US prison population soars in 2003-04

[Shodan]

@ITR champion

It doesn’t matter if incarceration lasted for one year or twenty years. The problem is that our society pushes a large class of people into a life of crime because they have no other reasonable options. And if a person is dropped into prison for a long time, they don’t get changed in any way that will reduce their motivation to commit crimes upon release.

I don’t know that this is true.

The peak crime-committing years are the teens and twenties, especially for non-habitual offenders. Keeping them in prison while they age out of those years can reduce the number of crimes they commit over their lifetimes even if you don’t do much about rehabilitation.

This is not necessarily an argument for imprisoning everybody for twenty years on a first offense, but longer sentences do have a tendency to reduce overall crime.

Regards,
Shodan

[Lissa]

@Shodan

I don’t know that this is true.

The peak crime-committing years are the teens and twenties, especially for non-habitual offenders. Keeping them in prison while they age out of those years can reduce the number of crimes they commit over their lifetimes even if you don’t do much about rehabilitation.

This is not necessarily an argument for imprisoning everybody for twenty years on a first offense, but longer sentences do have a tendency to reduce overall crime.

Regards,
Shodan

ITR champion is right about having limited options.

A good portion of the folks in prison are there in part because they’re never gonna live the American Dream. College wasn’t an option, so their career choices amount to various forms of hard work for little pay and even littler respect. They may never have been taught polite social skills, so what little avenue for advancement remains is pretty much shut for them. Add on to this life-changing mistakes like drug use or having babies, and you’ve got a long, hard road ahead at best.

Having a prison record compunds this. Though nominally illegal, I think that most employers would honestly admit that they’d think long and hard before hiring an ex-con, especially one convicted of theivery or sex offenses.

That’s one of the most frustrating aspects about releasing inmates. No one wants them. How are they supposed to assimilate back into society and become a contributor if they are rejected at every turn? They wear the Mark of Cain-- people don’t want to be around them, work with them, or, god forbid, live near them.

You can’t expect great results when people whose faith in the system is already a bit low experience endless frustration when they, for once, try to do the right thing.

This is a problem that government programs or legislation can’t fix. It’s a hole at the end of our justice system into which some people, despite sincere and concerted effort, fall.

Many inmates leave prison with no prospects, training, or sometimes, even without a home. Are we really surprised by the result?

[buns3000]

@Shodan

The peak crime-committing years are the teens and twenties, especially for non-habitual offenders. Keeping them in prison while they age out of those years can reduce the number of crimes they commit over their lifetimes even if you don’t do much about rehabilitation.

Cite?

@Shodan

This is not necessarily an argument for imprisoning everybody for twenty years on a first offense, but longer sentences do have a tendency to reduce overall crime.

Not my understanding of the relevant stats (and IAAL). Cite?

[BrainGlutton]

@modernhamlet

Don’t forget that the judical-penal industry is a multi-billion dollar industry with an immensely powerful lobby in Washington. As long as there continues to be money to be made keeping people locked away in prison, then chances are people will continue to be locked away in prison, regardless of whether or not the policies that put those people behind bars are based on concepts of fairness, justice, or even intelligent fiscal and social policy.

Follow the money. It will almost always lead you to the answer.

I can readily believe that the penal industry (like any other American interest group with lots of ready cash) exercises massive influence on elections and on elected legislators who draft the penal laws, including sentencing guidelines But what proof is there that they exercise any influence on the judges, who are the ones who are (within the strait limits imposed by the guidelines) handing down the sentences?

[Metacom]

@BrainGlutton

But what proof is there that they exercise any influence on the judges, who are the ones who are (within the strait limits imposed by the guidelines) handing down the sentences?

Other then some parts of the country having elected judges, who need campaign money as badly as any other politician, none.

However, those sentencing guidelines, which have gotten a great deal stricter over the years (recent rulings against the federal guidelines and drug-court type movements aside), are from the legislature. Also, 3-strikes laws are from either the legislature or the population.

Going back to sunny California, one of the biggest backers of that states 3-strikes laws was the CCPOA (prison guard’s union). If you’re familiar with the CCPOA, they’re worth reading up on…

[modernhamlet]

@BrainGlutton

I can readily believe that the penal industry (like any other American interest group with lots of ready cash) exercises massive influence on elections and on elected legislators who draft the penal laws, including sentencing guidelines But what proof is there that they exercise any influence on the judges, who are the ones who are (within the strait limits imposed by the guidelines) handing down the sentences?

It’s already been said, but the judge have no effective say in sentencing any longer:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snitch/primer/

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer discusses the Federal Criminal Sentencing Guidelines:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snitch/readings/breyer.html

Oh, and don’t forget forfeiture laws, whererby your house, car, and all other property can be seized (and kept) by a government agency permanently, whether or not you are convicted of a crime. This money pays the salaries of thousands of federal and state employees. Harsh drug laws are a major cash cow for many people and those people have been fighting reality and reason for years to keep things going in their direction.

[scule]

See, now this sounds like a possible answer. My question, however, is how can it possibly be in line with your Constitution to be able to seize property, even if not convicted?

[modernhamlet]

@scule

See, now this sounds like a possible answer. My question, however, is how can it possibly be in line with your Constitution to be able to seize property, even if not convicted?

It doesn’t make sense to a lot of people, myself included.

This link is a PDF of a policy paper that outlines how forfeiture works in the US. Page 4 contains a list of important Supreme Court cases related to forfeiture laws if you wish to do your own research.