American Prison Statistics

[lawrocket 3]

You know, I read a report that intiially had me pretty baffled.

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20050424/ap_on_re_us/prison_population

It mentions there being 2.1 million people in prisons in America. That's a lot. Then it mentioned 726 per 100,000 people are in the can in America, whcih works out to only 1 in 138, which doesn't sound so bad. But 61 percent of the prison population are minorities. I decided to take this thinking to a different level and compare it to something a bit more understandable.

I imagine driving along and stopping in a town of 275 people. 26 of them are black, 200 are white, and 50 are other minorities. Stopping by the Sheriff, I found out that out of all those people two were in jail - one white, one black.

WHen viewed in that way, it doesn't seem to be too much of a problem. It's simply that 2.1 million is a lot of people, but so is 275 million people.

There is a lot of talk about how many people are in prison nowadays in the US. But when you think about it being less than one percent of the population, the numbers just don't seem that bad...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DrunkMonkey 0]

Stepping away from the thread...

I'm too shredded mentally to debate the prison system and how "The Man" keeps people down.

Short and sweet: Don't commit crimes, no worries about going to prison.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

there being 2.1 million people in prisons in America.

The liberals say that this is an indication that America is a terrible place, for putting that many people in prison.

The conservatives say that this is an indication that our Justice system works, and we're better off with the crooks in there, than out on the streets committing more crimes.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

there being 2.1 million people in prisons in America.

The liberals say that this is an indication that America is a terrible place, for putting that many people in prison.

The conservatives say that this is an indication that our Justice system works, and we're better off with the crooks in there, than out on the streets committing more crimes.

What say the huge percentage of people who don't cleanly fit either of those stereotypes?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,070]

>The liberals say . . .

>The conservatives say . . .

And most reasonable people (i.e. not the extremists on either side) are glad criminals are in prison rather than on the streets, but are concerned that there are so many of them.

[Nightingale 0]

Probably that we need good crime prevention methods as well as a good criminal justice system. I think most would agree that it's far better to prevent a crime in the first place than punishing it after the fact. However, we do need to acknowledge that some crime will happen regardless of any preventions and deterrants, and we need to be equipped to deal with it.

[FallRate 0]

The saddest part is that many inmates (I do not know exactly how many...sorry! ) have been incarcerated for non-violent crimes that some would argue are victimless crimes.

I remember reading an article which compared sentences for different felonies. With minimum mandatory sentences, it is possible (and likely) that you could spend more time in prison for selling a woman crack, marijuana, methamphetamine, etc. than if you were to rape her.

(It can be argued that selling marijuana to a woman is no less than committing rape. I disagree with that.)

FallRate

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The saddest part is that many inmates (I do not know exactly how many...sorry! ) have been incarcerated for non-violent crimes that some would argue are victimless crimes.

yeah, I'd like to know how many of the 2.1 are there for possession. With the laws in many states turning posession into intent to sell at ridiculously low levels, it's not that hard to score 10-20 years.

1 in 138 seems low, but is pretty high to most parts of the first world. And the rate for black men is obscenely high, even if they're all guilty.

And since we all know that our jails aren't rehabitation centers, most of those 2.1 million are coming back out more of a hazard to us then when they went in.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

And since we all know that our jails aren't rehabitation centers, most of those 2.1 million are coming back out more of a hazard to us then when they went in.

It sucks, but it's true. I think the fact that the system sets people up to fail once they are released is the largest problem, and only leads to more crime.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

I think most would agree that it's far better to prevent a crime in the first place than punishing it after the fact

I think this philosophy gets carried away and starts to infringe on the freedoms of law abiding citizens (ie gun control). Why punish everyone for a few people's actions. If you're going to be stupid, the consequences should be extremely harsh, and this should be the deterant that prevents the crime from being repeated by others.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

I think most would agree that it's far better to prevent a crime in the first place than punishing it after the fact

I think this philosophy gets carried away and starts to infringe on the freedoms of law abiding citizens (ie gun control). Why punish everyone for a few people's actions. If you're going to be stupid, the consequences should be extremely harsh, and this should be the deterant that prevents the crime from being repeated by others.

I was just about to comment on Nightingale's post, too. The problem with crime prevention is that you really cannot prevent it without policing thought or without insanely high penalties for it.

Example - some of us remember the 70's and early 80's when litter was a pretty big problem. WHo here (who is old enough) never stepped on a pop top? It's tough to tell the litterer, "Don't litter." But, then the legislatures made an insanely high fine for littering, and once it hit the pocketbook of enough people it wasn't the problem it used to be.

When speaking of higher-level crimes, drunk driving certainly has great implications. besides court costs, etc., it can cost your 10-15k in higher insurance, etc., just for doing it. There are education programs galore! But, people still drive drunk. Why?

Because it's tough to talk sense into a drunk person. It's also tough to prevent drunk driving. You really can't pinch someone for attempted drunk driving. Instead, you need to find the drunk drivers and arrest them once the crime is completed.

It's the same with all crimes, really. Unless a person is conspiring it's pretty tough to nail a criminal before the crime. (think about that - you have to get notice of conspiracy - a crime - before you can find out about other crimes). Or, you get notice from an informant about crime already done, and plans for another one.

That 4th Amendment of ours makes preventing crime tough. Instead, our system is set up to punish crime in the interests of maintaining the dignity of innocents.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[diverborg 0]

I agree, I see no other way of preventing it other than stiffer penalties.

[Nightingale 0]

By "prevention", I was referring to things like education, after school programs, and more police officers, not more stupid laws that probably won't be enforced anyway. Prevention has more to do with addressing the culture of crime and discouraging it with the presence of police.

Take a simple example. Speeding. We all do it. However, if we see a cop, we slow down. Speeding, therefore, can't be stopped by more laws, since there are already laws addressing it. Speeding can be reduced by more cops and more education regarding how vehicles handle at high speeds and increased breaking distance, etc...

[diverborg 0]

Quote

Speeding can be reduced by more cops and more education regarding how vehicles handle at high speeds and increased breaking distance, etc...

I know if I got a year in jail for speeding there would be no way in hell I would ever speed. I would like to think the same for others. By the way I do speed regularly. Cities can only afford a certain amount of police officers, and I believe there are already plenty of educational/afterschool programs already and that doesn't change anything. The criminals can easily choose not to listen or participate in those activities, but they have no choice about the consequences of breaking a law.
.

• Quote

[diverborg 0]

I think it is also a little difficult to compare speeding(whereas you can educate people on potential dangers) to more serious crimes such as killing a guy where they already know the consequences if they do it. Also, do we really want a cop on every street corner watching our every move. No, we enjoy certain freedoms that we hope certain offenders don't ruin.

[billvon 3,070]

>I know if I got a year in jail for speeding there would be no way in hell I
> would ever speed. I would like to think the same for others.

If that was true there would be almost no drunk driving incidents. Penalties on drunk driving are now enormous, ranging from a _minimum_ of loss of license/massive fines to long jail sentences, and still 17,000 people a year die from alcohol-related deaths.

Stricter sentencing helps, but doesn't eliminate the problem. At best it will reduce it a bit.

>By the way I
> do speed regularly. Cities can only afford a certain amount of police officers . . .

And can afford to house only so many taxpayers in a jail for a year. I would be willing to bet that the cost difference would easily employ at _least_ one more cop. Putting people in jail is not the cheap solution some think it is.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

And can afford to house only so many taxpayers in a jail for a year. I would be willing to bet that the cost difference would easily employ at _least_ one more cop. Putting people in jail is not the cheap solution some think it is.

It's all speculation, but my theory would be that the offenders would drastically decrease with extremely stiff penalties, hopefully leading to less people in jail in the long run. I'm not sure how we would ever find this out though.
How much more education can you really put on drunk driving and actually expect it change anything. If drunk driving was treated as attempted murder do you think less people would drive drunk. I think so. I'm not necessarily against having more police officers, but to change anything we would have to be considering a significantly higher amount of police officers. To be honest, I'm not sure on what the cost/effectiveness of this would be. The standards I live by are "a broken rule, a consequence."

[diverborg 0]

Quote

Penalties on drunk driving are now enormous, ranging from a _minimum_ of loss of license/massive fines to long jail sentences, and still 17,000 people a year die from alcohol-related deaths.

How often do people really get the maximum penalty. I've met people that have had 3 DUI's. So what they lost their license and have six months probation. These are pretty minor consequenses considering they are taking other people's lives at risk. Plus, they still drive even if their license has been suspended.

[Nightingale 0]

Regardless of the penalty (stiff or not), the vast majority will not commit a crime in front of a police officer. I don't care if the fine is $20 or $2000, if there's a cop there, I'm not speeding. If there's a cop driving around near a convenience store, the store probably won't be held up. People committing crimes don't want to get caught, so they commit the crime when they think they won't be caught. Fewer opportunities would therefore equal fewer crimes. Get the officers on the street to enforce the laws we do have, rather than making new ones.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

Regardless of the penalty (stiff or not), the vast majority will not commit a crime in front of a police officer

I will not disagree with this one bit, but can we realistically and financially meet these kind of expectations to have a cop being able to patrol every neighborhood all the time. Yeah, in a perfect scenario, nothing would go unguarded, but this is far from reality anywhere, otherwise I think more cities would surely pick this option if this were the answer. I'm sure the same could be said for my argument, but I think it's the liberal idea of more rights for criminals and continually giving "second" chances that is preventing this, not cost.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Speeding can be reduced by more cops and more education regarding how vehicles handle at high speeds and increased breaking distance, etc...

I know if I got a year in jail for speeding there would be no way in hell I would ever speed. I would like to think the same for others. By the way I do speed regularly. Cities can only afford a certain amount of police officers, and I believe there are already plenty of educational/afterschool programs already and that doesn't change anything. The criminals can easily choose not to listen or participate in those activities, but they have no choice about the consequences of breaking a law.
.

A little mathematics helps too. Some day spend a few minutes with a calculator to see how many minutes you actually save on your regular trip by speeding. I'll bet it is less than you think. (You save much more time by running red lights.)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

• Quote

[justinb138 0]

Quote

I know if I got a year in jail for speeding there would be no way in hell I would ever speed.

While it would be an effective measure, I'm sure it would deprive the city of the ticket revenue they have grown so dependant on.

Unfortunately, it seems that there are many departments in my area that are more worried about "revenue collection" than actually pursuing criminals....

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Unfortunately, it seems that there are many departments in my area that are more worried about "revenue collection" than actually pursuing criminals....

I agree. In real life, the police collect statistics after the crime has been committed.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[billvon 3,070]

>but my theory would be that the offenders would drastically decrease
>with extremely stiff penalties . . .

Well, let's take drunk driving as an example, since DUI laws and penalties have gone through just such a 'stiffening' of penalties. From 1985 to 2002, drunk driving laws got considerably stronger, and alcohol related fatalities decreased by 33%. So it had a noticeable, but not drastic, effect on the crime itself.

What about prison usage? From a 1991 report on prison crowding in Minnesota:

"Also, DWI offenders make up a disproportionate share of the increase in jail time: DWI and traffic offenders constitute almost half the sentenced inmates and use over one-third of the bed days."

So while stiffer penalties do indeed cause a noticeable reduction in crime, it does so by putting more people in jail. If more people were not ending up in jail there would be no increase in deterrence.

>How much more education can you really put on drunk driving and
>actually expect it change anything. If drunk driving was treated
>as attempted murder do you think less people would drive drunk.

Drunk driving fatalities would drop a bit and prisons would get a LOT more crowded, based on our experiences to date.

>I'm not necessarily against having more police officers, but to
> change anything we would have to be considering a significantly
> higher amount of police officers.

I think it's linear. Put a few more officers on the street, crime would drop a bit. Put more on the street and it would drop a lot.

>The standards I live by are "a broken rule, a consequence."

For me it's more "you are responsible for your deeds." I break rules that I don't think are important, like no-trespassing signs on certain parts of bridges, or the law in CA that you can't have a computer on in a moving car. But I wouldn't do something that put other people at serious risk even if it was legal.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

A little mathematics helps too. Some day spend a few minutes with a calculator to see how many minutes you actually save on your regular trip by speeding. I'll bet it is less than you think. (You save much more time by running red lights.)

Unless you get caught. And if the lights are sync'd, you only save one cycle.

Lanesplitting, otoh, is a huge gain, esp if there's an accident on the freeway.