Criminal (In)Justice: What the Push for Decarceration and Depolicing Gets Wrong and Who It Hurts Most

by Rafael A. Mangual

In his impassioned-yet-measured book, Rafael A. Mangual offers an incisive critique of America's increasingly radical criminal justice reform movement, and makes a convincing case against the pursuit of "justice" through mass-decarceration and depolicing. After a summer of violent protests in 2020—sparked by the deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Rayshard Brooks—a dangerously false narrative gained mainstream Criminal justice in the United States is overly punitive and racially oppressive . But, the harshest and loudest condemnations of incarceration, policing, and prosecution are often shallow and at odds with the available data. And the significant harms caused by this false narrative are borne by those who can least afford black and brown people who are disproportionately the victims of serious crimes. In Criminal (In)Justice , Rafael A. Mangual offers a more balanced understanding of American criminal justice, and cautions against discarding traditional crime control measures. A powerful combination of research, data-driven policy journalism, and the author's lived experiences, this book explains what many reform advocates get wrong, and illustrates how the misguided commitment to leniency places America's most vulnerable communities at risk.  The stakes of this moment are incredibly high. Ongoing debates over criminal justice reform have the potential to transform our society for a generation—for better or for worse. Grappling with the data—and the sometimes harsh realities they reflect—is the surest way to minimize the all-too-common injustices plaguing neighborhoods that can least afford them.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Sociology, Law, Crime, True Crime, Cultural

256 pages, Hardcover

First published July 26, 2022

Reviews

[Amora · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mass incarceration isn’t an issue, it’s mass decarceration. Movements that seek to radically reduce the prison population for the sake of reducing the prison population misunderstand who goes to prison and just how difficult it is to land in prison. Indeed, these movements also misunderstand how the police work. Plenty of citations to read through. Well done!

[Jenni · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a mixed bag of thoughtful scholarship and quiet, strategic omissions.

If you're coming at this with no prior knowledge, Rafael Mangual's book seems to be persuasive. He marshals a broad and convincing body of scholarship that suggests the downsides to some decarceration and depolicing proposals. With that said, to those that are in the know, the book suffers from three glaring issues.

The first and biggest issue with this book is that Mangual -- presumably willfully -- repeatedly and seriously mischaracterizes the proposals of criminal justice movement. Mangual did not address, or even mention, the relatively moderate reforms that the mainstream movement is most likely able to push through. Instead, he cherry-picked a grab bag of extreme leftist positions (which, of course, were more easily refuted) and then presented them as though they were representative of the broader criminal justice movement. For example, although half of this book focuses on potential decarceration reform, Mangual virtually exclusively addressed reforms that would release prisoners convicted of violent felonies. For the record, I think he did a great job arguing why we should not pursue reforms that would release violent prisoners. The problem is that the vast majority of folks advocating for criminal justice reform do not support that position. The more serious, more popular, and more likely goal for those reformers is to reduce prison time for non-violent drug offenders without records of prior violent crimes. Rafael Mangual knows this, because he works in this space. Certain of Mangual's more well-informed readers may know this, if they happen to be the rare bird that proactively balances their media consumption. But most readers that pick this book up off the shelf -- as I did from Barnes and Noble -- will not realize that the book conveniently omits analysis of the most serious proposal that criminal justice reformists advocate for. Instead, they'll be rightfully aggravated by the violent-crime reforms that Mangual neatly packaged as the standard-bearers for the broader movement. It's not right, and it can't help but read as intellectually dishonest.

My second biggest issue with this book is that Mangual frequently neglected to provide critical context that cuts against certain key arguments. This happens countless times throughout the book. In the interest of brevity, I'll provide one minor (but illustrative) example. Mangual invokes a campaign commitment from Joe Biden to "commit to cutting incarceration by 50%". Let's just ignore for now that this was a pie-in-the-sky campaign commitment, which differs considerably from a serious legislative proposal. The more serious concern is that Mangual responds to this Biden quote as though he is promising to release violent prisoners, who Mangual states "comprise the vast majority of America's prisoners." For the record, this is not something that Biden has proposed doing -- not even while he was campaigning. Why the disconnect? It's because Biden's referring to the future intake rate of prisoners, while Mangual's referring to the statistics around current prisoners. It takes a little critical thinking to understand, but it's worth considering the difference. At any given time, current prisoners are far more likely to have committed violent crimes than the average person that's booked into prison. That's because non-violent offenders are generally released more quickly than violent offenders are. So even if it's true that a majority of our [current] prisoners may have committed violent felonies, it can also be the case that the majority of people that are labeled as felons and sentenced to prison time have never committed a single violent felony. This is of particular importance to reform advocates, who are often less interested in prison time served and are instead more focused on the critical damage that the permanent 'felon' label wreaks on those that may have only ever been in jail for, say, a month.

A final key issue is that Mangual fails to acknowledge the rationale behind key leftist proposals. Let's continue running with the example I presented above. If you only read this book, it may never occur to you that many serious reformers are less concerned about prison time than the label itself of having been to prison. But what Mangual hasn't told you is that once someone's labeled a felon, there's a whole host of things they can't do. Of course, and exactly as the Republican Party wants it, they often can't vote, though that's mostly besides the point. The main issue -- and the really criminogenic issue (i.e., a reason why it spurs more crime) -- is that anyone labeled as a felon may lose access to absolutely crucial government resources like food stamps, social security benefits, educational assistance, and even HOUSING assistance. This is all aside from the fact that felons generally have to disclose prior convictions to employers, many of whom decide against hiring them. Of course, at some level, all of this engenders more crime. If Joe from down the block catches a felony and a week of jail time for having a used bong and a few grams of weed in his car, then he very well may lose his job. If he has trouble finding a new job -- given his new status as a felon -- then he is going to be hard-pressed for cash given that he can no longer rely on public housing. Now, maybe his kid drops out of high school early so that he can take on a full-time job to help pay rent. Should he have driven with a bong? No. But now he and his son are statistically a little bit less likely to be productive members of society and a little bit more likely to commit future crimes, including maybe even some crimes that actually matter. This isn't an unlikely scenario. It happens countless times a day here in America, and it largely happens to black and brown men. It's the reason why Biden is talking about reducing incarceration rates and the way that we treat felons in this country. But you wouldn't know that from this book. Again, it's easier to present leftists as unreasonable if you aren't going to acknowledge, let alone engage with, the logic and studies that support them.

So, yeah. It's a mixed bag. Rafael Mangual did a great job defending against the more extreme positions that liberal reformers agitate for. But he punted on a lot of the more serious proposals, and he didn't acknowledge his omissions. I think it was strategic, and I think it's dishonest. It unnecessarily polarizes our country in order to draw more people to what they falsely believe is your side. And I get it: if they knew the full truth, they may not show up to the polls on voting day. But that doesn't make it right. If you're confident in your position, then you can accurately represent your opposition's viewpoint. This book did not do that.

Initial review:
Added to my TBR as part of my "opposition research" process. Sits comfortably alongside one book about why campaign finance reform is a bad idea (see Unfree Speech: The Folly of Campaign Finance Reform) and another about why the administrative state is trampling all over the founding fathers' dreams (see Judicial Fortitude: The Last Chance to Rein In the Administrative State, my scathing review of which features gems like "If I didn't believe in climate change then I'd probably whine about the EPA, too.").

[Kirk · Rating 4 out of 5]

Most newshounds and current-affairs-aficionados have likely heard about, seen, or read the work produced by Heather MacDonald and Christopher Rufo, two of the more well-known policy advocates at the Manhattan Institute (published in City Journal). Now their colleague, Rafael A. Mangual, enters the formal fray with his publishing of Criminal (In)Justice: What the Push for Decarceration and Depolicing Gets Wrong and Who It Hurts Most. Despite its recent publishing, Mangual has been researching criminal justice policy and outcomes since 2015, and Criminal (In)Justice appears to be the synthesis of much of his work in that time.

The book, a digestible seven chapters and three appendices which reads like a long essay, presents a statistical argument against feverish commitment to “criminal justice reform”, or the impulse to both release prisoners while simultaneously disincentivizing proactive policing (on the grounds that incarceration and policing are unethical as pillars of systemic racism). Specifically, Mangual argues that statistical consideration of the issue at hand (police use of force) does not objectively support the arguments and reforms of the progressive paradigm, the degree to which policing policies need improvement may not justify the social costs of implementing such policies, and the communities damaged by implementing progressive policies are actually the communities they nominally claim to protect.

The author is very clear as to the shape of his argument, and the argument is easy to follow. He starts by providing context to some of the important statistics that are either misused or ignored when making policy considerations. He argues against the popular “crime went up because of COVID” narrative and the popular “crime is a derivative of poverty” narrative, and he also talks about how social media has exacerbated radical reform (policies which are not vocal about their successes generally or specific about what their successes may be). Next, he challenges those who believe in decarceration and provides counterarguments to those in support of post-conviction leniency and pretrial detention leniency. Mangual moves on and argues against the popular “incarceration hurts the family” narrative, then provides counterarguments and context about the “false-positive problem”. Finally, Mangual makes the claim that communities disproportionately affected by violence are also disproportionately affected by policies which failure to punish, or worse - accommodate, antisocial behavior in the form of criminal activity.

Mangual is the son of a NYPD Detective, works at a free market organization, and published a book that is contrary to the accepted American political-social zeitgeist, so it would be easy to write him off as a total bootlicker. But it would be a mistake to do so. Mangual readily acknowledges that conversations about policy improvements ought to be had, and that disparities and deficiencies exist. He makes no attempt to hide research suggesting there is work to be done, such as Fryer’s Harvard study where non-lethal uses of force resulted in disparate outcomes for minority populations. He also doesn't remain silent about how some practices, such as the NYPD culture of incentivizing contacts as a numbers game, have limited practical application but pose a great risk to the community. Criminal (In)Justice isn’t about arguing for the benefit of police in some capacity; rather, it’s an argument against certain policies for the benefit of the immediate and downstream victims of heinous criminal acts.

While the book isn’t exactly electrifying in its rhetoric or presentation (numbers in service of arguments aren’t known for artistry), Mangual is a proficient writer, his argument is clearly delivered, and the statistics he offers are convincing. Criminal (In)Justice is an important book because it offers reasonable and understandable arguments against some of the zealous policy recommendations that have already been implemented or are still on offer. I have my doubts about the overall effectiveness of a book like this beyond the fact that it preaches to its own choir. After all, you can’t reason your way out of a situation you didn’t reason your way into. Still, it’s important to know that there exists a way of thinking about criminal justice policy prescriptions that isn’t dominated by social justice and a casual disregard of the victims and costs of crime, and Mangual offers some constructive ways to go on record against such sweeping and damaging reforms.

[Carolyn Leshyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mr. Mangual has taken great care to prove that our justice system is not entirely broken as so many people profess and believe. He has done his research and patiently goes about with the realities and statistics about policing, incarceration and the use of force. Many false beliefs by the public as well as the politicians are rampant. This book is a must read. One has to take the time to read this book and digest the contents.

[Sally · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5. Gave me a bunch to think about and research on my own time. Excited to read the other book I have that argues the exact opposite of what Mangual says here.

[Penny Adrian · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is LOOOONG overdue.
Over the past decade a lot of academics and journalists have successfully sold the lie that being "tough on crime" equals anti-black racism.
By doing so, they have reinforced the racist stereotype that black people are more likely to be criminals than they are to be victims (black people are actually FAR more likely to be victims of violent crime than white people are).
One of the most famous activists promoting prison abolition, Mariame Kamba, grew up in Manhattan and attended an EXTREMELY expensive private school called Lycée Français (the tuition is over $40,000 a year). She is typical of the kinds of people who support prison and police abolition. She will never know what it's like to live with the terror that so many poor black children experience every single day on their way to school.
Violent drug gangs rule poor black neighborhoods and terrorize families who cannot afford to move.
Yet the answer proposed to "help" them is LESS policing and LESS incarceration for violent offenders.
Poor black people today are trapped in a hurricane of violent crime, and just as with hurricane Katrina, they have been abandoned by their own country.
Most crime in the USA is concentrated in poor urban neighborhoods populated mainly by poor people of color.
If upper middle class people experienced the same level of violent crime that poor people experience, we would have police on every corner, and we'd be demanding longer sentences for violent offenders instead of demanding their release.
Poor black people are FAR more likely to be victims of violent crime than they are to be perpetrators.
30% of murderers and 60% sex offenders in the USA serve less than ten years in prison, and when they are released, they return to poor black neighborhoods where they continue to prey upon the poor (including their own family members).
The rate of murder committed against poor black people is ghastly and unacceptable. No human being should be forced to live in a war zone due to poverty and government apathy.
We must stop letting privileged people living in gentrified neighborhoods associate black people with perpetrators of crime when they are actually those most likely to be victims of crime.
Victim's Rights = Black Lives Matter.
George Zimmerman should be rotting in prison, and so should everyone who murders a black person in their own neighborhood.

[Anthony Poselenzny · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read for all citizens

An excellent argument presented with great data and analysis as to the errors in our current progressive prosecution of crimes, reduction of bails, reducing jail time, and de_ policing.

[Urey Patrick · Rating 5 out of 5]

A comprehensive, data driven, deeply insightful analysis of law enforcement in America, that is a compelling counterpoint to many of the emotionally charged and politically partisan reform movements currently in vogue, often in reaction to isolated incidents. Mangual is objective, and goes to great pains to be even-handed, even to the point of often assuming well meaning motivations among the critics that often are simply not so. But if you are concerned about issues with law enforcement practices, uses of force, policing, incarceration rates, disparate impacts, you really must read this book. To be blunt, the truth is not the picture too often painted, and Manual convincingly explains, illustrates and substantiates the truth.

[Richard · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mangual’s book painstakingly examines the current trends to related to criminal justice including defunding police and incarceration reduction in the United States.

In this thought provoking read, he makes a highly informed and reasoned case for reassessment of these recent movements in an effort to bring true justice to those effected most.

Highly recommended.

[Kevin Mclain · Rating 1 out of 5]

federalist society propaganda

[Serge · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mangual challenges the chief claim of prison abolitionists that America suffers from a mass incarceration crisis. He argues instead that the trauma suffered because of the failure to incapacitate repeat offenders should be North Star of criminal justice policy discussions. He builds on the work of James Q. Wilson and argues that crime control is possible to achieve and should be the central national policy objective, particularly in the most marginalized communities (Brooklyn’s Brownsville, Chicago’s Austi, and Baltimore’s Belair-Edison neighborhoods).

Mangual considers 1970’s tough on crime tactics to be relevant and appropriate today. By contrast, he finds anti-police rhetoric and calls for decarceration and de-policing less useful. He notes that Black US residents have accounted for an outsized share of America’s homicides for decades. He marshalls the following key evidence to show the harm of the anti-police and anti-prison rhetoric: “while Black people already had the highest homicide victimization rate (19.5 per 100,000) of any group in 2019, the disparity grew even starker in 2020, when that number shot up to 25.3 per 100,000.

Mangual rejects progressive arguments about economic, political, or social causes for minority overrepresentation in prison. Instead, he argues that entitlement and anti-social personality disorder are the best predictors of aggression and involvement in the criminal justice system. He suggests that “what drives criminal violence has a lot more to do with the anti-social disposition of violent criminals and street culture that elevates violence.” Only policing and incarceration, according to Mangual, can address these root causes.

Mangual also posits that “ the most serious violent crimes are disproportionately committed by individuals with lengthy rap sheets and active criminal justice statuses, and many of these individuals could (and probably should) have been incarcerated at the time of the offenses in question.”(Mangual, 39) Incapacitation can prevent crime for Mangual. He rejects the oversimplification that the “US has five percent of the world’s population but nearly 25 percent of its prisoners.” For Mangual, such facile comparisons fail to account for the concentration of crime in certain communities.He notes that homicides in four American cities outpaced homicides in England, Wales, and Germany combined.

Furthermore, according to Mangual, post-conviction imprisonment rarely matches the sentencing parameters for violent crimes. He cites a study by the US Department of Justice that shows that between 2003 and 2009 a minority (40 percent) of state felony convictions were of defendants subsequently sent to prison. He also places a spotlight on violent re-offenders . He notes that “ the average number of prior arrests for cohorts of state prisoners released in 2005, 2008, and 2012 ranged between 10.6 and 12.1. Additionally, as of 2018, more than 60 percent of state prisoners were primarily incarcerated for a violent or weapons offense. He suggests that these statistics may be an undercount because of plea bargaining.

Mangual is incensed that between 70.8 and 77 percent of inmates reoffend within five years of their initial arrest. Unmitigated recidivism is an argument against decarceration. Mangual argues that “decarceration advocates… focus on the subset of the prison population that doesn’t belong behind bars, but what they don’t grapple with is the larger subset of the general population that does.” Failure of unwillingness to incapacitate is, for Mangual, a major driver of America’s crime problem.” He cites a University of Chicago Crime Lab study that found that, on average, someone arrested for homicide or shooting had nearly 12 prior arrests and that almost 20 percent of Chicago shooters and killers had more than 20 priors.

In Chapter 3,Mangual turns his attention to pretrial detention. He observes that “of the 2 million or so individuals incarcerated in the Us on a given day, approximately 631,000 of them are jail inmates and nearly three-quarters of those people are awaiting the disposition of their cases.” (Mangual, 63) He concedes that a persuasive argument against pretrial justice can be made in the area of cash bail (“the problem with relying on cash bail is that it makes the question of pretrial release one of means rather than one of risk”). Still, he argues that bail-reform involves trade-offs, namely public safety. Mangual cites a study by Princeton, Harvard, and Stanford university researchers that found that pretrial release increased the likelihood of rearrest prior to case disposition by more than 37 percent and the likelihood of a defendant failing to appear in court by 124 percent. Mangual would favor reform that the use of validated algorithmic risk assessment tools to empower judges to remand dangerous or high risk offenders to pretrial detention, irrespective of the charges they face.” (Mangual, 69)

Mangual is unmoved by arguments that incarceration is “tearing families apart” (e.g. “approximately 17 million children are currently being raised without a father, a growing social problem that only perpetuates cycles of violence and crime”). For Mangual “policy decisions driven by broad generalizations or the emotions certain unfortunate realities evoke” are meritless. Mangual instead argues that “exposure to highly antisocial fathers is extremely detrimental for children and associated with a host of negative life outcomes.” (Mangual, 85) He finds the psychological effects of antisocial and criminal parents on children’s outcomes the more compelling concern.

When Mangual discusses use of force in Chapter 5, he begins with the context of the Watts riot in 1965 and the Los Angeles riots in 1992. He finds “the tone of our police reform debate toxic” when it is limited to five most popular proposals: defunding the police, demilitarizing the police, abolishing qualified immunity, recommitting to de-escalation training and diverting certain calls away from the police to mental health responders. He suggests that “the data on police shootings and other uses of force simply don’t support” an actionable pattern of behavior. Tragedies are individual affairs for Mangual. Mangual cites a 2018 study (“Injuries Associated with Police Use-of-Force”). The study analyzed more than 1 million calls for service, which resulted in more than 114,000 criminal arrests. Police officers used physical force in just 1 in every 128 of those arrests, meaning that more than 99 percent of those arrests were completed without the use of any force. When Mangual widens the context for arrests to a national level, he asks the following question “in the context of almost 700,000 officers making more than 10 million arrests and conducting tens of millions of traffic and pedestrian stops, can you honestly say that the data on uses of force establish an institutional police violence problem?”

Mangual suggests that militarization is not driving the use of force. He cites a 2017 study that concluded that there is no “positive and statistically significant relationship between 1033 transfers and fatalities from officer-involved shootings.” (Mangual, 106) He concludes that police violence cannot be significantly reduced by limiting the use of Swat teams or the access of officers to certain types of equipment. He also offers a contrarian view on no-knock warrants. Officer safety demands the use of “unannounced dynamic entry.”

Mangual is even more adamant on the question of qualified immunity. Mangual frames qualified immunity in terms of clear precedent of a clearly established civil right. Judging police conduct in light of a priori established civil rights is a fair standard, according to Mangual. Qualified immunity is a poor shield according to a Yale Law Journal study by UCLA law professor Joanna Schwartz. Out of 1,100 cases filed against state and local law enforcement defendants under section 1983 of title 42 of the US Code, qualified immunity was a possible defense 83 percent of time and resulted in a partial or whole grant of dismissal 4 percent of the time. The real bugaboo should be indemnification (“the vast majority of American police officers work in jurisdictions that, pursuant to either collective bargaining… indemnify them against financial liability for damages awarded as a result of actions undertaken within the scope of their employment .

With respect to de-escalation and mental health diversion, “there is little evidence in the peer-reviewed literature that crisis intervention training programs show benefits on objective measures of arrests, officer injury, or use of force.” Mangual indulges in some sociological conjecture in chapter 6 when he blames the “tough-guy posture” of profiled Black men for escalation during police-involved altercations. For Mangual, anti-bias training for police would not reduce profiled stops (“Terry stops”). He also insists that “civilians didn’t have a particularly firm grasp of their right to terminate certain interactions with police.” In Chapter 7, Mangual finally engages race head on. Racial gaps in sentencing are the result of urban reform policies of pursuing violent crime reductions through drug enforcement. He also notes that “in cities across the country, police chiefs, district attorneys, lawmakers, cops, prosecutors, and judges dedicated themselves to a mission of crime control.” The primary beneficiaries of crime declines “ are people we’re told are singled out by the system for unfair treatment.” (Mangual, 169) The unequal distribution of crime across America explains the unequal distribution of police attention and enforcement.

[Jonathan Blanks]

Web published review forthcoming

[Luis · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you want to get the other side of the argument that police should be de funded this is the book. Powerful arguments backed by strong evidence, Rafael Mangual dispels the myths that the criminal justice system in America is unjust and racist. The system is not out to get black men, that is a caricature that the media and leftist ideologues want you to believe. Most encounters with the police do not result in the use of force, in fact the use of force is a statistically insignificant. If you were to land in any place in America, in the vast majority of communities crime is low. It is wrong to compare America's jailed to that of other countries, because most people who spend a lot of time in jail are convicted violent felons, in other countries, they treat violent felons more harshly than in the US. Many violent criminals have no social skills and believe that problems can be fixed with violence, it is the product of their upbringing. Conservatives have been making this last case for ions, that it is not that people turn to crime or are poor because the system is unjust but because many of those individuals come from broken homes and they were never tough social skills. Mangual proves that point in the book. It is time for ideologues to talk about personal responsibility when it comes to this issue.

A times so many numbers will make you dizzy, still it is an important book that must be read if you want to learn about the other side of the argument regarding crime an incarceration in America.

[Sami Danielsen · Rating 3 out of 5]

When I first got this book, I thought it was going to be about the benefits of decarceration and was disappointed when it was not. However, while I don't agree with Mangual completely, he did make some great points. I am currently working on getting a degree in order to be a social worker and strongly agree that not having a parent is better than having a horrible parent. However, he tends to spend a lot of time focusing on crime and incarceration in the 1990s, which was kind of confusing. I understand needing a historical context of the 90s, but this seemed more like a focus than context. Additionally, he makes contradicting points. Police are racists but they aren't? More black men are killed than any other group but they are criminals who should stay in jail? More black men are in prison than any other group even though white men commit more crime but there's nothing we can do? It felt like there was a lot of acknowledgement that the system is incredibly flawed but he offers no way to change it. I was originally going to give this book two stars but in his conclusion, he acknowledges he is not a professional in this field and may have misinterpreted some data. I have a lot of respect for someone who acknowledges where they may have a shortcoming. I think he makes great points for not decarcerating but again, fails to offer any other ways we could reform the system.

[Nore · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very accurate blurb: "Impassioned yet measured" is a good way to describe this book. Mangual obviously cares deeply about this topic, and I appreciated his thoroughness in contextualizing the data on incarceration in the United States. (I didn't know that our violent crime rate was so much higher than that of any of our cousins across the pond, for example.)

That said, I wasn't completely convinced by all of his arguments; he is, perhaps, a bit too eager to discount the idea of systemic racism and the concept that a system can produce racist outcomes even if the individuals within it are not racist themselves.

I also wish he'd discussed solutions beyond incarceration - he repeatedly emphasizes the role drug addiction and antisocial personality traits play in driving violent crime and (reasonably) de-emphasizes the role of poverty, but if this is the only book you read on our justice system, you'll come away with the impression that longer, more punitive sentencing is the only way to reduce crime.

Given such a sensitive and complicated topic, though, Mangual does an excellent job presenting a reasonable, balanced overview of the available data, and I enjoyed my time reading this. Highly informative, educational read.

(Again: My stars are literal. I liked it.)

[Jim Milway · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is sad that public policy on policing and incarceration is being implemented without any evidence of problems to be solved or the efficacy of the solutions being implemented - reduced police budgets, decarceration, bail "reform", etc. Manual provides data that is available to any competent social scientist and policy analyst that shows why criminals need to detained and imprisoned, that we don't have prisons full of petty criminals, and that police are not out killing people because they feel like it.

I have faith that Mangual's analysis will find its way into the debate about these issues and that the truth will out.

A very good read.

[Tyson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like a needle in a haystack, Criminal Injustice stands out as a rare common sense, data-driven defense of proven methods and policies to reduce crime amid a deluge of radical reform minded research and writing. Written in a straightforward, essay like manner, Criminal Injustice tackles the hottest criminal justice topics of the day including depolicing, decarceration and ending random police stops. It seems obvious that these actions have coincided with a sharp rise in crime and Mangual lays out the data to support this observation.

Now do, Canada. If you thought America’s justice system was ineffective, you haven’t seen anything.

[David Skeen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fine intro to criminal justice in the US. Mangual refutes the progressive arguments to defund police, to reduce pretrial confinement, and to reduce prison sentences. The local nature of crimes was surprising to me: some city precincts are high-crime, and a short distance away is a low-crime neighborhood. Mangual emphasizes that law enforcement protects minority families who have a higher risk of being victims of crime.

[Elly Stevens · Rating 5 out of 5]

A well-written, well-researched critique of the American justice system, covering hot topics of today, such as profiling, bias, bail reform, probation, and qualified immunity. Mangual backs up his statements with statistics and a 31-page section of sources. While I can think of one or two omissions that could have been covered, it makes an excellent case and an interesting read. A must read for Americans.

[Anneliese · Rating 3 out of 5]

Helpful context for often cited statistics regarding criminal justice and racism. While not entirely convincing, it did cause me to think more deeply about popular police reform proposals. I listened to the audiobook and would have preferred to read it in paperback due to the heavy use of statistics.

[Mike Thiac · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well researched read into how eliminating consequences for bad behavior (e.g., no bail, early release, etc) will bite society with recidivism, additional violent crimes, etc. Written at a early college level, well documented. Recommended to anyone looking into our current crime issues.

[Matthew J. Geck MD · Rating 5 out of 5]

data driven analysis of the unique American crime problem.

Great book. This analysis brings together context, nuance, and compassion for the communities most affected by crime. I look forward to more writing from Mr. Mangual.

[Ilan · Rating 5 out of 5]

For the uninformed Libs…make sure you have a tumbler set aside for some salty tears

[Luigib · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book. Too bad progressives won't read this

[Sandy Jones · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you have interest in criminal justice in the United States right now, read this book. It is crucial to having a balanced perspective.

[Christopher · Rating 5 out of 5]

Data-driven, even-handed, and concise. This book demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that the US doesn't have a "mass incarceration" or over-policing problem. If anything, the opposite.

[Amy · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book I've wanted someone to write.

[Christian Hyneman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very thoroughly researched book with a lot of facts and statistics.

[Chris Rutledge · Rating 4 out of 5]

A comment from a Canadian reader:

This book presents a counterweight to some of the "liberal" or "progressive" ideas for reform of the US policing, criminal sentencing, and incarceration. Other reviewers have noted that the book cherry picks the most refutable reformist ideas, and omits a rage of reasonable reformist suggestions that would have value.

There is truth to this. But the book does provide a checklist and argument structure to question many of the assumed truths parroted by much of the mainstream (and largely of progressive bent) media writers - writers who do little research, quote a few talkative experts, and then group think a common theme.

Within the Canadian justice and criminal system, for example, the Canadian media adopts a range of unproven arguments, or ideologic positions - all of which are used in a call for "reform" or "elimination of inequity or injustice". Some examples:

1)Certain groups are "over-represented" in the prisons, or are "overly charged" with criminal activity. IE: Either the system willfully scoops up these groups, and omits others, or, all groups should be equally jailed according to population demographics.

2)An refusal to admit that Group X or Y is, in statistical fact, actually committing most of the crime.

3)If this is admitted, then Group X or Y are committing crime because of "root causes" of social inequality. No other explanation is explored. It is taken as a "has to be the cause" stamp.

4)Inherent anti-social criminal behavior is downplayed. Unreasonable expectations of the reform of violent criminals has led to a current protest that bail conditions and sentences are overly lenient and return violent offenders back into society.

5)Unproven claims are made that trained mental health responders should replace police when dealing with the mentally disturbed. With no evidence that the outcomes would differ, or that mental health responders would accept the danger, or that such responders could be found and brought to the scene in a timely manner.

6)Throw lots of money at a broad spectrum of social programs and crime rates will drop. Based on the questionable premise that there are criminals because of social inequity.

[Vincent Lombardo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mangual does a magnificent job of refuting the arguments for decarceration and depolicing and explodes the myths surrounding mass incarceration! It is informative and concise!