Why prisons continue to grow, even when crime declines • Hacker News Board

Re: Why prisons continue to grow, even when crime declines

#31

Post by danielvf » Sat, Aug 27, 2016, 12:00 AM UTC

drawkbox wrote: post #29

danielvf wrote: post #27

Actually, the US prison population is declining in both relative and absolute numbers, and has been for the last six years. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf

Wow this data is going down but look at this: Half of males (50%) and more than half of females (59%) in federal prison were serving time for drug offenses on September 30, 2014.

That's federal prisons though. Totally different laws, courts, and only about 10% of US prisoners.

State prisions and local jails have much smaller percentage of drug charges - about 17% in my state and going down.

http://www.doc.sc.gov/pubweb/research/InmatePopulationStatsT...

Re: Why prisons continue to grow, even when crime declines

#32

Post by makecheck » Sat, Aug 27, 2016, 12:02 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #8

utternerd wrote: post #4

Stop throwing people in jail for "moral crimes" such as drug use, and we'd see a massive decline. Victimless crimes, such as contempt of court for not being "respectful" enough of a sitting judge, or the like should never send you to a cage either. One could make a massive list of the ridiculous uses of our criminal justice system, and sadly many don't see it as a problem.

Contempt of court is not a victimless crime. Nobody gets sent to jail just for being disrespectful--they get held in contempt for disrupting the process other people rely on to adjudicate their rights.

Lots of other ways to handle it though. They could:

- Have a “lose your turn” approach (toss your case to the bottom of the pile and keep moving the others through, until you cool down).

- Ignore you and restate the question/statement that preceded the contempt of court. If it persists, then escalate.

- Give a fine; $50 ought to dissuade most people from continuing to cause a problem.

In fact, they could do just about anything before sending someone to jail.

And heck, there are times in my career I wish I could have put someone in a box for being too disruptive during a meeting or something. Yet we don’t do that, in part because we’re supposed to be civilized. Maybe the “point” of contempt charges is to maintain order but it really just makes the court look like a spoiled child that goes way overboard when challenged.

Re: Why prisons continue to grow, even when crime declines

#33

Post by sandworm101 » Sat, Aug 27, 2016, 12:05 AM UTC

utternerd wrote: post #4

Stop throwing people in jail for "moral crimes" such as drug use, and we'd see a massive decline. Victimless crimes, such as contempt of court for not being "respectful" enough of a sitting judge, or the like should never send you to a cage either. One could make a massive list of the ridiculous uses of our criminal justice system, and sadly many don't see it as a problem.

(1) Contempt of court will never see anyone in prison. Prison (in the US) is only for those serving sentences of over one year. A contempt charge is not going to result in a guaranteed sentence of over a year. Six months is generally the outside, but even then only if you disregard any "purge" stipulations. Contempt sends you to jail, not prison.

(2) Contempt is not a "victimless" crime. It's not really a crime, but the court/judge is the victim in the situation.

(3) There is strong argument for "victimless" crimes to be punished more severely. They are the easier to hide as there is nobody around with a desire to report them. Drunk driving (absent an accident) is victimless but we punish it as we do to deter the legions me know are going undetected.

(4) Be very careful about throwing around the victimless label, especially in regards to drugs. Many a family has suffered horribly as one member is consumed by drugs. That nobody is bleeding in hospital doesn't mean there aren't victims.

Re: Why prisons continue to grow, even when crime declines

#34

Post by tptacek » Sat, Aug 27, 2016, 12:06 AM UTC

makecheck wrote: post #32

rayiner wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Contempt of court is not a victimless crime. Nobody gets sent to jail just for being disrespectful--they get held in contempt for disrupting the process other people rely on to adjudicate their rights.

Lots of other ways to handle it though. They could: - Have a “lose your turn” approach (toss your case to the bottom of the pile and keep moving the others through, until you cool down). - Ignore you and restate the question/statement that preceded the contempt of court. If it persists, then escalate. - Give a fine; $50 ought to dissuade most people from continuing to cause a problem. In fact, they could do just abou…

How does sending a case to the bottom of the pile not also penalize the adversary of the person disrupting the court?

Re: Why prisons continue to grow, even when crime declines

#35

Post by biot » Sat, Aug 27, 2016, 12:08 AM UTC

drawkbox wrote: post #26

pcardh0 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 i…

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.

Re: Why prisons continue to grow, even when crime declines

#36

Post by jchendy » Sat, Aug 27, 2016, 12:09 AM UTC

pcardh0 wrote: post #23

drawkbox wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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…

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.

Why do you want them locked up?

The things I'd like to happen are: 1) Reduce the liklihood that these people will commit further crimes 2) Discourage other people from robbing homes 3) Help you replace the things you lost

I'm not really familiar with the literature on this, but I'd guess there are more effective options than prison for all three of those.

Re: Why prisons continue to grow, even when crime declines

#37

Post by pcardh0 » Sat, Aug 27, 2016, 12:10 AM UTC

noonespecial wrote: post #30

pcardh0 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess the question is how much would you pay from your own salary to lock them up. Because we are paying. Are we getting our money's worth?

I pay taxes from my salary and a portion of those taxes goes to pay prisons. I would be happy to pay more.

Re: Why prisons continue to grow, even when crime declines

#38

Post by drawkbox » Sat, Aug 27, 2016, 12:11 AM UTC

danielvf wrote: post #31

drawkbox wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow this data is going down but look at this: Half of males (50%) and more than half of females (59%) in federal prison were serving time for drug offenses on September 30, 2014.

That's federal prisons though. Totally different laws, courts, and only about 10% of US prisoners. State prisions and local jails have much smaller percentage of drug charges - about 17% in my state and going down. http://www.doc.sc.gov/pubweb/research/InmatePopulationStatsT...

16% at state level from same source, over 50% at federal level. Probably 20%+ directly and up to 30-40% indirectly related, 1 in 5 to 1 in 3. That is lots and lots of people we are paying for to be somewhere that they maybe weren't violent to begin with but are now, prisons are a criminal making machine. They could be out, or in a program, making a net benefit paying it back rather than a total loss all around. -30k per year minimum per prisoner in tax.

Re: Why prisons continue to grow, even when crime declines

#39

Post by Terr_ » Sat, Aug 27, 2016, 12:12 AM UTC

drawkbox wrote: post #29

danielvf wrote: post #27

Actually, the US prison population is declining in both relative and absolute numbers, and has been for the last six years. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf

Wow this data is going down but look at this: Half of males (50%) and more than half of females (59%) in federal prison were serving time for drug offenses on September 30, 2014.

If someone is convicted of killing 2 people and also of manufacturing and possession of 5 pounds of meth, do they fall into the same category of "serving time for drug offenses"?

I think the category people are actually interested in is how many people are incarcerated for only drug-offenses and only minor (possession, not drug-kingpin) ones.

Re: Why prisons continue to grow, even when crime declines

#40

Post by pcardh0 » Sat, Aug 27, 2016, 12:16 AM UTC

jchendy wrote: post #36

pcardh0 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do you want them locked up? The things I'd like to happen are: 1) Reduce the liklihood that these people will commit further crimes 2) Discourage other people from robbing homes 3) Help you replace the things you lost I'm not really familiar with the literature on this, but I'd guess there are more effective options than prison for all three of those.

I want them locked up, so they don't commit more crimes. Obviously the police don't catch every criminal that commits every crime. So catching them and locking them prevents them from committing more crimes.