Why prisons continue to grow, even when crime declines
news.osu.edu
news.osu.edu
I don't disagree that many drug offenders probably shouldn't be in jail, but the US could release all of them and we'd still have the highest incarceration rate in the world.
[1] http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p13.pdf (table 13)
Half of males (50%) and more than half of females (59%) in federal prison were serving time for drug offenses on September 30, 2014.[1]
[1] http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf
How many started that way or their crime involved weapons/money that were involved in a drug operation? How many repeat or lifetime criminals were first created with a non-violent drug crime?
If it is non-violent it should not be something that locks you up ever as that is cruel and unusual punishment, outside the law that is abduction and locking them up in a box.
Jailing non-violent offenses costs the taxpayer and the individual more to no benefit. There should be payment penalties and temporary records for those that do repeat offenses, real rehabilitation, mental help, also job programs for them if desired. All of that would probably be cheaper than creating lifetime criminals.
Not just for non-violent drug offenses, when I hear about people stealing cars for instance and getting locked up it makes no sense. Insurance exists, and we want the criminal out working to pay that back not debt taxpayers 30k+ per year, it is a loss all around and compounding.
Does "violent" cover emotional abuse?
How would you rather deal with such crimes?
For the criminals lacking empathy, I don't know of a good solution to preventing them from hurting people.
Barring licenses? - Why do they need licenses? If they get caught, they'll just "pay" a fine right?
Restraining orders? - Why would they accommodate?
Rehab programs? - Isn't this what prison[0] is supposed to be? Or are you suggesting they can walk out at any time (including before being taken there)?
Mental health? - Isn't this just prison[0] with pills? Or are you suggesting they can walk out at any time (including before being taken there)?
Please don't misunderstand me, I respect and would love to see a better system. I'm even convinced you're on the right path. I just don't think its as easy as you seemed to state.
[0] Where prison is defined: "something that locks you up"
We need to separate criminals and give them new communities to find worth in for the most part. Most people don't commit crimes because they want to. If you can separate them from the criminal element, find worth and independence, that is the solution.
I think putting them up with other criminals is like a crime university, it will be all they know. Prison is supposed to be rehabilitation but it creates hardened criminal elements.
Your better system is taking people and locking them up together and then charging the tax payer 30k per annum, even if they pay no fines they are still causing less budget.
There aren't any easy solutions but that is mostly wrong for non-violent and low level offenses like drug crimes.
This Norway prison has prisoners work on a farm/island as an example of a new community. [1] It has some of the lowest recidivism in the world. Sometimes people in poverty have never been treated like humans, maybe if you apply this to them then certainly a percentage would see worth. The other harsher ways are creating more re-offenders in the US system (the main problem of this article).
[1] http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/24/world/europe/norway-prison-bas...
Also did you have insurance? Did it cover it? Do you need someone locked in a box for years because of it? Is it that level of crime? What if you have a son and he did it, would you want him turned into a lifetime criminal? Our current system is basically locking people into a life of crime and bringing criminals together to further spiral into it.
Say Jean valjean stole a loaf of bread to feed his family (highly unlikely), then let's make the punishment of his crime, to replenish that item by working (but not like labor camps of course). Jean would have to work on a farm, planting seeds, pulling weeds from the wheat field, in the hot sun along side illegal immigrants. That should be punishment enough right? But before he could return to normal American life, he'd first have to sign a promissory note to his allegiance with the Democratic party . Sounds like awin-win. Who needs food stamps? Ah so here we are, reducing illegal immigration while helping poor Jean recover himself. Let's send a letter to Congress.
I had insurance, it did not cover all of the losses. Assuming this wasn't the first house they robbed, there are many people who suffered losses as well.
I do have a son and I would be very unhappy if he started robbing houses. Because of this, I consider it my responsibility to raise him correctly. A concept that seems sadly out of fashion these days.
The things I'd like to happen are: 1) Reduce the liklihood that these people will commit further crimes 2) Discourage other people from robbing homes 3) Help you replace the things you lost
I'm not really familiar with the literature on this, but I'd guess there are more effective options than prison for all three of those.
Do you have evidence that prison actually reduces future crimes?
Yeah, that's what I suspected. To me, that line of thinking feels short-sighted and/or motivated by revenge rather than rationality.
In the US.
Actually though I think there is a mismatch - there are two groups here, those who made a mistake but are fundamentally good people (they perhaps have a drinking problem or a drug problem, fell into a bad crowd, etc) those should probably not be put in jail, but more a closed treatment center, put on parole, sentenced to community service, etc. The idiots who stole my wheel-caps probably belongs here, as would somebody who killed their spouse because they abused them - it is not okay, but it doesn't make them unredeamably bad people.
Then there are the people who are just scum, the [mum who goes out to drink, leaving her toddler at home](http://www.lohud.com/story/news/crime/2016/05/09/new-rochell...), the gang members, the people who commits rape, etc. Those just needs to be locked up, forever if possible.
It appear to me that both sides of this debate are only focusing on one of the sub groups and are trying to apply rules evenly, without first looking at the criminal. This will absolutely result in injustices, either by throwing a 17 year old in prison for life with out the possibility of parole for [killing her pimp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Kruzan) or releasing criminals who will go on to do more criminal acts.
If we let out our non-violent criminals, then the prison population will only be cut by half. The majority of people in prison are violent criminals.
Criminals do work in prison as well such as producing goods (various forms of apparel) or performing services (landscaping and picking up trash). Considering they're not entitled to minimum wage, their cost of labor is extremely low and one doesn't need to sell a given product for much of a high price at all to make a profit. That profit gets reinvested back into the economy in one form or another so I'd argue the taxpayers are getting most, if not all, of their money back.
Furthermore, those who resort to stealing cars seem to have decided they're not going to get an honest job and since the car-stealing business probably isn't very consistent compared to working a retail job then I'd argue they don't have the requisite history of pay that affords them the ability to repay their debt to society.
Depending on the crime, in Germany up to 26% of specific crimes (here: vehicle burglary) relate to known hard-drug users (https://www.polizei.nrw.de/media/Dokumente/Behoerden/LKA/Lag... page 5, section 1.9).
When assuming similar numbers for the US, I'd rather think of up to 40% of inmates in due to drug-associated crimes.
edit: Also, violence and gun crimes should be counted to drug-related, if the crime was committed in relation to "turf wars" or similar gang activity... and furthermore, drug convictions usually make a person next to unhireable, which leaves the convict without legal means to earn money other than social security, which isn't nearly as comprehensive and extensive as e.g. Germany's system. This in turn leads to more drug-related crime... all of which could be avoided by simply legalizing the most common kinds of drugs.
People get held in contempt for refusing to cooperate with the legal process. Not turning over documents they are obligated to turn over, not testifying when they are obligated to testify, etc.
Also, as far as I know, the "10 year sentence" was just bluster from the judge, who promptly self-reported the exchange and recused himself from the case, not to mention was publicly admonished for it by the court.
- Have a “lose your turn” approach (toss your case to the bottom of the pile and keep moving the others through, until you cool down).
- Ignore you and restate the question/statement that preceded the contempt of court. If it persists, then escalate.
- Give a fine; $50 ought to dissuade most people from continuing to cause a problem.
In fact, they could do just about anything before sending someone to jail.
And heck, there are times in my career I wish I could have put someone in a box for being too disruptive during a meeting or something. Yet we don’t do that, in part because we’re supposed to be civilized. Maybe the “point” of contempt charges is to maintain order but it really just makes the court look like a spoiled child that goes way overboard when challenged.
But the threat of criminal contempt is absolutely necessary. Judges have to be able to do things like get CEOs of multi-billion dollar companies to hand over documents or testify about things that could cost their companies a lot of money. They have to order construction halted on a multi-billion theme park to protect endangered frogs. Fines aren't going to get that done. The fear of being sent to jail will.
As a practical matter it almost never comes to that. And even when it does, it's subject to review like any other charge.
(2) Contempt is not a "victimless" crime. It's not really a crime, but the court/judge is the victim in the situation.
(3) There is strong argument for "victimless" crimes to be punished more severely. They are the easier to hide as there is nobody around with a desire to report them. Drunk driving (absent an accident) is victimless but we punish it as we do to deter the legions me know are going undetected.
(4) Be very careful about throwing around the victimless label, especially in regards to drugs. Many a family has suffered horribly as one member is consumed by drugs. That nobody is bleeding in hospital doesn't mean there aren't victims.
This is a popular conception of the prison/jail distinction, and it has some general connection with reality, but it is both possible to be in a "prison" with a sentence of less than a year, and to be sentenced to a "jail" for sentences of greater than a year.
> From September 9, 1996 until March 6, 1998, McDougal spent the maximum possible 18 months imprisonment for civil contempt, including 8 months in solitary confinement, and was subjected to "diesel therapy" (the practice of hauling defendants around the country and placing them in different jails along the way).[12] In her case, Susan was shuffled from Arkansas to "Los Angeles to the Oklahoma City transfer center, and then on to the Pulaski County Jail in Little Rock, Arkansas".
> ... McDougal's trial for criminal contempt-of-court and obstruction of justice charges began in March 1999. The jury hung 7-5 to acquit her for contempt of court, and found her not guilty on the charge of obstruction of justice.
Also, H. Beatty Chadwick was held in jail at the county prison for more than 14 years as a result of contempt of court.
Criminal contempt is really a crime. Civil contempt is, obviously, not a crime.
I have a feeling you're conflating use with abuse.
A couple things:
1. I would think either a fine or a 30 day sentence is more than enough.
2. I think it's bad for society in general for police to actively bait people into committing crimes.
3. That's about $150,000 of taxpayer dollars for a $100 bicycle.
4. Unrelated but important. In the US, it's legal for police to lie to you about your rights, what evidence they have, or anything really. I believe that is bad for society as well.
The problem is, that there is a strong retalitation instinct in humanity, to enforce group norms.That worked well in villages, but if allowed to be lived out produces ridiculous amounts of locked up people.
Whats even more disturbing is, how those locked up people are not allowed to be a productive part in society. They get hamster-wheelian-jobs in the prison industry, instead of continuing with there real jobs.
Everybody looses to the brain bug.
What makes you think this will deter them from repeating the crime in the future? For a drug addict in search of a fix, bicycles have high liquidity on the market, are easily stolen, and usually not caught. Drug habits are not easy to kick away.
Note that I am not saying that long prison sentences are an answer for this, just pointing out that a fine/30 day sentence will likely not work.
Just saying that the proposed solution of a fine/30 days sentence will likely not decrease the rate of bike theft.
Also, it's human nature to believe you won't get caught. If someone thought they were likely to get caught, they wouldn't do it.
Thirdly, what makes you think a 3 year sentence would deter someone from doing it any more than a 30 day sentence would? I'm sure the person didn't even realize stealing a bicycle carried a 3 year sentence. For deterrence to work, a person must know the punishment for the crime. Also, the 3 year sentence doesn't fit the crime. At some point, it becomes cruel and unusual. I think locking a person up for 3 years for stealing an unlocked bicycle that the police planted trying to bait someone into stealing it is cruel and certainly unusual. It's also pretty darn close to entrapment.
What if police left a penny on the sidewalk and arrested anyone who picked it up and locked them away for 3 years? How much different is that from the scenario I described? How about a quarter? How about a $20? What denomination would make 3 years and arguable entrapment acceptable?
Finally, we have a deterrence paradox. If the US houses the largest prison population in the world, why are there people still stealing bicycles? On the other hand, if crime is at an all time low, why are we still locking people up at an increasing rate every year?
What difference then does it make it if is 30 days or 3 years? In other words, how is 30 days an improvement to the problem of deterence (though it is an improvement to the taxpayer)?
> Also, it's human nature to believe you won't get caught. If someone thought they were likely to get caught, they wouldn't do it.
Not necessarily, some people who know that with high probability they will get caught still perform crimes; drug addiction can be quite powerful. At a first glance, I would think that substance abuse treatment/improvement in mental health facilities can help here.
> Thirdly, what makes you think a 3 year sentence would deter someone from doing it any more than a 30 day sentence would? I'm sure the person didn't even realize stealing a bicycle carried a 3 year sentence. For deterrence to work, a person must know the punishment for the crime. Also, the 3 year sentence doesn't fit the crime. At some point, it becomes cruel and unusual.
I agree here; this is part of the reason why I don't think long sentences are a good solution. But in my view, your proposed solution does not do much either to the problem of deterrence.
> I think locking a person up for 3 years for stealing an unlocked bicycle that the police planted trying to bait someone into stealing it is cruel and certainly unusual. It's also pretty darn close to entrapment.
What if the police simply want to install a tracker, in order to investigate the possibility that the theft is being performed by an organized ring which regularly steals bikes, in which case a 3 year sentence could fit the crime? Standard bikes do not come with trackers; this will require active intervention.
See http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Thief-Makes-Quick-Wo... - here the "entrapment" was done by civilians. Sting operations by civilians are certainly useful in many parts of the world, e.g to expose bribery. I fail to see why there should be a blanket "no to entrapment" in the case of police, but continue to allow it for civilians. Personally, I believe entrapment by both civilians and police forces has its uses at times.
> Finally, we have a deterrence paradox. If the US houses the largest prison population in the world, why are there people still stealing bicycles? On the other hand, if crime is at an all time low, why are we still locking people up at an increasing rate every year?
I don't have an answer to this. On the other hand, in my view your proposals do not either.
Because a 3 year gap in your work history is much harder to explain than a 30 day one. Also, when someone runs a background check and sees that a hire was imprisoned for 3 years, they will think the crime was much worse than it was.
>Not necessarily, some people who know that with high probability they will get caught still perform crimes; drug addiction can be quite powerful. At a first glance, I would think that substance abuse treatment/improvement in mental health facilities can help here.
That's an exception that proves the rule. Drug addiction isn't rational thought.
>But in my view, your proposed solution does not do much either to the problem of deterrence.
I think prison terms as deterrence is an illusion. Prison terms as punishment which may have a secondary result of future deterrence is more likely.
>What if the police simply want to install a tracker, in order to investigate the possibility that the theft is being performed by an organized ring which regularly steals bikes, in which case a 3 year sentence could fit the crime? Standard bikes do not come with trackers; this will require active intervention.
You are simply adding complexity to the same immorality.
>I fail to see why there should be a blanket "no to entrapment" in the case of police, but continue to allow it for civilians.
Police can and do arrest you. There are privacy laws in the US against such things, or at least there were.
>I don't have an answer to this. On the other hand, in my view your proposals do not either.
As I stated earlier, I don't believe deterrence is the primary reason for sentencing. It's punishment for a crime.
However, there are also professional bike thieves who break into alcoves, garages, etc.; They also cut locks and/or beat up or knock down riders if they can't get the bike by waiting. My point is, not all bike thieves are the same and if someone didn't fit the profile of a typical bike thief then instead of arresting them, cite them. I'm sure most people who are not thieves but who stole a bike as a crime of opportunity would not do it again if it cost them as much as running a red light does.
In any case, you can easily see that the incarceration rate grew at a pace far in excess of the crime rates: http://www.usprisonculture.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/...
The whole idea that the two are related in any way, including this one, is verkakte.
When states and municipalities are no longer incentivized to have large prison populations and the same for law enforcement and making arrests, maybe we'll see a reduction in the prison population.
Half of males (50%) and more than half of females (59%) in federal prison were serving time for drug offenses on September 30, 2014.
State prisions and local jails have much smaller percentage of drug charges - about 17% in my state and going down.
http://www.doc.sc.gov/pubweb/research/InmatePopulationStatsT...
I think the category people are actually interested in is how many people are incarcerated for only drug-offenses and only minor (possession, not drug-kingpin) ones.
The above stats are current prisoner charges, my assumption is murderers wouldn't be out to get a charge by making meth. But who knows they seem to be harder on drugs than real violent crime at times (80s especially right after the DEA was created by Nixon in '75).
FTA "Judges are dealing with more repeat offenders now"
Seems pretty straightforward then...
Then again, same thing if you stay in a $150/night ryokan.
Some days, I wonder if we wouldn't be better off just giving people ten lashes or some other minor, non-permanent corporeal punishment for minor offenses.
Now that we have computers that can index all those public records, doing background checks on individuals has become easy enough to do it. I think I've seen applications for even fast food jobs which ask if you've ever been convicted of a felony.
The result of this is that, in addition to prison time, our society is de facto penalizing felons for the rest of their lives by making it a lot harder to get many necessities -- such as employment, housing, and education. Not because any law has made it so, but because of new behavior patterns enabled by new technologies. It's not surprising that many one-time offenders turn to a life of crime -- not because they want to, but because they feel that's the only path left open to them.
The timeline in the article seems to fit with this narrative.
So a few prolific criminals vs many more occasional ones.