Is America’s conviction rate really 99.5%?

Summary

Podcast Summary: More or Less – Is America’s Conviction Rate Really 99.5%?
Date: November 5, 2012
Host: Ruth Alexander (BBC Radio 4) | Episode Contributor: Charlotte Pritchard
Special Contributors: Conrad Black, Dr. Peter Bennett, Bruce Bradbury, Bill Orme

---

Overview of Episode Theme

This episode of "More or Less" investigates bold claims about the US criminal justice system made by Conrad Black, a former media executive who recently served time in an American prison. The program focuses primarily on two statistical assertions: that 99.5% of US prosecutions result in convictions, and that America’s incarceration rate far outstrips other developed countries. The latter part of the episode shifts to a listener question about poverty statistics—how they’re measured and how these definitions vary globally.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Conrad Black's Claims and the US Conviction Rate

• Conrad Black appears on BBC’s Newsnight, voicing frustrations with the US justice system and claiming:

  • “99.5% of prosecutions in the US are convicted. The whole system is a fraudulent, fascistic conveyor belt of the corrupt prison system.” (Conrad Black, 01:29)
  • The US imprisons 6 to 12 times more people per capita than similar countries.

• Analysis by Charlotte Pritchard:

  • Federal Conviction Rate:
    • 2009 data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics: 91% of federal prosecutions resulted in convictions.
    • 9% were dismissed, less than 1% were acquitted.
    • “But still, credit where credit's due. Conrad Black's claim… is not far off true.” (Ruth Alexander, 02:55)
  • State Conviction Rate:
    • In state courts (where most cases are tried), only 68% of felony prosecutions led to convictions (data from 2006).
    • Most convictions (both state and federal) result from guilty pleas rather than trials.

• Notable Insight:

  • Black’s figure is somewhat exaggerated but captures the high proportion of US criminal justice cases ending in conviction, especially when pleas and federal/state differences are considered.

2. International Comparisons: Conviction and Incarceration Rates

• Conviction Rates:

  • Japan: ~99.9% conviction rate.
  • UK: ~80% conviction rate in 2011.
  • International justice statistics are hard to compare; methodology and definitions vary widely.
  • For example, reported data erroneously suggest Canada has a conviction rate 30 times higher than the US—an obvious statistical anomaly.
  • “We should be wary of making international comparisons here… data in this area are incredibly difficult to compare…” (Charlotte Pritchard, 03:07)

• Incarceration Rates:

  • Dr. Peter Bennett (International Prison Studies Centre, London) provides context:
    • USA: 730 people incarcerated per 100,000 population.
    • UK: 154
    • Germany: 83
    • Canada: 114
    • Japan: 55
    • Australia: 129
    • Other high-incarceration nations: Rwanda (527), Russia (502), Thailand (337).
    • “In fact, the United States has the highest prison population in the world.” (Ruth Alexander, 04:47)

Reasons for High US Incarceration (Peter Bennett, 05:08)

• War on drugs: number incarcerated for drug offenses multiplied 12-fold since the 1980s (now ~500,000, up from 41,000 in 1981).
• “Three strikes” laws and life-without-parole sentences have swelled lifer populations, even for nonviolent crimes.
• “The life of population is increasing very, very quickly and… that is due to life without parole sentences whereby the life actually means life.” (Peter Bennett, 05:08)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Conrad Black (on his experience in the US justice system):

  • “I am proud of having gone through the terribly difficult process of being falsely charged, falsely convicted and ultimately almost completely vindicated without losing my mind…” (00:57)
  • [Jokingly] “…being able to endure a discussion like this without getting up and smashing your face in, which is what most people would do if they’d been through what I have been.” (00:57)

• Charlotte Pritchard (on the data):

  • “These figures are only for the federal system. It's important to also look at the state courts because they prosecute many more cases...” (02:30)

• Ruth Alexander (on giving credit):

  • “But still, credit where credit’s due. Conrad Black's claim that 99.5% of prosecutions in the US end in convictions is not far off true.” (02:55)

• Dr. Peter Bennett:

  • “Now when we take other countries… you'll see there that they're all much, much less than the 730 per hundred thousand in the States.” (04:20)

---

Other Segment: How is Poverty Measured? (06:10 onwards)

Listener Question: Australian Poverty Statistic

• Listener Jeremy Hagan asks about a report saying 1 in 8 Australians (over 12%) live in poverty.

Bruce Bradbury (University of New South Wales):

• “We use what's called the relative poverty definition that's in common use in international comparisons.”

• Relative poverty sets the poverty line at some fraction (here, 50%) of median national income, adjusted for family size.

• This means poverty is measured in relation to the general standard of living within a country—not by an absolute threshold.

• Ruth Alexander:

  • “Australia is a rich country and so the people living in poverty there are by no means as poor as people living in Ethiopia, for example.” (06:57)
  • After economic downturns, falling median income can “lift” people out of poverty on this relative scale, even if their material conditions haven't changed.

Measuring Absolute Poverty

• Standard: Living on less than $1.25/day (World Bank metric) – applies across countries.
• About 1.3 billion people worldwide qualify as living in absolute poverty by this measure.

Bill Orme (UN Human Development Report):

• Advocates for the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MDPI): includes nutrition, education, child mortality, drinking water, sanitation.
• “There are a number of places in the world where people might be above that $1.25 minimum, but still, by these other measurements are objectively poor.” (08:11)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

| Timestamp | Topic / Speaker | |---------------|--------------------------------------------------| | 01:29 | Conrad Black’s claim about 99.5% conviction rate | | 02:02–02:55 | Analysis: US conviction rates (federal & state) | | 03:07 | International comparisons and pitfalls | | 04:20–04:47 | Incarceration rates by country (Peter Bennett) | | 05:08 | Why is the US prison population so high? | | 06:10–08:51 | Poverty measurement, relative vs. absolute | | 08:11 | Multidimensional Poverty Index (Bill Orme) |

---

Summary

The episode rigorously examines statistics about the US justice system, finding some truth but also key nuances in Conrad Black’s high-profile claims. While federal conviction rates are indeed extraordinarily high (91%), the state court rates are notably lower, and much of the “conveyor belt” comes from the prevalence of plea bargains. US imprisonment rates top global rankings, reinforced by tough drug sentencing and life-without-parole policies. The second half provides fascinating context on how poverty is measured, highlighting the complexity of international comparisons in both crime and economic wellbeing.

Conclusion:
"More or Less" offers critical analysis and context, separating statistical fact from media myth—and showing how numbers can be misleading or misunderstood without careful scrutiny.

Transcript

[BBC Announcer]

Thank you for downloading from the BBC. For details of our complete range of podcasts and our terms of use, go to bbcworldserveys.com podcasts

[Ruth Alexander]

hello and welcome to More or Less the Statistical Sleuths on the BBC World Service. I'm Ruth Alexander. This week.

[Conrad Black]

No, I'm not a criminal. Do you think a British court would have behaved like this? Do you think a British court would. Wait a second.

[Ruth Alexander]

That's Conrad Black, the former owner of newspapers in the uk, the us, Canada, Canada and Israel. And he's Lord Black of Crossharbour in the House of Lords in the uk. In May, he was released from an American jail after serving a 35 month sentence for fraud and the obstruction of justice. But he says he was only convicted because of corruption in the US justice system. Conrad Black has been trying to rebuild his reputation and has been appearing widely in the media. We enjoyed watching him on the BBC's Newsnight programme.

[Conrad Black]

Let me tell you something. I am proud of having gone through the terribly difficult process of being falsely charged, falsely convicted and ultimately almost completely vindicated without losing my mind, becoming irrational, ceasing to be a penitent and reasonable person and actually being able to endure a discussion like this without getting up and smashing your face in, which is what most people would do if they'd been through what I have been.

[Ruth Alexander]

Well, you go ahead and do yourself.

[Conrad Black]

No, I don't believe in violence.

[Ruth Alexander]

Much to our delight, this was actually an argument about numbers.

[Conrad Black]

99.5% of prosecutions in the US are convicted. The whole system is a fraudulent, fascistic conveyor belt of the corrupt prison system. This sits there 6 to 12 times as many incarcerated people per capita as Britain, Canada, Australia, France, Germany or Japan. How do you explain that?

[BBC Announcer]

I don't think I have to answer.

[Conrad Black]

Well, give it a try.

[Ruth Alexander]

I tell you what, we'll give it a try. Charlotte Pritchard's been on the case for more or less. Charlotte, Conrad Black makes two claims here.

[Charlotte Pritchard]

Yes. Start with the first one, that 99.5% of prosecutions in the U.S. end in convictions.

[Ruth Alexander]

It can't be true.

[Charlotte Pritchard]

Well, the most recent data available is from 2009 in a report published by the Bureau of Justice statistics. In that 91% of prosecutions were convicted.

[Ruth Alexander]

OK, that's not 99.5%. But he's not far off.

[Charlotte Pritchard]

No, exactly. And 9% of the prosecutions were dismissed and less than 1% were acquitted.

[Ruth Alexander]

So he's really not far off then. That's amazing. But. There's always a but. With you, Charlotte. And I like that these figures are

[Charlotte Pritchard]

only for the federal system. It's important to also look at the state courts because they prosecute many more cases in them. The latest data available is for 2006 when 68% of felony prosecutions, the more serious crimes, were convicted.

[Ruth Alexander]

So the state courts convict a lower proportion of defendants.

[Charlotte Pritchard]

Yes, and it's also worth noting that in both courts, of those people who are convicted, the vast majority have pleaded guilty.

[Ruth Alexander]

But still, credit where credit's due. Conrad Bluck's claim that 99.5% of prosecutions in the US end in convictions is not far off true. So how does the US's conviction rate compare to other countries?

[Charlotte Pritchard]

Well, Japan's conviction rate is around 99.9% according to a few academic papers we found, and the UK's was around 80% in 2011. But we should be wary of making international comparisons here. Data in this area are incredibly difficult to compare because every country has such a different justice system. Also, it's hard to know how countries measure their statistics, what they take as the starting point of a case and how it's concluded. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime has some international figures on prosecutions and convictions, but a quick glance immediately shows you the problems. The statistics say that Canada has almost a 30 times higher rate of convictions per capita than the US, which strongly suggests there's a problem, especially when you look at the US prison population.

[Ruth Alexander]

And that's the second claim from within Conrad Black's statistical splurge, isn't it? He said that the United States prison population is 6 to 12 times as big per capita as it is in Britain, France, Canada, Germany, Japan and Australia. So to get to the bottom of this, I've been speaking to Dr. Peter Bennett from the International Prison Studies Centre in London, which compiles the World Prison Brief. They compare countries by looking at how many people are incarcerated per 100,000 population.

[BBC Announcer]

In the USA it's 730, whereas in the UK it's much, much lower at about 154 per 100,000. Now when we take other countries that Conrad Black mentioned, we have Germany with 83, Canada with 114, Japan with 55, Australia 129. And you'll see there that they're all much, much less than the 730 per hundred thousand in the States.

[Ruth Alexander]

So Conrad Black is right there too. Other countries with high prison populations per 100,000 people are Rwanda which has 527 per 100,000, Russia with 502 and Thailand with 337 prisoners per 100,000 population. But in fact the United States has the highest prison population in the world. He says. I asked him why.

[BBC Announcer]

Since the 1980s, the number incarcerated for drugs offences has increased 12 fold and it's now about half a million people, whereas in 1981 it was about 40,000, 41,000. Also this three strikes and you're out approach and there are some people that are serving up to 25 years for non violent offences. The life of population is increasing very, very quickly and partly that is due to life without parole sentences whereby the life actually means life. So you're getting an expanding number of life for people in prisons.

[Ruth Alexander]

Peter Bennett from the International Prison Studies Centre. And thanks to Charlotte. Now we've received this email from loyal listener Jeremy Hagan.

[BBC Announcer]

According to a new report, one in eight Australians are living in poverty. This is more than 12% and it certainly sounds like an awful lot of people for a first world country. I wonder what standard they are using to judge this. Perhaps you'd like to check it out.

[Ruth Alexander]

Good question, Jeremy. Poverty is a surprisingly stretchy measure. We've asked Bruce Bradbury from the University of New South Wales in Australia, who came up with this report, to explain his calculations.

[Bruce Bradbury]

In this study we use what's called the relative poverty definition that's in common use in international comparisons. But the basic idea of a relative poverty line is that you set a poverty line at some fraction of the the middle living standard or the median income in the community. And we've chosen 50% for our main results. So people whose income after adjusting for their family size is below half the middle income of the country in the same year are defined as being poor. It is a measure of how far away the bottom is from the middle.

[Ruth Alexander]

So in Australia, poverty is measured by looking at people's incomes relative to Australian society as a whole. So it's a country specific measure. Australia is a R country and so the people living in poverty there are by no means as poor as people living in Ethiopia, for example. And because this measure of poverty relates to how the average person's doing, it's a shifting one. After the financial crash in Ireland, for example, in 2008, a number of people were lifted out of poverty because the median or middle income of the whole society had decreased. So to make international comparisons, you need to measure poverty in absolute terms. This is where the poverty line depends on a minimum acceptable standard of living, whether you've got enough money to have a certain level of shelter, clothing and healthcare, for example. This is a constant across countries, so it's more easily comparable. The most common measure of absolute poverty is living on less than $1.25 a day. By that standard, there are 1.3 billion people worldwide living in poverty. But what if you're living on twice that amount? Are you doing okay? Well, maybe not. So the United Nations Human Development Report has another way of measuring poverty. Here's Bill ORME from the we at

[Bill Orme]

the Human Development Report, where I work, since 2010, we've used an additional or a complementary measure called the Multidimensional Poverty Index, and that looks at poverty not simply in terms of income but also in terms of other indicators, that is to say, nutrition, child mortality, education, access to drinking water, access to sanitation and so forth. Because there are a number of places in the world where people might be above that $1.25 minimum, but still, by these other measurements are objectively poor. For example, in South Asia, there are many more people who are in the multidimensional poor category than are in the income poor category.

[Ruth Alexander]

Thanks to Bruce Bradbury, Bill Orme, and our loyal listener Jeremy Hagan. And that's all from us this week. Do please keep your questions and comments coming. You can email more or lessbc.co.uk and you can download other editions of the programme at our website, bbcworldservice.com More or

[Bruce Bradbury]

less

[BBC Announcer]

there are dozens of different podcasts now available from the BBC, including news, documentaries, science, business, arts and sport. For details of them all, go to bbcworldservice.com podcasts.