US makes up 5% of the world's population, and

[Lobo27]

the US also houses 25% of the world's prison population. Just heard it on real time. I'm completely shocked, I knew it was bad, but not this bad is mind boggling. We spend 70billion on the prison complex, but we spend 600mil to treat them. Unreal stuff.

[msongs]

1. dems and repubs in congress agree - gotta fill those privatized prisons with pot smokers nt

[gulliver]

57. Nonsense. It's just the Republicans.

You can't blame Dems for the situation. Republicans and Republican thinking created it and keep it going.

[pipoman]

2. Which ones shouldn't be there?

Aside from nonviolent drug offenders, and those wrongly convicted?

[Luminous Animal]

4. How does the rest of the western world manage to keep their

citizens out of jail?

[Comrade Grumpy]

6. Differences in sentencing policies?

Western Europe has about the same crime rates we do--except for murder (something about guns, perhaps)--and a couple hundred million more people than we do, but has fewer people in prison for everything than we do for drugs.

I would wager they sentence way more leniently.

Also, drug decriminalization in some countries could have something to do with it.

[davidn3600]

10. Consider the fact that Anders Breivik only gets 21 years in prison

He's the Norway bomber who killed 80 people. (however considering his mental health state, that guy isn't likely to be ever released. The possibility exists in 21 years).

So that gives you an idea about how they handle it in Europe. They dont have the death penalty or even mandatory life in prison.


[/img][/img]

[Art_from_Ark]

21. Instead of official prisons, it is probably more common to use extrajudicial executions,

or forced work in slave-labor factories, to deal with petty criminals, or even people who just get on the bad side of local authorities, in a lot of those countries on that map.

[iemitsu]

28. That does not make up the difference.

We just live in a country, where the justice system is evil. It treats Americans unequally. Wealthy citizens almost never pay the price for crimes they commit while poor people and ethnic minorities are harassed by cops with Police State mentality. And the very policies that might reduce crime are ignored to pay for more and more surveillance technology and crowd control weapons.
How do you suppose the austerity we are facing, so the rich don't have to pay their share, will effect crime rates?

[Art_from_Ark]

44. While I understand about the American justice system,

my point was that I find it hard to believe that, given their terrible public safety situations, countries such as Congo and Sudan have incarceration rates of less than 50 per 100,000 population, without some other factor at play here. One might get the false impression that those countries are pretty peaceful and safe, but they are not, as I have learned from people who have been sent to there and other such countries on business. The map certainly does not tell the full story.

[iemitsu]

46. I think you are correct that countries, such as the Congo,

are relatively unsafe places to travel, especially if you can be identified as an American or someone working for an American business in the area. Because we are the ones being victimized by this sort of crime, in places like the Congo, it seems like an all pervasive aspect of the place, but Americans in the Congo represent a very small part of the population statistics. It could be that that skews our idea of the crime levels.
I'm sure that there are various reporting issues involved in the creation of that map, as there are differences in sentencing guidelines and conditions within the prison systems of different countries that would help us to make sense of the reality. Since we have rather long typical sentences there is less turn-over and thus more people in jail at any given time. this probably accounts for some of the numbers too, but it does not negate the fact that we have too many of our people incarcerated. It means we are a sick society.
According to sociologists, societies identify between 7 and 14 or 15 % of their population as deviant (according to prison statistics) depending on whether or not the population is secure in their economy and persons. The low number is identified as deviant during good times and the higher numbers are identified during times of stress.
Traditionally the United States has fit comfortably within those margins but the last few decades has seen a dramatic rise in the incarceration rates here.
Something has changed and it seems unlikely that we have just become more criminal. But maybe we are, all of our success models, the corporate elite, the business class, and all the politicians are criminals and hardworking Americans are vilified and blamed for the problems caused by irresponsible elites.

[Art_from_Ark]

47. I can't disagree with your assessment of the American situation

It is pretty scary to think of what has been happening the last few decades.

[iemitsu]

48. Yep, especially when one is old enough to remember when

things were so different. Not perfect, but in many ways America was a much nicer place.
While defending the Nafta/Gatt agreements, Clinton once said, "the working people of the agreement area all deserve to be treated with equal respect. These agreements hold the promise of rising incomes for many where wages have lagged behind blah, blah, blah...". Actually, not a quote but paraphrasing, the gist being that wages over the area would equalize and it would be good for all of us.
On the surface, rising wages for traditionally exploited peoples sounds like a good thing. How could anybody be against such a plan? But, as we all know, it turned out that their rising wages came at the expense of our good wages and job security.
Lately I've come to view the apparent social progress of the last few decades the same way. Women and ethnic minorities have made gains but the gains have come at the expense of working white men, not the elites. In fact the elites take a larger share of the wealth today than they did when they shared it with white men.
So more of us are sharing less.
I'm not complaining particularly (just observing) because people I love, my wife is both a woman and an ethnic minority, have directly benefited from civil rights legislation and the push to become a more equal society. I believe that all citizens should be viewed and treated equally. For me the broader inclusion benefits the whole of society. In many ways we are a more equal society today than we were 50 years ago, but women and minorities didn't gain the power that white men used to enjoy and now white men don't enjoy it either. We are just more equal.

[HiPointDem]

51. That's the main reason I believe identity politics are a dead end. We're

all more *unequal* in comparison with the ruling class and their highly paid lackeys.

The bottom 90% or so is more "equal" in that, while there have been gains for women, they're paired with stagnation for men and losses for low-level workers both male and female (& increasingly for middle-class workers) such that inflation-adjusted wages for *everyone* have barely risen over the last 30-odd years and *everyone* is more economically insecure -- which has unhappy social and psychological repercussions as well.

Meanwhile, as can be seen here at DU, we're more divided in fighting over crumbs on the basis of sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, education, ethnicity/race, religion, job category, etc. A division that's positively encouraged in media and has an effect, to the degree that even in this supposed democratic bastion, you find people arguing that autoworkers or teachers or garbage collectors make 'too much money,' that people on social security make 'too much money,' etc. Along with the repetitive discussions of white/male privilege that focus on the white/male while negliging dimensions of class & history, as though this privilege were some essential fixed point in all space & time.

And it's not only white men whose wages have stagnated. Black women's average wages are basically equal to white women's today and nearly equal to black men's, while black men have not made similar gains in relation to white men and are increasingly subject to imprisonment, further reducing their prospects for employment and economic stability. I'm seeing similar trends with young white men in my hometown as employment becomes more precarious -- involvement with the justice and prison system to a degree unimaginable here when I was young.

In studying the historical phenomenon of 'ghettoization,' one of the things you notice is a systematic disempowerment of men through joblessness -- with poor women having more access to marginally stable jobs than poor men -- and policing, with men being policed more intensely. Again, that has wider repercussions on the stability of families and communities and the ability to transmit economic and social capital generationally. I don't think it's accidental. Similar disempowerment of men is observed historically in e.g. colonial situations, as is the tactic of pitting one group (e.g. on ethnic/tribal basis) against another. These tactics are actually discussed explicitly in period documents -- so it is a *conscious* tactic, not an accident.

The POV of a lot of identity politics, especially feminism, is IMO stuck somewhere in the 70s; obsessed with picayune symbolism; and basically irrelevant to the battles of the present. The rulers are fine with their women chairing big corporations; they love multiculturalism (easier to deal globally); they're happy to come out of the closet -- a lot of were never *in* the closet with their peers anyway. White male JD Rockefeller had no compunctions about shooting down white male workers -- why would the female, black, hispanic, gay corporate or government Rockefellers of today be any less likely to deal with their 'own kind' in a similar fashion?

The livelihoods and basic civil rights of the majority of people are being attacked on every front, world war zones are expanding, environment is being degraded at an increasing pace. I could care less if some dick makes a penis joke & I can't even understand the mentality of people who are obsessed with such petty bullshit.

[iemitsu]

54. Thanks for your articulate post.

I think your analysis of recent American history and its comparisons to colonial society is right on. Plantation capitalism.
You are right about fighting petty battles too. Our differences are nothing compared to our commonalities. Working people need to unify in their efforts to stave off the attacks of the uber-rich rather than point the finger of blame at each other.
Thanks again.

[pipoman]

53. This is true..

Some may be due to 3 strikes laws, a lot of apologists claim this as the only cause for increased rates of incarceration.

Interesting how this corresponds to Nixon's war on drugs which has been defended by rethugs and dems 'ever since and raygun's 'sentencing reform act' (including mandatory minimum sentencing...which, in my mind, is akin to 'zero tolerance..stupid) combined with his de-funding of states mental health services..which I believes makes up the other half of the increase..



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

[iemitsu]

55. Nice graphs to illustrate the increased numbers of Americans behind bars.

I forgot about the lack of mental care contributing to the numbers of those incarcerated. That also highlights how evil and draconian our justice system has become.

[pipoman]

56. The mental health aspect

is more dramatic because prior to 1984 (in most states) a family could obtain publicly financed inpatient treatment and/or petition the courts for involuntary committment if the person was found to be a danger to self or others. Now, unless the petitioner has the funds to pay for the committment, the courts will not grant involuntary committment unless a crime has already been committed..then the person is usually found to be sane and they are imprisoned instead of institutionalized.

[iemitsu]

59. Yep, I remember these changes.

Part of the Reagan revolution.
Not all of us were impressed by the changes he heralded. All of which were fro the enrichment of the already rich and at the expense of workers and those in society who had need.
I hated and worked against every cause that Reagan championed.
Some of my childhood friends (from working class families) embraced Reagan's proposals. I thought they were evil and in many cases this ended our friendships.
The situation in the US has steadily gotten worse. Every year since workers have fallen further behind.
Even though I have worked hard in my life and I take care of myself and my family, I am a case study in downward social and economic mobility.
I'm sure some of that is by choice, since thriving at other people's expense is unacceptable to me (especially if the people have fewer resources than I have). I was handicapped because the exploitation of those weaker was the whole of the Reagan game.
In retrospect, I hate Reagan less than I hate the Bushes, but I still hate Reagan.

[HiPointDem]

50. but i think places like sudan & congo are basically war zones.

[tsuki]

29. We have forced in in slave-labor camps. The corporations have moved in.

Haven't you seen the commercials the for-profits are making? Place your factory here, no holidays, vacations, child care problems or sick days or medical insurance costs.

It is a win-win. We pay for the incarceration. We pay for the welfare help for the families on the outside. The Corporations reap windfall profits.

[Quantess]

32. Anders Breivik will spend the rest of his life locked up.

Just wanted to clear that up, based on the sad fact that some people only read titles.
He is an exception to the rule.

[Major Nikon]

41. That's a lot smarter way to do things than 3 strikes

[Comrade Grumpy]

5. Prisons should be for people we're afraid of, not people we're mad at.

About half the prison population is non-violent offenders.

Drug offenders make up about 20% of the state prison population and 50% of the federal prison population.

Other non-violent offenders, like bad check writers, thieves, and the like...maybe we don't need to be sending them to prison for long stretches.

Hell, all of our sentencing is very harsh compared to most of the rest of the world. Norway or France might send somebody away for two years; we send 'em away for 10 or 20.

We have a strong punisher impluse in this country. You even see it here, on a supposedly progressive discussion board. Every time we have the criminal outrage du jour, there's a cavalcade of people who wanna hang 'em high, or at least send them away forever.

[Art_from_Ark]

19. Certain types of crime-related threads do tend to elicit

some pretty shocking responses

[pipoman]

22. Three strikes laws

have been claimed as partially responsible for declining murder and overall crime rates over the last few decades (abortion rights is another). The three strikes laws were/are an effort to take people with high recidivism rates out of society/away from potential victims..the biggest problem I have with this is it has been applied to people who crime spree and are caught and convicted on over 3 separate acts in the same spree/state of mind, thus undermining the intent of the law to allow for people to reform instead of committing another act.

I've been in several state and federal prisons interviewing prisoners. I am a devout civil libertarian. I live in society with my family and friends. Most of the people I have interviewed (aside from nonviolent drug offenders and people I believed were wrongly convicted) deserved to be there as a matter of public safety and most of the sentences were just imo, aside from those people under 3 strikes I mentioned above.

[Hosnon]

45. The best answer to your question is the one you for some reason exclude. nt.

[pipoman]

52. The reason I exclude some is because they

need 'to pay their debt...'..or because they are simply a threat to society. Maybe we should put the post release residence down the street from your house, eh?

[Hosnon]

61. But by definition, non-violent drug offenders aren't really a threat to society.

And to the extent that they are, it is because of the criminal culture surrounding drugs.

If we legalized drugs, sure, I wouldn't really mind them living near me.

[HiPointDem]

49. well, that's close to half of them.

[Blue_Tires]

63. This is the part where I mention the laughable sentencing disparities

in regard to the race of the perpetrator...

[malaise]

3. and controls what percentage of the world's weapons? n/t

[Comrade Grumpy]

7. Pat Leahy and Rand Paul just filed a bill to reform mandatory minimum sentencing...

...at the federal level. That could help.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/2013/mar/21/sens_leahy_paul_introduce_federa

"Sens. Leahy, Paul Introduce Federal Mandatory Minimum Reform Bill [FEATURE]"

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) joined Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in introducing legislation that would give federal judges greater flexibility in sentencing in cases where mandatory minimum sentences are involved. The bill, Senate Bill 691, also known as the Justice Safety Valve Act of 2013, would expand the "safety valve" to apply to all federal crimes.

Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rand Paul (R-KY)
Currently, the "safety valve" allows judges to impose a sentence below the mandatory minimum only in some drug cases. Only about 25% of federal drug offenders are currently able to take advantage of the "safety valve" to earn reduced sentences.

The bill comes as the federal government faces chronic budget crises and a federal prison population that has grown nearly 10-fold in the past three decades and by 55% since 2000. In 1980, there were some 25,000 federal prisoners; now there are more than 217,000, and almost half of them are drug offenders. At more than $7 billion this year, the federal prison budget now accounts for almost one-quarter of all Justice Department spending, and is up by $2 billion in the last five years alone.

The bill also comes amidst a rising hue and cry to move away from mandatory minimums. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service issued a January report that suggested that instead of expanding federal prison construction, Congress "could consider options such as modifying mandatory minimum penalties," as well as increased resort to probation, reinstating parole in the federal system, and "repealing federal criminal statutes for some offenses."

Similarly, the US Sentencing Commission surveyed federal judges in 2010 and found that 70% of the 600 judges who responded favored expanding the "safety valve" to all mandatory minimum sentences. Rising federal prison budgets and sentencing reform have also been a continuing concern for Chairman Leahy. He held hearings last summer on the issue, and now he has sponsored legislation to do something about it.

"As a former prosecutor, I understand that criminals must be held accountable, and that long sentences are sometimes necessary to keep criminals off the street and deter those who would commit violent crime," Sen. Leahy said. "Our reliance on mandatory minimums has been a great mistake. I am not convinced it has reduced crime, but I am convinced it has imprisoned people, particularly non-violent offenders, for far longer than is just or beneficial. It is time for us to let judges go back to acting as judges and making decisions based on the individual facts before them. A one-size-fits-all approach to sentencing does not make us safer."

"Our country's mandatory minimum laws reflect a Washington-knows-best, one-size-fits-all approach, which undermines the constitutional separation of powers, violates the our bedrock principle that people should be treated as individuals, and costs the taxpayers money without making them any safer," said cosponsor Sen. Paul. "This bill is necessary to combat the explosion of new federal criminal laws, many of which carry new mandatory minimum penalties."

[Initech]

35. Rand Paul does something useful for a change?

[Comrade Grumpy]

38. He also cosponsored an industrial hemp bill.

He's pretty good on drug policy. And being anti-interventionist and skeptical of the national security state.

Everything else, not so much.

[Tumbulu]

8. Well, in parts of the world, you can kill your wife or kids

and not go to jail.

In CA we don't have enough cells for sex offenders and violent criminals. They all just get paroled. And big surprise that these guys commit more crimes, take their GPS off and nothing happens to them. Not enough prison cells.

Sorry, I think our jails are full because too many people have access to firearms and get angry and crimes are committed. Serious ones.

Until firearms are better controlled, I think we will need a whole lot more prison cells.

[Comrade Grumpy]

9. You don't have enough cells for sex offenders and violent criminals...

...because non-violent offenders take up 40% of your prison cells.

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/Offender_Information_Services_Branch/Annual/CalPris/CALPRISd2010.pdf (See Table 9)

Western Europe doesn't let you kill your wife or kids and not go to jail, and they have crime rates similar to ours (except for murder, something about guns?), yet they have only a fraction of the prisoners we do. I wonder why that is?

[Tumbulu]

24. That is not how I read the statistics

It looks like 10% are drug related and who says those are not violent?

Drug arrest usually involve someone who has been steeling and robbing already. Forget it, there are not enough jails for the nutty violent people who have such free access to guns and not enough access to productive and satisfying work.

People need viable employment and decent wages. And weapons need to be controlled. But even still, all the violent prisoners need to stay in prison and not be let out.

[Comrade Grumpy]

34. The stats say 59% are in there for violent offenses. That means 41% aren't.

If the people doing time for drug offenses had been caught in an act of violence, they would have been charged with it.

And almost all violent offenders get out at some point. Unless you're advocating life sentences for assault, etc?

[Tumbulu]

36. That is not how I read the data

and I am all for any violent offender staying in for life. This why the three strikes law passed here in CA. Too many violent people being let out. Look at that violent rapist who then kidnapped that poor little girl. The parole people did not even look over his house.

In 1984 this guy broke into my apartment and tried to rape my roommate. The police wanted us to wait until he broke in again so that they could catch him in the act. They knew who he was, he had just been released on parole. His previous crime had been breaking and entering, raping an elderly woman and he only beat her up enough to leave her paralyzed for life, so he only got 5 years for this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! She is in wheelchair the rest of her life and he gets 5 years???????? And we are supposed to be the trap so that they can catch him in the act again so he can get another 5 years? I am sorry, anyone who is that violent needs to stay in jail for their entire lives, period.

Last month I heard of another woman in a college town and the same thing happened to her. THIS IS STILL GOING ON????????!!!!!!!!!

I have had it with bullies and jerks being let out to hurt and kill more people.

[Major Nikon]

60. You also have non-violent offenders sentenced to life for stealing a slice of pizza

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-03-03/local/me-38258_1_jerry-dewayne-williams

[iemitsu]

31. Our prisons are full because we live in a society that

discourages anyone from caring about others.
We live too marginally to be generous. With little or no safety net, we literally cannot afford to take care of those without, we all need a nest egg for emergencies.
It is our form of capitalism that breeds this situation. It is anti-community and poison for society.
The social model provided by the most privileged in society (congress and the uber-rich) does not sponsor sympathy or a helping hand to those who struggle.
We need a revolution, both political and social, if we hope to restore any humanity to this place.

[Tumbulu]

37. So true!!!!!

We dearly need this revolution.

It starts with how we treat our children and how society treats parents, on and on. Up and up.

[iemitsu]

39. Yes, how we treat our kids.

Reminds me of the poor Texas student who was denied a lunch for want of 70 cents. And then had to watch as the lunch was thrown into the garbage.
I could revolt against that sort of policy.

[Tumbulu]

40. You are so correct

The odd thing is that the republican wrong wing way is to deny evolution as a theory, but practice survival of the fittest in the most brutal way to try to get rid of anyone not capable of pulling their own weight and 30 others above them.

[iemitsu]

42. And your words capture wisdom,

in the statement, "anyone not capable of pulling their own weight and 30 others above them".
This is so true. It is no longer good enough to carry one's own weight but we have to carry the weight of many others, above us, who refuse to walk on their own.
We also carry the weight of many below us, who can't walk on their own but they are not the real problem. The real problem is those who can contribute to the betterment of society, but don't because they have the power to rig the system that way.
Social Darwinism is pseudoscience, not real science, and can therefore be embraced by the right wing. They don't really mind the concept of "natural laws" as long as the laws can be rigged.

[ConcernedCanuk]

43. George Carlin had a handle on this shit - "Build more Prisons!!"

.
.
.

George also said something akin to "We are are a warlike nation! We can't stop fuckn' with somebody" -

and shortly before the Iraq invasion he said

"Aren't we overdue to bomb large holes in a small country with a marginal air force?"

USA's gun laws, or lack of them,

seems to have created a trigger happy nation with no respect for the lives of others.

(sigh)

[bubbayugga]

11. It's probably because our country is chock full of evil fucks that need to be locked up.

[Comrade Grumpy]

13. Or our prisons are half filled with no so evil people who don't really need to be locked up.

[bubbayugga]

14. I doubt it's half.

America is evil. We were born of it. Our prison system is a reflection of that.

[Comrade Grumpy]

15. But our crime rates are about the same as Western Europe...

...which would seem to invalidate the "we're so evil" argument.

About half the people in our prisons are non-violent offenders. I don't know how evil they are.

[bubbayugga]

18. are babies being shot in the face in Europe?

This country is irredeemably evil. The baby being shot in the face is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Comrade Grumpy]

20. You are beyond rational dialog. Have a good night.

[Quantess]

33. Glenn Beck said something really prophetic and insightful about this exact topic, once.

I wish I could remember his exact words. Anyway, I cried and prayed for our nation while I was chopping onions.

[HiPointDem]

17. The majority of inmates are there for non-violent crimes.

7.9% of sentenced prisoners in federal prisons on September 30, 2009 were in for violent crimes.[19]

52.4% of sentenced prisoners in state prisons at year end 2008 were in for violent crimes.[19]

21.6% of convicted inmates in jails in 2002 (latest available data by type of offense) were in for violent crimes.

Among unconvicted inmates in jails in 2002, 34% had a violent offense as the most serious charge.

41% percent of convicted and unconvicted jail inmates in 2002 had a current or prior violent offense;

46% were nonviolent recidivists. [23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States#Violent_and_nonviolent_crime


But no worries; they'll probably be a lot more evil by the time they get out.

[Jamaal510]

12. Is it time to ditch our "land of the free and home of the brave" slogan yet?

[HiPointDem]

16. kr

[MindPilot]

23. The private prision operators are guaranteed full prisons.

CCA & GEO contracts require the prisons be >90% full or the government pays huge penalties to the private prison operators.

The US justice system is contractually obligated to deliver to the private prisons as many inmates as they can. There is one and only one reason why we have more of our population incarcerated than anyplace else: Profit.

[City Lights]

27. That is so fucked up!

[Cleita]

25. We really need to do major reform in this area.

A big problem is that it has become a profit making business. Also, in semi-rural areas like mine, prisons have become a major employer of professional and semi-professional people. First we need to legislate against the private prisons. Our taxes should not be providing welfare for the business class. Next we have to stop thinking of prison as punishment but places to address drug addiction and poverty. We should be training prisoners to live and work in the outside world, drug free, and without needing to go back to a life of crime.

Sure there are those sick individuals who probably should never be out in society because they are predators and psychopaths by nature. I suggest permanent detention in secure hospital type institutions for those individuals. Everyone else should be regarded as re-habitable to reenter society.

[Lobo27]

30. Might be similar to your rural area.

I read that in a lot of rural areas in Louisiana, the county builds the prisons for the private company. And then they literally tell their officers we need people in jail. So I suppose a quota has to be met....

[Brainstormy]

26. No future in sensible drug laws

as long as private prisons are so lucrative.

[gulliver]

58. Mr. Hyde creates the situation.

Most voters, especially among Republicans, let Mr. Hyde do the voting. They think they can punish their way to a good, healthy country and economy. These people only know to "hit bad thing with stick." That satisfies their limbic system. Cool heads never prevail with them, and they are especially stupid when it comes to changing their minds.

For the Hyde voter, the argument against excessive imprisonment is that it costs too much for taxpayers, and it creates dependency on the government. Prisoners cost a fortune to house and feed, and they are disadvantaged in the labor market when they get out.

The Jekyll voter already gets it and gets it for the right reasons.

[dembotoz]

62. read the new jim crow by Michelle Alexander

eye opening and really relates to this thread