Why prisons continue to grow, even when crime declines

The problem is, that there is a strong retalitation instinct in humanity, to enforce group norms.That worked well in villages, but if allowed to be lived out produces ridiculous amounts of locked up people.

Whats even more disturbing is, how those locked up people are not allowed to be a productive part in society. They get hamster-wheelian-jobs in the prison industry, instead of continuing with there real jobs.

Everybody looses to the brain bug.

In the US.

> From September 9, 1996 until March 6, 1998, McDougal spent the maximum possible 18 months imprisonment for civil contempt, including 8 months in solitary confinement, and was subjected to "diesel therapy" (the practice of hauling defendants around the country and placing them in different jails along the way).[12] In her case, Susan was shuffled from Arkansas to "Los Angeles to the Oklahoma City transfer center, and then on to the Pulaski County Jail in Little Rock, Arkansas".

> ... McDougal's trial for criminal contempt-of-court and obstruction of justice charges began in March 1999. The jury hung 7-5 to acquit her for contempt of court, and found her not guilty on the charge of obstruction of justice.

Also, H. Beatty Chadwick was held in jail at the county prison for more than 14 years as a result of contempt of court.

What difference then does it make it if is 30 days or 3 years? In other words, how is 30 days an improvement to the problem of deterence (though it is an improvement to the taxpayer)?

> Also, it's human nature to believe you won't get caught. If someone thought they were likely to get caught, they wouldn't do it.

Not necessarily, some people who know that with high probability they will get caught still perform crimes; drug addiction can be quite powerful. At a first glance, I would think that substance abuse treatment/improvement in mental health facilities can help here.

> Thirdly, what makes you think a 3 year sentence would deter someone from doing it any more than a 30 day sentence would? I'm sure the person didn't even realize stealing a bicycle carried a 3 year sentence. For deterrence to work, a person must know the punishment for the crime. Also, the 3 year sentence doesn't fit the crime. At some point, it becomes cruel and unusual.

I agree here; this is part of the reason why I don't think long sentences are a good solution. But in my view, your proposed solution does not do much either to the problem of deterrence.

> I think locking a person up for 3 years for stealing an unlocked bicycle that the police planted trying to bait someone into stealing it is cruel and certainly unusual. It's also pretty darn close to entrapment.

What if the police simply want to install a tracker, in order to investigate the possibility that the theft is being performed by an organized ring which regularly steals bikes, in which case a 3 year sentence could fit the crime? Standard bikes do not come with trackers; this will require active intervention.

See http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Thief-Makes-Quick-Wo... - here the "entrapment" was done by civilians. Sting operations by civilians are certainly useful in many parts of the world, e.g to expose bribery. I fail to see why there should be a blanket "no to entrapment" in the case of police, but continue to allow it for civilians. Personally, I believe entrapment by both civilians and police forces has its uses at times.

> Finally, we have a deterrence paradox. If the US houses the largest prison population in the world, why are there people still stealing bicycles? On the other hand, if crime is at an all time low, why are we still locking people up at an increasing rate every year?

I don't have an answer to this. On the other hand, in my view your proposals do not either.

Actually though I think there is a mismatch - there are two groups here, those who made a mistake but are fundamentally good people (they perhaps have a drinking problem or a drug problem, fell into a bad crowd, etc) those should probably not be put in jail, but more a closed treatment center, put on parole, sentenced to community service, etc. The idiots who stole my wheel-caps probably belongs here, as would somebody who killed their spouse because they abused them - it is not okay, but it doesn't make them unredeamably bad people.

Then there are the people who are just scum, the [mum who goes out to drink, leaving her toddler at home](http://www.lohud.com/story/news/crime/2016/05/09/new-rochell...), the gang members, the people who commits rape, etc. Those just needs to be locked up, forever if possible.

It appear to me that both sides of this debate are only focusing on one of the sub groups and are trying to apply rules evenly, without first looking at the criminal. This will absolutely result in injustices, either by throwing a 17 year old in prison for life with out the possibility of parole for [killing her pimp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Kruzan) or releasing criminals who will go on to do more criminal acts.