3 ms·
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the US prison population just 0.00730843528654% of our country's total population? Citation needed. In fact, the figure is
by lutusp 12y ago
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the US prison population just 0.00730843528654% of our country's total population?
Citation needed. In fact, the figure is 0.94% in jail, and 2.9% in one or more of jail/probation/parole:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta...
Quote: "According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2,266,800 adults were incarcerated in U.S. federal and state prisons, and county jails at year-end 2011 – about 0.94% of adults in the U.S. resident population.[4] Additionally, 4,814,200 adults at year-end 2011 were on probation or on parole.[8] In total, 6,977,700 adults were under correctional supervision (probation, parole, jail, or prison) in 2011 – about 2.9% of adults in the U.S. resident population."
This means your provided figure is (a) wildly exaggerated as to its accuracy, using far more digits than its source can justify, and (b) flat wrong to an astonishing degree.
> Wouldn't it be more effective if we just decriminalized drug possession and just ended the drug war entirely?
Absolutely, many agree including me. But your figures are still wrong.
- chaostheory 12y agoOh I only counted the people actually inside a prison. I didn't think probation or parole counted in this argument since they're not locked up. 2,266,800 / 319,000,000 = 0.710595611% Forgot to move some decimals in my previous post
- lutusp 12y agoStill wrong. The correct figure compares those incarcerated to total adults in the population.
- chaostheory 12y agoHow is this wrong when even children benefit from keeping violent criminals isolated from the general population? Besides accounting for just adults still doesn't detract from my main point: the vast majority of people in the US benefit from keeping violent felons locked up