What is the current state of incarceration in the United States?

[edward]

Well not quite. I knew our prison population was booming but when I looked at the actual numbers I was quite shocked. As a society we seem to be losing our grip. Poor education, high crime, surely the most powerful nation in the world can do better than this.

NEW YORK — For the first time in U.S. history, more than one of every 100 adults is in jail or prison, according to a new report documenting America's rank as the world's No. 1 incarcerator. It urges states to curtail corrections spending by placing fewer low-risk offenders behind bars.
Using state-by-state data, the report says 2,319,258 Americans were in jail or prison at the start of 2008 —one out of every 99.1 adults. Whether per capita or in raw numbers, it's more than any other nation.

The report said the U.S. incarcerates more people than any other nation, far ahead of more populous China with 1.5 million people behind bars. It said the U.S. also is the leader in inmates per capita (750 per 100,000 people), ahead of Russia (628 per 100,000) and other former Soviet-bloc nations that round out the Top 10.
On the Net: www.pewcenteronthestates.org[/URL][/QUOTE]

[PLAIN]http://www.azstarnet.com/news/227488

About half of the prisons in Arizona are now privately owned and operated. I guess we could say: "It provides jobs" or "here is one industry where we can compete with China."

 

[Evo]

But increased law enforcement is want the majority want. They want criminals caught and locked up. We have what we asked for.

 

[Pythagorean]

But increased law enforcement is want the majority want. They want criminals caught and locked up. We have what we asked for.

: (

Those of us that are minority voters don't.

edit:

emphasis added

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Evo, you don't see a problem here?

 

[Evo]

Evo, you don't see a problem here?

I see a problem in that it is costing us a fortune to house and take care of these people.

But the laws are there because people want or allow them. The criminals are incarcerated because the people want or allow them to be.

What I see is that Americans have gotten what they wanted. Whether by apathy or by calling for stricter laws and more law enforcement.

Do you disagree?

 

[Evo]

: (

Those of us that are minority voters don't.

edit:

emphasis added

This country is based on what the majority wants, as I said. <emphasis added>

I might add that the majority of those imprisoned are minorities and illegals.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

If we would spend more on education, the criminals would know how to commit just white collar crimes and they wouldn't get caught!

⚛​

 

[Pythagorean]

This country is based on what the majority wants, as I said. <emphasis added>

I might add that the majority of those imprisoned are minorities and illegals.

I realize how the country works. I'm a US citizen, and by minority voter, I mean I generally vote against the tide (not as an objective, but as an observation of past results.)

What I see is that Americans have gotten what they wanted. Whether by apathy or by calling for stricter laws and more law enforcement.

Or by being minority voters. You say this country is based on what the "majority wants" but I don't think that's necissarily true. The only way I hear about propositions is through the media and I see a lot of attempts at deceit in the way I'm instructed to vote on these propositions.

If they are still making these attempts at deceit (the same sort of propaganda from when TV first started) then they're obviously effective. There's obviously a significant mass of idiots out there that buy into the emotional pitches that come out of lobbying.

Take Alaska for instance. Last time the oil company wanted to influence a decision, they put a couple of 8 year olds from California in front of the camera with hardhats, one at a time, each with their own cute little supportive expressions.

I don't think the majority is getting a clear enough message to make a decision about what they want. I think there needs to be an unbias way to get information to voters. I'm very ignorant of politics, myself. It's all very confusing to me because I don't trust people's words alone, and I don't have enough time to research all the things I'd like to on the subject.

 

[Evo]

I realize how the country works. I'm a US citizen, and by minority voter, I mean I generally vote against the tide (not as an objective, but as an observation of past results.)



Or by being minority voters. You say this country is based on what the "majority wants" but I don't think that's necissarily true. The only way I hear about propositions is through the media and I see a lot of attempts at deceit in the way I'm instructed to vote on these propositions.

If they are still making these attempts at deceit (the same sort of propaganda from when TV first started) then they're obviously effective. There's obviously a significant mass of idiots out there that buy into the emotional pitches that come out of lobbying.

Take Alaska for instance. Last time the oil company wanted to influence a decision, they put a couple of 8 year olds from California in front of the camera with hardhats, one at a time, each with their own cute little supportive expressions.

I don't think the majority is getting a clear enough message to make a decision about what they want. I think there needs to be an unbias way to get information to voters. I'm very ignorant of politics, myself. It's all very confusing to me because I don't trust people's words alone, and I don't have enough time to research all the things I'd like to on the subject.

Well, that's rather frightening, I don't vote based on commercials.

And again, if the majority of Americans are that stupid, and we allow them to vote, then are you saying we should prevent the uneducated and gullible from voting?

 

[Kurdt]

In most countries you can read the proposals for new laws or strategies at a local library or now on the internet and thus you don't need to listen to the media commentary. In the commonwealth we have white papers and green papers. Most parties produce manifestos before elections as well that people can read and individual politicians will often add to the party manifesto their particular aims for their constituency. They are generally widely available.

 

[Poop-Loops]

I see a problem in that it is costing us a fortune to house and take care of these people.

But the laws are there because people want or allow them. The criminals are incarcerated because the people want or allow them to be.

What I see is that Americans have gotten what they wanted. Whether by apathy or by calling for stricter laws and more law enforcement.

Do you disagree?

Something similar happens with the "drug war". It carries a lot more weight when the law enforcement agencies say they confiscated X amount of cocaine/heroine/whatever vs. something like programs for kids so they have something to do besides drugs.

People don't want to deal with the issue of there being a need for all these inmates and stuff in the first place.

And what's more, why in the hell do people go to jail for drug USE? Giving underage kids alcohol is illegal, but drinking it yourself isn't. Do they arrest kids that are drunk, or just take them to their parents and deal with them? Because putting someone behind bars, essentially ruining their lives, for smoking some weed is ridiculous.

 

[Pythagorean]

Well, that's rather frightening, I don't vote based on commercials.

And again, if the majority of Americans are that stupid, and we allow them to vote, then are you saying we should prevent the uneducated and gullible from voting?

I don't believe many on this forum (especially the Mentors!) would vote based on commercials, but we hardly represent the majority (assuming most of us appreciate scientific method).

As to your question, buried in that wall of text above:

I think there needs to be an unbias way to get information to voters. I'm very ignorant of politics, myself.

Like I said, I too am one of the ignorant when it comes to some of the things out there. I do spend the time to research when it comes time, but it takes a lot of energy and time.

Another alternative is to get rid of lobbyists like Arctic Power.

 

[edward]

I might add that the majority of those imprisoned are minorities and illegals.

Although I constantly complain about the cost to the public in relation to illegal immigration, our prisons are not filled with a majority of illegal immigrants. We do have a number of illegals involved in the drug trade who are in prison, but overall they comprise a small percentage.

It is difficult to track the illegal population, but what information there is shows that illegal Hispanics have a much lower rate of incarceration than Native born Hispanics.

There also was wide variation in the incarceration rates of native and foreign-born men within particular ethnic groups. Among Hispanic men, for example, foreign-born Mexicans had an incarceration rate of only 0.7 percent—more than 8 times lower than the 5.9 percent rate of native-born males of Mexican descent. Similarly, 0.5 percent of foreign-born Salvadoran and Guatemalan men were in prison, compared to 3.0 percent of native-born males of Salvadoran and Guatemalan descent {Figure 4}.24 The incarceration rates of foreign-born Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans were the lowest of any Latin American immigrant group even though they were the least educated. These three nationalities are precisely the groups that make up the majority of illegal immigrants in the United States.

http://borderbattles.ssrc.org/Rumbault_Ewing/index1.html

The minority black population is quite a different story. I think that the original article stated that in the 25 to 35 age groups 1 in 10 of young black males were in prison as of Jan 08.

Drug use and drug related crimes are the predominate factor among all groups. This is especially true among high school drop outs. For the drug users and the crimes they commit there is a revolving prison door up to a point.

When the third offence is prosecuted the door stops revolving. And that, is as you mentioned, what the people wanted. We have what we asked for and it isn't working.

Where we go from here is a mystery. People in the suburbs ignore the problem, while the politicians pretend that there is no problem.

 

[Astronuc]

Well, that's rather frightening, I don't vote based on commercials.

And again, if the majority of Americans are that stupid, and we allow them to vote, then are you saying we should prevent the uneducated and gullible from voting?

I once encountered a woman who voted for Bush strictly because she thought he was better looking than Gore. At first I thought she was joking, and I laughed until I realized she was dead serious. She had no understanding about either candidate or their positions.

But increased law enforcement is want the majority want. They want criminals caught and locked up. We have what we asked for.

Evo is absolutely right on this. Nixon and Reagan campaigned on law and order, and the Republicans did well when they adopted stern (even harsh in some cases) policies against crime, while arguing the opposition was too soft on crime.

Economic and educational disparities, and a persisent level of racism, in the US contributes to a disproportionate level of minorities in the criminal justice system.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

A recent survey taken in the prisons shows that 100% of the inmates are innocent. A nation that has such a large percentage of its population spending the rest of their lives looking for the real criminal can hardly call itself free. But for those of us who still haven't been caught yet, keep this in mind. We mapless US Americans have more freedom to commit crimes in the first place. Among the criminal population, the US probably has the lowest per capita prison population in the world.

 

[fourier jr]

The ridiculous prison population is part of the reason the US unemployment rate is as low as it is (so much for free markets btw):

abstract: Comparative research contrasts the corporatist welfare states of Europe with the unregulated U.S. labor market to explain low rates of U.S. unemployment in the 1980s and 1990s. In contrast, this article argues that the U.S. state made a large and coercive intervention into the labor market through the expansion of the penal system. The impact of incarceration on unemployment has two conflicting dynamics. In the short run, U.S. incarceration lowers conventional unemployment measures by removing able-bodied, working-age men from labor force counts. In the long run, social survey data show that incarceration raises unemployment by reducing the job prospects of ex-convicts. Strong U.S. employment performance in the 1980s and 1990s has thus depended in part on a high and increasing incarceration rate.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/210135?journalCode=ajs

Is there any question that the current situation is unsustainable?

 

[russ_watters]

The ridiculous prison population is part of the reason the US unemployment rate is as low as it is (so much for free markets btw):

I'd love to hear the logical thought process by which you came to that conclusion.

 

[fourier jr]

I'd love to hear the logical thought process by which you came to that conclusion.

copied/pasted a second time, from the abstract of a study of the US penal system as a labour market regulator:

In the short run, U.S. incarceration lowers conventional unemployment measures by removing able-bodied, working-age men from labor force counts. In the long run, social survey data show that incarceration raises unemployment by reducing the job prospects of ex-convicts. Strong U.S. employment performance in the 1980s and 1990s has thus depended in part on a high and increasing incarceration rate.

 

[jaap de vries]

I am not surprised about these statistics, we have had a government that has neglected

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060220/scheer0208"

What we see here is simply the result of neglect for the bottom 10 percentile. I also feel like the black community feels more disenfranchised during the Bush years. Adding to the downward spiral of fatalistic thinking within this community.

I know conservatives don't like to hear but there is actually money to be saved with prevention policies. But maybe the police and prison industry has become to powerful already.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Strong U.S. employment performance in the 1980s and 1990s has thus depended in part on a high and increasing incarceration rate.

fourier jr didn't write that, he just quoted it. But it is nonsense. Incarceration has a dramatic effect on unemployment figures, but very little on employment figures. Unless by 'in part' the author mean 'in miniscule part'.

 

[edward]

The official unemployment rate and the incarceration rate are difficult to compare. Inner cities have both. Yet many people from the inner cities are not included in the national unemployment rate because they have not been actively seeking employment.

At the same time the inner city residents weigh heavily on the incarceration rate.

There is a good video on unemployment below, the clip is however from 2003, but I don't think that the situation has changed much. You can watch just the part about how incarceration figures into the picture by sliding the blue bar over to a point just before the mute icon.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/july-dec03/unemployment_07-29.html

 

[Poop-Loops]

Among the criminal population, the US probably has the lowest per capita prison population in the world.

I know the first part of your post was a joke, but I'm not sure if this is. It's already been shown it's in fact the highest.

 

[edward]

From the link in the OP

The report said the U.S. incarcerates more people than any other nation, far ahead of more populous China with 1.5 million people behind bars. It said the U.S. also is the leader in inmates per capita (750 per 100,000 people), ahead of Russia (628 per 100,000) and other former Soviet-bloc nations that round out the Top 10.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I know the first part of your post was a joke, but I'm not sure if this is. It's already been shown it's in fact the highest.

Actually, it was this part of the post that I expected to hear the most agreement on. Everybody thinks that criminals of one kind or another run loose in the US. I figured the conservatives would think I was talking about minorities, and the liberals would think I was talking about anyone who makes more than the median salary. Criminals all, and very few of them in prison.

 

[DrClapeyron]

Spend more money if it makes you happy; there will still be just as many criminals "behind bars" as there were before. What if jimmysnyder is right and the US has one of the lowest per capita prison population among criminals in the world, should we put more people "behind bars"?

 

[Kurdt]

Spend more money if it makes you happy; there will still be just as many criminals "behind bars" as there were before. What if jimmysnyder is right and the US has one of the lowest per capita prison population among criminals in the world, should we put more people "behind bars"?

If you read the initial article you'll see that the US have the highest prison population in the world and the highest per capita. Its easy to search for the world prison population list online. The US has topped the list for years. I'm not sure what jimmy was getting at with his comment so if I've misinterpreted apologies.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Actually, it was this part of the post that I expected to hear the most agreement on. Everybody thinks that criminals of one kind or another run loose in the US. I figured the conservatives would think I was talking about minorities, and the liberals would think I was talking about anyone who makes more than the median salary. Criminals all, and very few of them in prison.

Oh. I'm neither a conservative or liberal, so I guess I didn't understand. :)

 

[edward]

Spend more money if it makes you happy; there will still be just as many criminals "behind bars" as there were before. What if jimmysnyder is right and the US has one of the lowest per capita prison population among criminals in the world, should we put more people "behind bars"?

We can't afford the 2 + million we have behind bars now.

What if we at least try to change the current status quo to reflect what the richest most powerful nation in the world can do. Leading both China and Russia in total numbers incarcerated is pathetic.

 

[Poop-Loops]

We can't afford the 2 + million we have behind bars now.

What if we at least try to change the current status quo to reflect what the richest most powerful nation in the world can do. Leading both China and Russia in total numbers incarcerated is pathetic.

Especially China, since they have what, 5 times more people than we do? Of course, they don't take as long to execute someone as we do.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Especially China, since they have what, 5 times more people than we do? Of course, they don't take as long to execute someone as we do.

And they http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6286698.stm" for taking bribes! When it's good for international PR, at least.

If incarceration has an impact on employment/unemployment figures, I wonder if there's anywhere that executions have a material effect…

⚛​

 

[vanesch]

Mmm, 1% of population is indeed quite a lot. In France one is worrying about the "exploding prison population" (lack of places,...)
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_en_France
which turns around 60 000 imprisoned people, or a bit less than 0.1% of the population.

That said, to a previous remark, it is difficult to see how a 1% incarceration can seriously alter the unemployment numbers. If the active population is about half of the total population, and we assume that this 1% is fully in the active population, then this can at most change the unemployment level by 2 points, no ?

 

[vanesch]

If you read the initial article you'll see that the US have the highest prison population in the world and the highest per capita. Its easy to search for the world prison population list online. The US has topped the list for years. I'm not sure what jimmy was getting at with his comment so if I've misinterpreted apologies.

jimmy was jokingly saying that in the US, many more *criminals* are outside of prison than inside. In *this* subsample of population (the criminals) the rate of imprisonment is very low. Most criminals are still free. It was a joke...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

jimmy was jokingly saying that in the US, many more *criminals* are outside of prison than inside. In *this* subsample of population (the criminals) the rate of imprisonment is very low. Most criminals are still free. It was a joke...

Yes, half in jest, but entirely in earnest. The OP sarcastically calls into question whether the US can be considered a free country when it has the largest per capita prison population. I am pointing out that it could be a reflection of irrational exuberance in the US American criminal population, which is itself a reflection of the freedom of the average US American citizen.

I also want people to reflect a moment before they propose to exorcise this demon and consider whether they won't be exorcising an angel or two. Who doesn't think that our prison population is too large, but also that not enough real criminals are imprisoned? Some people have been living in houses that neither you nor they could afford. Now that the party is over, they are looking for a way to make jimmysnyder pay so they can have another two years. As a result, the latest 'them' who deserve to swell our prison ranks are mortgage lenders. Shall we release thieves and murders to make room for them?

I'm told that 20% of the US prison population were convicted of drug crimes not involving crimes against person nor property. That is probably not a good use of resources. I would restrict drug offenses to those related to providing drugs to minors, such as we currently do with tobacco and alcohol. The other 80% can rot for all I care. Except the innocent ones of course.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

It has always seemed to me that, if it was done in a strictly controlled manner, and really as a form of punishment and not societal vengeance, that it might be wiser to adopt corporeal punishment in place of incarceration for misdemeanors and other minor crimes. I don't like the notion of the government literally spanking its citizens but it seems like it might actually be more humane to cane someone rather than put them in prison for ninety or a hundred and eighty days or a year, potentially in the company of more hardened criminals.

I haven't looked at the numbers for societies that have corporeal punishment, but I should think that along with possibly being a more effective punishment for minor crimes it might reduce recidivism through preventing the contact in incarceration with other criminals. And also possibly because instead of the person's re-offending being spaced out by months of jail time, a hard case pickpocket, for example, might be caught and sentenced and punished several times in a single month - perhaps that would be more effective than a year on-and-off in jail? And if effective, would benefit society the same, cost less, and leave the individual more of their life to live.

In the best outcome I think it might provide more freedom for “small time” criminals while still appropriately punishing them and less crowding and thereby better conditions for the prison population. Though that may simply be wishful thinking on my part.

I don't know if I would be in favor of it being public - public humiliation in that situation, the way it's done in China and elsewhere, seems more on the “cruel and unusual” side of things than physical pain does. It also would have to be something only applied under sentencing and administered by the court - it couldn't be allowed as an option for correction officers to use in prisons, for example, that would just be asking for trouble.

I also feel that if I personally was convicted of a minor crime, whether I was guilty or not but actually especially if I was innocent, I would prefer to be caned or something rather than spend time in jail. On the other hand, I've personally never been caned, so maybe it's much worse than I imagine. (Which would probably change my opinion on the rest of the matter, of course.)

I'm also not familiar with the legal reasoning by which corporeal punishment has been ruled cruel and unusual. If anyone knows off hand I'd be interested to hear.

⚛​

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'm also not familiar with the legal reasoning by which corporeal punishment has been ruled cruel and unusual. If anyone knows off hand I'd be interested to hear.

Dunno. I don't think the reasoning is legal though since corporal punishment has been legal through most of recorded history. It is still legal when used against children by their parents and teachers in some states.

I have only my prejudices to guide me on this one so I won't put any strong support for or against. But I do see a few problems. For one thing, there was the case of that guy who was sentenced to caning in SIngapore for vandalism. I assume the same outcry and perhaps louder would occur if it this proposal were put to a vote. The other is that US Americans are not in the mood just now for any punishment that sounds like a slap on the wrist (although we're not speaking wrist here). So I'm going to sit this one out while I still can. Finally, while it is just prejudice on my part, I do think that a preponderance of criminals were beaten as children.