Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
States are increasingly recognizing that our criminal justice system is overly punitive, ...Yet as states enact reforms that incrementally improve their criminal justice systems, they are categorically excluding the single largest group of incarcerated people: the nearly 1 million people locked up for violent offenses.The staggering number of people incarcerated for violent offenses is not due to high rates of violent crime, but rather the lengthy sentences doled out to people convicted of violent crimes.
They argue that cutting incarceration rates to international norms will be impossible without changing how we sentience for violence because over 40% of prison and jail populations are locked up for violent offenses.
Quote:
The number of people in state prisons for violent offenses increased by over 300% between 1980 and 2009, when it reached its peak of 740,000 people nationwide. This staggering increase cannot simply be attributed a higher crime rate but to a series of policy changes that states made during the “tough on crime” era of the late-1980s to mid-1990s
Then they argue that recidivism rates for violent crime are low and :
Quote:
These “tough on crime” policies reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of violence. They are grounded in the belief that lengthy incarceration is an effective deterrent or containment strategy for violence, despite years of evidence to the contrary, and a desire for retribution. In particular, arguments that extreme sentences are needed to protect the public assume that violence is a static characteristic in people, and that they are incapable of change. But research consistently shows people convicted of violent offenses are not inherently violent. Rather, violence is a complex phenomenon that is influenced by a range of factors, some of which diminish with time (such as youth), and others that can be mediated with interventions other than incarceration.
Then they note that current research shows that long prison sentences do little to deter future crime. It may do the opposite:
Quote:
compared to non-custodial sanctions, incarceration has a null or mildly criminogenic impact on future criminal involvement.” In other words, incarceration can be counterproductive: While a prison sentence can incapacitate people in the short term, it actually increases the risk that someone will commit a crime after their release.
Is mass incarceration a problem? I bet a lot of people don't think so. It does cost a lot of money though. Mass Incarceration reportedly costs $182 billion every year.
What do we do with people when they break the law? There has already been prison reform which will no doubt expand in the future but we still have plenty of really bad people that will prey on the public.
In my state marijuana was made legal which led to the question of what to do with all the people that were locked up for dealing/possession. They are letting them go. I tend to agree with this approach. If someone had a bag of weed and they were prosecuted and sent to jail for it then maybe they should be released early but if they were also caught with a pile of money and a loaded gun the no they should stay right where they are.
Today in my state, Mass. they are releasing inmates to protect them from catching the Corona virus. This makes no sense because they are releasing people into society that might have no means or intentions to socially distance themselves, they might have a drug or alcohol problem and they might go right back to their life of crime. Bad idea.
I think we as a society are looking at prison reform but what are we to do with violent offenders? Today one really has to screw up in order to land in prison so the people there mostly deserve to be there. I see the state releasing people because it is expensive to keep a prisoner so it is cheaper to let them go and hope they don't return to the life of crime.
Another sad fact that we are all seeing unfold across the country is that the victim is often forgotten while the criminal is protected. We have seen this playing out in California where if there is a need it is ok for someone to shoplift and if caught they won't be arrested. This is great for the criminal but not so much for the store owner.
Violent offenders need to be put away and for the most violent we should have the death penalty. A murderer should not be allowed to sit on death row for 20 years. His victim had no chance at the endless appeals available to him.
Lesser non violent criminals should be given a second chance but then again they tried that with a 3 strikes policy.
Is there a one size fits all answer to this growing problem?
They argue that cutting incarceration rates to international norms will be impossible without changing how we sentience for violence because over 40% of prison and jail populations are locked up for violent offenses.
Then they argue that recidivism rates for violent crime are low and :
Then they note that current research shows that long prison sentences do little to deter future crime. It may do the opposite:
Is mass incarceration a problem? I bet a lot of people don't think so. It does cost a lot of money though. Mass Incarceration reportedly costs $182 billion every year.
Violent criminals won't stop being violent because they are released from jail early or simply not caught. What lengthy jail terms for such people do is ensure that they aren't on the streets harassing their community for a set period of time. If they commit violent crimes again once they are released after completing their sentence, lock them up and remove them from the streets for another lengthy terms.
I'm all in favor for continued criminal justice reform for non-violent offenses. But that's about it.
What do we do with people when they break the law? There has already been prison reform which will no doubt expand in the future but we still have plenty of really bad people that will prey on the public.
In my state marijuana was made legal which led to the question of what to do with all the people that were locked up for dealing/possession. They are letting them go. I tend to agree with this approach. If someone had a bag of weed and they were prosecuted and sent to jail for it then maybe they should be released early but if they were also caught with a pile of money and a loaded gun the no they should stay right where they are.
Today in my state, Mass. they are releasing inmates to protect them from catching the Corona virus. This makes no sense because they are releasing people into society that might have no means or intentions to socially distance themselves, they might have a drug or alcohol problem and they might go right back to their life of crime. Bad idea.
I think we as a society are looking at prison reform but what are we to do with violent offenders? Today one really has to screw up in order to land in prison so the people there mostly deserve to be there. I see the state releasing people because it is expensive to keep a prisoner so it is cheaper to let them go and hope they don't return to the life of crime.
Another sad fact that we are all seeing unfold across the country is that the victim is often forgotten while the criminal is protected. We have seen this playing out in California where if there is a need it is ok for someone to shoplift and if caught they won't be arrested. This is great for the criminal but not so much for the store owner.
Violent offenders need to be put away and for the most violent we should have the death penalty. A murderer should not be allowed to sit on death row for 20 years. His victim had no chance at the endless appeals available to him.
Lesser non violent criminals should be given a second chance but then again they tried that with a 3 strikes policy.
Is there a one size fits all answer to this growing problem?
Sadly, that is not just limited to MA. And it really flips common sense on its head for the reason you stated.
What do we do with people when they break the law? There has already been prison reform which will no doubt expand in the future but we still have plenty of really bad people that will prey on the public.
In my state marijuana was made legal which led to the question of what to do with all the people that were locked up for dealing/possession. They are letting them go. I tend to agree with this approach. If someone had a bag of weed and they were prosecuted and sent to jail for it then maybe they should be released early but if they were also caught with a pile of money and a loaded gun the no they should stay right where they are.
Today in my state, Mass. they are releasing inmates to protect them from catching the Corona virus. This makes no sense because they are releasing people into society that might have no means or intentions to socially distance themselves, they might have a drug or alcohol problem and they might go right back to their life of crime. Bad idea.
I think we as a society are looking at prison reform but what are we to do with violent offenders? Today one really has to screw up in order to land in prison so the people there mostly deserve to be there. I see the state releasing people because it is expensive to keep a prisoner so it is cheaper to let them go and hope they don't return to the life of crime.
Another sad fact that we are all seeing unfold across the country is that the victim is often forgotten while the criminal is protected. We have seen this playing out in California where if there is a need it is ok for someone to shoplift and if caught they won't be arrested. This is great for the criminal but not so much for the store owner.
Violent offenders need to be put away and for the most violent we should have the death penalty. A murderer should not be allowed to sit on death row for 20 years. His victim had no chance at the endless appeals available to him.
Lesser non violent criminals should be given a second chance but then again they tried that with a 3 strikes policy.
Is there a one size fits all answer to this growing problem?
Im sure there is, but what we are doing is not effective in the least and its probably just making things much worse than they need to be. Throwing people in prison for long terms is not exactly going to 'rehabilitate' them, its just going to make them better criminals and introduce them to a vast network of criminal contacts.
Im sure there is, but what we are doing is not effective in the least and its probably just making things much worse than they need to be. Throwing people in prison for long terms is not exactly going to 'rehabilitate' them, its just going to make them better criminals and introduce them to a vast network of criminal contacts.
That's one of the arguments the article makes. I found another:
Quote:
New violent offenses become more – not less – likely as a result of all these detrimental effects. Researchers compared convicted felons sentenced to prison in Michigan between 2003 and 2006 to other convicted felons sentenced to probation supervision in the community. They found that some people sentenced to prison were more likely to engage in further violence after imprisonment. In short, prison did not work as intended to deter and reduce violence.
Closer inspection of the penal codes of European countries shows that German-speaking countries, including Switzerland, issue relatively lenient criminal sentences. Anyone who kills a person in Switzerland while suffering “great mental distress” could, under certain circumstances, get just one year in prison.
Constitional carry needs to be implemented before we start releasing more dregs onto the streets. Law abiding citizens deserve the chance to defend themselves before we worry about the rights of people who are mostly piles of excrement. Until that happens then there should be 0 lienency on violent or other major crimes.
They argue that cutting incarceration rates to international norms will be impossible without changing how we sentience for violence because over 40% of prison and jail populations are locked up for violent offenses.
Then they argue that recidivism rates for violent crime are low and :
Then they note that current research shows that long prison sentences do little to deter future crime. It may do the opposite:
Is mass incarceration a problem? I bet a lot of people don't think so. It does cost a lot of money though. Mass Incarceration reportedly costs $182 billion every year.
Just wait until we have a wave of new court cases about the legality of using Machine Learning to predict a criminal's odds of recidivism. A lot of judges are going to strike it down because the algorithms are just as racially biased as humans.
And then we'll be right back to where we are now with lengthy sentences for all of them.
Just wait until we have a wave of new court cases about the legality of using Machine Learning to predict a criminal's odds of recidivism. A lot of judges are going to strike it down because the algorithms are just as racially biased as humans.
And then we'll be right back to where we are now with lengthy sentences for all of them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
