I know it sounds naive and simplistic, but it seems to me to be a good idea.
The problems creating more prisons would address are significant, out of control, and (I would hope) a high priority to most thinking persons.
The answer, of course, is money. Money to build, money to maintain, money to staff.
We pay outrageous taxes for all sorts of shit, much of which we are against, much of which benefits us not at all. I have to believe that most citizens would not revolt against the notion of more tax dollars being earmarked for prisons.
Then, of course, we eliminate early parole (who thought that was a good idea, by the way?). We send a message to the criminally minded - career criminals, in particular. We get the trash off the street.
We already have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. (Cite) and you’re proposing putting more people in jail? And what evidence do you have that longer sentences reduce crime? (re: your comment about “sending a message to criminals”) As far as I know, they don’t.
The U.S.A. already has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Are you under the impression that this is a good thing?
I have an alternative proposal that I think is much better. Why don’t we build fewer prisons, tear down (or repurpose) many of those that we have, and spend all the money we save on policing, social programs, education, and other measures that will prevent crime, instead of shutting the jailhouse door after the horse has bolted?
This is the problem right there, this attitude - we define too many behaviors as criminal (drug addiction) - then we define the individual as a “criminal” (trash) who must be disposed of.
Then there are also those with mental illness. They don’t get support and medication, so they end up on the streets. They must be “trash” too. Just incarcerate them at a tremendous cost (more than it would cost to help them) This makes sense right?
Now, define how this is going to happen. Not that I don’t appreciate the sentiment, but platitudes like that are for celebrities lying in bed for the cameras or groups of people with all the money in the world that have no qualms about asking you to donate yours.
I agree with the general sentiment that we need to build fewer prisons, not more, and that some things are not worthy of jail time. Unfortunately for us, we are not in the position to make those judgments, It is much more expedient for us to put people away than it is to deal with the problems that put them away.
How can this be? You are the wealthiest nation on the planet. There are other less wealthy countries with less crime, less of the relevant problems and less prisons. It’s a feature of your particular social attitudes (see the OP) not expediency or inability.
Yeah, I can tell. For the record, though,I don’t do cheap platitudes.
Spend some off time donating time at a soup kitchen or food bank. Become a Scoutmaster or Girl Scout leader. Know your neighbors. Volunteer at a local hospital. Donate books and/or time and/or money to afterschool programs. Rather than bitch about how local politicians aren’t doing enough for your community, become a local politician and do something for your community. Become involved in your Neighborhood Watch program. Start your Neighborhood Watch program. Volunteer at the local Y.
Do one of these things, or all of these things, but get off your ass and do something.
There was a time when our Congressmen and state legislators represented us, giving intelligent voice to the views of their constituents – or what those views would likely be if the constituents had all the facts that the elected person has.
When it’s easier to adopt an image of “tough on crime” than to say, “Let’s get rid of laws that over 50% of the people violate the majority of the time, and then focus on the things that are really causing problems in our communities,” you get the result we have.
When it’s easier to give equal time to people bemoaning “able bodied welfare mothers” than to look at the problems causing poverty, what we get is sound bites and resentment.
Identify the problems, identify the ways to best fix them, then implement those steps. True, there will be some unforeseen consequences, but intelligent planning should foresee many of those consequences, and modify the plans to take them into account.
Get legislators who are less interested in perpetuating their poloitical power than in being the representatives of their constituents, and half the problem is solved. One way to do this is a public groundswell of support for non-partisan redistricting boards sensitive to local differences but not interested in perpetuating a district from which Congressman Phogbound can be reliably re-elected.
You attack your own idea as naive and simplistic before even addressing it. Take it seriously for a moment: you’ve made a positive decision to intentionally and unilaterally increase your nation’s prison population for all crimes across the board without stating the goal you’re seeking to accomplish. Most governments that do this do so by incremental increases in punishments for particular crimes that society views as particularly harmful at any given moment, but the proposal on the table is to simply build more prisons and put more people in them for all crimes across the board. What is the problem you’re looking to solve? Drugs? Violence? Sexual violence? Property crime? Homicide? Are you increasing punishments for any of these offenses? All of them?
Like putting people in jail for using drugs. Wait a minute- that gives me an even better idea. Why not let people out of jail if they’re not a threat and stop locking these people up in the future? Then we might not need so many prisons in the first place. I know it sounds naive and simplistic but it would work and it wouldn’t be stupid.