A recent report indicates that the U.S. leads the world in its incarceration rate: a total of 6.6 million Americans in jail at any given time, which is 1 in every 32 Americans. The incarceration rate is 690 per hundred thousand, which is the highest rate in the world (followed by Russia at 670 per hundred thousand).
Why? is it really just politicians “getting tough on crime” as the article suggests? but it’s the people who vote for the politicians. Does it make people feel safer? what’s the attraction?
I think it’s a combination of tough drug laws, yet easy access to drugs, tough sentencing in general (with exceptions), larger disparity between the rich and the poor than most western countries, and a lack of rehabilitation for those serving time.
Of course, with the exception of the drug laws, I could be very wrong.
Get tough on crime campaigns are always popular. Furthermore, the US has a high rate of violent crime and an aversion to gun control.*
*NOT that I’m claiming here that regulating handguns and semi-automatics to the same extent as other industrialized countries would tend to lead to similar homicide rates as exist in those other industrial countries. That would be a blatant hijack, which this thread doesn’t need.
Suffice it to say that high crime rates give ample justification for punitive measures, regardless of the latter’s effectiveness.
This is a somewhat biased article that contains some sweeping generalizations and unproveable statements on this topic.
Ummm…this is not only not true, it smacks of being an out-and-out lie, since the person making the statement should know that not only do the States control this, but many States DO allow felons to vote.
Think we’ll see a retraction from the Globe and Mail on this one?
Next, we have this:
Ummm…yeah. And the election might have turned out differently if Gore had won Tennessee…while we’re looking at “what-if’s” here, we better include them all. Interesting how it all ties back to the election mess in Florida too… :rolleyes:
This is purposefully slanted language. “Small” amounts of drugs - implying that it of course is unreasonable to convict. How “small” exactly? Can’t the reporter do a Google Search? And “relatively minor felonies”. Really? That’s all the 3-Strikes laws impact? Guess what, it impacts those who commit major felonies as well.
Which “crime experts”? The ones the reporter made up to make a point? Why weren’t their names and articles quoted? Why are there no sources?
There may be a serious problem with high incarceration rates in the US - this may be true. But all I know from this article is that this is very sloppy, if not openly biased, reporting.
I don’t think the issue is “getting tough on crime”, it’s the war on drugs. Quite frankly, we convict and imprison way too many people for non-violent drug charges; IMHO, imprisoning a person for possession shouldn’t be allowed. We have a country with a permissive culture towards drugs on the one hand, and on the other hand that fears and hates drug users. Many public officials and celebrities openly admit drug use; even GW Bush said it was nobody’s business if he used cocaine in the past. Yet, the same officials prey on our fears and espouse an insane drug policy that they, themselves, flaunt violation of.
It’s a silly situation. Fortunately, it will probably be resolved within a generation, when people who have been raised around drugs (notably, marijuana) and have realized the lies that the ‘war on drugs’ propagates, and its demonization of drug users, need to end. The cost to society is simply too high – far higher than drug use, itself – between excess incarceration, increased criminal activity (ala Prohibition - creating markets for gangs), and wasted law enforcement spending.
Actually, that’s 6.6 million Americans in jail, on probation or paroled (from the article). This agrees with the U.S. Department of Justice statistics. Also, the actual incarceration rate was 470 per 100,000 in 2001, not 690.
Because more Americans commit crimes within their nation’s law than in other countries?
OK, that was a smart-ass answer.
I think it’s probably because of drugs and guns. Drugs, because USA prosecutes and jails more drug-users and dealers than in a lot of other industrialized nations. Guns, because more Americans commit homicides and violent crimes (http://www.interpol.int/Public/Statistics/ICS/downloadList.asp) than most European countries, and I believe that’s related to easy access to guns. That means more people serving longer sentences in prison (the violents tend to get longer terms), and higher incarceration rates.
Here in NY, even the head of Corrections and Probation deptartments (both of whom I’ve talked to) think that putting non-violent drug offenders in prision is absolutely insane. From what I understand, this is the feeling of tons and tons of corrections experts and professionals. But none of them really expect any change anytime soon, because the idea of lessening penalties for even the safer drugs is politically dead in the water.
Amusingly, a pot advocacy group here in New York recently had a campaign where they posted a picture of Mayor Bloomberg and a quote from him about pot: “Yes, I tried it. And I enjoyed it” I think they made a pretty good point. But, of course, that doesn’t mean that anything will change.
—Ummm…this is not only not true, it smacks of being an out-and-out lie, since the person making the statement should know that not only do the States control this, but many States DO allow felons to vote.—
To be fair, the article never actually says that all States deny felons the right to vote, and indeed goes on to talk about the differences between the ones that do and the ones that don’t.
Darwin’s Finch
US Incarceration Rate 1925-1973: About 110 per 100,000
US Incarceration Rate 2000: 478
(State and Federal)
US Incarceration Rate including local jails: almost 700, higher than Russia.
That’s from the Economist, 8/10/02 (I suspect the Daily Mail drew their inspiration from them, btw).
Fun facts: Disenfranchised Felons as % of Voting Age Population
Florida …7%
Alabama …7%
New Mexico…6%
Virginia…6%
Mississippi…6%
Delaware…6%
Wyoming…5%
Florida tops the list. It seems reasonable to mention that a certain election dispute also occurred in Florida in the recent past.
On the bright side, since the late 1970s a number of prison programs have been demonstrated to reduce recidivism. I haven’t noticed much interest in them though, perhaps because Americans find punitive schemes to be highly satisfying, despite the added expense.
Actually, our high incarceration rates are partly a result of our high violent crime rates. But it is also true that the US gives longer prison sentences and pays minimal attention to those who are released. Again, from the Economist:
“about four million U.S. citizens can no longer vote, because a felony conviction means a lifetime ban on casting a ballot.”
and does not, as far as I can read, mention any difference between different States allowing felons to vote. I’ve just re-read the thing word-for-word, and maybe it’s too early in the morning, but I don’t see it.
A blanket statement like that, by someone who should know better, when in fact it’s only true for 1/5 of the States, is, IMO, a deliberate lie made for political effect.
Based on this story, I have an even bigger scoop for the Economist. Hundreds of people in Illinois are impersonating parole supervisors and officers and claiming to oversee prisoners after their release. And to perpetuate this obvious fraud (the Economist surely would have checked their facts, right?), they even have a website.
And as part of this scam, these people even claim to operate work release centers. From the linked site:
"Corrections operates 12 work release centers called Adult Transitional Centers. Two of the centers can house female inmates. These centers are designed to house approximately 1,500 inmates who must work or go to school and return to the center when not occupied in an approved activity in the community. Inmates who are within two years of release and classified as minimum security may apply for placement at an ATC through their counselor. However, there are approximately 45,000 adults incarcerated so Corrections is very selective about who is transferred to ATCs. "
I hope no one on the SDMB is fooled by this fraud. I mean, the Economist couldn’t possibly be so careless and/or biased.
—and does not, as far as I can read, mention any difference between different States allowing felons to vote. I’ve just re-read the thing word-for-word, and maybe it’s too early in the morning, but I don’t see it.----
The bit about Florida?
—A blanket statement like that, by someone who should know better, when in fact it’s only true for 1/5 of the States, is, IMO, a deliberate lie made for political effect.—
I don’t see any mention or implication of “all states” in that particular instance either: it just states the fact 4 million felons can’t vote. It certainly could go into more detail about the different laws in different States, but it seem more concerned with the gross number, regardless of differing causes. I don’t necessarily see anything wrong with that, and it’s probably the best of two evils, since I assume that if the article mentioned that the laws are almost always strongly supported by states controlled by majority Republicans because they disproportionately dienfranchise Democrats, you’d complain that that was slanted too.
You need to do more than fire back one-liners that cannot be backed up. Show me exactly where in the article that it implies or says that Florida is different, in the majority, or the minority of States with respect to its treatment of felons and voting.
You cannot. Because it doesn’t say that. And that is my point. It is overly broad and generalizing. Why is this even in dispute here? Regardless of how one feels about the problem of incarceration levels, this article adds nothing to the debate but noise.
Most of the laws/Constitutions of States that address this subject were not done recently, or in recent history. And in many cases they far predate our current notions of “Republican” and “Democrat”, or “liberal” or “conservative”. It is therefore a meaningless point.
And don’t start making assumptions as to what I would or would not do.
Darwin’s Finch
US Incarceration Rate 1925-1973: About 110 per 100,000
US Incarceration Rate 2000: 478
(State and Federal)
US Incarceration Rate including local jails: almost 700, higher than Russia.
That’s from the Economist, 8/10/02 (I suspect the Daily Mail drew their inspiration from that article, btw).
Fun facts: Disenfranchised Felons as % of Voting Age Population (rounded to nearest %)
Florida …7%
Alabama …7%
New Mexico…6%
Virginia…6%
Mississippi…6%
Delaware…6%
Wyoming…5%
Florida tops the list. It seems reasonable to mention that a certain election dispute also occurred in Florida in the recent past. I am not judging the Daily Mail article, however, as I have not read it: I am more interested in the underlying claims of the OP than in allegations of media bias, at least in this thread.
On the bright side, since the late 1970s a number of prison programs have been demonstrated to reduce recidivism. I haven’t noticed much interest in them though, perhaps because Americans find punitive schemes to be highly satisfying.
Actually, our high incarceration rates are partly a result of our high violent crime rates. But it is also true that the US gives longer prison sentences and pays minimal attention to those who are released. Again, from the Economist:
:smack: Sorry for the 2nd post. I thought that it was eaten last evening.
Jack m’boy: Sorry, but I didn’t want to reproduce the entire article. I didn’t see how my blurb implied that Illinois lacks parole officers. Methinks that you were reading into it a tad.
The big picture is that the US is devoting fewer resources to the post-release inmate. Hey, Americans like that and seem disinterested in cost-effectiveness. Who am I to judge? Here’s the link, but I suspect that it will work only for registered subscribers: http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1270755
flowbark: “Jack m’boy: Sorry, but I didn’t want to reproduce the entire article. I didn’t see how my blurb implied that Illinois lacks parole officers. Methinks that you were reading into it a tad.”
Methinks not. But thanks for fleshing it out.
Of course, the Economist might want to think about other comparisons between the U.S. and Europe which could affect crime and imprisonment rates - such as the differences in immigration rates and homogenousness of society. And a differing interpretation can be placed on the phrase “the imprisonment rate is tied to the crime rate” - the fall in the U.S. crime rate to historic lows possibly being to some degree a consequence of increased incarceration. (incarceration rates have reportedly been starting to drop recently, even as crime rates in some places have begun to rise).
I’d like to see a source for that claim that Illinois gives released prisoners $10, just to be assured that it’s accurate and not something the Economist got from a James Cagney movie.
Allow me to add my voice to Anthracite’s, pointing out the obvious bias in the OP’s article–the sources quoted are both people who have an axe to grind connected with “getting people out of prison”. Right off the bat:
So the only two sources quoted in the article are people who already think there are too many people in U.S. prisons, and whose entire careers are devoted to getting people out of prison. It’s hardly unbiased reporting, Piper.
As for the statistics themselves, although I have no quibble with the actual numbers, as the ICPS seems like a legit group, bear in mind that you can prove anything with statistics that you want to.
And the table at the end is cute. Demure little Canada is tucked away discreetly at the bottom of the list (“caught being good…”), although its “135” is actually larger than the UK’s “133”, so it should be listed second from last–except thaaaat…the “135” statistic itself is evidently from 1999-2000, and thus has no “ranking”, or reason for being on the list, since all the other countries are using data from “as of July 1, 2002”.
So “Miro Cernetig” is using old data, biased reporting, and a bit of creative table formatting, to make Canada look good.
I’m sorry, Piper, but I see the whole article as just, “oooh, look at the dope-ridden gun-slinging Yankees!” fingerpointing, not really “news” as such.
Not to mention the slightly “yellow” headline: “U.S. solidifies its ranking as the world’s biggest jailer”.
Please. :rolleyes: Might as well have an exclamation point after it, tabloid style. “U.S. solidifies its ranking as the world’s biggest jailer**!**”
There is no doubt that the US has an awfully large number of prisoners. Most of us agree that the situation is deplorable. However, when we turn to the question of why?, out agreement ends.
I think we agree that most prisoners have violated the law and are being punished according to the penal code. No doubt, a number of innocent people have been convicted. Still, nobody seems to be claiming that there’s an increase in the percentage of innocent people being convicted.
So, what’s the cause? Maybe felons get longer sentences than their crimes deserve. I’ve seen this claimed for drug cases. OTOH others claim that the typical prisoner has committed quite a few crimes. Maybe someone on this board has appropriate statistics.
I think we have a lot of prisoners because we have a lot of crime. Maybe liberals deserve the blame. Maybe liberal law changes made it more socially acceptible to be a criminal. E.g.,
– some of the Warren Court reforms turned trials into more of a game than a search for justice.
– Letting felons regain the right to vote is a way of saying that commiting a felony isn’t that bad.
Truthfully, I don’t know what the cause is. My point is, one can make a case to blame any side one wants to.
I wouldn’t normally post to this kind of thing, but I just read an article on fark about a teenager getting ten years for stealing a six pack and escaping from custody. It got me wondering.
For the sake of argument, let’s say that the Globe and Mail is a tabloid that will give you botulism if you wrap your fish and chips in it. Let’s also say that the article is a prime example of bias, and that there’s some glaring inaccuracies in it.
However… flowbark has yet to be refuted in his or her assertion:
… even though that number comes from the well-known liberal organ, the Economist! (That was sarcasm, I’d insert a smilie, but I’m trying to wean my self off them)
So… my question is, given this, do people think this is right? i.e. is this the appropriate level of incarceration for the US as a whole? Do you think justice is served by this level of incarceration? And I’m sure it takes a shedload of taxpayer’s dollars to support that many people in jail, and a lot of ‘government’ too. Doesn’t that get on your wick?
Also what causes it? If its that high, what are the ultimate causes that make it so high? Longer sentences leading to more people being in prison at the same time is a no-brainer, but do longer sentences lead to a higher or lower level of recidivism? Or does the American criminal system lead to a higher level of recidivism? Is there a higher level of recidivism in the US? Is that the problem?
And what exactly does jackmannii mean when he implies that higher rates of immigration/increased social heterogeneity lead to higher crime rates?
And while I’m at it does anyone apart from December think that letting felons regain the right to vote is a way of saying that commiting a felony isn’t that bad? I thought that the idea was they regain their right to participate in society when they finish their sentence.
Maybe liberal law changes made it more socially acceptible to be a criminal. E.g.,