BGFalcons82;639163 wrote:Yes, I hit "post" too quickly. There are a myriad of reasons, and I focused on just one, although I think it is a significant one. It is an interesting discussion topic and maybe it needs to be its own thread. There will always be crime, just at there will always be poor. No matter what utopian society progressives dream up, there will always be those that are poor. What I'm intrigued about is the fact the above graph is basically flat until the 70's and then it's on a completely different plane. What changed? Why are more incarcerated now as compared to then? Is it something that can be fixed?

I seriously think it has to do with changing opinions on how police should work and what they're for.

I just don't think that there are almost 5 times more criminals now than there were in 1980 (500k incarcerated vs 2.5 million roughly).

It's a problem that I haven't really seen anyone talk about on the national stage.

I Wear Pants;639171 wrote:I seriously think it has to do with changing opinions on how police should work and what they're for.

I just don't think that there are almost 5 times more criminals now than there were in 1980 (500k incarcerated vs 2.5 million roughly).

It's a problem that I haven't really seen anyone talk about on the national stage.

1. How police should work and their duties have changed, so I agree with this point.
2. Well, there are likely 5 times as many laws as there were. If you don't believe me, then what have Congresspeople been doing with their time? Check out the tax code since 1970. Check out the FAR. Dozens of examples of more laws, rules and regulations to be followed and thus violated by some. We should not be surprised that more laws = more criminals.
3. The only discussion I've typically seen is the fact the percentage of minority incarceration is much higher than their society population. This suggests an equivalence that propensity to commit crime is somehow ingrained in DNA and that societal forces effect all people the same way. While I think this is preposterous, I also think this is huge to try to understand why the percentages are so disproportional. If we can understand it and develop the correct fixes, then...in theory...crime could be reduced and wouldn't that be best for society?

Yes, though I think a lot of it is that there are a bunch of crimes that we put people in jail for (even for short periods of time) where the offenders have no business being in jail/prison. Many crimes should simply carry fines and maybe community service or a rehabilitation program or something like that (especially for first offenders).

I Wear Pants;639203 wrote:Yes, though I think a lot of it is that there are a bunch of crimes that we put people in jail for (even for short periods of time) where the offenders have no business being in jail/prison. Many crimes should simply carry fines and maybe community service or a rehabilitation program or something like that (especially for first offenders).

The problem with just fining people is it doesn't work in the mid to lower class communities because people just don't pay them. And would increasing community service and rehab programs just cost more money and government oversight?

But rehab/other programs have traditionally been shown to work better. And things like community service actually produce goods or a societal benefit. People sitting in a cell doesn't produce anything.

I Wear Pants;640332 wrote:But rehab/other programs have traditionally been shown to work better. And things like community service actually produce goods or a societal benefit. People sitting in a cell doesn't produce anything.

Is there a statistic to show rehab works?

Oh and people in cells do produce things....license plates!

Lots, the ones I'll post have to do with drug policy.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/reducingharm/treatmentvsi/

The University of California at Los Angeles, which was contracted by the state to evaluate SACPA, estimates that the program saves approximately $2.50 for every $1 spent. For program completers, says UCLA, savings increase to $4 per $1 spent. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), net savings have reached $200 million to $300 million per year—or a total of $1.2-1.8 billion for the first six years of implementation.

And that's just from one state.

I Wear Pants;642384 wrote:Lots, the ones I'll post have to do with drug policy.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/reducingharm/treatmentvsi/



And that's just from one state.

I read the article, it saves money, but what about recidivism?

Here's another.

http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/factsheets/treatment_v_incarceration_nm.cfm

Recidivism is sometimes built into the cost savings part of the equation but I know there have been several studies that show that people are much less likely to recommit a crime after a rehabilitation program than incarceration.

Let's just do away with free medical, internet, and all that stuff for the people in prison. And let's bring back chain gangs. Repeat criminals have a better and more comfortable life than alot of people who work hard and struggle to make ends meet who don't have internet and free medical, etc.

I know... I'm an extreme right wing nutjob who doesn't care about the feelings of repeat criminals. Lay it on me!

Or you could do the things that actually work?

Mass incarcerations for non-violent crimes have proven to not work and we cannot afford them.

Even repeaters, Pants? That was the point in my post, besides the free medical and internet stuff. I wonder how much a year that amounts to?

Repeat offenders are a different situation.

As far as the internet and such. I'm okay with getting rid of it. Medical has to stay.

If we were to implement rehab and the such, would you agree that for people who go through rehab and end up being repeat offenders, should receive harsher punishment?

Glory Days;645000 wrote:If we were to implement rehab and the such, would you agree that for people who go through rehab and end up being repeat offenders, should receive harsher punishment?

IMO, not for being drug addicts. Now if they committ crimes to support their habit, then yes, harsher punishment. But if you are strictly saying if they go to rehab and then relapse (the repeat offense), then no, there shouldn't be any further punishment. As long as they are not committing any crimes, I see no reason to punish them. It is not our job as a society to babysit people. Being a drug addict or alcoholic is not a crime. It can lead to you committing a crime, but being an addict doesn't make you a criminal.

If that is not what you were implying than I digress.

Glory Days;645000 wrote:If we were to implement rehab and the such, would you agree that for people who go through rehab and end up being repeat offenders, should receive harsher punishment?

Sure. But also what dwc said.

Eh, I guess I wasn't trying to make a point, but how many times should someone go through rehab before you do stop "babysitting" them?

Glory Days;645527 wrote:Eh, I guess I wasn't trying to make a point, but how many times should someone go through rehab before you do stop "babysitting" them?

I don't really understand your question. What do you mean before we stop babysitting them? Don't people put themselves through rehab? Or their family puts them through it. If the court mandates someone go to rehab, aren't they responsible for footing the bill (like in DUI cases)? I'm not sure if we babysit them or not.

Actually, you're right. You do have to pay for that.

Actually, alot of treatment centers, including privately owned, accept medicaid as payment. That also includes court appointed rehab. From what I understand, alot of those states are also experimenting with restricting that form of payment with mixed reviews.

Medicaid is payed for by state and federal. We've all got a hand in it.

Okay that seems like a fairly easy fix. How about "first time you can use medicaid" or something like that? After that it's your responsibility financially.

I Wear Pants;646774 wrote:Okay that seems like a fairly easy fix. How about "first time you can use medicaid" or something like that? After that it's your responsibility financially.

Personally, I have a problem with paying for somebody else's alcoholism/drug addiction in the first place. However, I would be willing to consider an "easy fix" like you propose. Meaning that I would think it's worth looking into and placing it on a sort of trial basis. Then, if that turned out to be a huge sponge, then I would like it have the practice of medicaid being involved at any level banned forever.

That sounds reasonable.

Can you believe we actually just agreed on something? haha!

If the crack and meth heads are forced to pay for their own rehab, that program won't last a month. There is no way that program would survive without the govt footing the bill.