Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why prisons continue to grow, even when crime declines

news.osu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 85 posts

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

#41

Post by drawkbox »

Terr_ wrote: post #39
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.

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.

If someone killed two people they go for the murder charge I am sure of it. Nothing wrong with locking up murderers as it is violent.

The above stats are current prisoner charges, my assumption is murderers wouldn't be out to get a charge by making meth. But who knows they seem to be harder on drugs than real violent crime at times (80s especially right after the DEA was created by Nixon in '75).

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

#42

Post by dragonwriter »

sandworm101 wrote: post #33
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…

> Prison (in the US) is only for those serving sentences of over one year.

This is a popular conception of the prison/jail distinction, and it has some general connection with reality, but it is both possible to be in a "prison" with a sentence of less than a year, and to be sentenced to a "jail" for sentences of greater than a year.

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

#43

Post by dragonwriter »

sandworm101 wrote: post #33
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…

> Contempt is not a "victimless" crime. It's not really a crime

Criminal contempt is really a crime. Civil contempt is, obviously, not a crime.

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

#44

Post by jchendy »

pcardh0 wrote: post #40
jchendy wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I want them locked up, so they don't commit more crimes.

Do you have evidence that prison actually reduces future crimes?

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

#45

Post by mbrameld »

sandworm101 wrote: post #33
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…

For #4, how does the act of using a drug recreationally and responsibly cause any suffering at all to one's family? If I drink a beer, have a coffee, or smoke a bowl, how does that affect, say, my mother who is 3,000 miles away?

I have a feeling you're conflating use with abuse.

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

#46

Post by pcardh0 »

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…

No. I would rather they go to jail.

I had insurance, it did not cover all of the losses. Assuming this wasn't the first house they robbed, there are many people who suffered losses as well.

I do have a son and I would be very unhappy if he started robbing houses. Because of this, I consider it my responsibility to raise him correctly. A concept that seems sadly out of fashion these days.

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

#47

Post by Avshalom »

gok wrote: post #7
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.

Drug crimes cover only 16% of inmates in US state prisons [1]. It's higher in Federal institutions, but that's only about 15% of total inmates. I don't disagree that many drug offenders probably shouldn't be in jail, but the US could release all of them and we'd still have the highest incarceration rate in the world. [1] http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p13.pdf (table 13)

16% is not an only kind of number and .16.85+.15.5... 21% of all inmates is certainly not an only number.

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

#48

Post by pcardh0 »

drawkbox wrote: post #28
yazaddaruvala wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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.

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

#49

Post by mindslight »

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 seriously fucked up in light of federal drug laws being blatantly unconstitutional everywhere but DC. Occupation government, indeed.

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

#50

Post by mindslight »

Terr_ wrote: post #39
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.

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.

In a sane society, a "drug kingpin" is called an "entrepreneur".
Post reply on HN