Two million Americans will be behind bars by the end of 2001; the biggest civillian incarceration in history. That means America, with 5% of the world’s population will have 25% of its prisoners; its rate will exceed every country in the world that keeps statistics (with the possible exception of Russia).
Will the 2m milestone lead to a rethink of AMerican penal policy? Will it hell!
Not only does the US incarceration rate exceed other Western countries by 5-8 times, a generation ago it would have been unthinkable even in the United States. In 1960 America’s inmate population (long term prisons, short term jails, not counting illegal immigrants and minors) was 333,000. Over the next 20 years, it rose to 474,000. The quadrupling over the last 20 years has no prcedent in American history.
The chief explanation, of course, is America;s failed drug policy. Nearly 1 in 4 inmates is in for a drugs-related offence, “Why not a fine for marijuana possession” indeed, WIldest Bill. The cost of locking up drug offenders in 2001 will come to $10 billion. Discrimination, coupled with higher black incarceration rates for non-drug crimes, causes more than 1 in 10 black males in their 20s and early 30s to be locked up. In Texas, nearly 1 in 3 black men is under some form of criminal justice control (parole, probation, incarceration). One in ten black children has a parent in prison. In 46 states, prisoners can’t vote; in 12 states they can never vote again. Up to a third of American black males are voteless. In the thread “should felons be allowed to vote”, this issue of how significantly it affects the social fabric of black families is completely ignored by those who see no major problem with this disenfranchisement.
The cost of releasing prisoners is even bigger (and usually ignored) since these citizens will have difficulty getting jobs and slipping back into society. Half a century ago, the aim of the American prison system was rehabilitation, now it is clearly just getting bad guys off the streets.
What will it take for Americans to come to their senses? Is it possible, given the “law and order” political mood for any reform to occur? How can this be justified?
Criminals can either be:
a) On the street, or
b) Behind bars
In either case we pay a price. But at least a criminal behind bars can’t hurt my family or me.
Anyone who has read my posts knows I abhor paying taxes to sustain a bloated government. But the cost of building prisons and incarcerating criminals is something I have no problem paying for (assuming the criminal justice system is Constitutional, fair, and uncorrupt).
You know I read a newspaper on how awful the judicial system for russians were. That basically prosecution always won and defense always failed. It also had “gasp” the 2nd highest % of their population in jail.
Try reading the OP again. Or my link. The reason SO MANY Americans are in prison has everything to do with the mandatory minimum laws,and the drug laws in general, which tend to incarcerate a lot of small time dealers, mules, and users. And don’t do much to stop the drug trade or stop addicts from being addicts.
Actual murderers and other violent crimminals have been released to make room in prisons for the mandatory minimum (non-violent)convicts. So those violent criminals are now out there where they can hurt your family.
Crafter’s reasoning is EXACTLY what is wrong with this country’s response to crime. Extraordinarily simplistic, lacking in compassion or understanding, and brutal.
“Criminal? LOCK EM UP! Criminal? GIVE THEM NOTHING! Criminal? LET THEM ROT!”
Never stopping to realize that the bill for this attitude will come due, and it is society itself that will pay it.
Exactly. And because they aren’t white middle upper class managers doing crack cocaine. Glad to hear you don’t have any trouble building more prisons. Seems a wise personal financial investment, too.
The ‘Drug War’ is a violation of human rights, and it’s counterproductive as well. It costs billions, makes criminals out of otherwise law-abiding people, gives tremendous power to criminal gangs, and creates a subculture that is destructive to society.
It wasn’t that long in the past when just about every drug was available over the counter. Pot, cocaine, heroin, acid… you name it. Society seems to have managed to survive.
Why can’t people see the parallel between the drug war and prohibition? During prohibition, alcohol was only slightly harder to get than it was before or after. The difference was that the distribution of it fell into the hands of gangsters, and that led to a wave of violence and the creation of a whole mob underculture that still exists today. Prohibition turned out to be a horrible idea that had almost the opposite effect of what was intended. The drug war is doing the same thing today.
It’s that moral crap…let me SAVE you from yourself! HA! Crap, crap crap.
Same goes for prostitution.
Somewhere around here I started a thread…“LEgalize EVERYTHING!” and I still feel the same. If it’s personal, private, and it ain’t hurtin’ no one else, then it oughta be be legal.
We’ve tried compassion. And we learned compassion kills. (That is, if we define compassion as rehabilitation, probation, light sentences, etc.)
If someone breaks the law, it is our moral duty to punish the perpetrator. This is called justice. If you don’t like a law, then work to get it changed or removed. (Geeze, I feel like I’m teaching CJ 101 here.)
Now our drug laws are quite interesting. It goes without saying that there really isn’t any logic in our drug laws. After all, alcohol, nicotine, aspirin, and caffeine are legal, over-the-counter drugs, while we all know marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc. are illegal.
Why?
I dunno.
Some say all should be legal or none should be legal. (Now that’s logic!) But for whatever reasons, we as a society have decided that alcohol, nicotine, aspirin, and caffeine are O.K. while marijuana, cocaine, heroin are not. And our laws reflect that.
So I’m not here to defend our drug laws. But what I am saying is this:
If someone breaks a law, we must punish him or her.
If you don’t like a law, work to get it changed or remove.
Well, there’s your problem right there. We have not, in any significant way, tried compassion. There is at least one prison that has, and it has a remarkably low recidivism rate.
Huh? Justice = punishment? Our moral duty = punishment? Guess again. Our moral duty is to do what is right. Often, what is right and what the law prescribes are very different.
You seem a little too fond of punishment for my taste. I’m far more interested in getting to the root of the problems and finding how we can change them.
How about 4 strikes? 5 strikes? When do you put a limit on criminal behavior?
So what do you suggest, locking them up?
Um, is it possible that they are thinking and they don’t happen to agree with you? I have been asked this several times and given it serious consideration. Perhaps you should as well.
Do you want to try to defend you statement? They use the 3 strikes law in FLorida for repeat offenders. The father of my nephew has been arrested over 30 times for drug possesion and trafficing to grand theft auto. They were all non-violent crimes, but there is no way to stop him. He is only one felony conviction from being put away for 25 years. People who qualify for the 3 strikes program should be in there regardless.
As a non-American, I find the high rates of incarceration in the USA difficult to understand. I should say from the outset that my interest in this is not incarceration per se, but unemployment. I have constantly been reminded by US colleagues that, when considering the low level of unemployment in the US (which we in Europe would like to emulate, BTW), you need to take into account the fact that the US imprisons more of its working age men than any other developed country.
AFAIK, the drug laws seem to be behind it. In the UK, you’d be hard pressed to go to jail for posession of cannabis, for example, unless it was “posession with intent to supply”; i.e. you had about a kilo of the stuff on you. And guess what? We don’t have a major drugs problem. So it looks like the “lenient” attitude to drugs in the UK (and much of Euope) works: don’t get heavy on it and it’s not so much of a problem.
Anyway, I’m not really here to defend our drug laws, but I am interested in the answer to the OP. When I was in Harlem, I was told that ~40% of the young men there had been convicted of some kind of offence. I can’t think of anywhere in Britain where that would be the case, even the roughest areas of London. I’d be interested to hear why it is the case in NY (if it is).
Wht does any of the above have to do with what I said? Or are you just showing the process by which you arrive at your labels?
I’ll answer you, tho:
Nope. Don’t plan on any, either. But I have children in my life that I love. Which proves…?
On the contrary, I have indeed been the completely innocent victim of a violent crime, attacked on the street by a perfect stranger. I ended up in the hospital getting my mouth stitched back together because of it, and he actually ended up doing no time. Fortunately, I do not make my political decisions or even my philosophical ones based entirely on the limited experiences of my own brief life on earth. I recognize that the world is a whole lot larger and more complex than any single life’s experience could demonstrate directly. You understand that, too, of course. Don’t you?
Nope. But what is that supposed to mean? Is sociology bad in your weird world view? (I actually majored in broadcasting.)
3 (again, using your numbering scheme) I appreciate the Beatles from a purely intellectual perspective, I’m not personally attached to their music and I don’t own a single album or song by any of them, collectively or solo. Again…what silly point are you trying to make here? That people who like the beatles are soft on crime? This is getting pretty laughable, you know.
Hardly. I won’t even live in an apartment building, much less a commune. I like my space.
No, and no. How could you not know who I voted for by now?
Crafter man…I’ve noticed you don’t like actually debating your assertions… not even with reasoned opinion or observation, personal anecdote. You just make your assertion, then keep re-asserting it, both here and in the Women Voting thread that you began. (And where you ignored both my replies to you).
Go ahead and have an opinion. Even a completely offensive one. Defend it vigorously; but your style up to now appears to be:
“Yeah, I said it. So?”
and
“You must be a pinko hippie with no soul” (by implication)
If the number of prisoners have quadrupled, then one fourth of the current number are people that “would have been there anyway” and one fourth are in for a drug related offense. Okay, but that leaves half unaccounted, doesn’t it? Seems to me that you’ve accounted for only one third of the problem. Doesn’t the issue of where the other half comes from concern you?
So why is it that other countries that have the same “war on drugs” and stiff sentences do not have the same percentage of people in prison?
I am always amazed at how easily people believe whatever explanation suits them in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
Do you think in Europe they do not punish you just like they do in the US? How about Asian countries?
The explanation for why the US has a much larger prison population is that it has a different culture. A culture where people are much less tied to their families, their neigbors, their communities. That is what makes the difference. As long as Americans choose to be free of most social obligations, the crime rate will be higher. To change the crime rate you have to change the culture. The crime rate comes with the culture. People in other cultures accept much more control and responsibility than Americans are willing to accept.
Once you have chosen a culture that has absolutely no control over you until you commit a crime, the correct thing to do is lock the criminal up, the longer the better. In the last few years crime has decreased due to stiffer sentences.
Yes, is is too bad people make mistakes and get locked up for it. The way not to make mistakes is to allow other people with more sense to have a say in your life (generally older family members). If you choose to avoid that advice, then be ready to pay the price.
Says me. But not me alone, a whole lotta people, on BOTH sides of the political spectrum, including William F. Buckley.
It might be one strike for one criminal, 8 strikes for another, 15 strikes for a third. What are the crimes? Who was hurt? What was the motivation? extenuating circumstances? Time between crimes? Etc. Most judges I’ve heard talk about it at all decry it as inhumane, pointless, and destructive. Lumping all criminals together under one simplistic standard is wrong. Locking up people for their entire lives because of three non-violent offenses committed when they are young and stupid and ignoring any improvement in them as human beings is wrong, stupid, inhumane, destructive, wasteful, and ignorant. It is a policy I might expect from a third world nation, not from what is supposed to be the most advanced country in the world.
No. I suggest that people should be made aware of how large a part they have played in getting these laws passed. And why? Because they are so incredibly concerned with public safety? NO…because they are concerned with protecting their jobs. Hardly a basis upon which we should be making decisions about our criminal laws.
No, I don’t subscribe to the idea that all beliefs, attitudes and philosophies are equal, and we should just accept that people disagree. I think that’s a pansy attitude. I think there are things that are right, things that are wrong , and certainly things which are right for some, wrong for others, which makes them issues of personal preference or philosophy. This is a simple right/wrong issue.