U.S Prison Population

HungryJoe

One out of every one hundred Americans is in prison. We have a larger prison population than they have in China.

I can't wait to hear why people think this is a good thing.

Linkigi(Link-ee-jee)

Because people are stupid. Well, that's really no excuse. The reason for this is that for some stupid reason they decide it's the right punishment to jail someone for possesion of drugs, instead of just fining them and putting them through rehab. It's this entire stupid system's fault, and it's not a good thing.

Rym

I have a long, angry diatribe about the way prisons and punishment are handled in the US...

HungryJoe

Would it be safe to say that, instead of the land of the free, America is the land of the prisoner?

Kilarney

What is shocking is that 1 in 9 black men between the ages of 20 and 34 are behind bars.

What is the cause of this, and how do we reduce this number?

Jason

Prosperity breeds stupidity. The Pax Romana destroyed the Romans. Medieval aristocracies interbred idiot-child rulers. This is the drawback of Darwinism: Sometimes organisms become too ponderous for their own good, and in the American social experiment, natural selection has lost its bite.

Rym

The Pax Romana destroyed the Romans.

Not quite. The reasons for the eventual collapse of the Roman Empire had little to do with the long period of prosperity and peace, and much to do with certain economic mistakes coupled with the monster-generators to the east (Russia et al.).

...

Oh, you guys never did a show on the prison system, yet have complained on the air about it a few times. Thursday idea?

HungryJoe

Prosperity breeds stupidity.

Does that mean that the many, many people in prison are stupid or that the draconian sentencing guidelines that put them there are stupid?

Andrew

What is the cause of this, and how do we reduce this number?

Poor parenting or rather the lack of parents?

Apreche

There are pretty much only three things we do to US citizens who break the law. We take their money and property. We put them in jail/prison. Occasionally, we take their lives. Those are pretty much the only three things we do. I want to keep this short, but there are basically three major things I think we need to do to fix this problem.

First, we need more options besides, fines, incarceration, and death. I guess we sometimes do community service, but we can do better than that. On occasion we get some creative judges who put forth sentences that cleverly fit the crime, and might actually teach the guilty party a lesson. This needs to happen a lot more often. I can see a world where someone selling alcohol to minors is sentenced to work in a hospital and take care of car accident victims. Maybe some businessman who stole from the pension fund is sentenced to go entertain old people in a really crappy retirement home.

Hand in hand with that, we need to get rid of many of our minimum sentences. More and more laws require minimum sentences. This eliminates the judges discretion in determining sentencing. Take for example the case where a guy taking a leak in the woods got tried under Megan's Law because a kid happened to see. Forget for a second the fact that the stupid law makes that a crime. Even with the stupid law, if it didn't mandate minimum sentences, the judge would have been free to use common sense and keep that guy off of the sex offender registry despite a guilty verdict. Instead, the judge's hand is forced. I actually would have no objections to giving judges almost 100% freedom to decide sentences, barring obvious exceptions like death and/or cruel+unusual punishments.

The third thing is we need to change jail/prison itself to actually be a rehabilitation program. On paper isn't that what we are supposed to be doing in prison? Taking people who do not fit into our society and "fixing" them, so they can become productive and non-harmful members of society? Instead it seems like we just put people in a terrible environment full of violence, rape, danger, and corruption for an arbitrary amount of time. Prison should be some sort of education program that actually transforms people into productive citizens. Also, people should be let out not after an arbitrary number of years, but when the specialists working in the prison deem a person ready to re-enter society.

Let's review. Create a lot more sentencing options besides just the handful we have now. Reduce or eliminate minimum sentence laws, giving judges more power to make decisions on a case by case basis. Reform the prison/industrial complex to remove corruption, and transform it into a valid rehabilitation program. Of course the issue is much more complicated, but I think these three general ideas will go a long way towards fixing it.

Rym

I actually would have no objections to giving judges almost 100% freedom to decide sentences, barring obvious exceptions like death and/or cruel+unusual punishments.

Well, so long as every crime at least had a MAXIMUM sentence. ;^)

But yes, Scott has largely summarized my views.

Apreche

Well, so long as every crime at least had a MAXIMUM sentence. ;^)

Yeah, you definitely don't want some judge with a vendetta giving a million dollar fine to a kid who shoplifted candy.

spiritfiend

It's profitable to run a prison. The demand for prisoners creates a supply.

Rym

It's profitable to run a prison.

And that's a huge problem. Prisons are a big part of the economy around here, to the point that a decrease in crime or prison population would cause substantial unemployment. That shouldn't be: criminal punishment/rehabilitation needs to exist as far outside of the real economy as possible.

Apreche

And that's a huge problem. Prisons are a big part of the economy around here, to the point that a decrease in crime or prison population would cause substantial unemployment. That shouldn't be: criminal punishment/rehabilitation needs to exist as far outside of the real economy as possible.

Easy fix. Give more money to the employees in prisons that successfully rehabilitate and release more people back into society. The ones that have prisoners piling up should be closed down and the prisoners sent to a better place. Have a handful of prisons for the "unfixables". Of course it all breaks down if the corruption remains, but that is true for anything.

HungryJoe

On occasion we get some creative judges who put forth sentences that cleverly fit the crime, and might actually teach the guilty party a lesson. This needs to happen a lot more often. I can see a world where someone selling alcohol to minors is sentenced to work in a hospital and take care of car accident victims. Maybe some businessman who stole from the pension fund is sentenced to go entertain old people in a really crappy retirement home.

I'd be happy with this idea, but the reason it won't be done is the old explanation that there simply isn't enough time and resources to do it. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of cases decided everyday. Take a look at your local misdemeanor court someday. Judges look at cases that are settled by guilty pleas for about two minutes. That's all they have time to do.

Also, there's a lot of work to come up with alternate sentencing and counseling. Unfortunately, a lot of the defendants who are sentenced to counseling won't comply with counseling or alternate sentencing unless they have the threat of probated jail time hanging over their heads. Then they somehow screw up and become noncompliant and draw a Go Directly to Jail card.

Hand in hand with that, we need to get rid of many of our minimum sentences. More and more laws require minimum sentences. This eliminates the judges discretion in determining sentencing.

I agree that there's too much mandatory sentencing. I definitely favor discretion. However, many people find the arguments against discretion are compelling. For one thing, exercising discretion requires time for thought. Time judges don't have. For another thing, if judges have a lot of discretion, you inevitable find that some judges are very lenient and some are very harsh. That's unfair for the defendants who draw the harsh judges, and causes consternation among the populace when newspapers run articles about the lenient judge who lets the burglar guy off with a stern speech.

spiritfiend

Give more money to the employees in prisons that successfully rehabilitate and release more people back into society.

There is a hue problem with this plan. You have to assume that with any system, there will be people taking advantage. If there is an incentive to release people, there might be a push to put people on the street that aren't ready for it. Even well meaning people would do this if keeping people longer might get their facility shut down.

Andrew

Sounds like the obvious solution is to get more judges.

Apreche

For another thing, if judges have a lot of discretion, you inevitable find that some judges are very lenient and some are very harsh. That's unfair for the defendants who draw the harsh judges, and causes consternation among the populace when newspapers run articles about the lenient judge who lets the burglar guy off with a stern speech.

There is an excellent point. Even two people tried by the same judge can get seemingly unfairly different sentences depending on the mood the judge happens to be in. Knowing what we know about psychology and people's moods I could see sentences being harsher in the winter than in the summer, and other such phenomena.

I think the best way to handle the issue of fairness while also giving judges more discretion is to have more judges on that level be elected. If a town wants a stern judge, they can vote them in. If they think their judge is too stern, they can vote them out. It's federalism at its finest.

Also, we definitely need more judges. I would be a judge, it seems like a job I could enjoy if I had the proper training.

Apreche

Give more money to the employees in prisons that successfully rehabilitate and release more people back into society.

There is a hue problem with this plan. You have to assume that with any system, there will be people taking advantage. If there is an incentive to release people, there might be a push to put people on the street that aren't ready for it. Even well meaning people would do this if keeping people longer might get their facility shut down.

Quote myself "Of course it all breaks down if the corruption remains, but that is true for anything."

HungryJoe

Sounds like the obvious solution is to get more judges.

And pay them $120K or more each? They already say they aren't paid enough.

Andrew

Sounds like the obvious solution is to get more judges.

And pay them$120K or more each?They already say theyaren't paid enough.

If we didn't waste so much money throwing people in prison because of minimum sentences or petty drug charges we wouldn't have an issue.

HungryJoe

I think the best way to handle the issue of fairness while also giving judges more discretion is to have more judges on that level be elected. If a town wants a stern judge, they can vote them in. If they think their judge is too stern, they can vote them out. It's federalism at its finest.

We elect judges in KY. That causes some of them to be more than very accomodating to the rich and the well born around election time. So if you can afford an attorney that gives a lot to the judge's campaign fund, or an attorney who has a good family name that can throw a lot of support behind a judge's campaign, you're set for some lenient judicial treatment.

Apreche

And pay them$120K or more each?They already say theyaren't paid enough.

Yeah, that's too much. We basically only need to pay judges enough money to keep them from quitting and becoming lawyers. Also maybe if judges had more discretion in their jobs, they would be happier, and wouldn't demand more money.

Apreche

We elect judges in KY. That causes some of them to be more than very accomodating to the rich and the well born around election time. So if you can afford an attorney that gives a lot to the judge's campaign fund, or an attorney who has a good family name that can throw a lot of support behind a judge's campaign, you're set for some lenient judicial treatment.

Corruption ruins any solution we can come up with. Perhaps we just need some judges to judge the judges and watch the watchmen while they are at it.

HungryJoe

Yeah, that's too much. We basically only need to pay judges enough money to keep them from quitting and becoming lawyers.

Which is about $120K. There's really no problem with that amount for an individual. If you ask a judge to work for much less, they'll likely quit.

Also maybe if judges had more discretion in their jobs, they would be happier, and wouldn't demand more money.

Even the ones that do have discretion (In Ky, there's little if any mandatory sentencing) are very, very crabby.

Apreche

Even the ones that do have discretion (In Ky, there's little if any mandatory sentencing) are very very crabby.

I don't know enough about the everyday life of a judge to figure out what makes them so grumpy, so I can't offer any more layman solutions.

Rym

I don't know enough about the everyday life of a judge to figure out what makes them so grumpy, so I can't offer any more layman solutions.

I can say that all of the judges with whom I've had to deal have been incredibly friendly. I guess YMMV.

HungryJoe

I don't know enough about the everyday life of a judge to figure out what makes them so grumpy, so I can't offer any more layman solutions.

I can say that all of the judges with whom I've had to deal have been incredibly friendly. I guess YMMV.

Oh sure, they bend over backwards to be nice to juries and anyone they think might be inclined to vote for them. Go to the jail arraignments sometime to see how much time the judge takes to decide what bond to set for a defendant accused of domestic violence, and note how accomodating the judge is to the defendant's mother who's pleading to have her son released.

Notice the demeanor of some of the judges in this episode of Frontline. Judge Francis Egitto was a particularly mean judge.

spiritfiend

Quote myself "Of course it all breaks down if the corruption remains, but that is true for anything."

I think you missed my point. Your solution encourages corruption, which you admit would cause failure.