10 ms·

Take another look at this data from same source regarding Federal instead of State: Half of males (50%) and more than half of females (59%) in federal prison w

Take another look at this data from same source regarding Federal instead of State: Half of males (50%) and more than half of females (59%) in federal prison were serving time for drug offenses on September 30, 2014.[1] [1] http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf How many started that way or their crime involved weapons/money that were involved in a drug operation? How many repeat or lifetime criminals were first created with a non-violent drug crime? If it is non-violent it should not be something that locks you up ever as that is cruel and unusual punishment, outside the law that is abduction and locking them up in a box. Jailing non-violent offenses costs the taxpayer and the individual more to no benefit. There should be payment penalties and temporary records for those that do repeat offenses, real rehabilitation, mental help, also job programs for them if desired. All of that would probably be cheaper than creating lifetime criminals. Not just for non-violent drug offenses, when I hear about people stealing cars for instance and getting locked up it makes no sense. Insurance exists, and we want the criminal out working to pay that back not debt taxpayers 30k+ per year, it is a loss all around and compounding.

yazaddaruvala 10y ago
Is it violent to sell drugs/alcohol to a minor? Does "violent" cover emotional abuse? How would you rather deal with such crimes?
- drawkbox 10y ago
  Fines, repeated violations rise up the amount and possibly barring licenses, restraining orders, rehab programs, mental health, and more. Until it is violent there should not be an authority abducting and locking up someone causing tax payer dollars to be further wasted and creating more problems.
  - pcardh0 10y ago
    So under your system, a person can steal without the threat of jail so long as they don't do it violently. Hard to see the downsides of such a system.
    - mveety 10y ago
      I'm not entirely convinced that it's the threat of punishment that stops criminals. Going on the criminals I know (crap evidence, I know), excluding the total psychopaths, what has stopped them is guilt for hurting people and/or wanting to be a better role model to their kids/siblings/younger kids that look up to them. All that the justice system seems to do is take away their ability to make legal income and years of their life. For the criminals lacking empathy, I don't know of a good solution to preventing them from hurting people.
  - yazaddaruvala 10y ago
    Fines? - People who steal or sell drugs, do it because they believe they can't survive any other way! Additionally, what if people cannot and do not pay fines? You have a recursive problem right? Are you gonna fine people who cannot pay a fine? Or would you like to add an amendment to your system to put people who cannot afford fines in jail? Barring licenses? - Why do they need licenses? If they get caught, they'll just "pay" a fine right? Restraining orders? - Why would they accommodate? Rehab programs? - Isn't this what prison[0] is supposed to be? Or are you suggesting they can walk out at any time (including before being taken there)? Mental health? - Isn't this just prison[0] with pills? Or are you suggesting they can walk out at any time (including before being taken there)? Please don't misunderstand me, I respect and would love to see a better system. I'm even convinced you're on the right path. I just don't think its as easy as you seemed to state. [0] Where prison is defined: "something that locks you up"
    - drawkbox 10y ago
      The alternative is locking them up and creating lifetime criminals. We need to separate criminals and give them new communities to find worth in for the most part. Most people don't commit crimes because they want to. If you can separate them from the criminal element, find worth and independence, that is the solution. I think putting them up with other criminals is like a crime university, it will be all they know. Prison is supposed to be rehabilitation but it creates hardened criminal elements. Your better system is taking people and locking them up together and then charging the tax payer 30k per annum, even if they pay no fines they are still causing less budget. There aren't any easy solutions but that is mostly wrong for non-violent and low level offenses like drug crimes. This Norway prison has prisoners work on a farm/island as an example of a new community. [1] It has some of the lowest recidivism in the world. Sometimes people in poverty have never been treated like humans, maybe if you apply this to them then certainly a percentage would see worth. The other harsher ways are creating more re-offenders in the US system (the main problem of this article). [1] http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/24/world/europe/norway-prison-bastoy-nicest/ http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/24/world/europe/norway-prison-bas...
pcardh0 10y ago
What is the average number of property crimes committed before a criminal is arrested and jailed? The crew that robbed my home hasn't been arrested for that crime. When (if) they are eventually caught, I want them locked up.
- drawkbox 10y ago
  Would you rather they pay you back than cause 30k+ per year to the taxpayer. How about they are in a job program and earn it back for you and garnished wages until it is paid. Also did you have insurance? Did it cover it? Do you need someone locked in a box for years because of it? Is it that level of crime? What if you have a son and he did it, would you want him turned into a lifetime criminal? Our current system is basically locking people into a life of crime and bringing criminals together to further spiral into it.
  - biot 10y ago
    There's a difference between Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister's dying child and an organized crew which makes a living from robbing houses. The former is a great candidate for a job program. The latter already have their own job problem; it's just rather antisocial.
    - l0neranger 10y ago
      There's not enough jobs as it is, why should Criminals get jobs, when lawful citizens can't find employment? But I'll entertain your idea. Say Jean valjean stole a loaf of bread to feed his family (highly unlikely), then let's make the punishment of his crime, to replenish that item by working (but not like labor camps of course). Jean would have to work on a farm, planting seeds, pulling weeds from the wheat field, in the hot sun along side illegal immigrants. That should be punishment enough right? But before he could return to normal American life, he'd first have to sign a promissory note to his allegiance with the Democratic party . Sounds like awin-win. Who needs food stamps? Ah so here we are, reducing illegal immigration while helping poor Jean recover himself. Let's send a letter to Congress.
  - 10y ago
yummyfajitas 10y ago
There are 200k federal prisoners out of about 1600k total. The fact that federal numbers are 50% drugs doesn't change the fact that the overall numbers. If we let out our non-violent criminals, then the prison population will only be cut by half. The majority of people in prison are violent criminals.
Evolved 10y ago
I don't know that you're considering a couple things: 1. people are locked up not just to punish them since they committed a crime but also to keep society just that much safer from that criminal and 2. you assume most people have sufficient insurance to replace their stolen vehicle and that they have alternate transportation to get to their job or to pick up/drop off their kids. I know folks with liability only insurance that just barely scrape by and if they didn't have their car for just 1 day they wouldn't be able to do the things I listed. Criminals do work in prison as well such as producing goods (various forms of apparel) or performing services (landscaping and picking up trash). Considering they're not entitled to minimum wage, their cost of labor is extremely low and one doesn't need to sell a given product for much of a high price at all to make a profit. That profit gets reinvested back into the economy in one form or another so I'd argue the taxpayers are getting most, if not all, of their money back. Furthermore, those who resort to stealing cars seem to have decided they're not going to get an honest job and since the car-stealing business probably isn't very consistent compared to working a retail job then I'd argue they don't have the requisite history of pay that affords them the ability to repay their debt to society.
- Pica_soO 10y ago
  The existence of those jobs is a insult to the species.

yazaddaruvala 10y ago

Is it violent to sell drugs/alcohol to a minor? Does "violent" cover emotional abuse? How would you rather deal with such crimes?

drawkbox 10y ago
Fines, repeated violations rise up the amount and possibly barring licenses, restraining orders, rehab programs, mental health, and more. Until it is violent there should not be an authority abducting and locking up someone causing tax payer dollars to be further wasted and creating more problems.
- pcardh0 10y ago
  So under your system, a person can steal without the threat of jail so long as they don't do it violently. Hard to see the downsides of such a system.
  - mveety 10y ago
    I'm not entirely convinced that it's the threat of punishment that stops criminals. Going on the criminals I know (crap evidence, I know), excluding the total psychopaths, what has stopped them is guilt for hurting people and/or wanting to be a better role model to their kids/siblings/younger kids that look up to them. All that the justice system seems to do is take away their ability to make legal income and years of their life. For the criminals lacking empathy, I don't know of a good solution to preventing them from hurting people.
- yazaddaruvala 10y ago
  Fines? - People who steal or sell drugs, do it because they believe they can't survive any other way! Additionally, what if people cannot and do not pay fines? You have a recursive problem right? Are you gonna fine people who cannot pay a fine? Or would you like to add an amendment to your system to put people who cannot afford fines in jail? Barring licenses? - Why do they need licenses? If they get caught, they'll just "pay" a fine right? Restraining orders? - Why would they accommodate? Rehab programs? - Isn't this what prison[0] is supposed to be? Or are you suggesting they can walk out at any time (including before being taken there)? Mental health? - Isn't this just prison[0] with pills? Or are you suggesting they can walk out at any time (including before being taken there)? Please don't misunderstand me, I respect and would love to see a better system. I'm even convinced you're on the right path. I just don't think its as easy as you seemed to state. [0] Where prison is defined: "something that locks you up"
  - drawkbox 10y ago
    The alternative is locking them up and creating lifetime criminals. We need to separate criminals and give them new communities to find worth in for the most part. Most people don't commit crimes because they want to. If you can separate them from the criminal element, find worth and independence, that is the solution. I think putting them up with other criminals is like a crime university, it will be all they know. Prison is supposed to be rehabilitation but it creates hardened criminal elements. Your better system is taking people and locking them up together and then charging the tax payer 30k per annum, even if they pay no fines they are still causing less budget. There aren't any easy solutions but that is mostly wrong for non-violent and low level offenses like drug crimes. This Norway prison has prisoners work on a farm/island as an example of a new community. [1] It has some of the lowest recidivism in the world. Sometimes people in poverty have never been treated like humans, maybe if you apply this to them then certainly a percentage would see worth. The other harsher ways are creating more re-offenders in the US system (the main problem of this article). [1] http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/24/world/europe/norway-prison-bastoy-nicest/ http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/24/world/europe/norway-prison-bas...

pcardh0 10y ago

What is the average number of property crimes committed before a criminal is arrested and jailed? The crew that robbed my home hasn't been arrested for that crime. When (if) they are eventually caught, I want them locked up.

drawkbox 10y ago
Would you rather they pay you back than cause 30k+ per year to the taxpayer. How about they are in a job program and earn it back for you and garnished wages until it is paid. Also did you have insurance? Did it cover it? Do you need someone locked in a box for years because of it? Is it that level of crime? What if you have a son and he did it, would you want him turned into a lifetime criminal? Our current system is basically locking people into a life of crime and bringing criminals together to further spiral into it.
- biot 10y ago
  There's a difference between Jean Valjean stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister's dying child and an organized crew which makes a living from robbing houses. The former is a great candidate for a job program. The latter already have their own job problem; it's just rather antisocial.
  - l0neranger 10y ago
    There's not enough jobs as it is, why should Criminals get jobs, when lawful citizens can't find employment? But I'll entertain your idea. Say Jean valjean stole a loaf of bread to feed his family (highly unlikely), then let's make the punishment of his crime, to replenish that item by working (but not like labor camps of course). Jean would have to work on a farm, planting seeds, pulling weeds from the wheat field, in the hot sun along side illegal immigrants. That should be punishment enough right? But before he could return to normal American life, he'd first have to sign a promissory note to his allegiance with the Democratic party . Sounds like awin-win. Who needs food stamps? Ah so here we are, reducing illegal immigration while helping poor Jean recover himself. Let's send a letter to Congress.
- 10y ago

yummyfajitas 10y ago

There are 200k federal prisoners out of about 1600k total. The fact that federal numbers are 50% drugs doesn't change the fact that the overall numbers. If we let out our non-violent criminals, then the prison population will only be cut by half. The majority of people in prison are violent criminals.

Evolved 10y ago

I don't know that you're considering a couple things: 1. people are locked up not just to punish them since they committed a crime but also to keep society just that much safer from that criminal and 2. you assume most people have sufficient insurance to replace their stolen vehicle and that they have alternate transportation to get to their job or to pick up/drop off their kids. I know folks with liability only insurance that just barely scrape by and if they didn't have their car for just 1 day they wouldn't be able to do the things I listed. Criminals do work in prison as well such as producing goods (various forms of apparel) or performing services (landscaping and picking up trash). Considering they're not entitled to minimum wage, their cost of labor is extremely low and one doesn't need to sell a given product for much of a high price at all to make a profit. That profit gets reinvested back into the economy in one form or another so I'd argue the taxpayers are getting most, if not all, of their money back. Furthermore, those who resort to stealing cars seem to have decided they're not going to get an honest job and since the car-stealing business probably isn't very consistent compared to working a retail job then I'd argue they don't have the requisite history of pay that affords them the ability to repay their debt to society.

Pica_soO 10y ago
The existence of those jobs is a insult to the species.