1% of our population is incarcerated....

[rn79870]

This is one of those threads that you can easily dismiss with a "so what, they deserve it" response. That's probably true, but the fact is, it is a problem. Feeding, providing medical care, educating, guarding and housing 3,000,000 people is expensive and seriously, drains the economy.

Is there another answer? Are we missing something? Care to comment?

The number first appeared in headlines earlier this year: Nearly one in four of all prisoners worldwide is incarcerated in America. It was just the latest such statistic. Today, one in nine African American men between the ages of 20 and 34 is locked up. In 1970, our prisons held fewer than 200,000 people; now that number exceeds 1.5 million, and when you add in local jails, it's 2.3 million—1 in 100 American adults. Since the 1980s, we've sat by as the numbers inched higher and our prison system ballooned, swallowing up an ever-larger portion of the citizenry. But do statistics like these, no matter how disturbing, really mean anything anymore? What does it take to get us to sit up and notice?

Apparently, it takes a looming financial crisis. For there is another round of bad news, the logical extension of the first: The more money a state spends on building and running prisons, the less there is for everything else, from roads and bridges to health care and public schools. At the pace our inmate population has been expanding, America's prison system is becoming, quite simply, too expensive to sustain. That is why Kansas, Texas, and at least 11 other states have been trying out new strategies to curb the cost—reevaluating their parole policies, for instance, so that not every parolee who runs afoul of an administrative rule is shipped straight back to prison. And yet our infatuation with incarceration continues.

There have been numerous academic studies and policy reports and journalistic accounts analyzing our prison boom, but this phenomenon cannot be fully measured in numbers. That much became apparent to me when, beginning in 2000, I spent nearly four years shadowing a woman who'd just been released from prison. She'd been locked up for 16 years for a first-time drug crime, and her absence had all but destroyed her family. Her mother had taken in her four young children after her arrest, only to die prematurely of kidney failure. One daughter was deeply depressed, the other was seething with rage, and her youngest son had followed her lead, diving into the neighborhood drug culture and then winding up in prison himself

(italics from Ma Jones)http://www.motherjones.com/new....html

[WDRacing]

It's a tricky topic...

IMO we put people in jail for offenses that aren't the type that actually require jail time. But on the other hand, we don't actually punish the people that deserve it as harsh as I think they should be.

For instance, rape...real rape not some 18yr old getting caught banging his gf by their parents. But dragging some chick to the ground and raping her. That is as bad as murder IMO. Yes each case is different, but so are the laws that require varying degree's of punishment. In cases where a women is coming home from dropping her kids off, gets attacked in her garage, gets raped, the guy dumps a hot load of cum in or on her then gets caught later...death. Conviction followed by death. Period...no aww we feel bad, or maybe he's got some mental issues...yeah of course he has issues...he's raping people. No 20 years then out...no appeal. A simple lethal injection...hell do it right there in the court room.

It is my firm belief that if you actually hold people accountable for their crimes then they will indeed go down. Everything from shoplifting to murder should be harsher. Kid gets arrested for stealing a video game...fine. He gets sent to where ever in that stats to live in a tent on a cot like the military uses. He's fed vitamins supplements and rice with bread and water. While he's serving his re-education he is out picking up the road ways, repainting schools, any number of things that needs to get done.

Make the punishment bad enough that people actually don't want to be a criminal. We sure as hell don't need them to have TV, AC or any niceties. We can use the criminal population to manufacture all kinds of various things...where the profit is monitored federally and passed back into the same system to assist feeding and housing the criminals.

We don't need to have special holding tanks for violent offenders...wanna attack guards...fine have a nice hot needle you SOB. Wanna riot...ok, we aren't using rubber bullets...we're going to sound the horn, anyone not lying down gets shot and so do the 2 dudes next to you.

[96Qowner]

I'd like to chime in on this one because I had some personal experience with prison in my youth.

I don't think you can understand how prisons fit into our culture without thinking about what happens in a prison and what their effects are on prisoners. People who have not been booked and printed and held for more than a day really have no idea how irrational and unjust the law is. Once you're in the system you're a different sort of human being. There is no punishment, there is no rehabilitation - there's just existence until your sentence is over - warehousing.

Prisons merely separate the bad guys from the rest of society - that's their purpose.

So when you talk about who should be in prison, you need to ask yourself if this person needs to be separated. He will not be rehabilitated, he will not be deterred and he will not be "punished". I never met anyone in prison who was. It's just a different society, run by the prisoners themselves, with guards as gatekeepers. So if you think a person needs to live in that society for awhile, so he can think about his bad deeds in ours, fine. That'll work for 10-15% of the population. The rest just learn how to live in that society and lose their respect for, and sense of belonging in, ours. Then we let them out.

If you can hold a man until he's in his late 50s, generally, he will not be a danger to our society, 'cause he's older, wiser and most importantly - tired. So think in terms of very long sentences for violent people - assault, rape, murder, armed robbery, etc. It's unlikely these people will be improved by the prison experience, so don't plan on letting them out until they're in their late 50s.

I don't believe drug offenders should be imprisoned. If they've been violent, fine, that's covered under violence. It would be less expensive and less destructive to our society if drug offenders were treated for their obsessions, instead of being thrown into prison society. I mean, it's basically a commerce and public nuisance offense. That would open up a LOT of room for bad guys.

I also am in favor of the bullet and the brick wall, but most people don't agree with me, so we can't just send the broken ones to meet their Maker - unfortunate.

If we can empty the prisons of people who don't truly need to be separated from society, we can concentrate on the ones that do.

Just don't think of prisons as places of punishment or rehabilitation - they simply aren't and never will be. Be very wary of tossing people into that society. Do we want them as one of us, or one of them?

[WDRacing]

I concur ALMOST 100%. I did 7 months a couple years back myself...jail does suck. I agree that locking people up forever IS NOT the answer. The question is what is a better method of holding people accountable for their actions?

[srellim234]

Great points, 96.

WD, to start with we can go back to deciding guilt based on whether a person did did the crime or not. Guilty or innocent? No extenuating circumstances, no innocent by reason of the guy's second grade teacher looked at him crosseyed one time thirty five years ago or his mother fixed him peas once a week and he hates peas. I know cases like that that succeed are a very minor percentage of overall cases, but they get the press and any success at all leads to a lot of bogging down of the courts by certain defense attorneys who feel compelled to try it.

Getting back to allowing people to get off only when they were forced to commit the crime under duress is a starting point.

A speedy trial to reach judgement would be huge, too. Far too many delays, postponements, etc. in the courts before we ever get to a judgement. Sentencing for the guilty should be swift to make the sentence effective.

[96Qowner]

Yeah, it's a tough question.

Law-abiding voters and officials just have to stop thinking in terms of punishment. If you want punishment, publicly cane their bare bottoms like in Singapore. That'd stop a lot of punk behavior - hard to get street cred for that, eh?

I think it might be a good idea to eliminate the middle ground - either lock someone up for a very very long time in a Federal prison, or just for a year or so in a State or City jail, contingent on good behavior. A year is enough to decide if you want to mess with the law a second time. You'd be required to make up your mind - do you want to risk being in prison until you're 60, or do you want to try flying straight?

[krazydriver]

It's a tricky topic...

IMO we put people in jail for offenses that aren't the type that actually require jail time. But on the other hand, we don't actually punish the people that deserve it as harsh as I think they should be.

For instance, rape...real rape not some 18yr old getting caught banging his gf by their parents. But dragging some chick to the ground and raping her. That is as bad as murder IMO. Yes each case is different, but so are the laws that require varying degree's of punishment. In cases where a women is coming home from dropping her kids off, gets attacked in her garage, gets raped, the guy dumps a hot load of cum in or on her then gets caught later...death. Conviction followed by death. Period...no aww we feel bad, or maybe he's got some mental issues...yeah of course he has issues...he's raping people. No 20 years then out...no appeal. A simple lethal injection...hell do it right there in the court room.

It is my firm belief that if you actually hold people accountable for their crimes then they will indeed go down. Everything from shoplifting to murder should be harsher. Kid gets arrested for stealing a video game...fine. He gets sent to where ever in that stats to live in a tent on a cot like the military uses. He's fed vitamins supplements and rice with bread and water. While he's serving his re-education he is out picking up the road ways, repainting schools, any number of things that needs to get done.

Make the punishment bad enough that people actually don't want to be a criminal. We sure as hell don't need them to have TV, AC or any niceties. We can use the criminal population to manufacture all kinds of various things...where the profit is monitored federally and passed back into the same system to assist feeding and housing the criminals.

We don't need to have special holding tanks for violent offenders...wanna attack guards...fine have a nice hot needle you SOB. Wanna riot...ok, we aren't using rubber bullets...we're going to sound the horn, anyone not lying down gets shot and so do the 2 dudes next to you.

Sorry for the huge quote. But you have no idea how much i agree with that. Prisons while not being fun, is not as bad as it could be. People who REALLY should not be allowed to live are put in jail then let out years later. Case in point, semi-local to me. Guy kills a family then burns the house down to hide the crime. Last i heard he was going to get 25 years or something. He shouldn't get any time, that kind of crime shows that you're not fit to live.

Either way though, the legal system is run by judges who have their own opinions, and lawyers who will defend anyone no matter how guilty they are. So it's all about the money, the influence, and unless we develop the ability to read minds they will always take the easier punishment for someone because of not being able to see inside that persons mind and seeing how sick they may be, as well as being concerned about putting out harsh punishments that may damage their public image.

[srellim234]

Kind of related, I'd like to throw out what I thought was an interesting idea that I'm sure someone here will take issue with and tear apart.

Make sentencing mandatory, but change the way it is applied in the following manner: for those crimes with mandatory incarceration times, make the sentence for a crime that carries a mandatory time of, for example "5-10 years" automatically start at the 10 years and take time off for good behavior down to the 5 year level. The inmate still has the good behavior incentive and it makes everything much more clear-cut, freeing up the courts to deal with cases instead of sentences.

[Eikon]

I think the incarcerated population needs to be put to work. They need to repay their debt to society by WORKING. Get them back out on chain gangs building highways and public works projects. Turn prisons into factories and manufacture something of value.

[rn79870]

I would guess that many of those in prison have never had a job. They don't know the satisfaction of earning a paycheck and saving for a car. They don't know what it feels like to know you can stand on your own two feet and e a r n your keep.

No one has proposed a solution to this? Do we keep these 3 million people incarcerated (some should never get out) or do we keep catching them and putting them back?

Anyone have an alternative?

[OriginalWheelman]

Release people in jail for drug charges unless they harmed someone else. Telling people what they can and can not do behind closed doors on their property is unconstitutional. Now, if a person does cocaine, goes out and causes trouble in public, DUI for example, then by all means lock them up. Drugs ought to be treated like alcohol IMO. This would save us a lot of money, not only in incarceration, but in enforcement. The county government in Erie county NY suggested decriminalizing just marijuana as a cost cutting measure, slated to save our county millions a year. If one county can save millions, how much are we spending nation wide?

Capital punishment for serious felonies. I'd like to see statistics, but I'm sure knowing you're going to die (not maybe, going to) if you get caught would be a hell of a deterrent.

Those two should save us a hell of a lot.

[WDRacing]

I semi agree OW. I agree that drug use if done at home isn't a punishable offense...period. But what about the selling and purchasing of said drugs? Whats to keep dealers from targeting kids?

That's the REAL issue behind drugs and there use. Marijuana should just be made legal...there is NO reason it shouldn't be. It does far less damage to the body then both tobacco and alcohol. Don't tell me it's a gateway drug...the people that use drugs also smoke cigarettes and drink beer.

Cocaine and heroin are addictive substances and cause a person to lose touch with reality. Keep them illegal, but fine people for their use and confine those that deal.

Any plan implemented would have to start now, but the people already confined will simply stay confined until they can accrue enough good behavior to be let off.

I also agree with 96, 6 months to a year is enough to change a persons life, it did mine.

[rn79870]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the "boot camp" alternative. I'm not speaking of putting them in the military, but putting the offenders in one of those boot camp type jails where they do a 90 day program under a drill sergeant type person. Then, make finding and keeping a job part of their release agreement. Make them earn their freedom, don't simply give it to them because they were there for a specific amount of time.

[redtop91]

I really don't know of any alternatives to prisons but mandatory minimums for recreational drugs are going a LONG way towards the population of prisons. Treating drug users is much more effective than throwing them into a violent, tumultuous, and generally unsupervised setting. Petty crimes should be met with bigger fines rather than jailtime. Nothing motivates people more than hitting their pocket books. There is a lot legislation regarding offenses that I think aren't ideal but in our imperfect world I believe most are as ideal as it gets.

[WDRacing]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the "boot camp" alternative. I'm not speaking of putting them in the military, but putting the offenders in one of those boot camp type jails where they do a 90 day program under a drill sergeant type person. Then, make finding and keeping a job part of their release agreement. Make them earn their freedom, don't simply give it to them because they were there for a specific amount of time.

I hinted at it but didn't focus enough on that aspect. I think tents and barracks style living in military fashion would be excellent for small time offenders, non violent etc.

[Encryptshun]

+1 for the boot camp idea. I've seen our military ideology and pedagogy straighten out quite a few of my wayward friends. Best thing they ever did -- and makes me wish even more that I could have served.

Also +1 for bullet and brick wall. The purpose of our prisons should be rehabilitation for reintroduction into society -- that means changing the person so they don't WANT to commit crimes any longer and that they have the skills so they aren't driven to crime through desperation. If someone cannot be made useful in life, make them useful in death. Organ transplants, medical cadavers, stem cells.

+1 for repealing laws for consumption of illegal substances without incident of theft or violent crime. Get them rehabilitated, not locked up. Addiction is a disease of the mind, and we put those people in hospitals, not jails.

+1 for Criminal WPA. Put them to work as contract labor for what the illegal immigrants make. Take half their wage and use it to fund the prison. Let the inmates keep the rest, gathering interest, so they can make a downpayment on a car or apartment when they get out -- prove immediately that working hard gives rewards.

[AZhitman]

No one has proposed a solution to this? Anyone have an alternative?

I do.

And I worked on it a ton when I worked for the State Supreme Court on getting it adopted.

One word: Technology.

I gotta scoot, but I promise I'll post more later. We can do an awful lot through wireless monitoring, self-service check-in kiosks, and real-time GPS tracking.

I'll let you guys guess where the strongest opposition (and second-strongest opposition) came from.

[krazydriver]

^ looking forward to hearing that.

If someone cannot be made useful in life, make them useful in death.

While i agree with what your saying... DAMN that sounds harsh.

See this is where the inherent error in the system bothers me. You hear cases where someone's been in prison for 36 years, for whatever reason the case comes back to light and the guy was really innocent. As great as it would be to have a more pronounced live or die approach to the legal system, what about the VERY few innocents who sentenced?

[mtcookson]

DAMN that sounds harsh.

Surely not as harsh as someone murdered, brutally murdered, family murdered, chopped up, woman raped, child raped, etc.

Put one of those worthless persons in front of me, give me a gun, and the only thing I'll feel when I dispose of them is recoil.

[ishkabibble]

I'll let you guys guess where the strongest opposition (and second-strongest opposition) came from.

The prison contractors who fund the politician's campaigns?

[srellim234]

I'll let you guys guess where the strongest opposition (and second-strongest opposition) came from.

The trial lawyers association has to be one of them.

[AZhitman]

The prison contractors who fund the politician's campaigns?

Ummm, no. Nice try tho.

The left (again). The biggest gripes here (interestingly) were brought by the useless civil liberties attorneys who actually HURT their intended beneficiaries...

They complained of such things as invasion of privacy, Orwellian "monitoring", social stigma (for those using kiosks and wearing ankle bracelets) and possibilities of "the government" (LOL) using the information for unnecessary means.

Oh, and they said (get this): If they're out and about, we can't ensure that they'll get the counseling and rehabilitation they need. Ugh.

What the F ever. Fine, let's throw 'em all back in the slammer.

Sorry for us right-wingers thinking we could let them out to PROVE they can be trusted. Sorry for trying to save taxpayer dollars. Sorry for wanting all these people BACK in the work force contributing to the public coffers, rather than being a burden on society. Never again will we assume that individuals know what's best for themselves, because the Liberals have the corner on THAT market.

[Marenta]

Wow. Okay. This thread (I just saw it, and read it, and I just actually got EMI for getting into a fight at work about it) just hit a note with me.

One, as humans, we choose to do wrong. So, therefore, in America, we have a judicial system that perpetuates criminals. The belief here is that a criminal will never get caught, and if they do, the judicial system is there to establish guilt. You have to be proven, beyond a doubt, that you are, in fact, guilty. So, we automatically set ourselves up for failure.

Two, we are needlessly greedy by nature. We covet things of all sorts, and we rarely establish the morals in society today while growing up that make it fundamentally wrong to say that taking from one another is bad. We permit our children to watch TV, most of the time without limits or permissions. The school systems cannot possibly control and filter what comes in and goes on every second of every day at every square inch on the grounds. We have no real control over the the ethical being that is driving America anymore, we've lost it, and it may be far too gone.

Three, we hate ourselves so much that we can't even hurt those that truly deserve it. Self pity is a truly despicable and ugly thing, and we've breed it so thickly into our culture it runs as purely as Red, White, and Blue. So, when the Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that the death sentence was unethical for all crimes other than "murder" because the Bible stated "eye for an eye" and they took that to mean literal translation, well, then I suppose we should just take broom handles and rape the men that are pedophiles, now shouldn't we? Or the arsons, we should set them on fire and then put them out before they burn alive, that's it, right? That's fair?

Four, being liberal isn't bad, is it? Turn thy other cheek, right? Sure, I'll turn thy other cheek, and I'll turn around, and you can smack my backside, too, if you want. Hell, I'll give you a baseball bat, and you can go to town. Point is, you're on my dime, you're eating my food, you're breathing my air, you're drinking my water, and you're using my utilities. I don't appreciate that you get internet, books, education, tv, or any other activities. While there are crimes that I know some people have done that are truly mistakes, and are unintentional, that's unfortunate. I'm sorry. That's life. Look me up, I'll give you a place to stay, some money, help you out, get you back on your feet if you're an honest hard working Joe. But, if you're some scrub, I'll cap your *** so fcsking fast if you even set one toe on my property. That's just the way it goes.

Five, hey, guess what, we're wrong! Yeah, so, turns out, the Arabs are right about something. Yeah, the whole, if you steal thing, your get your hand cut off. Yeah, the crime rate over there is like.. non-existent. You know why? Because they EXPECT to get caught. They EXPECT to get punished for their crimes. Not like over here, where you never really think you're never going to get caught or punished for doing anything wrong.

I guess that about sums it up. I'm sure there's more, but my fingers are tired and my laundry just got done in the dryer.

[AZhitman]

You just made my day with that post.

Wonderfully stated.

[Marenta]

You just made my day with that post.

Wonderfully stated.

Thank you. My boss and I got into a very heated debate about the Supreme Court ruling of Death Penalty. And, he didn't like what I had to say, so he gave me EMI. So, I had to go into the office yesterday and field day the office for 4 hours.

Turns out if you call a GS-13 a pompous arse, he can still give you EMI, even though he's a civilian. Serves me right.

[krazydriver]

WOW!!! glad i checked back on this.+1 there's your problem.People don't expect to get caught, and if they do get caught they expect easy punishments.

Like i said though, if you alter the legal outlook of innocent till proven guilty, to "guilty till proven innocent" that WILL result in innocent people being sentenced.We should just use computers as judges and politicians.... either that or vulcans. we need logic not bull**** politics/human emotions driving everything.