Efficacy of incarceration in general. . .???

[stellanoir]

Far beyond Scooter and Paris. . .

These cases bring to mind fundamental inequities and the broader consideration of whether punishment of incarceration really fits the crime or ever remedies fundamental criminal tendencies. Whatever happened to the gentle concept of rehabilitation. . .?

Statistically, rates of recidivism are off the frigging map. Clearly the system is terribly broken. The appropriateness of locking up non violent pot heads and others who've committed victimless crimes is thoroughly questionable, utterly pointless, and borders on the sadistic.

Especially when incarceration of an individual costs the state or the feds (that means us) anywhere from 30- 75 grand a year since the privatization of the prison system. Ahhh that's roughly 82-205 bucks per day.

I can only imagine that with today's technology, home confinement would be far cheaper than that. Most of those in prison probably earned less than that or they would have afforded far better representation in the first place, and never ended up in prison in the first place.

I would guess that excessive community service for someone like Ms. Hilton would be far more a remedy as it would be for many, many others. It would not only save the expense of locking someone up but could compensate for what we've lost in terms of the stripping of social services as we burn flat loads of cash on Iraq only to have renovations promptly detonated.

Locking up non violent addicts is just plain inhumane.

Then there is this sort of cruel and harmful clerical snafu. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1069787

Psssssssssssssssttt. . .when selective amnesia would appear to be a prerequisite for a employment in the DOJ, our penal system gone private, along with the elimination of habeas corpus, and meanwhile criminals with presumed impunity are in charge. . . to quote the "Dyla-monster" . . .". . .Everything is broken. . ."

Discuss. . .

[Horse with no Name]

1. What is considered non-violent?

Driving under the influence can quickly turn into a violent crime.
Probation for this was adequate though. But continuing to drive with a suspended license and refusing to appear in court is pure contempt of court. At some point in the process there has to be a meaningful punishment for those who do not want to comply with more lenient sentencing otherwise we have lawlessness.
Not to mention that if she had been a poor kid from the Bronx with a couple of joints in her pocket she would have gone to jail for mandatory 6 months WITHOUT the possibility of a probated sentence.

[stellanoir]

3. Nah I wasn't talking about her crimes specifically for the most part.

I was speaking of the unfair practices and problems inherent in the broader system in general.

Sorry to hear of what happened to your daughter though. Hope she heals up well and soon.

That was BS.

[Horse with no Name]

4. Thanks.

I just convinced her everyone needs to spend a night in jail so that they have something to shock the grandkids with when they are old.:)

[napi21]

2. In some instances, incarceration isn't the best solution, but

I think if someone FLAUNTS their ability to disregard the law INTENTIONALLY, they jail time is appropriate!

Don't you think Paris THOUGHT she had beat the system YESTERDAY? She's behaving like a spoiled brat little child, and still assuming Daddy or Mommy can get her out of anything with their money. Sorry, but in her case, I agree with the judge!

Scooter is in the same boat. He lied and ignored the laws, I'm sure figuring Shrub would pardon him at the last minute so what's he got to lose? Gotta protect my buddy Dick! We still don't know what's going to happen, but I think anyone who thinks they can circumvent the laws should spend some time behind bars being convinced otherwise!

[stellanoir]

5. Again, I was attempting to address the issues with our failed and unfair judicial system.

I probably shouldn't have brought up those two at all. But their cases inspired me to look at the bigger picture. Sorry I didn't convey that.

[porphyrian]

6. Rehabilitation has never gotten a fair shake in America.

Too many were against it from the beginning. That said, I think there are people who are beyond rehabilitation, but that is not justification not to try.

[stellanoir]

9. Ram Dass did a lot of work in terms of rehabiliatation in his later life.

I knew some older folks involved with his work.

There are many who are confused. . .few who are totally lost.

Our so called system of justice is not helping either of them. Just making rich people richer.

Too many suffering for sure and too few profitting is all.

[porphyrian]

13. Definitely. The prison system is a business first. - n/t

[Cleita]

7. It's not IMHO.

I think only the most dangerous of criminals should be incarcerated and then maybe in mental health institutions. Sure you might want to lock some people up temporarily until they go to trial so they don't run away, but for sentencing I really think reparation and community service would make better sentencing venues.

For instance if a thief had to pay a chunk of their wages every month to a victim until that victim was repaid it would be more effective than throwing him in prison with other felons. In the case of Paris Hilton, give her some dirty community service jobs to do, like cleaning our vault toilets in city parks or picking trash on the freeway. If she drinks and drives again, a stint at the city morgue mopping blood and body fluids off the floors of autopsy rooms and where they keep the accident victims might be helpful.

[stellanoir]

16. This is an industry gone completely amuck

with human lives at stake.

It's not only inequitable but extremely hurtful and I'm not even really

talking about Paris.

[Speck Tater]

8. My view on incarceration is that it is NOT to rehabilitate,

which it probably never accomplishes, but to PROTECT the rest of the community from an individual who has proven himself to be a danger to the safety and well being of others. Criminals who are not a danger to the community do not belong in jail, but performing some kind of community restitution. Cold blooded murders need to be locked up forever, not as punishment for them, but as protection for me and you.

[rug]

10. If it protects, why do jails keep running out of space?

Somebody out there missed the message.

[hfojvt]

11. the trouble with protection is that most people get out

They 'serve' one, five, or ten year sentences and when they get out, they are often more dangerous than they were when they came in.

[LostInAnomie]

12. IMHO, criminal behavior is a symptom of something being wrong in the person's...

... background, lifestyle, socialization, psychology, etc. Incarceration, for the most part, is not going to correct these problems because they are much deeper than "being taught a lesson". Since nothing is truly corrected criminal behavior is more than likely to continue.

Incarceration is supposed five purposes:
Rehabilitation
Incapacitation
Retribution
General Deterrence
Specific Deterrence

It is evident from our rates of recidivism that rehabilitation isn't truly a goal (either by the justice system or the convict). The same can be said for specific deterrence since the same people keep committing the crimes. Our "tough on crime" stances are supposed to provide general deterrence but the severity of sentencing has no correlation lower crime rates. That leaves us with only two purposes: Incapacitation, and Retribution. We most definitely incapacitate our criminals, our incredibly high incarceration rates and lengthy sentences are evidence of this. Our joyous revelry when someone goes to jail is evidence that retribution is really one of our primary goals.

It's a sad statement about our society that it seems that our main goal in incarceration is to remove and lock away those that we have labeled "criminal" from society, and to make us feel better knowing that they are suffering.

Our problem with ever truly helping "criminals" once they are out of prison is that we have no real way to remove the label "criminal". This makes it much harder for them to ever shake the stigma, and only leads them back into their old behavior.

[rumpel]

14. the laws should be applied equally

regardless of who violates it. However, the sentencing by a judge or jury along it's guidelines is key to actual incarceration, rehabilitation matters.

Within the many different types of crimes, motives and mental state of the person committing the violation it is hard to say.

Yet, when we see those in office or of wealth connected to those offices, exerting undue influence over the justice system, just because they can - those are the ones who should be confined in a small space, stripped of all the perks and privileges afforded them by the public.

I still believe, bush & co should be made to clean public restrooms for the rest of their lives...

:)

[stellanoir]

15. bingo especially to your last line

and all the prior phrases too sis.

[Dover]

17. Class inequities and corruption at the top......where to begin?

It is systemic.
We can hardly expect there to be justice in an unjust system...looking at this holistically.
So where do we begin? As far upstream of the symptomatic problems as we can get.

[jpgray]

18. As far as certain vicious, violent criminals, it at least keeps them from committing crimes

As far as purposes of deterrence and rehabilitation, I'm sure I have no idea how well it works.

[midnight]

19. As you state ,in your last paragraph that ,everything is broken.

It sure seems that way. I can't wait to see what the good legal minds of this country are suggesting to fix this mess. But the clerical snafu that may or may not be on purpose is the most telling of why this judicial system must be more user friendly.

[Matariki]

20. I like the idea of community service. Especially for rich people for whom fines are meaningless.