The Washington Post featured an article on an incarceration milestone that we've reached in America...More than one in 100 adults Americans is in jail or prison, an all-time high that is costing state governments nearly $50 billion a year, in addition to more than $5 billion spent by the federal government, according to a report released today.
The ballooning prison population is largely the result of tougher state and federal sentencing imposed since the mid-1980s. Minorities have been hit particularly hard: One in nine black men age 20 to 34 is behind bars. For black women age 35 to 39, the figure is one in 100, compared with one in 355 white women in the same age group.
---Minorities have been hit particularly hard---
This passive aspect to statistic reporting caught my eye because the implication is that the minorities had absolutely nothing to do with their own incarceration rate. That's like saying drug addicts have been hit particularly by drug addiction. More men are in prison because they are the perps in a majority of crime. Likewise, monorities are overrepresented in prisons, not because white cops target blacks for arrest, as Al Sharpton would have you believe, but because that community commits most of the crimes.
How many times do I have to say it? Race has nothing to do with it, behaviour has everything to do with it.
To be fair, he also added this with which I happen to agree...
"On the other hand, there are large numbers of people behind bars who could be supervised in the community safely and effectively at a much lower cost -- while also paying taxes, paying restitution to their victims, and paying child support."
He's right but campaign-savvy politicians like to claim they are "tough on crime" every election cycle because it gets them votes, and if they don't pass legislation such as the ridiculous "3-strikes" law, their opponents will hold it against them in the next election.
Violent criminals and child molesters deserve whatever human-warehousing horrors are visited upon them in prison. I couldn't care less what happens to these scum. Small-time hoods, druggies, purse snatchers, flashers, peeping toms, gropers, conservative bloggers, etc...these people don't need to be in prison. Their upkeep costs society more than their crimes cost society and they aren't really a threat to anybody except liberals' self-esteem in the case of right-wing bloggers.
They could dump 30% of the prison population back onto the streets and violent crime would remain constant. That money could be better spent on prison rehab/training programs and parole monitoring for those let out. Or better yet, just cut our taxes by that much.
6 comments:
I for one hate the fact that we cant dispose of these violent and disgusting criminals in whatever fashion we choose. Why cant we be cruel and unusual? They were when they committed their crimes! A man can rape children in front of their own parents, before killing the parents and child, and then when he gets sentenced to death, he gets to sit on death row 15 years, before experiencing a peaceful death?!!! Im sorry but the punishment does not fit the crime.
Here is my fix, and this will save loads of money. If you get the death penalty, how about you sit on death row a maximum of 3-5 years, before being publicly hanged or have a firing squad on you. I dont understand how we are tough on crime when we have sick individuals not getting the punishment they deserve. They are suffering in the least!
First of all, the Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Moreover, it insists on due process, even for the most heinous of criminals.
That said, the process could certainly be streamlined somewhat. I too resent that it costs way more to execute a person than for him to spend his whole life in prison. The costs to taxpayers of a single room in prison, costs associated with capital prosecution, and endless hearings by far exceed the cost of a life sentence.
So by pure economics, life in prison is cheaper than capital punishment. Again, if the process could be streamlined in a way that still conformed to the Constitutional requirements of due process, then I'd be for it. But it'll never happen....there's always another appeal to be filed.
I just don't understand why we should treat violent and disgusting criminals with humane actions. People like Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dohmers, etc. should get nothing less than cruel and unusual punishment. How can they do things like kill people, defile them, cut them up, cannibalize, and get away with a needle in the arm? A quick and painless death, with no suffering whatsoever.
1. Because we are more civilized than they are.
2. Our Constitution forbids it.
3. It's impractical. Who would dole out the cruelty?
4. Our system of criminal justice is not based on an-eye-for-an-eye.
5. Two wrongs don't make a right.
But... Don't most criminals progress in their crimes? The small timer probably won't be small time for long. - Of the 30% you dump back on the street, how many would end up back in jail anyway?
How would you feel if a drunk/ drug addict was arrested several times and released back into society where he ends up killing your child with a car or a desperate attempt to get some cash for drugs?
I don't think these losers would pay child support or in any way contribute to society. They would live on government money either way.
In response to this:
1. Because we are more civilized than they are.
2. Our Constitution forbids it.
3. It's impractical. Who would dole out the cruelty?
4. Our system of criminal justice is not based on an-eye-for-an-eye.
5. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Take away their citizenship, deport them, and don't let them come back. Let them be someone else's problem. Quite frankly, I don't think being civilized when it comes to criminals is a good strategy. Where is the deterrent to committing crimes. Sitting in prison is not a deterrent. And it doesn't rehabilitate people. Death Row is a joke. If we want the crime rate to drop, we have to make the risk not worth the reward.
Post a Comment