The U.S. incarceration rate (~750) is indeed much higher than that of say the U.K. (~150), but is highly disuniform. In states like Mass. or Minn. it's only ~200.
Comparing the U.S. and other countries on the basis of prison population is a bit misleading. This chart is relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lifetime_prevalence_of_inc.... The U.K. is more than 90% white. It doesn't have to deal with a huge black population that still carries the legacy of slavery and segregation. It doesn't have to deal with a huge hispanic population that has to deal with the challenges of immigration (and often illegal immigration). The U.K. doesn't have to deal with the gang and poverty-related crimes that arises from segregation and ghettoization on a massive scale.
In London, more than 60% of the population of the metro area lives in the city proper. In Chicago or L.A., that figure is under 30%, and in cities like Boston or D.C. it's under 15%. This statistic isn't just a matter of people in the U.K. enjoying city living. The 30% that live in Chicago in the city proper and the 70% that don't have dramatically different economic and demographic profiles. The U.K. hasn't had to deal with the total collapse of social order that accompanied the outflux of all the middle class residents from the American cities to the outlying suburbs in the 1970's-1990's.
To give a very specific example: New York City is heavily policed, and in places like the Bronx poor minorities can be harassed by the police just for looking the wrong way. And an entire city full of liberal middle and upper middle class people have absolutely no problem with that status quo. How can that be? You can't understand that state of affairs without knowing what New York looked like in the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's--how it was hollowed out by crime.
The harsh sentencing in the U.S. when it comes to crime is a reaction. It's a reaction to social problems that Western Europe has by and large been spared from, though with the massive influx of Middle Easterners into Europe now I think they're going to get a taste of that in the next few decades.
200/150. only 33% higher in those states you mention than the UK. That's some disparity especially if it's the lower end of the incarceration rate for the US. Rather than racial issues, I think drug laws - specifically decriminalization and subsequent recriminalization of marijuana in the UK[0] would be the differentiator. I think states that decriminalised marijuana in the U.S. will see a reduction in incarceration rate.
It's the low end of the U.S. spectrum, but it's a much better comparison to the U.K. than the U.S. as a whole in terms of demographic profile.
Yes, much of the disparity is from drug laws. I think if you decriminalized common drugs, places like Mass. and Minn. would fall below the U.K. About 50% of our federal prisoners are drug offenders, and less than 20% of state prisoners are drug offenders (20% overall). So decriminalizing would cut our incarceration rate, but not by enough to make up the gap (~750 per 100k versus 150 per 100k in the U.K.)
The top 6 are, in order of decreasing incarceration rate: Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, Arizona. Three former slave states and three states at the epicenter of mexican immigration.
Note that I'm not trying to make a racist argument here. It's just that class, social standing, and race are deeply intertwined in America in a way people in homogenous European countries really have trouble appreciating. The U.S. has more income inequality than nearly any Western European country, and that income inequality manifests heavily along racial lines. But the racial divide compounds that inequality. It takes the inherent problems with income inequality and adds a vicious "us versus them" dimension to the problem.
Comparing the U.S. and other countries on the basis of prison population is a bit misleading. This chart is relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lifetime_prevalence_of_inc.... The U.K. is more than 90% white. It doesn't have to deal with a huge black population that still carries the legacy of slavery and segregation. It doesn't have to deal with a huge hispanic population that has to deal with the challenges of immigration (and often illegal immigration). The U.K. doesn't have to deal with the gang and poverty-related crimes that arises from segregation and ghettoization on a massive scale.
In London, more than 60% of the population of the metro area lives in the city proper. In Chicago or L.A., that figure is under 30%, and in cities like Boston or D.C. it's under 15%. This statistic isn't just a matter of people in the U.K. enjoying city living. The 30% that live in Chicago in the city proper and the 70% that don't have dramatically different economic and demographic profiles. The U.K. hasn't had to deal with the total collapse of social order that accompanied the outflux of all the middle class residents from the American cities to the outlying suburbs in the 1970's-1990's.
To give a very specific example: New York City is heavily policed, and in places like the Bronx poor minorities can be harassed by the police just for looking the wrong way. And an entire city full of liberal middle and upper middle class people have absolutely no problem with that status quo. How can that be? You can't understand that state of affairs without knowing what New York looked like in the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's--how it was hollowed out by crime.
The harsh sentencing in the U.S. when it comes to crime is a reaction. It's a reaction to social problems that Western Europe has by and large been spared from, though with the massive influx of Middle Easterners into Europe now I think they're going to get a taste of that in the next few decades.