有改革愿意或能够做到这一点。它还认为，那些相信监狱改革会带来经济储蓄——几乎每个州的主要动机——的人都被误导了，经济储蓄的幻想可能最终使改革工作脱轨。然后，这篇文章又进一步提出，除非诱导大规模监禁的最有影响力的人检察官扮演更重要的角色，否则降低监禁水平的努力将不可避免地受挫。迄今为止，改革工作通常针对除检察官之外的每个人进行改革，本文提供了关于为什么会这样的建议以及为什么检察官是任何变革不可或缺的一部分的论点。文章最后做出了一个发人深省的预测，即尽管最近的改革很有用，但按照目前的结构，它们最终将不足以在未来几年内抹去大规模监禁的标签。改革努力通常针对除检察官外的每个人，本文提供了关于为什么会这样的建议以及为什么检察官是任何变革不可或缺的一部分的论点。文章最后做出了一个发人深省的预测，即尽管最近的改革很有用，但按照目前的结构，它们最终将不足以在未来几年内抹去大规模监禁的标签。改革努力通常针对除检察官外的每个人，本文提供了关于为什么会这样的建议以及为什么检察官是任何变革不可或缺的一部分的论点。文章最后做出了一个发人深省的预测，即尽管最近的改革很有用，但按照目前的结构，它们最终将不足以在未来几年内抹去大规模监禁的标签。