JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Status
It's not righteous indignation, its not a contention, its a fact, that prisons are a industry these days.

I was, as you were, commenting on the direction this thread went.

Of course people want to live in peace in their neighborhood, and especially their home.

You see putting up homemade signs about criminals being shot as a reasonable thing to do.

I don't.
 
I'm saying when someone can profit from another's incarceration, it makes the whole system questionable.

I don't get this part. It costs the taxpayers a fortune to keep just one convict locked up. Are you saying that it's somehow profitable for someone? It sure isn't for me because I pay for it and I'm happy to do it.

Someone makes a profit from us having police on the streets. They buy cars and guns and build buildings and buy uniforms and... It's also a decent career with good benefits and retirement for the officers. Do you want to pull them off the street just because the police and the companies who supply them are making money?

Judges and bailiffs and court clerks and recorders and... Make money. Do we then need to shut them down?

Do you just have a problem with someone making money providing a service which the public demands? Do you think they should do it for free?

Do you work for free?

If your complaint is about some privately run institutions, private for-profit organizations are usually more efficient than the government. Look at the private alternative to TSA at Kansas City and San Fran. airports. Do you want more government management wasting money like the Post Office and Amtrak?
 
I'm saying when someone can profit from another's incarceration, it makes the whole system questionable.
Interesting that this is what you *think*.

Can you name a state prison system that doesn't offer profit to it's operators?
And before you answer, do a little research on how many state prison employees are members of the SEIU, and/or AFSCME. As an applicant for a job with the OR state dept. of corrections, I had to agree to become a member of their union.

Now for the next step,... Have you ever looked into the salaries of these union's officers?
Trust me bud, there are LOT OF PEOPLE making bank operating prisons.
Whether they are privatized or not. The only difference is the paper the itemized bill is printed on.
 
You see putting up homemade signs about criminals being shot as a reasonable thing to do.

I don't.

Have you heard of anyone actually being shot by those signs? Do you believe in freedom of speech? Do you think that if criminals knew how well armed and prepared I am, they'd choose an easier target? Do you see something wrong with me letting criminals know I'm not an easy target?

I think what you're missing is that the signs might reduce crime, reduce shootings, and encourage the BGs to leave with no harm done to anyone - not to the good citizens or the criminals.

If I put up a sign at the entrance to my wooded area which said "Warning: these woods are literally crawling with rattlesnakes" do you believe I've harmed someone? Do you think there's any chance I might have fewer trespassers?
 
America has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. An article in Time by Fareed Zakaria says we have 760 adults in prison for every 100,000 Americans. No country comes close to that kind of incarceration rate. Germany has 90, France has 96, Japan has 63. Even countries with a well-known crime problem like Mexico has a much lower incarceration rate than the US at under 1/3 of the amount of adults per 100,000 that the US incarcerates. It costs a significant amount of money to house an inmate for a year, as much as $35,000 a year in California, but even higher in some states. States like California are facing serious budget shortfalls due to their mass incarceration policies.
On page 8 of "The New Jim Crow" it says that by as early as the mid 1970's studies had found that prison time did little to reduce crime. Leading criminologists had predicted that the prison system would fade away since it did little to deter crime. Those that were given social and economic opportunities were not likely to commit crime, and those who were sent to prison previously, were much more likely to commit crime. As recent as 1995 the costs for prison construction surpassed the construction costs of colleges and universities. Our nation prefers to send its young people to prison rather than higher education.
Despite this vast increase in prison construction and incarceration, crime rates remain static. With the large number of people in prison, and on probation and parole, it would appear that despite a lot more prisons and laws to prevent crime, the new prisons and laws have no effect on crime or might even encourage it. The main thing that has changed since this vast increase in incarceration is new laws that mandate a prison sentence when the law is violated.
The leading theory behind incarceration is its effect on the deterrence of crime. If the penalty is known and guaranteed upon getting caught, the person is much less likely to commit the offense. Then there is specific deterrence that directly targets the behavior behind the crime. But with recidivism of prisoners so high there is a question if prison is even good at deterring crime.
Another reason people believe prison to be an effective means of controlling crime is its ability to incapacitate active law-breakers. If the person is behind bars and not in society, society in general does not have to worry about the person breaking more laws. However the penalty for youths sentenced to prison jumps between age 17, while they are still a minor, and 18 when they are now charged as an adult. However the increased penalties for reaching age 18, does not seem to deter youths from committing crime, it only seems to incapacitate them while they are in prison (Waldfogel).
One problem with sending people to prison, is prison is a harrowing experience that makes adjusting to life on the outside difficult. Prison is brutal, demoralizing, it would seem that if the offender is going back into society a different type of sanction would be more effective for reentering society than exposing the offender to prison. Over a million people in prison, are considered non-violent offenders, and I personally think that sending non-violent people to prison can turn them into violent persons, since the pecking order in prison can be determined by who is the most intimidating and therefore the most violent. If you don't want to find yourself at the bottom of the pecking order, proving that you can be violent when a situation calls for it is a good way to do that.
But upon reentry into society, now a non-violent person, has been exposed to a violence prone institution and is now capable of committing violent acts. Sometimes exposing non-violent people in other institutions such as the military can also produce violent people in civilian life, since every so often a veteran from the Iraq or Afghanistan war will commit violence in society due to PTSD or something else he or she has been exposed to. Also suicide rates are higher for veterans, I would also imagine that suicide rates are higher for people either getting sanctioned by the criminal justice system, or even after they have left prison due to what prison can do to a person's psychology and overall decrease in mental health.
Most of our nation's incarcerations stems from non-violent crime, particularly possession of illegal drugs. The country isn't particularly violent, even though we have a lot of people in prison. The main reason for the increase in incarcerations in this country is the War on Drugs. Every time I get a new criminal justice professor, on the first day I ask them "Has the War on Drugs been a success?" Usually their answer is that it has only been successful in the sense of incarcerating a lot of people. The drug war is clearly ruining more lives than it is helping and a direct cause behind mass incarceration and an inflated crime rate.
In his book "A Plague of Prisons" Ernest Drucker theorizes that mass incarceration policies, such as the war on drugs, have increased the social disorganization of communities, which in turn increases the crime rate (Drucker, 106). I would theorize that mass incarceration of individuals also causes massive distrust of the police who are employed to enforce the laws. If the laws, or the punishments associated with those laws are seen as unfair and unjust, then the police should not be trusted. I know I wouldn't like the police if they help a system that is needlessly harsh on an individual committing a victimless, non-violent crime.
While many arrests are for low level crimes that don't involve jail time, they do include probation with a new set of rules, drug testing, and curfews set that makes the possibility of jail time more likely for the individual. In many cases while an initial violation of the law doesn't result in jail time, a failed drug test, violating curfew, or a new rule that's in place that otherwise would not be in place had the offender not been on probation, ultimately sends that person to prison.
The sentence of an offender does not end upon leaving prison. They are then put on parole which means their sentence continues under strict guidelines albeit while still in society. Ten thousand of the 26,000 admissions into prison in New York state were over "administrative" violations rather than new criminal charges (Drucker, 66). Recidivism rates tend to be higher for people who have gone to prison than those that have been left outside of prison.
It has been found that alternatives to prison seem to reduce the crime rate more effectively and at a much lower cost (Eizenman). While statistics in articles and books vary, in an article published by N.C. Eizenman says that one in one hundred adults in this country is now incarcerated and that is as recently as 2008. While jail time may work on chronic and violent offenders, it does not seem to have the same effect on victimless and non-violent offenders who are not likely to be considered a threat to society. That seems to be the main reason behind an increase in incarceration rates is we imprison those types of people anyway.
The incarceration rate seems to have slowed down since the mid 1990's and early 2000's. State budgets are becoming harder to balance. Fifty billion dollars was spent by states on imprisoning offenders in 2008 (Eizenman). Most of the large increase in imprisonment seems to come from new criminal justice policies enacted in the last 30 years.
One might argue that if prison is a tough enough experience, people will think twice about committing a crime which sends them to prison. On its face value, it would seem that a negative experience like prison is a good way to stop crime. However for families that have actually had the father go to prison or jail, the youth in the family have an increased risk of going to prison rather than a decreased risk (Clear 6).
While the crime rate has decreased over the last decade it has started to level off. The prison inmate population isn't growing quite as rapidly as it did in the 90's since states are balancing their budgets with difficulty. A comic I saw in my first criminal justice class had a judge sentencing a criminal say "I sentence you to 25 years or until your prison gets full, whichever comes first". I would assume that all this use of jail time for non-violent criminals is allowing for earlier releases of violent and truly problematic offenders as well. Also when I think of prison or jail, I tend to think of it as a "crime college". In that case you learn how to more efficiently commit crime during your stay in prison or jail. This information would seem to be more helpful for people who once they are released from prison/jail, to go commit more crime. That's essentially what happened in the movie "Blow" George Jung found out cocaine was much more profitable than dealing with marijuana and he learned about where he can get it from his cell mate in the movie.
The prison inmate population has seen three large waves of increases according to Todd R. Clear in "Imprisoning Communities", the first such wave occurred when in the 1970's they removed the rehabilitative services and an incentive based structure inside the prisons. It was the first inklings of the "get tough" approach to crime in this country. The second major wave was under President Ronald Reagan, when he signed off on drug-law reform that included mandatory sentencing, such as five years in prison if caught with five grams of crack-cocaine. Since this was a more popular, affordable, and readily available drug in low-income communities at the time, this meant a lot of people were going to go to prison over this crime, and not come back for a very long time. People who use to receive probation, even if they had no prior convictions, now were being sent off to prison. The third wave, according to Todd Clear came from get-tough sentencing for violent crime. We now have 132,000 "lifers" in our prison system without the possibility of parole. In 1980 there were only 42,000 people with that status (C 53).
The idea that a prison sentence is given if a crime is committed is closely associated with the deterrence theory. The deterrence theory holds that people will alter their behavior if they are convinced that a negative consequence is likely (Clear 19). The other part of deterrence theory is that the person, now behind bars, is incapacitated, the longer they are behind bars, the longer they cannot commit crime out in society. If deterrence theory had worked as expected under the harsher penalties of drug laws in the 1980's, it would seem that fewer people would have engaged in drug crimes in the 1980's. Drug crimes not only failed to decline but actually increased fivefold between 1970 and 2004 (Clear, 20).
Todd Clear writes that prison is a blunt instrument at deterring crime as opposed to a fine surgical scalpel that would be required to reduce crime in communities. He goes on further to call it a "one-size-fits-all" method of crime control. It doesn't really matter what type of individual you are putting in prison, so much as what the experience is like and for how long.
There are critics of the deterrence theory who say harsh sentences have limitations, since lengthened sentences didn't seem to impact crime. Also the notion that the sentence is unfairly harsh can generate defiance to the law and therefore increase the rate of crime. Criminologist Lawrence Sherman called this the "Defiance Hypothesis" (Clear, 23). The offender see's the punishment more as a "personal rejection than a consequence of violating the law".
Deterrence theorists hold that if the currently harsher punishments aren't working, we simply need to make them even harsher. I read an article some years ago, in the midst of the recession. Detroit which had Great Depression levels of unemployment and poverty, found the citizenry of that particular U.S. city purposefully going out and committing crime in favor of "Three hot's and a cot". It would appear that prison or jail would not be too much of a step down from ordinary life, and in some levels a step up, if you are very low income, homeless, or face a bleak future, even out in society. Plus there was the chance that they could get away with the crime and benefit from it in that sense as well. On a large scale I would imagine that would stretch police department resources if people are purposefully committing crimes in order to get into jail. If police are stretched it further reduces the chances of getting caught.
With recidivism rates so high for those leaving prison and eventually re-entering society there remains the question of whether prison and for that matter, jail, actually deters crime. Social scientists Langan and Levin did a study over 200,000 prisoners released in 1994. They found that of those who were serving their first-ever prison sentence, 63.8% were rearrested following their release, and among those that had been in prison at least one time before, 73.5% were rearrested (Clear 25). Based on this evidence it should be clear that prison does not communicate to people who have served time, that they need to conform to the law.
Another question is how the rate compares to people who have not gone to prison for a felony crime. This can be compared to measuring the probation failure rates to the parolee failure rates. A study of those who went to jail in New Jersey found lower re-arrest rates for probationers than they did for parolee's (Clear 26). Spohn and Holleran did a study in Kansas City that sampled a group of felony drug offenders, at the time the biggest reason for the increase in incarceration at the time (Clear 27). They found compelling evidence that offenders who are sentenced to prison have higher recidivism rates and recidivate more quickly than people who are put on probation as opposed to being sent to prison (Clear 27).
If these studies ring true, then as far as probation and parole are concerned, probation has the upper hand at reducing crime. This would prove deterrence theory as false at preventing crime, since there is no room in deterrence theory for a lighter sentence such as probation, as opposed to a harsh prison sentence.
In conclusion, the criminal justice system is vastly flawed. I know people whose vice is marijuana, and they don't come off as a threat to society, but anytime they sell a small amount of marijuana, they are committing a felony. Anytime they grow a marijuana plant, they can be charged with the same felony in the state of Missouri as people who run methamphetamine labs (production of a controlled substance). I think the people caught in the system with harsh penalties for non-violent and victimless crimes, are the true victims of their crime. It may make them more careful at avoiding getting caught, but it doesn't seem to deter behavior. The criminal justice system, and prisons in its current state is used as a tool for discrimination against people deemed immoral by politicians in this country, rather than as a tool for reducing crime levels.

Works Cited
Aizenman, N. C. "The High Cost of Incarceration." - The Denver Post. The Washington Post, 29 Feb. 2008. Web. 10 May 2012. <http://www.denverpost.com/ci_8400051>.
Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow, New York: The New Press, 2012, Revised edition. Print.
Blow. Dir. Ted Demme Perf. Johnny Depp, Penelope Cruzx and Franka Potente. Panavision, 2001. DVD.
Clear, Todd R. Imprisioning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse, New York:Oxford University, 2007. Print.
Drucker, Ernest, A Plague of Prinsons. New York: The New Press, 2011. Print.
Liberty. "Non-Violent Offenses Leads United States to World's Highest Incarceration Rate." Nolanchart.com. 19 Mar. 2008. Web. 10 May 2012. <Non-Violent Offenses Leads United States to World's Highest Incarceration Rate>.
Waldfogel, Joel. "The Irrational 18-Year-Old Criminal Evidence That Prison Doesn't Deter Crime." Slate. 30 Jan. 2007. Web. 10 May 2012. <The Irrational 18-Year-Old Criminal Evidence that prison doesn't deter crime.>.
Zakaria, Fareed. "Incarceration Nation." Time, 2 Apr. 2012:18. Print.
 
America has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world. An article in Time by Fareed Zakaria says we have 760 adults in prison for every 100,000 Americans. No country comes close to that kind of incarceration rate. Germany has 90, France has 96, Japan has 63. Even countries with a well-known crime problem like Mexico has a much lower incarceration rate than the US at under 1/3 of the amount of adults per 100,000 that the US incarcerates. It costs a significant amount of money to house an inmate for a year, as much as $35,000 a year in California, but even higher in some states. States like California are facing serious budget shortfalls due to their mass incarceration policies.
On page 8 of "The New Jim Crow" it says that by as early as the mid 1970's studies had found that prison time did little to reduce crime. Leading criminologists had predicted that the prison system would fade away since it did little to deter crime. Those that were given social and economic opportunities were not likely to commit crime, and those who were sent to prison previously, were much more likely to commit crime. As recent as 1995 the costs for prison construction surpassed the construction costs of colleges and universities. Our nation prefers to send its young people to prison rather than higher education.
Despite this vast increase in prison construction and incarceration, crime rates remain static. With the large number of people in prison, and on probation and parole, it would appear that despite a lot more prisons and laws to prevent crime, the new prisons and laws have no effect on crime or might even encourage it. The main thing that has changed since this vast increase in incarceration is new laws that mandate a prison sentence when the law is violated.
The leading theory behind incarceration is its effect on the deterrence of crime. If the penalty is known and guaranteed upon getting caught, the person is much less likely to commit the offense. Then there is specific deterrence that directly targets the behavior behind the crime. But with recidivism of prisoners so high there is a question if prison is even good at deterring crime.
Another reason people believe prison to be an effective means of controlling crime is its ability to incapacitate active law-breakers. If the person is behind bars and not in society, society in general does not have to worry about the person breaking more laws. However the penalty for youths sentenced to prison jumps between age 17, while they are still a minor, and 18 when they are now charged as an adult. However the increased penalties for reaching age 18, does not seem to deter youths from committing crime, it only seems to incapacitate them while they are in prison (Waldfogel).
One problem with sending people to prison, is prison is a harrowing experience that makes adjusting to life on the outside difficult. Prison is brutal, demoralizing, it would seem that if the offender is going back into society a different type of sanction would be more effective for reentering society than exposing the offender to prison. Over a million people in prison, are considered non-violent offenders, and I personally think that sending non-violent people to prison can turn them into violent persons, since the pecking order in prison can be determined by who is the most intimidating and therefore the most violent. If you don't want to find yourself at the bottom of the pecking order, proving that you can be violent when a situation calls for it is a good way to do that.
But upon reentry into society, now a non-violent person, has been exposed to a violence prone institution and is now capable of committing violent acts. Sometimes exposing non-violent people in other institutions such as the military can also produce violent people in civilian life, since every so often a veteran from the Iraq or Afghanistan war will commit violence in society due to PTSD or something else he or she has been exposed to. Also suicide rates are higher for veterans, I would also imagine that suicide rates are higher for people either getting sanctioned by the criminal justice system, or even after they have left prison due to what prison can do to a person's psychology and overall decrease in mental health.
Most of our nation's incarcerations stems from non-violent crime, particularly possession of illegal drugs. The country isn't particularly violent, even though we have a lot of people in prison. The main reason for the increase in incarcerations in this country is the War on Drugs. Every time I get a new criminal justice professor, on the first day I ask them "Has the War on Drugs been a success?" Usually their answer is that it has only been successful in the sense of incarcerating a lot of people. The drug war is clearly ruining more lives than it is helping and a direct cause behind mass incarceration and an inflated crime rate.
In his book "A Plague of Prisons" Ernest Drucker theorizes that mass incarceration policies, such as the war on drugs, have increased the social disorganization of communities, which in turn increases the crime rate (Drucker, 106). I would theorize that mass incarceration of individuals also causes massive distrust of the police who are employed to enforce the laws. If the laws, or the punishments associated with those laws are seen as unfair and unjust, then the police should not be trusted. I know I wouldn't like the police if they help a system that is needlessly harsh on an individual committing a victimless, non-violent crime.
While many arrests are for low level crimes that don't involve jail time, they do include probation with a new set of rules, drug testing, and curfews set that makes the possibility of jail time more likely for the individual. In many cases while an initial violation of the law doesn't result in jail time, a failed drug test, violating curfew, or a new rule that's in place that otherwise would not be in place had the offender not been on probation, ultimately sends that person to prison.
The sentence of an offender does not end upon leaving prison. They are then put on parole which means their sentence continues under strict guidelines albeit while still in society. Ten thousand of the 26,000 admissions into prison in New York state were over "administrative" violations rather than new criminal charges (Drucker, 66). Recidivism rates tend to be higher for people who have gone to prison than those that have been left outside of prison.
It has been found that alternatives to prison seem to reduce the crime rate more effectively and at a much lower cost (Eizenman). While statistics in articles and books vary, in an article published by N.C. Eizenman says that one in one hundred adults in this country is now incarcerated and that is as recently as 2008. While jail time may work on chronic and violent offenders, it does not seem to have the same effect on victimless and non-violent offenders who are not likely to be considered a threat to society. That seems to be the main reason behind an increase in incarceration rates is we imprison those types of people anyway.
The incarceration rate seems to have slowed down since the mid 1990's and early 2000's. State budgets are becoming harder to balance. Fifty billion dollars was spent by states on imprisoning offenders in 2008 (Eizenman). Most of the large increase in imprisonment seems to come from new criminal justice policies enacted in the last 30 years.
One might argue that if prison is a tough enough experience, people will think twice about committing a crime which sends them to prison. On its face value, it would seem that a negative experience like prison is a good way to stop crime. However for families that have actually had the father go to prison or jail, the youth in the family have an increased risk of going to prison rather than a decreased risk (Clear 6).
While the crime rate has decreased over the last decade it has started to level off. The prison inmate population isn't growing quite as rapidly as it did in the 90's since states are balancing their budgets with difficulty. A comic I saw in my first criminal justice class had a judge sentencing a criminal say "I sentence you to 25 years or until your prison gets full, whichever comes first". I would assume that all this use of jail time for non-violent criminals is allowing for earlier releases of violent and truly problematic offenders as well. Also when I think of prison or jail, I tend to think of it as a "crime college". In that case you learn how to more efficiently commit crime during your stay in prison or jail. This information would seem to be more helpful for people who once they are released from prison/jail, to go commit more crime. That's essentially what happened in the movie "Blow" George Jung found out cocaine was much more profitable than dealing with marijuana and he learned about where he can get it from his cell mate in the movie.
The prison inmate population has seen three large waves of increases according to Todd R. Clear in "Imprisoning Communities", the first such wave occurred when in the 1970's they removed the rehabilitative services and an incentive based structure inside the prisons. It was the first inklings of the "get tough" approach to crime in this country. The second major wave was under President Ronald Reagan, when he signed off on drug-law reform that included mandatory sentencing, such as five years in prison if caught with five grams of crack-cocaine. Since this was a more popular, affordable, and readily available drug in low-income communities at the time, this meant a lot of people were going to go to prison over this crime, and not come back for a very long time. People who use to receive probation, even if they had no prior convictions, now were being sent off to prison. The third wave, according to Todd Clear came from get-tough sentencing for violent crime. We now have 132,000 "lifers" in our prison system without the possibility of parole. In 1980 there were only 42,000 people with that status (C 53).
The idea that a prison sentence is given if a crime is committed is closely associated with the deterrence theory. The deterrence theory holds that people will alter their behavior if they are convinced that a negative consequence is likely (Clear 19). The other part of deterrence theory is that the person, now behind bars, is incapacitated, the longer they are behind bars, the longer they cannot commit crime out in society. If deterrence theory had worked as expected under the harsher penalties of drug laws in the 1980's, it would seem that fewer people would have engaged in drug crimes in the 1980's. Drug crimes not only failed to decline but actually increased fivefold between 1970 and 2004 (Clear, 20).
Todd Clear writes that prison is a blunt instrument at deterring crime as opposed to a fine surgical scalpel that would be required to reduce crime in communities. He goes on further to call it a "one-size-fits-all" method of crime control. It doesn't really matter what type of individual you are putting in prison, so much as what the experience is like and for how long.
There are critics of the deterrence theory who say harsh sentences have limitations, since lengthened sentences didn't seem to impact crime. Also the notion that the sentence is unfairly harsh can generate defiance to the law and therefore increase the rate of crime. Criminologist Lawrence Sherman called this the "Defiance Hypothesis" (Clear, 23). The offender see's the punishment more as a "personal rejection than a consequence of violating the law".
Deterrence theorists hold that if the currently harsher punishments aren't working, we simply need to make them even harsher. I read an article some years ago, in the midst of the recession. Detroit which had Great Depression levels of unemployment and poverty, found the citizenry of that particular U.S. city purposefully going out and committing crime in favor of "Three hot's and a cot". It would appear that prison or jail would not be too much of a step down from ordinary life, and in some levels a step up, if you are very low income, homeless, or face a bleak future, even out in society. Plus there was the chance that they could get away with the crime and benefit from it in that sense as well. On a large scale I would imagine that would stretch police department resources if people are purposefully committing crimes in order to get into jail. If police are stretched it further reduces the chances of getting caught.
With recidivism rates so high for those leaving prison and eventually re-entering society there remains the question of whether prison and for that matter, jail, actually deters crime. Social scientists Langan and Levin did a study over 200,000 prisoners released in 1994. They found that of those who were serving their first-ever prison sentence, 63.8% were rearrested following their release, and among those that had been in prison at least one time before, 73.5% were rearrested (Clear 25). Based on this evidence it should be clear that prison does not communicate to people who have served time, that they need to conform to the law.
Another question is how the rate compares to people who have not gone to prison for a felony crime. This can be compared to measuring the probation failure rates to the parolee failure rates. A study of those who went to jail in New Jersey found lower re-arrest rates for probationers than they did for parolee's (Clear 26). Spohn and Holleran did a study in Kansas City that sampled a group of felony drug offenders, at the time the biggest reason for the increase in incarceration at the time (Clear 27). They found compelling evidence that offenders who are sentenced to prison have higher recidivism rates and recidivate more quickly than people who are put on probation as opposed to being sent to prison (Clear 27).
If these studies ring true, then as far as probation and parole are concerned, probation has the upper hand at reducing crime. This would prove deterrence theory as false at preventing crime, since there is no room in deterrence theory for a lighter sentence such as probation, as opposed to a harsh prison sentence.
In conclusion, the criminal justice system is vastly flawed. I know people whose vice is marijuana, and they don't come off as a threat to society, but anytime they sell a small amount of marijuana, they are committing a felony. Anytime they grow a marijuana plant, they can be charged with the same felony in the state of Missouri as people who run methamphetamine labs (production of a controlled substance). I think the people caught in the system with harsh penalties for non-violent and victimless crimes, are the true victims of their crime. It may make them more careful at avoiding getting caught, but it doesn't seem to deter behavior. The criminal justice system, and prisons in its current state is used as a tool for discrimination against people deemed immoral by politicians in this country, rather than as a tool for reducing crime levels.

Works Cited
Aizenman, N. C. "The High Cost of Incarceration." - The Denver Post. The Washington Post, 29 Feb. 2008. Web. 10 May 2012. <http://www.denverpost.com/ci_8400051>.
Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow, New York: The New Press, 2012, Revised edition. Print.
Blow. Dir. Ted Demme Perf. Johnny Depp, Penelope Cruzx and Franka Potente. Panavision, 2001. DVD.
Clear, Todd R. Imprisioning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse, New York:Oxford University, 2007. Print.
Drucker, Ernest, A Plague of Prinsons. New York: The New Press, 2011. Print.
Liberty. "Non-Violent Offenses Leads United States to World's Highest Incarceration Rate." Nolanchart.com. 19 Mar. 2008. Web. 10 May 2012. <Non-Violent Offenses Leads United States to World's Highest Incarceration Rate>.
Waldfogel, Joel. "The Irrational 18-Year-Old Criminal Evidence That Prison Doesn't Deter Crime." Slate. 30 Jan. 2007. Web. 10 May 2012. <The Irrational 18-Year-Old Criminal Evidence that prison doesn't deter crime.>.
Zakaria, Fareed. "Incarceration Nation." Time, 2 Apr. 2012:18. Print.

Wow, you have had too much Kool Aid. These liberal theorists just don't get it. "Non violent" means what? Drug addicts who shoplift and commit burglaries to feed their habits? Drug dealers?

Our neighbors came home last week to find that their home had been burglarized while they were at work. They lost a lot of sentimental jewelry and things which can't be replaced. All of our insurance rates increase due to this. But, it was "non violent." We live in the country and their home is out of our sight. Had I seen it in progress I would have done something, trust me.

A couple of weeks ago another neighbor heard a noise outside and when looking out his front door, he saw a man dressed all in black with a black ski mask covering his face. The police never found the guy. It was about 10:00 at night.

We live in a nice, close in, rural neighborhood which is very "high rent." It's far from a slum. Maybe we are targeted because of that, and because most neighbors are out of sight due to acreage and terrain. Whatever the reason, I'm armed 24/7. My wife appreciates it.

So we should give criminals a college education as a reward? What? How about the hard working honest students? I suppose that next you'll tell me that college should be "free" for everyone? There's no "free." I have to pay for it with taxes, or more likely our broke government prints more money to pay for it.

Some people will follow the rules. Others won't. Those of us who do shouldn't put up with those who don't. We certainly shouldn't reward them.

Now, go back to your daydreams.
 
I spent nearly 4 years working in a jail watching the same idiots come and go. There is no correction or rehabilitation. It's the college education equivalent for the criminal profession. Plus, you get to share ideas and make new social connections with others in the same line of work. Imprisonment in this country is not a deturrent. It's unfortunate that my parents generation vigorously worked to "change the world". I'm eagerly awaiting for the pendelum swings back the other way. I'd like to see a shift away from the ideologies of the baby boomer generation and take it back to the mentality of my grandfather's generation. Why do you think they were called the greatest generation. I never could understand why society is so concerned with the rights of those who would think nothing of making you their next victim.
 
I spent nearly 4 years working in a jail watching the same idiots come and go. There is no correction or rehabilitation. It's the college education equivalent for the criminal profession. Plus, you get to share ideas and make new social connections with others in the same line of work. Imprisonment in this country is not a deturrent. It's unfortunate that my parents generation vigorously worked to "change the world". I'm eagerly awaiting for the pendelum swings back the other way. I'd like to see a shift away from the ideologies of the baby boomer generation and take it back to the mentality of my grandfather's generation. Why do you think they were called the greatest generation. I never could understand why society is so concerned with the rights of those who would think nothing of making you their next victim.

The baby boomers became the hippies who became the druggies who raised the next generation. Now those socialist, bleeding heart hippies are running the asylum. They run our government, our schools and universities, our legal system, our media, and everything else that's important. They have poisoned this country with their ideas.

My Dad is 95, born in 1916. He saw poverty, then the Great Depression, and then he was at Normandy, and then the return to the rebuilding of the 50's. Through all of that, he says he's lived in the best times this country has known. Before his time, there was mostly sickness and poverty with women regularly dying in childbirth at home. His mother did when he was 10.

Dad believes that after the Depression and the war, the parents of the boomers wanted to give the boomers a better life and they spoiled them. Dad grew up having to help support the family. His kids didn't. We got new bikes and electric trains and TV's and had too much time on our hands. We didn't know where money came from.

The crap that's promoted in popular music ("Puff The Magic Dragon" was about weed) and on TV and in the movies would have been an outrage a decade earlier. Geez, people were shocked and complained about the swivel hips of Elvis in the mid 50's. Getting pregnant out of wedlock was rare and not acceptable. Now it's just a way to increase your welfare and food stamp allotment.

Johnson's Great Society, also in the mid 60's was the biggest enabler ever. It was also the beginning of our massive deficits and he figured out a way to rob the SS and medicare trust funds without using real debt to show for it. The money has been spent. Nixon then took us off the gold standard so we could just print money to continue enabling. Now at least half of our budget is spent on enabling.

The Greatest Generation managed to get through the Great Depression without welfare, food stamps or even (until near the end) unemployment insurance. No one thought that anyone owed him anything. Today everyone is "entitled" and 'entitlements" use up about 1/2 of our budget and that's what's breaking us in SO many ways. Not just the money - the attitudes.

I'm "entitled" to what you worked for and what you have if I don't have it.
 
Well they have less crime in countries where drugs are legal. See the money for drugs on the black market goes towards funding of organized crimes and terrorist organizations. You sound like the people who supported the 18th amendment in the 1920's and they repealed it 10 years later when it was deemed a failure. Most people are in prison, not for hard drugs, but for Marijuana. I don't know anyone who committed crime to get money for marijuana, Ive only met people who committed crime to get harder drugs such as your crack or your heroin. My friend had his car totaled and his customer injured when they were both driving and a heroin addict passed out behind the wheel of a car coming from the opposite direction.

The beginning of massive deficits started with Reagan and his 1981 tax cut, I think he also had a tax cut in 1983. Under the old tax structure, the one that Johnson had implemented, we could easily pay for the social programs. Welfare constitutes less than 2% of the federal budget, whereas as discretionary spending such as defense constitutes more than 20% of the federal budget. We've spent trillions on defense in the last 10 years and all you ever hear out of the military industrial complex is if we spend a few hundred billion more our country will finally be quote unquote "safe"

The lowest this nations debt in post WWII era ever got was the year Carter left office at 32.5% of GDP. Reagans tax cuts were not paid for with spending cuts, he vastly lowered the revenue of this country and then did nothing to lower spending. George W Bush inherited a budgetary and tax structure that was set to pay off the debt, and he passed 2 tax cuts and then went 6 years without vetoing a single spending bill. The Starve the Beast presidents seem to be a disaster for the budget and Romney's solution to this nations budgetary problems is a rehash of Starve the Beast, more tax cuts.

They actually find prison to be not a very effective means at all at getting druggies off of drugs. They need treatment from rehab facilities. Sure that doesn't feel as good as putting them behind bars, but the one-size-fits-all of prison does nothing for reducing drug dependency from drug addicts. And Marijuana addicts are relatively harmless people yet they are the ones this country imprisons the most.

IIRC blacks are either a plurality or majority of people in prison, mostly for drug crimes. Yet blacks don't do more drugs than white people, white people have higher rates of use of narcotics than blacks do. But the people getting arrested the most, getting sentenced the most and serving the most prison time for drug offenses are black. There is a structural racism problem in our criminal justice system and the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 was designed to reduce that.

I don't know why you mentioned Johnson as the root of our deficit problems, actually if you look at this table here, our debt problems always seem to happen when a Republican takes office, and takes some time to reverse after they have left office. That is the conundrum Obama is in, he is trying to reverse disastrous tax and spending policies from the last administration but is getting no help from the Republicans in congress.

Untitled-10.png
 
Well, figures don't lie but liars figure, LOL. We got SS, unemployment payments, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare and food stamps from Democrats.

Reagan had to do something to get us out of the MESS Carter left us in. Maybe you don't remember Carter's home loan interest rates of 16% or commercial loans of 22% but I do. Maybe you don't remember that Reagan inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression from Carter, but I do.

Maybe you don't know that Clinton rode a wave of income from the dot com bubble and his budget balanced due to that, but just as he was leaving office it crashed, leaving him with a deficit and the next administration with a recession which started under Clinton, to try to get out of.

You're missing the fact that it was Johnson who radically changed our system of entitlements. Maybe you don't remember who started social security and unemployment insurance in the 30's.

Maybe you don't know how Johnson figured out a way to remove the "debt" to SS and Medicare from our stated debt by devising a new type of borrowing instrument in 1969 which isn't backed by the full faith of the federal government so he could hide it, but I do. Ever since, the money spent in the general fund which is our SS and Medicare payments isn't counted in our debt. That money is all gone - spent - and unaccounted for.

Maybe you don't know that those off-budget items if totaled up would show our government at least $100 trillion in debt instead of the stated $16+ trillion.

Maybe you don't know that the approximately 15% of your GROSS income which is paid into FICA isn't accounted for, but is spent off-budget. Not one penny of it is saved for your future. It is blown.

Maybe you don't know that the approximately $100 trillion that we owe amounts to about $1 million per taxpayer, or about $2 million for a working couple.

Maybe you don't know that every baby born in the US today is born already about $340,000 in debt.

Maybe you don't know that about 47% of all workers pay NO income taxes, but rather if they make next to nothing they get an earned income credit - a check like a tax refund for money they never paid in.

Maybe you don't care that in the past 3 years we've added $5 trillion to our national debt (not counting stolen FICA) with programs which didn't work. Maybe you don't care that only those who collect unemployment checks are now figured as the unemployed, and that those who've given up or who have taken much lower paying jobs aren't counted in the unemployed. Maybe you don't care that this new math hides the true unemployment number which is rising.

Maybe you don't care that the number of people receiving government assistance like food stamps has skyrocketed in the past couple of years.

Maybe you don't care that every true economic indicator has gotten worse, but lies are told. A typical such lie is that they removed food and energy from the inflation index. Well guess what's going up most? Food and energy.

Maybe you don't care that Obama won't let us drill for oil or bring a pipeline in from Canada, leaving us with doubled gas prices and a vulnerability to the middle east. Don't tell me about new drilling. It was all started under the last administration, and it's all on private land. Obama shut down drilling in the Gulf while China drills there under an agreement with Cuba.

I could go on, but

I'm finished. Thread unsubscribed.
 
Well, Im voting for Obama anyways, because I think the figures have proven that both Starve the Beast fiscal policy and supply-side economics have been colossal failures. The only thing that trickled down on us from giving tax cuts to the wealthy was pee. Romney is an avowed socialist for wealthy people, he redistributes the wealth, towards him and his rich cronies through the tax policy he wants to enact. I don't vote for avowed socialists for Corporations, or wealthy people for that matter, I find redistribution of wealth even more towards the already super-wealthy to be immoral.

If you wanna balance the budget, we need to go to a pre-Reagan, post WWII tax structure. Last Republican to pay down the debt was Eisenhower, and Eisenhower Republicans are pretty much extinct in todays party, hence why they can't balance a budget.

Clinton produced more jobs in his 8 years, than Reagan, GHWB, and GWB combined, and he balanced the budget. 20 years of Republicans in the White House and 20 years of deficit ridden budgets they signed off on. Only an idiot would vote in a Republican for another term, when they completely failed at balancing the budget in the last 5 terms of Republican rule, without a significant change in their fiscal ideology.
 
Well, Im voting for Obama anyways, because I think the figures have proven that both Starve the Beast fiscal policy and supply-side economics have been colossal failures. The only thing that trickled down on us from giving tax cuts to the wealthy was pee. Romney is an avowed socialist for wealthy people, he redistributes the wealth, towards him and his rich cronies through the tax policy he wants to enact. I don't vote for avowed socialists for Corporations, or wealthy people for that matter, I find redistribution of wealth even more towards the already super-wealthy to be immoral.

If you wanna balance the budget, we need to go to a pre-Reagan, post WWII tax structure. Last Republican to pay down the debt was Eisenhower, and Eisenhower Republicans are pretty much extinct in todays party, hence why they can't balance a budget.

Clinton produced more jobs in his 8 years, than Reagan, GHWB, and GWB combined, and he balanced the budget. 20 years of Republicans in the White House and 20 years of deficit ridden budgets they signed off on. Only an idiot would vote in a Republican for another term, when they completely failed at balancing the budget in the last 5 terms of Republican rule, without a significant change in their fiscal ideology.


You know what I do not understand and makes no sense to me is; WHY ARE ALMOST ALL WEALTHY/CELEBRITIES IN FAVOR OF LIBERALS?? Wealthy people tend to be frugal and if they are voting Liberal/Democratic they are voting their money away according to your Theories!!!!! And how does a president run up more national deficit in 3 years than, what most or all former presidents combined???

Do you talk about firearms at all or just keep Blaming Bush for everything wrong and giving Obongo the credit with a handful of rights?

TROLL.


Garbage ignored :s0155:
 
Thats because of devaluation of the dollar. The dollar isnt worth the same as it was in 2001 as it is in 2012. The numbers are higher, but a better indicator of our debt is Debt/GDP ratio, not numbers of dollars. I dont blame Bush, I blame his policies. Any Democrat you ask will say the same, he was just the man who enacted the failed policies is all, but since Republicans fail to learn from their mistakes, if it hadn't been Bush it would of been someone else. Clinton refuted the last 12 years of Republican rule through his higher taxes on the wealthy, and lower military spending, and he balanced the budget and paid down the debt. The last Republican to pay down the debt significantly was Eisenhower and he's been out of office for over 50 years.

If Republicans emulated Eisernhower, instead of Reagan, because this country does have a debt problem similar to that of right after WWII, I would consider voting for them. As it sits, they emulate one of the most fiscally irresponsible presidents in this nations history. Even GHWB referred to Reagans tax and spending plan as "voodoo economics"
 
Jimmy:
Just out of curiosity, do you always go around hijacking threads just to push your philosophy?
This started as a discussion about a neighborhood in West Seattle and you've tried to turn it into a campaign for Obama.

Pander your garbage somewhere else.
 
Well, Im voting for Obama anyways, because I think the figures have proven that both Starve the Beast fiscal policy and supply-side economics have been colossal failures. The only thing that trickled down on us from giving tax cuts to the wealthy was pee. Romney is an avowed socialist for wealthy people, he redistributes the wealth, towards him and his rich cronies through the tax policy he wants to enact. I don't vote for avowed socialists for Corporations, or wealthy people for that matter, I find redistribution of wealth even more towards the already super-wealthy to be immoral.

If you wanna balance the budget, we need to go to a pre-Reagan, post WWII tax structure. Last Republican to pay down the debt was Eisenhower, and Eisenhower Republicans are pretty much extinct in todays party, hence why they can't balance a budget.

Clinton produced more jobs in his 8 years, than Reagan, GHWB, and GWB combined, and he balanced the budget. 20 years of Republicans in the White House and 20 years of deficit ridden budgets they signed off on. Only an idiot would vote in a Republican for another term, when they completely failed at balancing the budget in the last 5 terms of Republican rule, without a significant change in their fiscal ideology.

The only time in our lifetime that the feds balanced the budget was under clinton with a Republican congress and Clinton went running a screaming to not do it. Do you even have a job and pay taxes You need to get out of your mommas basement and get in the real world especially before Obamination has nothing of America as we know it left. Then you see how the libs polices are starting to implode they won't be around much after Nov. So enjoy your unicorn utopia
while you can because its ending soon. Then the real pain will begin.
 
So then how come the Republican House Senate and White House, with a good economy, completely failed at balancing the budget during the Bush years? You had majorities, and still ran up the debt, even with Wallstreet at record highs.

The 1993 budget bill which cut military spending and raised taxes on the wealthy is in part to blame for the balanced budgets in Clintons tenure. The increase in taxes on the wealthy, Newt Gingrich predicted there would be a 2nd great depression. What happened? We had 7 years of unfettered economic growth, despite the quote unquote "handicap" of higher taxes on the wealthy.

Fast forward to the Bush years, when he passed his tax cuts, we balanced the budgets all of zero times despite giving out tax cuts to the supposed job creators. Any jobs created by the wealthy in this country, all you have to do is move to China to go apply for them, they've proven that already.

You do have to admit, you got a complete retard to run the country between 2001-2009. Think of Obama as your punishment for electing such an inherently stupid man and someone who was awful at governing. My dad tells our dog shes smarter than the last president. If you didn't run your party brand into the ground in 8 years, and then have to recast yourself as pseudo-libertarians, you wouldn't of lost in 2008.

I don't even care if Obama doesn't get elected. We can try 4 more years of supply-side economics and starve the beast fiscal theory. Romney will be a 1 term president since 30 years of those policies have proven themselves failures and damaging to the country. If Romney gets elected the national debt will top 20 trillion under his unpaid for tax cut plan. You read it here first.

The man is a socialist for wealthy people, he wants to steal wealth from the lower and middle classes, and give it to his rich friends, as you should know Im against that type of socialism. Reagan was a socialist for wealthy people, so was George W Bush. Throw the stupid poor folk some peanuts, while Romney robs the treasury dry and gives it all to his wealthy friends, just as the last 3 Republican presidents did.

Also I hear constant complaining about Obama and gas prices. We had a very oil industry friendly president for 8 years, even invaded a country to steal its oil. What happened? Gas topped $4 a gallon in the summer of 2008, so even oil men for president can't keep gas prices at the pump down, they do seem to be good at keeping profit margins large for oil companies.

As for crime, I'm a libertarian on social issues, I don't give a damn if you like to smoke weed, crack, snort coke, I don't care if women get 50 abortions in their lifetimes or gay men play hide the pickle in their own private households and bedrooms, just so long as it doesn't affect anyone else. Most Republicans are fascists when it comes to those issues and we don't need no stinkin guberment telling people what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.
 
Status

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top