Why so many prisoners?

[dimreepr]

Whilst reading the thread “Racially-motivated Prison Rapes” I was struck by the following, so rather than sending the thread off topic I’ll start this one.

 

Why does society put so many people in prison?

 

Incarceration of the very violent is sensible, society as a whole deserves protection from such people, enabling the possibility of rehabilitation in a controlled environment.

 

Incarceration of non violent people starts to move into the realm of revenge, driven in a large part by rampant media instilling fear into societies mind. It seems to me that treating people, who for instance sell drugs or fail to pay taxes, like this, can only serve to create hardened criminals. Why do we need to rehabilitate these people behind bars?

 

There must be a better way...

 

 

[John Cuthber]

It's probably worth noting that other places don't put so many people in prison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate

[Anvar]

By my opinion first of all it is necessary to determine the crime itself.

[Green Xenon]

Why does society put so many people in prison?

 

It's for the same reason gladiators existed and for the same reason there were blood feuds on the streets in ancient Greece [in which once a man was down, everyone kicked him to death and he was not permitted to defend himself].

 

The society-of-humans is cold-hearted and gains pleasure and humor from the stronger attacking the weaker.

 

Those who have done "milder" crimes can be rehabilitated outside of prison, however, it costs the taxpayers more and people too evil and greedy to pay for it. More importantly, rehabs center starve the sadists of the pain they love so much to inflict on others. That is why prisons are used in lieu of rehab.

[ewmon]

Traditionally, incarceration served three purposes:

1. protect society from those who are reasonably expected to harm it,
   
2. punish those who harm society, and
   
3. rehabilitate them.
   

Incarceration of non violent people starts to move into the realm of revenge

Non-violent offenders shouldn't go to prison? People like financier Bernie Madoff, Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, Enron's Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling, drug traffickers, currency counterfeiters, computer hackers, virus writers, identity thieves, phishing scammers, etc? They shouldn't go to the "time out" corner?

 

Why do we need to rehabilitate these people behind bars?

To punish wrong-doers and protect society against them.

[questionposter]

Well for one, there's not as strict gun laws. In England, it's pretty much illegal to have a gun, many of the police don't even use guns (although that might just be England). And in Germany, if your caught drunk driving ONE TIME, your driver's license get's taken away PERMANENTLY. So in the US, it's probably because some laws aren't taken so seriously and it's easier to commit crimes, and it's also pretty easy to buy illegal drugs. The US boarders are just so large there's just going to be some gaps where people can sneak them in.

Edited April 21, 2012 by questionposter

[dimreepr]

Traditionally, incarceration served three purposes:

1. protect society from those who are reasonably expected to harm it,
2. punish those who harm society, and
3. rehabilitate them.

 

Traditionally the prisons were dungeons. The Stone Age didn’t end because they ran out of stones.

 

 

Non-violent offenders shouldn't go to prison? People like financier Bernie Madoff, Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, Enron's Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling, drug traffickers, currency counterfeiters, computer hackers, virus writers, identity thieves, phishing scammers, etc? They shouldn't go to the "time out" corner?

 

Reductio ad absurdum. There are many ways to punish people prison isn’t the only option.

 

 

To punish wrong-doers and protect society against them.

 

 

Putting people in prison is often counterproductive, as it only serves to harden criminality and when did I say we shouldn’t punish the wrong doers.

 

 

 

 

 

[Anvar]

Putting people in prison is often counterproductive, as it only serves to harden criminality and when did I say we shouldn't punish the wrong doers.

 

That's the point. The obvious logical conclusion is to electrocute them at once.

[michel123456]

(...) There are many ways to punish people prison isnt the only option.

(...)

 

The other options are:

 

1. money (to impose a fine)

2. corporal punishment

3. talion law (eye for eye)

4. banishment (exile)

5. slavery (forced labour)

 

Maybe I forget some.

 

Personally I like the romantic ways of escaping justice by going into a monastery or to the French Foreign Legion although I am not sure it's always a good idea to give a gun to a criminal.

I'd like for example a corp of "volunteers" firemen made out of convicts.

Edited April 22, 2012 by michel123456

[dimreepr]

The other options are:

 

1. money (to impose a fine)

2. corporal punishment

3. talion law (eye for eye)

4. banishment (exile)

5. slavery (forced labour)

 

Maybe I forget some.

 

Personally I like the romantic ways of escaping justice by going into a monastery or to the French Foreign Legion although I am not sure it's always a good idea to give a gun to a criminal.

I'd like for example a corp of "volunteers" firemen made out of convicts.

 

 

I said in the OP “Incarceration of non violent people starts to move into the realm of revenge” by which I mean two things: Firstly the social clamor to incarcerate generally, IMO, outweighs the severity of the crime. Secondly I intended this to imply that not all non-violent crimes should escape incarceration.

 

It's probably worth noting that other places don't put so many people in prison.

http://en.wikipedia....arceration_rate

 

This is definitely worth noting. Particularly note the difference between the USA and Japan.

 

By my opinion first of all it is necessary to determine the crime itself.

 

The OP deals with the entire prison population, there aren’t any specific crimes involved they’re not relevant.

 

That's the point. The obvious logical conclusion is to electrocute them at once.

 

It strikes me that the most logical conclusion is to take them out of the prisons and find a better way...

 

 

[Sergeant Bilko]

Its plain to see from the Bureau of Justice's own statistics that Prison, or the threat of prison does nothing to prevent criminals committing crime.

 

 

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/corr2tab.cfm

 

 

 

Maybe its time the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade sought alternative ways to prevent crime. I don't have the answers, but its sure as hell from the Bureau's own figures that the current path we are treading isn't the right one!

[ewmon]

Traditionally the prisons were dungeons. The Stone Age didn’t end because they ran out of stones.

 

Reductio ad absurdum. There are many ways to punish people prison isn’t the only option.

 

Putting people in prison [...] only serves to harden criminality

Unfortunately, we are not talking about dungeons of bygone times.

 

The argument of "reductio ad absurdum" does not answer the question of what to do with people such as Bernie Madoff, Rod Blagojevich, Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling. So I'm still waiting to hear about a punishment for these people. Let's focus on Bernie Madoff for now — what alternatives would you, dimreepr, choose to punish Madoff?

 

I'll even add another reason why we put criminals in prison: #4) to protect the criminal from revenge. Bernie Madoff stole $65B from people. I would say that there would be plenty of criminally-minded people who would gladly put a bullet in Madoff's head if paid a small fraction of $65B ... say $1M.

 

Prison only serves to harden criminality? Do you have statistics to back this up?

 

Sgt Bilko, your BJS statistics don't support your conclusion. Where is the control group?

 

Last but not least, has anyone posting here ever gone to prison? or to jail? or a police lockup? Who here has only been arrested? Has anyone here ever visited someone inside? True, one needn't go there to know about it, but the people who have been through the justice system, tend to know it up close and personal.

[dimreepr]

The argument of "reductio ad absurdum" does not answer the question of what to do with people such as Bernie Madoff, Rod Blagojevich, Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling. So I'm still waiting to hear about a punishment for these people. Let's focus on Bernie Madoff for now — what alternatives would you, dimreepr, choose to punish Madoff?

 

I'll even add another reason why we put criminals in prison: #4) to protect the criminal from revenge. Bernie Madoff stole $65B from people. I would say that there would be plenty of criminally-minded people who would gladly put a bullet in Madoff's head if paid a small fraction of $65B ... say $1M.

 

 

 

I didn't start this thread to get caught up in individual cases, I don't know enough of the specifics of this case to offer any sort of judgement and as I have previously stated "not all non-violent crimes should escape incarceration."

 

Prison only serves to harden criminality? Do you have statistics to back this up?

 

 

The idea that prisons harden criminality is not new read this http://www.thenation...n-criminals-yes

 

edit to change font size

Edited April 22, 2012 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

I'm surprised nobody has chosen to break down the problem into what seem to me to be two obvious parts.

Is the prison population high because you have many criminals (i.e. a high overall crime rate) or because you put people in prison for crimes that would get non-custodial sentences elsewhere.

 

If it's the latter (and I suggest that a 3rd strike policy might lead to that) then the solution is different from if the root cause is a high crime rate.

 

Of course, it might be a combination of both.

As an aside it might be interesting to know what fraction of the prison population have serious mental health problems and/ or addiction problems.

[JohnB]

Maybe its time the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade sought alternative ways to prevent crime.

 

While the "hang 'em" crowd are alive and well in the US, the "flog 'em" bunch don't get much of a try anywhere.

 

Personally I have no problem with corporal punishment. I think it far better for the drunk driver to get 10 lashes and be sent home than to be incarcerated. I'm willing to bet that the pain will stay with him for a long, long time. I do find it odd that nations that are willing to kill their own citizens are amazingly unwilling to injure them. Anyway I'd be happy to see a sliding scale for repeat offenders. 10 lashes first offence, 20 for the second, 30 for the third etc. At some point the crim is going to wake up to the fact that it just hurts way too much and desist.

 

While Michael Fay probably continued quite happily vandalising trains and anything else he could get his grubby little hands near in America, I sincerely doubt that he repeated his offence in Singapore.

 

One of the points of prison is that it's not supposed to be a nice place. The idea is that people who have been incarcerated should not want to go back and should change their behaviour to avoid this happening. Not to be too blunt, the whole point of the criminal justice system is that the criminals should be afraid of it. The fact that they aren't is indicitive that we are doing something wrong in the West.

[DrDNA]

Well for one, there's not as strict gun laws. In England, it's pretty much illegal to have a gun, many of the police don't even use guns (although that might just be England).

Well, here in the US "The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns."

 

and

 

"....the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel "have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States." A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.

 

The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason."

 

 

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities

[Anvar]

No doubt that defiant behaviour and crime are strictly connected with genes fluctuations and principles of quantum mechanics first of all the Heisenberg principle. Therefore any form of rehabilitation is impossible. On the other hand it is absolutely insensate to spend people's money on whole penitentiary system, to build expensive prisons etc. Isn't there a better solution? Maybe a cheap crematorium would do?

Here in Russia any form of incarceration makes a hardener criminal.For instance the first prison term is considered as a necessary step to become a real criminal.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Anvar

[CaptainPanic]

Whilst reading the thread “Racially-motivated Prison Rapes” I was struck by the following, so rather than sending the thread off topic I’ll start this one.

 

Why does society put so many people in prison?

 

Incarceration of the very violent is sensible, society as a whole deserves protection from such people, enabling the possibility of rehabilitation in a controlled environment.

 

Incarceration of non violent people starts to move into the realm of revenge, driven in a large part by rampant media instilling fear into societies mind. It seems to me that treating people, who for instance sell drugs or fail to pay taxes, like this, can only serve to create hardened criminals. Why do we need to rehabilitate these people behind bars?

 

There must be a better way...

But revenge is one of the primary reasons we put people in jail. It pleases a lot of people when a criminal receives a very heavy penalty for the crimes committed... so politicians increase the severity of punishments to win votes.

 

Take a child rapist for example. There may be scientific evidence that with the right treatment, a child rapist can be rehabilitated in only 4 years or so. But of you would let a child rapist walk freely after only 4 years, it would cause outrage. People don't care about rehabilitation, and simply want to see the child rapist rot in the deepest circle of hell. And I agree that there should be an element of revenge in a punishment, especially for crimes that cause mental harm to people.

 

Revenge is (especially in certain cases) very important.

 

Regarding the drug-related crimes you mention: that is only an American problem. And I agree with you that punishments are way too high in the USA. But the distinction shouldn't be between violent and non-violent crimes, it should be measured by the impact that a crime has on a society. Smoking a joint is harmless, and I don't think any punishment is required at all (and there isn't any where I live). But the example given earlier in this thread of Madoff who stole billions is not harmless, and should be punished by jailtime (a life sentence if you ask me).

[ewmon]

Actually, where I live in America (and, I think, most of America), the justice system has a very wide consideration in sentencing, and I am familiar with the options.

 

I've seen sentences such as 5 years suspended with 45 days to serve (as a slap on the wrist, or to give him a taste of prison life). And I've seen a young gang member paroled on Friday with the stipulation of staying out of a certain neighborhood, only to be in the local lockup by early Sunday morning for violating that stipulation. What would normally be a 5- to 10-year sentence can be, for a first-time offender, incarceration on weekends for three years (ie, about ten months' worth of prison time), with the remainder of the time "hanging over his head" (that is, suspended -- if he is arrested/convicted again, he does the remainder). And that could be for a violent offense, but it allows the defendant to live at home, work, and support his family, but feel punished in a very real sense. And then, of course, there's probation and parole.

 

The idea that prison hardens some criminals is true, but the broad statement that prison hardens criminality in general, is simply incorrect (and a lot of prisoners would agree). There's something that other prisoners tell the whiners: If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. A criminal full well knows that he's violating the law, and so, deserves the punishment if caught, but he doesn't think that he'll get caught. If he thinks that he absolutely will never get caught, then he's living in a dream world disconnected from reality, and he deserves everything he gets, punishment-wise. I don't doubt that prison hardens some criminals, but I'd say from my experiences, that those particular criminals would have continued down that road anyway, and the soft punishment would have simply validated their unrealistic belief that they didn't do anything wrong that deserved "real" punishment.

 

The other prisoners, guards, and staff that deal with prisoners on a daily basis can sort out the ones who are serious about not coming back and those who are "doing life on the installment plan". This information finds it's way back to the judges. Almost always, defendants get what is they feel is appropriate. Sometimes the judges slam them in the beginning to shock them, knowing that an appeal will lower the punishment to a level acceptable to the defendant. There's a story, perhaps apocryphal, that a judge sentenced a defendant to 15 years, to which he replied that he could do that "standing on his head", so the judge gave him another 15 years "to get back on his feet". It's that kind of defiant criminality that deserves and gets long sentences.

 

The question of "why so many prisons" should, more accurately, question overall capacity. Many facilities may be outdated or overcrowded. Some prisoners are double-bunked in 6-by-8-foot cells, It was seen as a temporary fix to the rising prison populations in the 60s and 70s, but has become somewhat standard. Some prisons are outdated and dangerous.Overall, building more prisons is far past due.

[CaptainPanic]

Actually, where I live in America (and, I think, most of America), the justice system has a very wide consideration in sentencing, and I am familiar with the options.

 

I've seen sentences such as 5 years suspended with 45 days to serve (as a slap on the wrist, or to give him a taste of prison life). And I've seen a young gang member paroled on Friday with the stipulation of staying out of a certain neighborhood, only to be in the local lockup by early Sunday morning for violating that stipulation. What would normally be a 5- to 10-year sentence can be, for a first-time offender, incarceration on weekends for three years (ie, about ten months' worth of prison time), with the remainder of the time "hanging over his head" (that is, suspended -- if he is arrested/convicted again, he does the remainder). And that could be for a violent offense, but it allows the defendant to live at home, work, and support his family, but feel punished in a very real sense. And then, of course, there's probation and parole.

 

The idea that prison hardens some criminals is true, but the broad statement that prison hardens criminality in general, is simply incorrect (and a lot of prisoners would agree). There's something that other prisoners tell the whiners: If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. A criminal full well knows that he's violating the law, and so, deserves the punishment if caught, but he doesn't think that he'll get caught. If he thinks that he absolutely will never get caught, then he's living in a dream world disconnected from reality, and he deserves everything he gets, punishment-wise. I don't doubt that prison hardens some criminals, but I'd say from my experiences, that those particular criminals would have continued down that road anyway, and the soft punishment would have simply validated their unrealistic belief that they didn't do anything wrong that deserved "real" punishment.

 

The other prisoners, guards, and staff that deal with prisoners on a daily basis can sort out the ones who are serious about not coming back and those who are "doing life on the installment plan". This information finds it's way back to the judges. Almost always, defendants get what is they feel is appropriate. Sometimes the judges slam them in the beginning to shock them, knowing that an appeal will lower the punishment to a level acceptable to the defendant. There's a story, perhaps apocryphal, that a judge sentenced a defendant to 15 years, to which he replied that he could do that "standing on his head", so the judge gave him another 15 years "to get back on his feet". It's that kind of defiant criminality that deserves and gets long sentences.

 

The question of "why so many prisons" should, more accurately, question overall capacity. Many facilities may be outdated or overcrowded. Some prisoners are double-bunked in 6-by-8-foot cells, It was seen as a temporary fix to the rising prison populations in the 60s and 70s, but has become somewhat standard. Some prisons are outdated and dangerous.Overall, building more prisons is far past due.

Your post is interesting, but it does not explain why the USA has such a large percentage of prisoners in comparison to other countries.

On average, there are more people in prison in the USA than anywhere else in the world. John Cuthber was very helpful to give a link to the "List of countries by incarceration rate".

 

ewmon, your post seems to describe some kind of subculture in prison... Why is it that this even exists? Why are there more than 2 million people in prison in the USA (about 0.7%)? Why are there more than 8 times as many prisoners per capita in the USA than for example in the Netherlands, or over 6 times as much as in France?

[Phi for All]

Your post is interesting, but it does not explain why the USA has such a large percentage of prisoners in comparison to other countries.

I think it's quite simply that prisoners represent a great deal of money to be made from tax revenues, which are easily justified to the taxpayers because of the threat criminals pose. It's always amazed me that it costs about as much to keep an inmate in a state prison as what the average citizen in that state earns in income.

 

Contracts for food and such are extremely lucrative. I think this is an area where states should be buying directly and not involve private contract vendors. Free market models are at odds with the intent of correctional facilities.

[ewmon]

explain why the USA has such a large percentage of prisoners in comparison to other countries.

Three or four reasons I think:

• We are a violent nation both of our citizenry (crime, etc) and of our government (executions, wars).
  
• We have lots of personal freedoms, and some people make bad choices.
  
• Our black population is over represented in prisons (4x), and I see it as a clash of two cultures.
  
• Then there's welfare and the entitlement mentality.
  

[John Cuthber]

There are, no doubt, many factors, but I think Phi for All's point is very telling.

Running a prison for profit is in my opinion morally bankrupt.

Exactly how much incentive to the prisons have to prevent re-offending in that system?

In principle I don't object to the meals being provided by an external supplier- but the staff and governor of the prison should eat the same food (in a different room of course) in order to maintain the quality of the service.

[iNow]

I second Phi's central point. Prison is BIG business, and lots of people are making lots of money, and those same people are the ones setting up the structure in the system.

 

Add to that how the US focuses on punishment instead of rehabilitation... how punishment doesn't alter behavior like reinforcement and training and opportunity and incentivization and reduction in poverty... add to that how basic conditioning research shows how powerfully people simply learn to avoid getting caught when faced with a threat of punishment as opposed to learning to avoid engaging in the behavior itself (see radar detectors as a key example... the stated objective is to prevent speeding, but people continue speeding in the face of punishment and instead seek methods to avoid being caught).

 

Add to that how the US imprisons people by the hundreds of thousands for simple things like smoking a joint and the picture suddenly becomes much more clear.

 

Ultimately though... Prison in the US is BIG BIG BIG business, and those businesses make MORE money when recidivism is high... They are being rewarded for keeping people engaged in crime and coming back to jail... as are all of the services that support those facilities... like food service, and laundry, and electricity, and ad infinitum... They make LESS money if they actually rehabilitate people, and why would any business choose to do that?

 

As has already been noted above, running a prison for profit is morally bankrupt, and merely serves to perpetuate the problems we claim to be addressing.

 

A quick google provides this. Seems well referenced. I'm sure there are better available to reinforce my central message: http://matadornetwork.com/pulse/how-the-us-prison-system-has-become-a-big-business/

[DrDNA]

As mentioned above, corporate lobbying and profit have a lot to do with it.....

 

"The private contracting of prisoners for work fosters incentives to lock people up. Prisons depend on this income. Corporate stockholders who make money off prisoners' work lobby for longer sentences, in order to expand their workforce. The system feeds itself," says a study by the Progressive Labor Party, which accuses the prison industry of being "an imitation of Nazi Germany with respect to forced slave labor and concentration camps."

 

The prison industry complex is one of the fastest-growing industries in the United States and its investors are on Wall Street. "This multimillion-dollar industry has its own trade exhibitions, conventions, websites, and mail-order/Internet catalogs. It also has direct advertising campaigns, architecture companies, construction companies, investment houses on Wall Street, plumbing supply companies, food supply companies, armed security, and padded cells in a large variety of colors."

 

According to the Left Business Observer, the federal prison industry produces 100% of all military helmets, ammunition belts, bullet-proof vests, ID tags, shirts, pants, tents, bags, and canteens. Along with war supplies, prison workers supply 98% of the entire market for equipment assembly services; 93% of paints and paintbrushes; 92% of stove assembly; 46% of body armor; 36% of home appliances; 30% of headphones/microphones/speakers; and 21% of office furniture. Airplane parts, medical supplies, and much more: prisoners are even raising seeing-eye dogs for blind people.

 

CRIME GOES DOWN, JAIL POPULATION GOES UP

 

According to reports by human rights organizations, these are the factors that increase the profit potential for those who invest in the prison industry complex:

 

. Jailing persons convicted of non-violent crimes, and long prison sentences for possession of microscopic quantities of illegal drugs. Federal law stipulates five years' imprisonment without possibility of parole for possession of 5 grams of crack or 3.5 ounces of heroin, and 10 years for possession of less than 2 ounces of rock-cocaine or crack. A sentence of 5 years for cocaine powder requires possession of 500 grams - 100 times more than the quantity of rock cocaine for the same sentence. Most of those who use cocaine powder are white, middle-class or rich people, while mostly Blacks and Latinos use rock cocaine. In Texas, a person may be sentenced for up to two years' imprisonment for possessing 4 ounces of marijuana. Here in New York, the 1973 Nelson Rockefeller anti-drug law provides for a mandatory prison sentence of 15 years to life for possession of 4 ounces of any illegal drug.

 

. The passage in 13 states of the "three strikes" laws (life in prison after being convicted of three felonies), made it necessary to build 20 new federal prisons. One of the most disturbing cases resulting from this measure was that of a prisoner who for stealing a car and two bicycles received three 25-year sentences.

.The prison industry in the United States: big business or a new form of slavery?

 

 

It's really become a sad situation. And the answer is simple.....$$$$$$$$