Originally Posted By jonvn <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061209/ts_nm/usa_prisoners_dc" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200 61209/ts_nm/usa_prisoners_dc</a> I was wrong in another thread. I said we imprison more people than any other industrialized nation. The truth is that we imprison more people than any other country, period. And a higher percent of our population, as well. One in thirty-two Americans waseither in prison, on parole, or on probation at the end of last year. We have criminalized the population. Anyone can get thrown into jail for anything, including for such things as "lying to the government." So much for freedom of speech. The U.S. incarceration rate of 737 per 100,000 people is over 700% higher than many Western industrial nations, which range around 100 per 100,000 people. And what have all these people done who are in jail? One of the main reasons is drugs. According to one person quoted in the article I linked to: "We now imprison more people for drug law violations than all of western Europe, with a much larger population, incarcerates for all offenses." And that two million of the seven million people now in jail are there due to drug charges. Another indication as to just how free we really are.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo The war on drugs is so freak'n misguided. And frankly, we should take away many of the amenities that are in prison today. If we didn’t make prison better than some of the homes these guys come from, maybe criminals, gangstas, and thugs will begin to see prison as more of a deterrent.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< The U.S. incarceration rate of 737 per 100,000 people is over 700% higher than many Western industrial nations, which range around 100 per 100,000 people. And what have all these people done who are in jail? One of the main reasons is drugs. According to one person quoted in the article I linked to >>> The US has about 4% of the world's population overall, but 25% of the prison population. Incarceration rates are far higher than similar countries (Canada, western Europe) yet we have a far higher crime rate. I'd be all for tough treatment of crime if it made it go away, but I honestly believe that a lot of what we do in terms of criminal justice in the US actually breeds more crime down the road.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I'm torn about this one. I've worked in and around the criminal justice system almost my entire adult life. I've put more than a few people in jail and prison as a result of arresting them, and within the last year and a half, testified against my former boss from private practice. He's now doing 14 years at Folsom. Speaking in a generally, drug dealers and manufacturers should be incarcerated. Users, on the other hand, I'm not so sure about. Sometimes the best thing for them is to lock them up to protect them from themselves and from physically harming others. But your garden variey doper doesn't need jail time so much as he needs help, but we're just not set up to help them all. This is another reason why I think marijuana should be legal, along with prostitution. Regulate both those things and you'd lessen overcrowding at the local level, and via taxes, increase state coffers, not to mention have an impact on all the other attendant things that go with those activities. But noooo, we can't do that. As for the type of crime my old boss did, that's a tough one. I suppose he ended up in the right place. He was suspended from the California state bar in December of 2000 (I quit working for him November 30) and continued to practice law anyway. Eventually, he was convicted on 28 misdemeanor counts for the unauthorized practice of law. He preyed on people who needed help with family law and child custody matters, taking their money, doing nothing for it, and then often extracting even more from them while still doing nothing. Some of these people should blame themselves for continuing to give him money despite no results. He also had sex with certain female clients with the promise of legal work being done for them in exchange. He was a real class act. At trial, each count carried a six month term, so cumulatively he got 14 years, which remands him to state prison because his sentence ended up being over one year. Many of his victims were just too stupid or unwilling to see this guy was a shyster. On one hand, he should go away for a long while to protect others from him, especially since he to this day thinks he did nothing wrong. Curiously as well, when he was being evaluated for prison placement, he score a 4 out of 5 on their security scale. A five is the worst a person can get, so that's why he's in Folsom, no walk in the park. And he's now 64, with no hope of getting out until he's at least 70, so Lord knows what happened on his eval. But conversely with this guy, he was well-respected in the legal community before he "went south" in the early 90's. He had been a judge pro tem, mediated for the State Bar, went to Bosnia and other places and did enormous amounts of volunteer work for orphans in those areas, was president of the L.A. Rams Booster club for a time, published scores of legal articles regarding international child custody issues, and towards the end of his career even managed to get himself hired by the Brown family in the O.J. Simpson case, which is where a lot of my inside information comes from. The Browns canned him though, as that was when he started to get erratic. So does he belong in prison or in some type of place where he could still do some good? I say prison, but if physical harm or violent crimes are a barometer, what else do you do with him?
Originally Posted By DAR I have a relative in prison right now. He was sixteen when it happened. It was him and four other guys, they were going to sell some weed to another guy. The plan was to take the drugs and the money. The buyer had a gun on him and so did one of the sellers. The buyer was shot and killed. They arrested the five kids, because my relative masterminded the whole thing, he actually got the worst sentence. He's served for ten years now served sometime in a maxium security and has now moved into a medium security. I talk to him every once in awhile. He's up for parole(again) next year, he's not bitter anymore and blames nobody but himself. He seems to have changed and I'm hoping that he has. He deserves another chance.
Originally Posted By SuperDry Wow, that guy does sound like a piece of work. You have to wonder what the prison yard conversation is like when murders, serial rapists, and the like find out that he's doing 14 years for practicing law without a license. <<< Lord knows what happened on his eval. ... So does he belong in prison or in some type of place where he could still do some good? I say prison, but if physical harm or violent crimes are a barometer, what else do you do with him? >>> You would think that there would be better (and cheaper) ways to punish someone for practicing law without a license. As you allude to, there must be something more to the story for him to rate being sent to Folsom.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj There's never been much of a concept of redemption in this country. We don't try very hard to give people a second chance, probably moreso now than ever. My grandfather used to make weekly visits to the local prisons as a lay minister. He would take my Dad and his brother along with him. I don't think we have as many people performing those sort of charitable works these days. The U.S. definition of charity in 2006 is more like what you see on Extreme Makeover: Home Edition or an episode of the Oprah Winfrey show than any of the non-glamorous efforts that could really make a difference to entire communities.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <There's never been much of a concept of redemption in this country. We don't try very hard to give people a second chance, probably moreso now than ever< while I agree there is a stigma placed on a one time offender that hurts them for life...and maybe they deserve better....when you say we don't give people a second chance more now than ever--- why is it then that every murderer we see on the news has a rap sheet as long as Santa's list....and it seems they have committed and been convicted of 50 crimes...and yet are walking the streets to continue to murder people ? It seems more like there is very unfair application...more than people never get a second chance- unfortunately some gets 20 - 50- and more chances. the most recent one here is a guy who just murdered his Burger King manager -- now get this...5 years ago he was convicted of murdering his girlfriend, her mom and their child, but the conviction was overturned on a techincality on how the evidence was obtained ( on appeal) - the guy also had more batteries / assaults / thefts etc than you could believe...also drug convictions -- yet here he was walking the streets and working again and he bea this manager to death at 5 AM on opening....
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<while I agree there is a stigma placed on a one time offender that hurts them for life...and maybe they deserve better....when you say we don't give people a second chance more now than ever--- why is it then that every murderer we see on the news has a rap sheet as long as Santa's list....and it seems they have committed and been convicted of 50 crimes...and yet are walking the streets to continue to murder people ? >> Why? Because as long as it is black people killing other black people we really don't give a rip. Why build all the jail cells you would need to imprison these guys on their first offense? As long as they confine their mayhem to the 'hood and don't come around the nice neighborhoods why should we care? If more people were imprisoned for their FIRST offense there would be fewer people in prison overall. Right now people figure you can do quite a few crimes before you will ever be sent away for it. Prison ends up not being the deterrent that it should be so you end up with more people committing crimes. What is the incarceration rate of U.S. whites compared to Europe? That would be a far better comparison. Whether it is caused by lack of opportunity, discrimination or whatever; black street culture has glorified activities that lead many young black men to prison. This fact undoubtedly skews the statistics for the U.S.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<It seems more like there is very unfair application...more than people never get a second chance- unfortunately some gets 20 - 50- and more chances.>> I agree. But much of this has to do with the overpopulated prisons themselves. I cannot remember exactly which prison, but a couple years ago a prison did some type of a mass parole which allowed many violent criminals who were supposed to serve longer sentences get out 5 years or so early. But if they were to limit the amount of non-violent, soft drug crimes (or decriminalize all together) I would hope corrections authorities would be more able to keep these prisoners for their full terms.
Originally Posted By ecdc I think high profile cases have skewed our feelings about criminals and prison. It's easy to support "zero tolerance" and "three strikes your out" laws when the proponents of these laws are spouses made widows by murders, parents now childless due to some sick freak, etc. But the reality is, the vast, vast majority of people affected by our criminal justice system are poor people addicted to drugs, petty thieves, etc. I don't want to excuse their behavior, but is prison really where they belong? I think we're just a very revenge/punishment driven society in the United States. Why in the world, for example, should Andrea Yates spend the rest of her life in a maximum security prison? Here's a woman who will never harm another person and who has to live for the rest of her life knowing she murdered her children. When she's on her meds, that's got to be an awful hell to live. It's an absolute tragedy, no question. But putting her in prison only makes people feel better that she "gets what's coming to her"; it doesn't keep a soul safer. I'm glad the decision was overturned.
