http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071119/us_ ... prisons_dc

U.S. prison system a costly and harmful failure: report

By Randall Mikkelsen Mon Nov 19, 6:07 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The number of people in U.S. prisons has risen eight-fold since 1970, with little impact on crime but at great cost to taxpayers and society, researchers said in a report calling for a major justice-system overhaul.
ADVERTISEMENT

The report on Monday cites examples ranging from former vice-presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby to a Florida woman's two-year sentence for throwing a cup of coffee to make its case for reducing the U.S. prison population of 2.2 million -- nearly one-fourth of the world's total.

It recommends shorter sentences and parole terms, alternative punishments, more help for released inmates and decriminalizing recreational drugs. It said the steps would cut the prison population in half, save $20 billion a year and ease social inequality without endangering the public.

But the recommendations run counter to decades of broad U.S. public and political support for getting tough on criminals through longer, harsher prison terms and to the Bush administration's anti-drug and strict-sentencing policies.

"President (George W.) Bush was right," in commuting Libby's perjury sentence this year as excessive, the report said. But he should also have commuted the sentences of hundreds of thousands of other Americans, it said.

"Our contemporary laws and justice system practices exacerbate the crime problem, unnecessarily damage the lives of millions of people (and) waste tens of billions of dollars each year," it said.

The report was produced by the JFA Institute, a Washington criminal-justice research group, and its authors included eight criminologists from major U.S. public universities. It was funded by the Rosenbaum Foundation and by financier and political activist George Soros' Open Society Institute.

The Justice Department dismissed the recommendations and cited findings that about 25 percent of the violent-crime drop in the 1990s can be attributed to increases in imprisonment.

"The United States is experiencing a 30-year low in crime, in large part due to the tough enforcement actions we've taken in the last decade," department spokesman Peter Carr said.

SHIFTING ATTITUDES

But there are signs of shifting attitudes on sentencing policies. Some financially strapped states are shortening sentences and Congress is moving to pass increased help for released prisoners, said Executive Director Marc Mauer of the Sentencing Project, which has advocated alternatives to long sentences.

"Compared to where we were in the mid-(19)90s, it's been a very significant change," Mauer said.

More than 1.5 million people are now in U.S. state and federal prisons, up from 196,429 in 1970, the report said. Another 750,000 people are in local jails. The U.S. incarceration rate is the world's highest, followed by Russia, according to 2006 figures compiled by Kings College in London.

Although the U.S. crime rate began declining in the 1990s it is still about the same as in 1973, the JFA report said. But the prison population has soared because sentences have gotten longer and people who violate parole or probation, even with minor lapses, are more likely to be imprisoned.

"The system is almost feeding on itself now. It takes years and years and years to get out of this system and we do not see any positive impact on the crime rates," JFA President James Austin, a co-author of the report, told a news conference.

The report said the prison population is projected to grow by another 192,000 in five years, at a cost of $27.5 billion to build and operate additional prisons.

At current rates, one-third of all black males, one-sixth of Latino males, and one in 17 white males will go to prison during their lives. Women represent the fastest-growing segment of the prison population, the report said.

"The massive incarceration of young males from mostly poor- and working-class neighborhoods, and the taking of women from their families and jobs, has crippled their potential for forming healthy families and achieving economic gains," it said.

The bold and emphases are mine, and the bold is to explicitly highlight an example where conservative values are really at a clash with each other. What are your thoughts, team?

conservative values are really at a clash with each other

conservative values are really at a clash with each other

at a clash with each other

Big fuckin' surprise. Decriminalize pot, problem solved.

it'd have to be more than just pot.

Haha, nice Dave.



I'd agree with you, Jenni, but pot is a good place to start--probably the best.

One of the biggest disconnects is what the role of prisons should be. Eric started a thread on this a long time ago--I probably should have just bumped that one.

I figure as long as you're only harming yourself, it should be legal, no matter what it is. Ie- it's legal to be an alcoholic, but as soon as you get behind the wheel of a car, the rules change.

Bingo.

As I've said many times, people need to realize that there's a big difference between condemning and act and criminalizing it.

Who would have thought that indiscriminately cramming people into boxes with no hope of safety or a future would result in no appreciable reduction in crime?

Jesus...$20 billion just from reducing recreational drug sentences. Think about what this country could do with that money (and don't be a smartass and mention Iran).

I don't want this thread being directed at drug laws only, but....both of you are spot on.
The purpose of law is to protect an individual from harm. If I choose to snort cocaine, what harm is being done to someone else? I might be harming myself, but that's my own will. Is suicide illegal? What I do to myself is my own business. Also, I'm fully aware that some of you will use this quote against me in an anti-abortion thread but I'll tell you right now that this is a unique instance.

I used to do urinalysis drug testing at my father's pain clinic not for the purposes of "busting" people, but to learn what providers can and cannot prescribe to patients based on their drug use. I've done these tests hundreds of times (pretty gross btw) and find that people of all age, race, profession, and gender use marijuana and cocaine. They can do as much recreational drugs as they want, but that doesn't mean they'll get the meds they need, if any at all. These drug tests are for the better of the patient, not the provider. The reason why I'm pointing this out is mainly due to my opposition of random drug testing in corporate environments. Unless recreational drug use affects the performance of the employee, termination due to drug use should not be an option. That brings us back to the original point that recreational use does not inflict harm onto anyone but the user itself. That is no reason to send someone to jail.

I mostly agree. As far as firing and employee, I think that depends on the situation. There's a difference between using pot at a party on the weekend, and coming into work hammered. Even if someone SEEMS okay, they're still impared, and firing them may be a way of preventing a more serious problem down the line.

probably the easiest way to cut back on crowded prisons is to not break the law

Well, thank you for THAT observation. LOL

sometimes the simplest of things are sitting smack dab in front of your face

*stops*

How much did I save the goberment?

can we outlaw stupidity?

youd be my prison bitch

laws are easier to change than people. instead of trying to convince people not to smoke weed, make weed legal.

This is another fucking joke.

Hey, people are dangerous! I got a solution to this! Let's LET THEM ALL OUT OF JAIL WITH THE REST OF US!!!!!

IT'LL BE GREAT!