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.
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.
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.
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.
Does "violent" cover emotional abuse?
How would you rather deal with such crimes?
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...
For the criminals lacking empathy, I don't know of a good solution to preventing them from hurting people.
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.