nyt article on us prison population

[ShaunN]

Dear Friends,

Hi! Here is an article from today's NYT on rates of incarceration in the US.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/us/23prison.html?pagewanted=1&hp&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1208959201-RamxX2gLsPcPWWoUWXc3Ag

The article touches on lots of things we've discussed in other threads, including the influence of guns on certain crimes, qualities of Anglo-Saxon societies that might make them more punitive, etc. It also points out that rates of incarceration in the US vary considerably by state.

Interestingly, the article does indicate that higher rates of incarceration may lead to safer streets - though it points out that a counterexample to this is Canada, where crime rates have tended to mirror the US, but the rates of incarceration have stayed the same.

Anyway, it's a very interesting article and worth a look.

Sincerely,

Shaun

[Solaris]

I'm not so concerned with our higher rates, and longer terms of imprisonment overall... what bothers me is *how* this is applied. Rapists in some places see less jail time than a simple marijuana smoker. The "War on Drugs" has played a signifcant role in the numbers, IMO, and not in a good way.

I am for legalizing marijuana, which is probably the most-used illegal drug in America. If it was legal, and production was government overseen and licensed, it would cut a huge chunk out of the profits for illegal drug producers, and allow the system to go after them for anything from producing *other* illegal drugs, to lack of license etc. for producing marijuana. Take some of the excess money *not* being spent on busting (and long jail time maintainence for) casual at-home users, medical users, etc., and put it into programs to help true drug addicts, and again you win.

Finally, it would free up a lot of prison space, which could then be used (if needed) for violent perpetrators, sex offenders, robbers, and those convicted of driving etc. under the influence.

But... our current generation in power has a royal stick up their asses about marijuana, so we're gonna continue to see people getting busted and jailed for it who, IMO, shouldn't be.

[Hybrid2]

I'm not so concerned with our higher rates, and longer terms of imprisonment overall... what bothers me is *how* this is applied. Rapists in some places see less jail time than a simple marijuana smoker. The "War on Drugs" has played a signifcant role in the numbers, IMO, and not in a good way.

I am for legalizing marijuana, which is probably the most-used illegal drug in America. If it was legal, and production was government overseen and licensed, it would cut a huge chunk out of the profits for illegal drug producers, and allow the system to go after them for anything from producing *other* illegal drugs, to lack of license etc. for producing marijuana. Take some of the excess money *not* being spent on busting (and long jail time maintainence for) casual at-home users, medical users, etc., and put it into programs to help true drug addicts, and again you win.

Finally, it would free up a lot of prison space, which could then be used (if needed) for violent perpetrators, sex offenders, robbers, and those convicted of driving etc. under the influence.

But... our current generation in power has a royal stick up their asses about marijuana, so we're gonna continue to see people getting busted and jailed for it who, IMO, shouldn't be.

Again.Compleately agree with you.

The major problem is that people only think about Hemp as drugs and when someone talk to them about the hundrens of other uses the first phrase they say is"great then we can just smoke that." or something similar.and start laughing.:mad:

I used to be glad when i heard about police confiscating tons of marijuana.now all i see is cops wasting time and wasted money.This (http://www.world-mysteries.com/marijuana1.htm)is what changed my mind.


Dangerous criminals should get sentence that are a lot longer.
there's a group in Quebec that work hard to get victims and theyre families more rights and help.It was started by a guy whose daugter was murdered by a guy that was let out of jail and a few years later his other daugter was killed in a car accident.

[cactusmaac]

Canada's population isn't comparable to America's.

[Grazzt]

Canada's population isn't comparable to America's.

I assume that the figures being compared are per capita, not gross. So it's still a valid comparison.

[cactusmaac]

I meant by composition.

[Grazzt]

I meant by composition.

Okay, so our crime rates are comparable to the States, but our incarceration rates are much lower. What differences in the composition of Canada's population with that of the States cause that?

[ShaunN]

Dear Friends,

One other clarification here: Canadian crime rates are actually generally lower than the US, particularly in terms of violent crime (though, as the article points out, in things like burglary, Cdn crime rates are actually higher). However, and this is what I meant to say, Cdn crime rates have mirrored the US in that they have tended downwards over the past few decades. The point in the article is that Canadian crime rates are declining, as in the US, but the cause is not greater incarceration - which, presumably, may indicate a number of things, including, perhaps, that the downward trend in the US is also not due to incarceration.

Sincerely,

Shaun

[Jack Zodiac]

As for overcrowded prison populations, that's more a fault of mandatory minimum sentencing in almost every state for crimes that realistically shouldn't call for even a jail sentence, just some holding, fining, and parole. A lot of people in prison don't deserve to be there, not because they're innocent, but because they're guilty of a crime that a jail sentence of minimum two to five years just doesn't seem appropriate for. Almost half of the people serving time in the US right now are there for non-violent crimes, and over half a million of them are there on drug charges. That makes up about a quarter of the entire country's prison population.

And I can guarantee you that in the coming years, with the way our economy is going, with the current unemployment rate rising, we'll be seeing more violent crimes (i.e. armed robbery, aggravated assault) occurring like we did back in the early Eighties. So we'll probably be inching up on two and a half million incarcerated persons in the US by this time next year, half of whom committed non-violent crimes but who are serving time and similar sentences with attempted murderers, armed robbers, and sex offenders anyway.

And I'm with Chris so far as America's policy on marijuana (I'd go further with it, too, and have cocaine legalized and regulated as well, but that's a truly crazy liberal pipe dream). I think it's fucking ridiculous that someone with multiple DUIs can get out of going to prison in lieu of paying a few fines and suffering a license restriction, but possession charges can get somebody a mandatory year in prison. Though I think it's fucking ridiculous that a multiple DUI offender could face a mandatory sentence as well.

[Red Jack]

Dear Friends,

One other clarification here: Canadian crime rates are actually generally lower than the US, particularly in terms of violent crime (though, as the article points out, in things like burglary, Cdn crime rates are actually higher). However, and this is what I meant to say, Cdn crime rates have mirrored the US in that they have tended downwards over the past few decades. The point in the article is that Canadian crime rates are declining, as in the US, but the cause is not greater incarceration - which, presumably, may indicate a number of things, including, perhaps, that the downward trend in the US is also not due to incarceration.

Sincerely,

Shaun


Canada is not the US. I think it's a falacy to use either as a social model for the other. Our histories are massively different as are our real population numbers and ethnic breakdowns. We have some very superficial cosmetic similarities and that's it.

Canada is no more like the US than Mexico is. Or Britain.

[Solaris]

And I'm with Chris so far as America's policy on marijuana (I'd go further with it, too, and have cocaine legalized and regulated as well, but that's a truly crazy liberal pipe dream). I think it's fucking ridiculous that someone with multiple DUIs can get out of going to prison in lieu of paying a few fines and suffering a license restriction, but possession charges can get somebody a mandatory year in prison. Though I think it's fucking ridiculous that a multiple DUI offender could face a mandatory sentence as well.

I'll split from you on the DUI thing, though: when you get behind the wheel of a car (or go to your job running a train, or flying a plane, or handling Big Cats, or whatever), if you are intoxicated (drugs or alcohol), you're putting lives at risk. If folks wanna do it at home, fine: but don't risk other people's lives on your ability to handle being intoxicated/under the influence. (And, for recreation sake, ditto for anyone "out" but who takes a cab home, or who has a designated driver---that's fine by me.)

I'm more leary of cocaine because the addiction rate is so high. As for other stuff like meth... meth is nasty shit, and the meth problem in the U.S. is far underrated---probably in part because meth rates are highest in rural areas. IMO, meth is like being on a longterm course of drinking formaldehyde: it rots out all kinds of systems. Nasty nasty stuff. But since it's mainly a "rural" problem, it doesn't get the attention it deserves.

In contrast, there's far too many myths out there about pot and what it does. There are few who are truly addicted to the stuff, and for me, if you hold people accountable for putting other lives at risk (driving, conveying passengers, operating heavy equipment, etc.) when they're high, then who cares? Let people enjoy it at home, or at a friend's or bar (so long as they're taking a taxi or sleeping over, or have a DDriver). It's not a gateway drug anymore than alcohol is... and having the feds and the courts put all that emphasis on pot, and ignoring stuff like meth, really ticks me off.

What's really funny is that I would bet dollars to donuts that well over 50% of the guys and gals on Capitol Hill have tried pot at least once... and some do it fairly regularly, still. When you look at just how many people have tried it, and how many will actually fess up that they smoke it "on occasion"... the numbers are staggering. And that's not even counting in those who *need* it as a legitimate medical pain-reliever and treatment for their particular condition.

[ShaunN]

Dear Red Jack,

I quite agree that the US is not Canada and that circumstances are different. However, in this particular example, how different is part of the question. For example, it's not mentioned in the article, but I remember reading many years ago that one of the reasons for the decline in crime in the West was due to the aging of young males. That is, young males are responsible for most crimes, but as they age into older men, that criminal streak is moderated - I assume because they settle down, have more to lose, etc. If this accounts for the decline in crime in Canada, it may account for the similar decline in the US, and therefore has nothing to do with incarceration.

I think that a key question here is "can the US learn from the rest of the world on this issue?" I don't see why not. I appreciate that every country is unique, but history and culture are not straitjackets and states/peoples are capable of learning. It seems clear that extensive welfare states are a major protection against the more obvious contributors to crime, for example. Or, as many people have noted, incarcerating people for using soft drugs adds enormously to the prison population. These are the kind of things that the US can change for itself and these are the kind of changes that could make for a better, less violent country with fewer people in jail. Yes, I know that this goes against the punitive worldview prevalent in the US but, as I said, nothing is set in stone. Making these changes in the US may be quite difficult because there is more to be overcome, but it's surely not impossible. For example, right now, the push to get universal medical care in the US is driven, in part, by the fact that many advanced Western democracies provide such care to their citizens as a right. Yes, there is great resistance to this in the US, but a lot of people have also come to support this idea. So, adopting and adapting ideas from other places is possible. Indeed, it's been a common feature of US cultural development.

Sincerely,

Shaun

[JeffreyWKramer]

Personally, I'm fine with mandatory sentences for multiple DUI offenses. But then, I would be in favor of a short prison term being mandatory for even first-time DUI offenses. As far as I'm concerned, DUI is treated with way, way too much leniency in the US, and anyone even approaching habitual-offender status via DUI really should be tossed away for good as a threat to society.

I'm all for drug legalization, and I'm also all for personal responsibility. I don't give a shit if someone uses - whether it's alcohol, pot, LSD, heroin or whatever - so long as they don't do so in a manner putting others at risk, but when someone behaves so irresponsibly as to put others at risk by driving while intentionally impaired, that person deserves to be removed from society for a time. Multiple offenses should bring very long sentences and even longer - and preferably permanent - loss of driving priveleges.

[Nick Soapdish]

The problem with DUI isn't really the laws although those are too lenient in my opinion. I think that the third (at the latest) DUI should result in prison time and the confiscation of the vehicle. If it's somebody else's vehicle, they shouldn't have let you borrow it. Or make it grand theft auto. You had permission to drive it if you were sober, but since you weren't, you were stealing it. (Yeah, I'm sure that would fly legally. But we can at least introduce jail time.)

But the real problem is the enforcement. I was looking this up the last time the subject came up and there are thousands of Americans that have over ten DUIs. Sometimes, they've just been serving jail time and getting back out and driving again (on a suspended license). But a lot of it is that prosecutors don't bother to research their histories and judges don't want to be harsh on somebody for "just a little mistake". All over town, I can see billboards for lawyers offering their services for clients that get charged with DUIs.

We aren't enforcing the Breathalyzer either. I thought that it was supposed to be grounds for losing your license to refuse to take a Breathalyzer, but I've read tons of newspaper articles where that wasn't the case. And I even heard one defendant use as his defense against DUI that he was too drunk to know that he had the right to refuse the Breathalyzer so the test should be thrown out. The part of the story that I can't believe is that the defense actually worked.

[Samurai]

Actually, crime has been steadily falling in the US, and Canada now has a crime rate 50% higher than the US per capita, and double the percentage of violent crimes.

Oh, Canada! Your restrictive gun laws pushed crime beyond U.S. rates
By Alan Gottlieb
MichNews.com
Jan 24, 2006



Canada's long-ruling Liberal government, now headed by Prime Minister Paul Martin, has lately been blaming the United States for a dramatic increase in violent crime up north.

There's plenty of blame to spread around, but it all belongs north of the border. The problem isn't Americans illegally running guns to Canada, but Canadian criminals illegally importing guns from wherever they can get them. Blaming the United States for Canadian crime is an argument that does not pass the smell test. Canada's experience has simply demonstrated that no matter what kind of gun control law a government passes, that law is doomed to failure because instead of keeping guns out of the wrong hands, the law disarms the wrong people.

Canada's gun control scheme has not just failed, it has failed disastrously. Clear evidence of that can be found in a comparison of the crime rates for Canada and the U.S. While advocates of Canada's type of restrictive gun laws will play with raw figures and show how many more homicides there might be in such cities as Chicago or Miami or Detroit than there are in Toronto, the real story is found by comparing the per capita crime rates. Do that, and you will discover that Canada's crime rate is skyrocketing while down in the states, overall crime is declining.

The situation is so bad that in the Jan. 3 edition of Canada's National Post, writer David Frum startled readers by revealing that "Canada's overall crime rate is now 50% higher than the crime rate in the United States." He further noted, "Since the early 1990s, crime rates have dropped in 48 of the 50 states and 80% of American cities. Over that same period, crime rates have risen in six of the 10 Canadian provinces and in seven of Canada's 10 biggest cities."

Look at the most recent complete data available from both countries. In 2003, the violent crime rate in the United States was 475 per 100,000 population, while up north, there were 963 violent crimes per 100,000 population. The figure for sexual assault in Canada per 100,000 population was more than double that of the United States, 74 as opposed to 32.1, and the assault rate in Canada was also more than twice that of the states, 746 to our 295 for the population rate.

The situation hasn't improved for Canada while it has for the United States. Toronto had 78 murders in 2005, according to Frum, which represents a 28 percent increase in homicide since 1995.

By no small coincidence, this shift in crime rates between the two countries has, for the past several years, occurred while dozens of U.S. states have adopted so-called "right-to-carry" and "shall-issue" handgun laws. During the same period, Canada's gun laws have gotten more restrictive, with the national gun registry – a deadly billion-dollar boondoggle – being incompetently implemented. It didn't save four Mounties in Alberta last year, or scores of Toronto residents. And now Mr. Martin has declared he will push to ban private handgun ownership, further demonstrating that, given the opportunity, a Liberal would rather impair the liber ty of law-abiding citizens than imprison criminals.

While Canada has clamped down on its citizens' gun rights, American citizens have been empowered against criminals by passage concealed carry laws. The disparity in crime rates between the two countries says it all about how well gun registration works to stop crime, as opposed to actually carrying guns to deter criminals, and fight back if necessary.

Since declaring war on guns under former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Canada's Liberals have presided over the sharpest rise in violent crime in the nation's history. There are more rapes, more robberies and more murders. If that tells Canadian citizens anything at all, it's that Paul Martin and his Liberals have literally been "dead wrong" on guns and crime reduction.

Frum said it best when he noted that "Gun registration and gun bans…do not work," adding later, "It is not guns from across the border that threaten Canadians. It is the weak and cynical policies of home-grown politicians, and especially the Chretien/Martin Liberals."

Martin and the Liberals are not the solution to violent crime in Canada. They're the problem.



http://www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/245/11403

[Crowley]

Actually, crime has been steadily falling in the US, and Canada now has a crime rate 50% higher than the US per capita, and double the percentage of violent crimes.



http://www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/245/11403
What color is the sky in your world? WHERE are the facts in the article?
What poll or governmental agency is he citing for statistics?

nice neutral news source there with no overt political agenda...:rolleyes:

At least here's the accurate statistics:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#Crime
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/071017/d071017b.htm

Not to mention that nearly every other new source is noting Canada's low crime rate:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=a3noJ7ZnOfE8&refer=canada
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/04/01/ottawa-crime.html

[Samurai]

What color is the sky in your world? WHERE are the facts in the article?
What poll or governmental agency is he citing for statistics?

nice neutral news source there with no overt political agenda...:rolleyes:

At least here's the accurate statistics:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#Crime
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/071017/d071017b.htm

Not to mention that nearly every other new source is noting Canada's low crime rate:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=a3noJ7ZnOfE8&refer=canada
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/04/01/ottawa-crime.html

Hmm, both your articles and mine agree that the violent crime rates were rapibly increasing through 2005. The Gottlieb article was written in 2006 and had only those increases to go on. It seems like Canada was able to turn things around in the last few years.

[ShaunN]

A couple of points here - I'm not sure who Alan Gottlieb is - there was a Canadian ambassador to the US of the same name a few years ago, but I doubt it's the same person.

David Frum, however, is another story. Frum is the person cited in Gottlieb's article with the ludicrous statistics meant, apparently, to support the idea that American gun laws are getting US crime down. Besides the sheer insanity of thta idea - contrary to every expert opinion and every observable fact (including facts stated in the NYT article I posted - note its comparison between fatal attacks in NY and London, which have similar levels of assault) is the fact that David Frum is a right-wing ideologue. He was a former speech-writer for George W. Bush and is a well known right-wing propagandist.(Indeed, he supposedly coined the phrase "axis of evil" and spends a lot of time writing books about how evil the left is, how the Palestinians should be destroyed as a people, and how wonderful George Bush is). I'd be very suspicious of anything he says and writes. His agenda is to turn Canada into the US. So, he has a powerful vested interest in making everything that Canada does look as bad as possible and lionizing everything done (often the worst things) in the US. Indeed, the newspaper he writes for, the National Post, is the far right flagship in Canada.

In recent years, gun crimes in big Canadian cities, particularly Toronto, have become more of a problem. They are still nowhere near what they are in the US, but they are a worry. And yes, a lot of the guns used in these crimes are smuggled in from the US. Controlling illegal guns in Canada is difficult because of their easy, legal availability in the US.

It's ironic - a few years ago, when it looked like Canada was moving towards decriminalizing marijuana, the Bush Administration threatened to slow down traffic at the border if this were done. Yet, Canadians are receiving the far more dangerous illegal import of guns from the US, but we can't do too much checking of cars/trucks at the border, given the economic imbalance between the two countries.

Sincerely,

Shaun

[ShaunN]

Dear Samurai,

Hi! Please look more closely at the Statscan graphs posted on Crowley's links. The homicide rate in Canada peaked in the mid-1970s and has been declining ever since, with the occasional upward spike along the way. Compare the rate in 1976 to what it is in 2006 - it's a lot lower, going from about 3 per 100,000 to about 1.73. The same decline is true, overall, in the use of firearms to commit murders, where it's gone from about 1.1 in 1976 to about .6 today.

There may be occasional spikes from year to year, but it's pretty clear that the major trend in Canada over the past 30 years has been towards a significant decline in homicides (at least) and violent crime in general, even as the population gets larger and more diverse. The same is generally true in the US (though crime rates are higher) and this gets back to the original point - why is Canada's crime rate declining so much when we are not incarcerating people at any higher rate? (And the same question can be asked in the rest of the Western world)

Sincerely,

Shaun

[Crowley]

Dear Samurai,

Hi! Please look more closely at the Statscan graphs posted on Crowley's links. The homicide rate in Canada peaked in the mid-1970s and has been declining ever since, with the occasional upward spike along the way. Compare the rate in 1976 to what it is in 2006 - it's a lot lower, going from about 3 per 100,000 to about 1.73. The same decline is true, overall, in the use of firearms to commit murders, where it's gone from about 1.1 in 1976 to about .6 today.

There may be occasional spikes from year to year, but it's pretty clear that the major trend in Canada over the past 30 years has been towards a significant decline in homicides (at least) and violent crime in general, even as the population gets larger and more diverse. The same is generally true in the US (though crime rates are higher) and this gets back to the original point - why is Canada's crime rate declining so much when we are not incarcerating people at any higher rate? (And the same question can be asked in the rest of the Western world)

Sincerely,

Shaun
Because Prison is big business in the US.