U.S. Prison System a Costly Failure

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Reuters

U.S. prison system a costly and harmful failure: report
Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:06pm EST

By Randall Mikkelsen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of people in U.S. prisons has risen eight-fold since 1970, with little impact on crime but at great cost to taxpayers and society, researchers said in a report calling for a major justice-system overhaul.

The report on Monday cites examples ranging from former vice-presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby to a Florida woman's two-year sentence for throwing a cup of coffee to make its case for reducing the U.S. prison population of 2.2 million -- nearly one-fourth of the world's total.

It recommends shorter sentences and parole terms, alternative punishments, more help for released inmates and decriminalizing recreational drugs. It said the steps would cut the prison population in half, save $20 billion a year and ease social inequality without endangering the public.

But the recommendations run counter to decades of broad U.S. public and political support for getting tough on criminals through longer, harsher prison terms and to the Bush administration's anti-drug and strict-sentencing policies.

"President (George W.) Bush was right," in commuting Libby's perjury sentence this year as excessive, the report said. But he should also have commuted the sentences of hundreds of thousands of other Americans, it said.

"Our contemporary laws and justice system practices exacerbate the crime problem, unnecessarily damage the lives of millions of people (and) waste tens of billions of dollars each year," it said.

The report was produced by the JFA Institute, a Washington criminal-justice research group, and its authors included eight criminologists from major U.S. public universities. It was funded by the Rosenbaum Foundation and by financier and political activist George Soros' Open Society Institute.

The Justice Department dismissed the recommendations and cited findings that about 25 percent of the violent-crime drop in the 1990s can be attributed to increases in imprisonment.

"The United States is experiencing a 30-year low in crime, in large part due to the tough enforcement actions we've taken in the last decade," department spokesman Peter Carr said.

SHIFTING ATTITUDES

But there are signs of shifting attitudes on sentencing policies. Some financially strapped states are shortening sentences and Congress is moving to pass increased help for released prisoners, said Executive Director Marc Mauer of the Sentencing Project, which has advocated alternatives to long sentences.

"Compared to where we were in the mid-(19)90s, it's been a very significant change," Mauer said.

More than 1.5 million people are now in U.S. state and federal prisons, up from 196,429 in 1970, the report said. Another 750,000 people are in local jails. The U.S. incarceration rate is the world's highest, followed by Russia, according to 2006 figures compiled by Kings College in London.

Although the U.S. crime rate began declining in the 1990s it is still about the same as in 1973, the JFA report said. But the prison population has soared because sentences have gotten longer and people who violate parole or probation, even with minor lapses, are more likely to be imprisoned.

"The system is almost feeding on itself now. It takes years and years and years to get out of this system and we do not see any positive impact on the crime rates," JFA President James Austin, a co-author of the report, told a news conference.

The report said the prison population is projected to grow by another 192,000 in five years, at a cost of $27.5 billion to build and operate additional prisons.

At current rates, one-third of all black males, one-sixth of Latino males, and one in 17 white males will go to prison during their lives. Women represent the fastest-growing segment of the prison population, the report said.

"The massive incarceration of young males from mostly poor- and working-class neighborhoods, and the taking of women from their families and jobs, has crippled their potential for forming healthy families and achieving economic gains," it said.

(Editing by David Alexander and Cynthia Osterman)

I predict the crypto-slavocrats and neofeudalists in the Republican Party to pitch a litter of blue kittens over this or just simply ignore it or pay the media off to do the ignoring for them.

[Covenant]

Off-topic, sometimes your posts make these wierd ^H^H^H^H things at the top. What are those? It says, U.S. Gula^H^H^H^HPrison System a Costly Failure, and that makes no sense to me. ;p

[Drooling Iguana]

On some older systems, the backspace key would cause ^H characters to show up instead of actually deleting text. If someone wasn't watching what they were typing, they might try to backspace out a word and instead merely insert those symbols after it.

[MKSheppard]

"The system is almost feeding on itself now. It takes years and years and years to get out of this system and we do not see any positive impact on the crime rates," JFA President James Austin, a co-author of the report, told a news conference.

It's real easy to get out of the system; just don't do crimes after you've been released or paroled; and make a real attempt to work with your parole officer.

For example, if you can't get to them on a specific day becomes something has come up, like your kid got sick or something, call the parole officer repeatedly, and then get signed proof from your kids' doctor that yes, you were there to cover your ass at the next (re)scheduled meeting.

[MKSheppard]

Here's another PROTIP:

PROTIP from Shep: Don't just go missing for months on end and miss meeting after meeting with your parole officer; and then when you finally do show up go:

"Uh, I was uh, busy"

"Busy with what?" says the PO.

"Uh, stuff."

*PO Calls cops who then drag away you*

"You're keeping the black man down bitch!"

*is tasered by cops, wakes up in a jail awaiting trial for parole violation*

[K. A. Pital]

No wonder, really. Penal systems quite often end up being very costly on society. Especially ones as bloated as the US one. The Russian penal system has also significantly bloated from 1970s Soviet times, although this coincides with a massive rise of crime rates.

Reducing the prison population is a good idea, less strain on the penal system and the society in general.

[Durandal]

Putting a stop to the War on Drugs would go a long way toward solving this problem. As it stands, the prison system is actually manufacturing violent criminals. People who go to jail for simple possession of an illegal narcotic come out with a permanent black mark on their records and are basically unable to find respectable work, much less make ends meet. So where do they turn? Crime. And why wouldn't they? The income is tax-free, and the application doesn't ask how many felony convictions you have.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Putting a stop to the War on Drugs would go a long way toward solving this problem. As it stands, the prison system is actually manufacturing violent criminals. People who go to jail for simple possession of an illegal narcotic come out with a permanent black mark on their records and are basically unable to find respectable work, much less make ends meet. So where do they turn? Crime. And why wouldn't they? The income is tax-free, and the application doesn't ask how many felony convictions you have.

If anyone thinks this is by any means an accident, they're either delusional or they've watched too much Fox News. The specific design of the prison system, particularly its 'sticky' nature as you describe in regard to job prospects, is such that it makes for a nice de facto slave system in all but name. That's why we see shit like Driving While Black and enhanced penalties for crack cocaine.

[Flagg]

Yes, what a shock that the poor and a large portion of minorities are being incarcerated for long periods of time and denied the right to vote. It can't possibly be because there is a ton of money to be made and voters to suppress...

[MKSheppard]

Yes, what a shock that the poor and a large portion of minorities are being incarcerated for long periods of time and denied the right to vote. It can't possibly be because there is a ton of money to be made and voters to suppress...

Oh gee, I'm a convicted felon, yet I can VOTE.



How can this be?

All states have differing laws on what conviction means to the franchise. The majority are like Maryland; you can still vote after a conviction; as long as it is not for a "felonious" crime, such as:

*Fraud
*Embezzlement
*Forgery
*Voter Fraud

OR

you have not been repeatedly convicted of a crime, e.g. you've done your time and become a good citizen.

If you've been convicted 3 times successively; e.g. assault in 2001, car theft in 2003; attempted murder in 2007....you lose the franchise permanently in Maryland.

Despite these remarkably lenient rules (For example, in VA, it's one strike, you're out! IIRC); there are still asstards and dicks who claim that Maryland's system is "disenfranchising" to blacks and minorities.

[Flagg]

Yes, what a shock that the poor and a large portion of minorities are being incarcerated for long periods of time and denied the right to vote. It can't possibly be because there is a ton of money to be made and voters to suppress...

Oh gee, I'm a convicted felon, yet I can VOTE.



How can this be?

All states have differing laws on what conviction means to the franchise. The majority are like Maryland; you can still vote after a conviction; as long as it is not for a "felonious" crime, such as:

*Fraud
*Embezzlement
*Forgery
*Voter Fraud

OR

you have not been repeatedly convicted of a crime, e.g. you've done your time and become a good citizen.

If you've been convicted 3 times successively; e.g. assault in 2001, car theft in 2003; attempted murder in 2007....you lose the franchise permanently in Maryland.

Despite these remarkably lenient rules (For example, in VA, it's one strike, you're out! IIRC); there are still asstards and dicks who claim that Maryland's system is "disenfranchising" to blacks and minorities.

Because I was specificly talking about Maryland...

[MKSheppard]

Because I was specificly talking about Maryland...

Hey fucktard, the majority of states are like Maryland, some are EVEN more lenient; IIRC, a New England state (can't remember which one), allows even people in prison/jail to vote! Here in Maryland you can't vote until you get out of prison/jail.

[Flagg]

Because I was specificly talking about Maryland...

Hey fucktard, the majority of states are like Maryland, some are EVEN more lenient; IIRC, a New England state (can't remember which one), allows even people in prison/jail to vote! Here in Maryland you can't vote until you get out of prison/jail.

Any evidence? Or am I supposed to take your word on it?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Hey, how about a graphical map of the post-conviction franchise? I'll bet that whatever color means 'permanently lose the vote first time', the South is swimming in it.

[MKSheppard]

Any evidence? Or am I supposed to take your word on it?

Wikipedia but what the hell

In 13 U.S. states, persons convicted of a felony—that is, a crime punishable with a year's imprisonment or more—are denied the vote only while serving sentence in a state prison

One felony conviction results in perpetual disfranchisement in 10 other U.S. states

In Maryland two convictions (I was off by one) have the same consequence.

Two states—Maine and Vermont—allow prison inmates to vote unless disfranchisement is meted out as a separate punishment.

Some states consider dishonorable discharge a felony conviction and disfranchise those affected.

19 others also disfranchise persons who are on probation for a felony but were not sentenced to prison time. All of these plus five more states (or 35 in all) disqualify those on parole from voting.

[MKSheppard]

Hey, how about a graphical map of the post-conviction franchise? I'll bet that whatever color means 'permanently lose the vote first time', the South is swimming in it.

It's not my fault that the world is full of idiots who decide to go back to their pre-arrest ways and hang out with their 'homies' and 'stay real'.

[MKSheppard]

Gah, misread that one. Damn speed reading.

[loomer]

Yes, what a shock that the poor and a large portion of minorities are being incarcerated for long periods of time and denied the right to vote. It can't possibly be because there is a ton of money to be made and voters to suppress...

Oh gee, I'm a convicted felon, yet I can VOTE.



How can this be?

All states have differing laws on what conviction means to the franchise. The majority are like Maryland; you can still vote after a conviction; as long as it is not for a "felonious" crime, such as:

*Fraud
*Embezzlement
*Forgery
*Voter Fraud

OR

you have not been repeatedly convicted of a crime, e.g. you've done your time and become a good citizen.

If you've been convicted 3 times successively; e.g. assault in 2001, car theft in 2003; attempted murder in 2007....you lose the franchise permanently in Maryland.

Despite these remarkably lenient rules (For example, in VA, it's one strike, you're out! IIRC); there are still asstards and dicks who claim that Maryland's system is "disenfranchising" to blacks and minorities.

Huh, you're a convicted felon? I did not know that. something related to a gun collection, I assume?

and on topic: Why, even I, a foreigner who has never even set foot in America, can see that its prison system is a failure. So why the fuck don't these reports actually get implemented?

[MKSheppard]

An interesting PDF

An interesting WTF:

Texas: In 1997, the Texas Legislature passed a bill, signed by Governor George W. Bush, eliminating the two-year waiting period after completion of sentence before individuals can regain their right to vote.

[Flagg]

Any evidence? Or am I supposed to take your word on it?

Wikipedia but what the hell

In 13 U.S. states, persons convicted of a felony—that is, a crime punishable with a year's imprisonment or more—are denied the vote only while serving sentence in a state prison

One felony conviction results in perpetual disfranchisement in 10 other U.S. states

In Maryland two convictions (I was off by one) have the same consequence.

Two states—Maine and Vermont—allow prison inmates to vote unless disfranchisement is meted out as a separate punishment.

Some states consider dishonorable discharge a felony conviction and disfranchise those affected.

19 others also disfranchise persons who are on probation for a felony but were not sentenced to prison time. All of these plus five more states (or 35 in all) disqualify those on parole from voting.

So 10 states deny it after one conviction, 13 deny it only while you're serving time, and 2 allow inmates to vote. Why am I supposed to assume that the other 25 operate exactly like Maryland? And even assuming they do, how does that invalidate my point?

[MKSheppard]

Okay, that PDF gave a rundown of the states with "whack you're out!" laws, I've summed it up.

There are only TWO states with instant "fuck you, you're out for life!" laws.

Virginia and Kentucky.

Virtually every state allows you to vote post conviction; but you either have to:

1.) Complete your parole
or
2.) Apply for Restoration of your Rights

Some states have automatic "nu-uh, you're out!" offenses:

For Alabama it's "crimes of moral turpitude"

crimes involving moral turpitude
murder
manslaughter first degree,
assault with intent to murder,
assault first and second degree
rape
sodomy first degree
bigamy
roberry
burglary
larceny
theft
forgery
income tax evasion
selling illegal drugs or possession of drugs for sale
desertion from the military in time of war

If you've been convicted of those, you're fucked. Never fear; Ein! "possession of illegal drugs" is not a crime of moral turpitude; so stoners can vote as often as they can!

[MKSheppard]

And even assuming they do, how does that invalidate my point?

See my post below yours - the wikipedia article is notoriously vague; for many states perpetual disenfranchisement only happens if:

1.) You're too damn lazy to file paperwork to get the right to vote back.
or
2.) You commited specific offenses

[Flagg]

And even assuming they do, how does that invalidate my point?

See my post below yours - the wikipedia article is notoriously vague; for many states perpetual disenfranchisement only happens if:

1.) You're too damn lazy to file paperwork to get the right to vote back.
or
2.) You commited specific offenses

I don't see why it should be taken away at all. IIRC this is a relatively new phenomenon.

And god damn, that article makes me hate wikipedia even more than I already do.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Huh, you're a convicted felon? I did not know that. something related to a gun collection, I assume?

It was more the collection of shot proceeding from the muzzle of the shotgun towards the car his father was in. Search around, I'm sure you can find a thread.

[Keevan_Colton]

Nice to see that anal/oral sex is considered a reason to disenfranchise someone.