I read a study in California several years ago that showed a direct correlation between drug treatment and much lower recidivism rates. Drug treatment for convicts was also cheaper than incarceration. Guess which approach the California corrections system embraces?
Very few people are born addicts. Very few are unaware, that certain drugs are illegal. For a variety of reasons, governments criminalize some behaviors. There are obvious goals in regulating behavior, which generally never applied to the monarchs who issued the decrees. Incest, polygamy, adultery, promiscuity, homosexuality, gambling, tobacco, alcohol, drugs, weapons. Perhaps we should take a totally libertarian view, legalizing everything, while treating or curing nothing. This might not be utopian.
And added two letters to the noun "use" in almost every case that involves an illegal substance. Apparently it's not possible to smoke a joint and simply have used weed- it's always described as "abuse". Some substances I'd rather not see legalized, but yeah, society is responsible, either for creating or accepting the spin in any case.
I read a study a five or six years back when I working in a "go home" private prison (the inmates called it a "go home" yard because everybody was winding down their time/getting treatement of some sort). That study said that drug treatment programs, even as little as the availability of 12 step meetings, would cost the state something like $3/inmate where they were currently spending $10/inmate. Additionally, it was suggested that inmates would have lower recidivism because they would be A) not driven to find money for a fix and B) more likely to find and keep a job. And IIRC, this study/report actually came from a prison organization, which shocked me. It was in Arizona, BTW.
This issue -- probably more than any other -- really gets me going. We have proof that drug treatment is a viable avenue to get convicts back into mainstream society, AND save the government money (and in the case of CA, money they really don't have). But we would rather put people in the stocks. Makes me want to puke. And I come from this as a policy wonk. I don't have family in prison, I've never been in prison, etc. This is just the right thing to do. And for some reason, democrats and republicans alike think locking people up for minor drug (or drug-related) offenses is a good idea. Gag.
a very revealing series from NPR - guilty and charged - exposing the cottage industry that has developed around locking our people up for minor, non-violent offenses that has resulted from the War on Crime of the 70s and the War on Drugs of the 80s and 90s. truly depressing. it's almost impossible to get out of the justice system once you're in it. and the things is, all these arrests for stupid non-violent offenses also results in an increase in violent offenses, because once you're in the justice system, it becomes almost impossible to live an honest life - so people turn to a life of crime, resulting in arrests for violent offenses. http://www.npr.org/series/313986316/guilty-and-charged
unless you have a very well-paying job, that you had the good fortune not to lose after an arrest for a minor, non-violent offense, our "justice" system makes it almost impossible for people to get out of the system and live an honest life. in a very short time, people can go from one mistake (minor, non-violent offense) to a life of crime - all because of the "justice" system. but then again, you have to feed the monster (the cottage industry around the justice system) you've created. for-profit companies demand that you fulfill your contractual obligation by keeping your prisons filled! it's truly a travesty, a sham, and a mockery - a traveshamockery - as they said in some tv advert.
Did you watch Les Miserables last night? Tens of millions are arrested annually in the USA, mostly for minor offenses. Most deal with it quickly & simply, then move on. "Life is 1% what happens to you, & 99% how you react to it."
You could have posted something more recent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate Why are you trying equate a less than 1% incarceration rate, with your previous statement? Almost half the male population gets arrested at some point. You seriously believe that this makes it almost impossible for most of them to not embark on a life of crime?
as a social experiment, why don't you go ahead and commit a misdemeanor and see what happens and report back to us.
Are you presuming that I would be caught? Then. actually prosecuted & convicted? http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...onlabDPQUpPMEAwZUbBnV3A&bvm=bv.67720277,d.cWc There were >200,000 crimes committed in NJ in 2012, half the rate of 20 years ago. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/njcrimn.htm There are less than 20,000 people in NJ state prisons, from a population of 9 million. http://www.state.nj.us/corrections/pages/offender_stats.html About 10,000 enter and leave annually. Many are repeaters, some are parole violators: http://www.state.nj.us/corrections/pages/FAQ.html You OTOH could rob a bank, then argue that you shouldn't go to prison, because there are already too many there.
Well the go ahead and rob a bank and make that argument. See what happens. Just a social experiment. I'll testify in you favor!
Perhaps we could both agree that imprisoning robbers for a minimum of 4 years at a cost of $50K per year for a bank job yielding less than $10K doesn't make economic sense. But, we'll probably differ on any other analysis.
maybe. present another analysis. what kind of economic sense does it make to lock up a person who can't pay their court fines? can they really make enough money in prison to do so? so what's the point of putting them in prions? to say nothing of their future money making potential - which is very little, after being an ex-con. so you, as the state, do yourself a double disservice.
Can't? Or won't? I've seen people show up in court, claiming to be broke, with smart phones & $50 nails. On breaks, some stand around outside smoking cigarettes, which cost $9 per pack. I'm not a fan of jailing them, due to the cost. I would prefer that the judge tell those claiming to be unemployed to just sit in the courtroom daily.
Once again, you are trying to switch the argument (unfortunatly minerva took the bait). I trust you did not listen to the series, so you will have to deal only with what you "know" otherwise. The series made it clear that people who were arrested for crimes, even misdemeanors, were financially charged with court costs. Example after example explained that the poor, even if they committed a petty crime of shop lifting, were unable to pay the required amount, and then put/put back in jail. This makes it more difficult for the poor to get a job because: A)they are taken out job market voluntarily; B)their job training options are severely limited; C)they will have been convicted of 2 crimes which will show up on background checks; D)the general distrust that employeers have for hiring convicted prospects; E)which all leads to those having to work in low wage/minimum wage jobs. Now you will always find examples of people who make it out, but it the exception rather than the rule, it is a uniqueness rather than a regular event. Mind you, these numbers are also heavily slanted against Blacks and non-White Hispanics. And you have knowledge that the phones were purchased/a high expense. You know the nails were $50? You know they bought the cigarettes? These people are criminals after all...I agree with your viewing, but this is a blanket statement assuming people are in the wrong, which does nothing to help. Mind you, I work with those on the other end, those heading into this scenario. I have seen again and again that if a positive and supportive community of people is present, then better choices are made. Conversely, if one is not constantly bombarded with support, then they turn to the negative (that which they already know). In your example, you describe the negative. How about seeing somebody getting a communication device. How about somebody trying to look good for what ever reason. How about somebody having a addiction (nicotine), and having difficult breaking it.
So, I should have considered that the smart phones & smokes were stolen, and the nails paid for with counterfeit credit cards? And that makes them victims of the system? Good for you. Sometimes I think that I've never seen an occupation more depressing than social work. You seem to want to blame the system, not the malefactor. I don't believe in draconian punishments, but I do believe in personal responsibility. Including such things as addiction. The fault is not in the stars, but in ourselves.
This case illustrates how broken the system is... http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/...years-after-judge-changes-terms-of-plea-deal/
We all know that the GOP is all for freedom and personal liberty: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...th-of-american-incarceration-in-three-graphs/ That is not to say that the whole system sucks,but wouldn't it be better to have the incarceration rates of the mostly Dem NorthEast?
Yeah not so much. It does seem to be genuinely enthusiastic about the economic liberties of corporations, though. True concern there.
http://homicides.suntimes.com/2014/...side-shooting-stabbing-death-of-jamal-harmon/ Will his defense be "I was falsely convicted before, so I'm falsely accused again!", or "Give me 32 years credit on this one & we'll call it even!"?