posted on May 27, 2004 04:22:38 PM new
WoW! I didn't know this, I know there's lots of crime but I didn't think it was that bad though I have heard reports that more women are going to prison.
By CONNIE CASS, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - America's inmate population grew by 2.9 percent last year, to almost 2.1 million people, with one of every 75 men living in prison or jail.
The inmate population continued its rise despite a fall in the crime rate and many states' efforts to reduce some sentences, especially for low-level drug offenders.
The report issued Thursday by the Justice Department (news - web sites)'s Bureau of Justice Statistics attributes much of the increase to get-tough policies enacted during the 1980s and '90s, such as mandatory drug sentences, "three-strikes-and-you're-out" laws for repeat offenders, and "truth-in-sentencing" laws that restrict early releases.
Whether that's good or bad depends on who is asked.
"The prison system just grows like a weed in the yard," said Vincent Schiraldi, executive director of the Justice Policy Institute, which pushes for a more lenient system.
Without reforms, he said, prison populations will continue to grow "almost as if they are on autopilot, regardless of their high costs and disappointing crime-control impact."
But Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) said the report shows the success of efforts to take hard-core criminals off the streets.
"It is no accident that violent crime is at a 30-year low while prison population is up," Ashcroft said. "Violent and recidivist criminals are getting tough sentences while law-abiding Americans are enjoying unprecedented safety."
There were 715 inmates for every 100,000 U.S. residents at midyear in 2003, up from 703 a year earlier, the report found.
The nation's incarceration rate tops the world, according to The Sentencing Project, another group that promotes alternatives to prison. That compares with a rate of 169 per 100,000 residents in Mexico, 116 in Canada and 143 for England and Wales.
Russia's prison population, which once rivaled the United States', has dropped to 584 per 100,000 because of prisoner amnesties in recent years, the group said.
The U.S. inmate population in 2003 grew at its fastest pace in four years. The number of inmates increased 1.8 percent in state prisons, 7.1 percent in federal prisons and 3.9 percent in local jails.
In 2003, 68 percent of prison and jail inmates were members of racial or ethnic minorities, the government said. An estimated 12 percent of all black men in their 20s were in jails or prisons, as were 3.7 percent of Hispanic men and 1.6 percent of white men in that age group, according to the report.
The report also said:
_The number of women in state and federal prisons grew by 5 percent, compared to a 2.7 percent increase for men. Still, men greatly outnumber women: 1.36 million to 100,102.
_Local jails held 691,301 inmates.
_The inmate population in 10 states increased at least 5 percent. Some of the smallest state prison systems saw the largest increase: Vermont's grew by 12.2 percent, Minnesota was up 9.4 percent and Maine 9.1 percent.
_Only nine states logged a decrease in prison population, led by Rhode Island with a 3.4 percent drop; Arkansas, 2.2 percent; and Montana, 2.1 percent.
posted on May 27, 2004 06:48:22 PM new
I wonder how many of those people are in jail for drug "crimes". It's pretty sick when a person can get 1 year for torturing another but if you're caught with marijuana, you can get life.
posted on May 28, 2004 12:00:05 AM new
I hope they catch the son of a b!tch who stole the battery out of my car. They'll never bust him for the battery, but maybe they'll catch him with some drugs and throw him in the slammer. Drug laws are a great way to get scumbags off the street.
"I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
posted on May 28, 2004 11:19:24 AM new
EAG, if you think the dealers or the end users of drugs are the "scumbags", you're sadly mistaken. It's the politicians and police officials who turn a blind eye (with a little $$ encouragement) to allow these drugs to be distributed. If the drug war is ever going to work, which it isn't - EVER, then the people that get the pay-offs should be the ones in jail. It's because of these people that junkies have to pay unbelieveable amounts for their drugs causing crime, not the other way around.
posted on May 28, 2004 07:08:51 PM new
KD - Are you feeling sorry that the 'junkies' have to pay higher prices? I sure hope it's not sympathy for them I'm hearing from you.
If there were no 'users' there'd be no sales...no pushers...no etc.
posted on May 28, 2004 07:55:48 PM newIf the prices were regulated and reasonable, there would be no crime -- no need to commit crime in order to raise money to buy drugs.
No matter how reasonable prices are, there are limits to a person's pocket. An addict always wants more. Needs more as time goes on. And when their own money is gone, they'll steal from family, friends, anyone, to get what they want.
And it's not just the money. There is the destruction of family, work, and self.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on May 28, 2004 08:21:23 PM new
It's a physical addiction which is a medical problem. I don't believe that anyone sees drug addiction as a problem that affects no one but the addict.
I don't believe that addiction to drugs should be a criminal offense. It's a medical problem.
posted on May 28, 2004 09:50:16 PM newIt's because of these people that junkies have to pay unbelieveable amounts for their drugs causing crime, not the other way around.
The price of drugs has nothing to do with it. If a druggie scumbag needs a battery for his car, do you think he's going buy one at the store? No, he's going to steal one out of my car or yours.
"I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
posted on May 29, 2004 05:10:36 AM new
alcohol is just as bad,it destroys not just the alcoholic,but the family as well.But you can easily walk up to a bar and get a drink.
How about opium den for chasing that infamous dragon??
-sig file -------we eat to live,not live to eat.
Benjamin Franklin
posted on May 29, 2004 06:19:52 AM new"I hope they catch the son of a b!tch who stole the battery out of my car. They'll never bust him for the battery, but maybe they'll catch him with some drugs and throw him in the slammer. Drug laws are a great way to get scumbags off the street."
"The price of drugs has nothing to do with it. If a druggie scumbag needs a battery for his car, do you think he's going buy one at the store? No, he's going to steal one out of my car or yours."
Ebayauctionguy,
I hope that you will post often with your political allegiance indicated by your signature banner. Your exceedingly intelligent responses can only serve to encourage thoughtful people to vote for a guy that you would support. Your erudition is just seemingly exceeded by that of Bear and Linda only because they copy paste more words whereas you formulate your own responses usually in only one line. Keep up the good work!
ubb ed.
[ edited by Helenjw on May 29, 2004 06:35 AM ]
posted on May 29, 2004 07:15:07 AM new
I think all of you people posting here on this subject need to wake up and hit the streets and get a taste of real life. none of you have a clue. Your too lost in your own little world.
posted on May 29, 2004 07:19:18 AM new
Kraftdinner is the only one here with a clue of what is going on. The Bush Administration should be the first one busted
posted on May 29, 2004 01:59:55 PM new
In this thread? Don't you mean in this forum Helen? Hahaha!!!
"KD - Are you feeling sorry that the 'junkies' have to pay higher prices? I sure hope it's not sympathy for them I'm hearing from you. If there were no 'users' there'd be no sales...no pushers...no etc."
Linda, yes, I feel sorry for the junkies. They are addicted to a drug that's expensive (but cheap to make) and cut a million times with ?? by the string of people wanting to make big money off them. The amount of the actual drug they receive for their $50.00 might only be 10 or 20 percent, so they end up paying for all the middleperson's greed. It's this greed that drives the prices up to a point where these people have to commit crimes to pay for their drug. If you cut out all drug-related crimes, jails would be closing, not filling up. Junkies are human beings that have gone down the wrong road. They need to be treated and not cast away because they have no money. If you legalize drugs, the amount of money saved could be used on helping these people and would cut out sooo much corruption in the world it would make your head spin. Drug use will never go away.
Hey thanks Jewelry21.
[ edited by kraftdinner on May 29, 2004 02:01 PM ]
posted on May 29, 2004 02:45:34 PM new
LOL KD - You're not the only one who would like to edit my posts...I'm sure.
But I don't agree on legalizing drugs. We'll just end up with more who become addicted. Then we'll need to give more funding to 'help' them...when junkies almost have written themselves a death sentence.
And....which of the countries that have already legalized drugs....do *you* see as having been successful at ending the expenses of drug related problems?
posted on May 29, 2004 03:34:05 PM new
I know what you mean Linda, but I don't agree. I don't think people are that stupid that they'd choose to do drugs just because they were legal. We need the drug-war money to spend on better education, which includes drug education and rehab. You don't see all the Hollywood druggies out on the streets because they can afford their drugs and rehab. If the problem isn't going to go away, which has been proven time and time again, then you have to look at other ways to deal with the problem. Also, you have to realize that BIG money is spent, by the very drug lords who everyone's trying to get rid of, to make sure the drug war never ends. It's corruption at the highest levels and THAT'S the real problem, not he end user.
posted on May 29, 2004 04:19:21 PM new
Rush's drug habit was worse than Elvis and Keith Richards combined, yet Linda doesn't mind quoting him on behalf of her people.
posted on May 29, 2004 04:23:13 PM new
oh KDeeeee - You didn't answer my question.
There are countries that have legalized drugs.....they're having big problems with them.....I asked you which of those countries don't/aren't having big problems/expenses with their own systems. You didn't answer that one...just kind of brushed over it.
I asked because I don't know of one that legalizing drugs has helped a thing. It's just created new problems.
And what's with this "WE" ....you having big drug problems in Canada too? I thought they were beginning to legalize them now.
posted on May 29, 2004 04:27:41 PM new
KD - It's usually the Limbaugh haters that quote him.....just gets them all so upset that he has such a huge following and they can't get a radio show off the ground.
posted on May 30, 2004 05:25:27 PM new
If you can't win the war on drugs. The bottom line is our prisons will always be 1 out of 75 men in the system...But it's the money you have to take that part away!!!!
Correctional officials see danger in prison overcrowding. Others see opportunity. The nearly two million Americans behind bars -- the majority of them nonviolent offenders -- mean jobs for depressed regions and windfalls for profiteers
posted on May 30, 2004 05:43:43 PM new
I don't have a problem with drugs being illiegal so much as I have a problem with the discrepency in sentences. Street drug vs "recreational' drugs. Why does crack cocain garner a heavier sentence than poweder when it is the same drug in different forms. Why is heroin one sentence where ecstasy which is just as addicting and more dangerous is a much lighter one?
White collar, upper and middle class drugs are treated as an aside where street drugs are treated as an assault on society. That where the source of many of our problems lies. We have a system aimed at locking up low income drug users as opposed to all drug users.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Jun 4, 2004 08:44 AM ]
