Incarceration in the US
 

Conservatives would say that the liberal environment at the Washington Post is capable of infecting anyone affiliated with it. On the other hand, my respect for Michael Gerson as a somewhat objective observer has grown in the past few months. His recent column about incarceration in the US highlighted rather than avoided troubling facts about the US justice system. It is certainly a more enlightened view of a serious social problem than one might expect from Dub's main speechwriter.

On that topic, I would like to see more reporting on the growing commercial prison industry. The lobbying group for that industry drafted the Arizona detention law for suspected undocumented workers. It has also had a hand in crafting "prison friendly" legislation for other states. Sounds like a dirty business to me.

Regards,

D-Ray

We decided that we'd lock everyone up instead of using the community to punish or restrict criminal behavior. It actually ties into folks like Phelps, etc, and how we as free people are not allowed to handle them.

It's disgraceful, the percentage we lock up, and a serious smear on our future legacy.

And agreed, the commercial prison system is disturbing, but it's more a result of police/guard unions than an evil conspiracy methinks.

Great topic D!

Pete

And the number of people we lock up for reefer is simply crazy in terms of the costs to society (both in terms of dollars and introducing the reefer inmates to the ways of the truly incorrigible).

I've seen the prison guards' contracts, and they for sure aren't getting rich. I don't think it's a good swap to spend close to the same amount contracting out the system where, instead of officers earning a decent living, a corporate system is profiting from crime. It's bad policy to delegate a fundamental responsibility of government to the private sector. For example, recidivism actually is good for the bottom line of the prison corps. That creates less incentive to run a program that has some hope of preparing an inmate for a return to society. in the long run, policy choices that affect the proper allocation of resources are made by corporate boards rather than elected public officials.

I agree that social/community pressure should play a larger role in modifying anti-social behavior. On the other hand when it gets to meting out punishment, vigilante action does not serve the communities' interests. It invites arrest, conviction and punishment imposed in short order by the mob. (It also puts lawyers out of work:eek:)

Regards,

D-ray

I'm not arguing for mob rule (demo-cracy :)) but what exactly did we do before we built 8 million prisons?

Your local police force profits from crime every day. Gone are the days they worked for us.

Pete

What a load of crap - liberal my arse. Charles Krauthammer, Michael (baby face) Gearson, George Will and the latest wiingnut Jennifer Rubin who is slightly to the right of Ghenghis Kahn and one lonely liberal E.J.Dionne. Gene Robinson is more of an independent to my mind. Fred Hiatt is noot my idea of a liberal either.:rolleyes:

Regarding Gearson's topic I see California is now making it a misdemeanor to be caught with an ounce or less, about time.

In Ohio, minor quantities, depending on how they are packaged, are a minor misdemeanor, a waiverable ticket. But if you posses it when driving, it's an automatic no-court-neccessary 6 month drivers' license suspension.

Heck, a guy locally got popped using his whole house as a greenhouse, they were living in a bedroom, he didn't even get jail time.

Pete

He's very lucky not to live here. Here, the cops will stop if they see a man walking and ask him 'where is he going' and if he needs a ride. If he accepts a ride they automaticly search him. If he has 1 single pill in his pocket without the ''prescription bottle'' in his pocket he IS going to jail. No ands if's or buts about it. Once he makes bond and goes to court, he can be cleared if he can prove to the judge that he had a legal script the day he was caught possesing the pill without his dated bottle with him. I do think that is taking it way to far. I mean hell, they turn child molesters back on the street but a man can't have a daily pill without the whole big bottle stuffed in his pocket :confused:

I mean really, this is the sticks. I don't think a feller is going to walk all the way to the rinky-dink town of 312 made up of church folk just to see if he can find one druggie out of the bunch to sell a single pill to for 5 or 10 bucks. That sorta thing rattles the dickens outta me.

The whole "war on drugs" is a farce and a waste of money. If someone wants to fry his brain on dope let him, Darwin Rules.

I think the Police imposed a lot more rough justice than they do now; people lifted for minor crimes accidentally falling down-stairs, slipping on a wet floor and cracking their head against the toilet bowl. I'm not saying that nowadays the Police are saints, but the law is increasingly being used by Solicitors acting for the defense and suing for substantial damages. If imposing tougher jail sentences makes the streets safer is that bad? In some ways yes. The idea of being banged up for possession of just enough cannabis for personal use is crazy. My daughter and her partner smoke it, they grow it themselves because some of the shit available on the street is wildly strong; a relaxing smoke can turn into something nasty, a bit like having a quiet dram and finding out later that it's home distilled and so strong that it's damn dangerous, possibly lethal. The thing with very strong liquer is that once it passes a certain point, the first thing it does is numb your taste buds. Same with skunk, you don't know what you're smoking until the effects kick in.

As for street safety? I would far rather pass a group of people chilling out with a splif or two than run into half a dozen football fans pissed enough to be dangerous.