America Behind Bars

[Racoon]

The United States ia a prison nation! Leading the world in Prisoners...:)

Well over 2,100,000! :)

 

I am looking for good statistics and the tax costs, info on social burdens:

so your comments and input is appreciated. :(

 

Legalizing drugs would clear up a lot of prison space... ~20% of prisoners.

Violent offenders should be locked away...but does it really help?

More and more people become "institutionalized", and a burden to society.

 

There is definitely some Institutional Racism going on...:cup:

 

3,218 Black

1,220 Latino

463 White

per 100,000 capita

 

Is this a sign of a degenerate culture? Do we like locking people away?

Why do we have so many prisoners? Why the higher numbers of minorities? Do they really commit that much more crime?

What about prison labor? - I hear companies can use prisoners at Chinese wages to make things here? :eek: Is that true?

 

These stats in this link are good through 2004. but are a bit dry. theres more info on the site...

 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm#selected

 

Is there a better way? So many questions.

Numbers and Graphs are encouraged!

[CraigD]

Without getting into the many controversial data and theories related to prison, I suggest that recidivism – people being charge, convicted, and punished for a succession of increasingly severe crimes – is the single greatest factor causing US prison populations to be so high. It’s demonstrable that the US legal system isn’t succeeding well in reducing recidivism.

 

I believe the reason for this is that legal policy is being driven by public attitude based in irrational beliefs about morality, justice, and revenge. A vocal portion (perhaps a majority) of Americans are incensed by the suggestion that wrongdoers should be helped, rather than punished.

 

Consider this hypothetical scenario: When first-time offenders are convicted of crimes, in addition to the current policy of attempting to “scare them straight” with short prison sentences followed by supervised parole/probation, spend several tens of thousands of dollars on them. Require that they complete a high-quality technical training program to greatly improve their employment prospects. Outright give them a chunk of cash to spend on a PC, a house down-payment, a startup business, an approved financial investment instrument, etc., with the requirements that they be able to withstand an audit of their accounting for how they spend it.

 

Would this dramatically reduce recidivism? I think so. Would it cost more than the taxpayers could afford? Considering the reduced cost of police, courts, and prisons, I suspect it would save substantial money. Would it outrage proponents of “law and order and punish-the-wicked” (eg: most of the commentators of the Fox news network)? I’m almost certain it would.

 

Heinlein’s words to the contrary, it’s not so much that "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" (TANSTAAFL), as it is TANPPOAMASSGAFL (“There Ain’t Nothin’ Pisses People Off As Much As Seeing Someone Get A Free Lunch”).

[Queso]

I work for Michaels. (art store)

the chinese military puts

chinese prisoners to work,

and they make things for michaels

and i'm actually funding the chinese military

by working there.

[niviene]

Recidivism occurs on a very unevenly distributed basis for different crimes. Sex criminals have a rate of recidivism of over 80% (at least they did some years ago when I was in the academy and took this course), which is much higher than any other crime category. People such as rapists and child molesters aren't caught the first time they do it - the average was the 13th time when they were caught. So why, on their release, wouldnt' they think they could get away with it a few times more? On top of that, if you look at the statistics of how hard it is to actually get someone who commits a crime into a prison, the odds are in the criminal's favor. We don't punish well enough to make anybody worry about the crimes they consider committing, and the ones who have been through the system are the ones who are less afraid of it, because they know how it works. The rest of us are the ones who are scared of going to prison from the horror stories we are told, we're the ones those things work on, not the ones who have been through it. We have a system of checks and balances that is designed to keep innocent and wrongly accused people out of those places as well as to keep questionable law enforcement practices down. These things also, unfortunately, lead to higher recidivism rates. Another topic worth debating about would be what to do with illegal immigrants who commit horrible violent crimes and what we do with them - especially when they can just sneak back across the border if we send them back to their country. Put them in our prisons? Hmm.

[niviene]

Heinlein’s words to the contrary, it’s not so much that "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" (TANSTAAFL), as it is TANPPOAMASSGAFL (“There Ain’t Nothin’ Pisses People Off As Much As Seeing Someone Get A Free Lunch”).

 

This is so true. And for good reason. Why should anybody struggle to make it legally and according to the law when somebody can simply forgo the struggle and be given the reward flat out? If that were the case, screw the system, I'm going to prison to get me some cash to start my own business. Why not? I know when I get out, I'll be smart enough to know how run it well, I have plenty of ideas for it already - so forget the hard part, I'll just rob a bank and stash the money somewhere and then do a little time for being a first time offender and get money from the system to start a business, along with my bank robbery gains! :P THis is an exaggeration, of course, but imagine that. Where would you draw the line? It would definitely piss me off.

[CraigD]

Heinlein’s words to the contrary, it’s not so much that "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" (TANSTAAFL), as it is TANPPOAMASSGAFL (“There Ain’t Nothin’ Pisses People Off As Much As Seeing Someone Get A Free Lunch”).

This is so true. And for good reason. Why should anybody struggle to make it legally and according to the law when somebody can simply forgo the struggle and be given the reward flat out?

Though I can attest, thought years of experience and fellowship with the peace-love-dove hippy subculture, that its possible for large communities to reject TANPPOAMASSGAFL, I’m doubtful that such a mindset can become prevalent enough to strongly effect a whole society enough to substantially change its laws and prisons (If hippidom were a club or a church, this belief would surely bet me kicked out). Another Heinlein-esque acronym seems necessary.

 

It seems to me that People are less bothered at seeing Someone get Lunch, than they are by the possibility that Someone got that Lunch for less than they paid for it themselves. A Free Lunch is just the extreme case of a Cheap Lunch.

 

A possible cure for this bother is for everybody to get a Free Lunch – not necessarily a lifetime of Free Lunches, but at least one, perhaps a second or a third if one is particularly clumsy or stupid and looses the first one or two. Many people my age (46) remember when such Free Lunches were less difficult to find that they were today, the days of easy-to-get Pell Grants, employment-contract-free subsidized housing and foodstamps even for single men without children. (I never had any of these myself, but mooched shamelessly off of people who did). The zeitgeist around 1980 seemed to be one of SSGAFLASBIEGO (“Seeing Someone Get A Free Lunch Ain’t So Bad If Everybody Gets One”).

 

Although I don’t believe I could adequately quantify or test for it, I’ve an emotional impression that the past 25 years has been one of increased bitterness and uncharitableness, accompanied by a increasing belief that, if we are not careful to prevent people who shouldn’t be getting it from getting theirs, there won’t be enough left when we go to get ours. I don’t find this belief in the scarcity or resources to be supported by objective fact, but rather to be a “faith-based” conclusion, or worse, an idea promulgated by businesses and leaders for their own financial and political gain. My great hope is that progress, primarily in the technology of information, will overturn this attitude, resulting in a society in which everyone is generally less worried about what everyone else is having for Lunch, and what they paid for it. Such a society would, I believe, offer many more and better solutions to problems of crime and fairness.

[Freddy]

In Federal prisons 30% of inmates are foreign born.

[Racoon]

U.S. Population growth means more inmates right?

 

What sort of alternative punishments or changes in law could help stem this swelling prison tide??

Its gonna' get real expensive.

 

 

Growth spurt expected for U.S. prisons - Crime & Punishment - MSNBC.com

 

WASHINGTON - Get-tough policies that lock up offenders for longer sentences are propelling a projected increase of nearly 200,000 in the nation’s prison population in the next five years, according a private study released Wednesday.

 

The increase — projected by the Pew Charitable Trusts study to be three times faster than overall population growth in the U.S. — is expected to cost states more than $27 billion.

 

“As a country, we have a problem,” said Susan Urahn, managing director of policy initiatives for the Pew Charitable Trusts, which funded the study by its Public Safety Performance Project.

 

Urahn said she hopes states use the study to prepare for the future — either by building more prisons or by adopting policies to slow the growth through alternative forms of punishment.

 

The projections, she said, are not inevitable. They can be altered by state policies as well as economic and cultural changes...

 

Incarcerated population grows

There are more than 1.5 million inmates in the nation’s state and federal prisons, a number that is projected to grow to more than 1.7 million by the end of 2011, a 13 percent increase. The nation’s population, by comparison, is projected to grow by 4.5 percent in that time.

 

States are projected to spend up to $27.5 billion on the new inmates, including $12.5 billion in construction costs, according to the study.

 

....In Connecticut, the state reversed years of crowding problems in part by investing in programs for inmates who are about to re-enter society. The state also increased the number of probation officers to monitor those who have been released.

 

“Truth in sentencing, three strikes and you’re out — it looks great on paper, but try to make it work,” said Connecticut Rep. Michael Lawlor, a Democrat and co-chairman of the state legislature’s Judiciary Committee.

 

Lawlor, a former prosecutor, said Connecticut lawmakers focused on ways to reduce recidivism rather than campaign pledges to get tough on criminals. As a result, he said, crime rates have dropped along with incarceration rates.

 

[Racoon]

Some links and statistics: :eek:

 

Bureau of Justice Statistics Prison Statistics

 

http://www.prisonsucks.com/:

On December 31, 2005, there were 2,193,798 people in U.S. prisons and jails. The United States incarcerates a greater share of its population, 737 per 100,000 residents, than any other country on the planet. But when you break down the statistics you see that incarceration is not an equal opportunity punishment.

 

U.S. incarceration rates by race, June 30, 2004:

 

Whites: 393 per 100,000

Latinos: 957 per 100,000

Blacks: 2,531 per 100,000

 

 

Drug War Facts: Drug Offenders In The Corrections System Prisons, Jails and Probation

 

U.S. Prison Population Sets Record - washingtonpost.com

Friday, December 1, 2006; Page A03

 

 

A record 7 million people -- one in every 32 U.S. adults -- were behind bars, on probation or on parole by the end of last year, a Justice Department report released yesterday shows.

 

Of those, 2.2 million were in prison or jail, an increase of 2.7 percent over the previous year, according to the report.

[Freddy]

I have worked in the Juvenile Justice System(JJS) for 12 years. One could almost predict which kids are going to end up in the adult prison system. Family life, friends, and neighborhood influences in many cases are too strong for the current juvenile system to succeed in turning kids away from drugs, gangs, and violence. Many kids who are found delinquent by the court are sent to a JJS treatment program. These programs have both successes and failures in turning kids around. Some kids go through the programs ranging from several months to several years and then are returned to the environment that originally got them into the JJS. Families may be gang/drug involved and/or simply non-supportive of the kid's future success in the non-criminal side of society. There are not enough foster care homes to fill the need of kids who should not be returned to the environment that created them. When families are supportive of their kids' needs of being drug free, attending school and doing well educationally and vocationally kids do better in succeeding in society. Instead of keeping kids in the JJS until a suitable placement can be made a lack of funds determines where and when kids are placed. The fix is not what the public wants to hear. Raising taxes just does not sell well. Until this problem is fixed the adult system will continue to grow and drain the economy from the lack of productive adults, an unsafe society due to higher crime rates, and higher taxes on everyone else to combat the national crime epidemic.

[CraigD]

The fix is not what the public wants to hear. Raising taxes just does not sell well.

The last 6 years have shown that the US government is adept at spending money without raising taxes. Even if indefinite deficit spending can’t be sustained indefinitely, the money required to adequately fund these programs is a small fraction of what is now being spent on increasingly unpopular military expeditions. In short, the money is there.

 

As I suggested in the early posts of this thread, the problem is the unpopularity of taxes as it is the unpopularity of “giving a handout” to “bad kids” - TANPPOAMASSGAFL (“There Ain’t Nothin’ Pisses People Off As Much As Seeing Someone Get A Free Lunch”). As it’s currently framed in the political debate, it’s terribly hard for “handouts for bad kids” to compete with “keeping our men and women in uniform alive”.

 

The only solution I’m able to envision is the adoption of a public attitude of SSGAFLASBIEGO (“Seeing Someone Get A Free Lunch Ain’t So Bad If Everybody Gets One”). It’s my hope that the political pendulum is swinging leftward, and with it a shift in spending from defense (with hundreds of thousand of uniformed personnel returning to the safety of home and civilian life) to domestic programs. I’ll have a better sense of how realistic this hope is in two to four years.