5.6 Million Have Prison Experience

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jeff White

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
37,925
Location
Alma Illinois
The conclusion that I draw from this is that crime is down because more people are in prison. Somehow I get the impression that Mr. Anderson thinks it's a bad thing when too many criminals go to prison.....


Report: 5.6M Have 'Prison Experience'
Sun Aug 17, 5:45 PM ET

By CURT ANDERSON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - About one in every 37 U.S. adults was either imprisoned at the end of 2001 or had been incarcerated at one time, the government reported Sunday.



The 5.6 million people with "prison experience" represented about 2.7 percent of the adult population of 210 million as of Dec. 31, 2001, the report found. The study by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics looks at people who served a sentence for a crime in state or federal prison, not those temporarily held in jail.

The study is the first to measure the prevalence of prison time among American adults. Last month, the bureau reported that a record 2.1 million people were in federal, state or local custody at the end of 2002.

Between 1974 and 2001, the number of current and former inmates rose by 3.8 million, the study found. Of those, 2.7 million were former inmates.

Experts say the growing numbers of ex-prisoners means more people in society have difficulty finding jobs because they have felony convictions. Many cannot vote and they are more likely to have family or emotional problems that exact a toll on state and local government budgets.

"We're talking about a large number of people — bigger than a lot of countries in Western Europe — who face the barriers that exist when you have been in the correctional system," said Jason Zeidenberg, director of policy and research at the Justice Policy Institute, which advocates alternatives to prison. "That's a really upsetting number."

The number of people sent to prison for the first time tripled from 1974 to 2001 as sentences got tougher, especially for drug offenses. There are more ex-prisoners as well, the result of longer life expectancies and a larger U.S. population.

Prison experiences vary greatly by gender and ethnic origin.

"At every age, men have higher chances of going to prison than women, and blacks and Hispanics have higher chances than whites," statistician Thomas P. Bonczar said in the report.

Almost 5 percent of men in 2001 had done prison time, compared with less than 1 percent of women.

Almost 17 percent of black men in 2001 had prison experience, compared with 7.7 percent of Hispanic men and 2.6 percent of white men. The percentage of black women with prison time was 1.7 percent, compared with less than 1 percent of Hispanic and white women.

No matter their ethnic origin, people between ages 35 and 44 in 2001 had the highest rates of lifetime incarceration — 6.5 percent for men, almost 1 percent for women.

About one-third of the former prisoners in 2001 still were under correctional system supervision, including 166,000 in local jails. The rest were either on parole or on probation.

The study projects that, by 2010, about 3.4 percent of the adult U.S. population will have had served time in prison. That translates to about 7.7 million people.

If 2001 incarceration rates remain the same, about 6.6 percent of people born that year can expect to serve a prison sentence during their lifetimes, based on life expectancy tables, the study said.

That compares with 5.2 percent of those born in 1991 and 1.9 percent of people born in 1974, according to the estimates.

About 11.3 percent of men and 1.8 percent of women born in 2001 will go to prison during their lifetimes. For black males, that translates into a one in three chance of doing time, compared with one in six for Hispanic males and one in 17 for white males, according to the projections.
 
The prisons are chock-full because of the War On Some Drugs.

Nearly half of all the offenders doing time at present are in jail because of nonviolent drug-related charges.

Something is seriously out of kilter with a society that is willing to lock people up for years because they possessed the botanical equivalent of a bottle of vodka.
 
What bothers me about this is that even with the Draconian sentences these days, most of these folks are going to be let out sometime . I'm pretty sure they're going to come out meaner, nastier, and otherwise more messed up than they were when they went in.:uhoh:
 
The author reports the data without drawing any conclusions. Conclusions from readers will vary with personal viewpoints--obviously. :)

An outsider might say the data indicates the U.S. has an overly large percentage of people who are prone to crime, and is thus a dangerous place.

It would be interesting to see a breakdown between drug-related crime and non-drug-related. Then, a further breakdown between violent and non-violent in each of those two categores. (I can see difficulty in determining whether a robbery or mugging was or was not for the purpose of getting money to buy drugs.)

Those breakdowns, shown as trendlines over time, would allow some rational assessment of the overall size and type of crime problems.

Another conclusion, I think, is that there are just too many things which are against the law...

Art
 
**Shudder**
I actually agree with Marko on this one. However, I don't buy into all the claims of those on the drug legalization side. Too simplistic IMO. Ideally, I would like to see a phased approach to legalization with just handful of states relaxing their laws first, then the rest of the country can follow if the results are favorable. This has seemed to work pretty well with CCW laws.
 
The health related problems from drug abuse are about five percent of those from tobacco and alcohol, per the various articles in the medical journals.

The danger from an addict is primarily from his need for money to purchase his next highly overpriced dosage.

The danger from the traffickers is primarily due to the conflict over who operates or controls some particular market locale.

My belief is that if one doesn't need to rob in order to buy something, he is less likely to rob.

My belief is that if there is little or no profit in some business activity, fewer people will resort to violence to promote that activity, or be actively engaged in it.

If there is any validity to these beliefs, I think it's obvious as to what directions we should take as to law, enforcement and incarceration...

We already have a large body of law dealing with alcohol and prescription drugs, and public behavior while using them. I see no reason why these shouldn't also apply to "controlled substances".

:), Art
 
The danger from an addict is primarily from his need for money to purchase his next highly overpriced dosage.
Not to mention his operation of motor vehicles. That is of course if you include everybody's favorite legal drug-alcohol.
I'd like to see a breakdown reflecting those whose minds were and weren't chemically inhibited by drugs or alchohol at the time of the offense.
I'd bet that it's a large share of the violent/negligent crimes.
 
I have long advocated declaring victory in the war on some drugs and moving on. I fear that there is too much money involved on both sides for things ever to change. I somehow doubt that the cocaine cartels and the US street gangs would like to be put out of business by Bayer or DuPont. What did the mafia get into once prohibition was repealed? The gangs didn't exactly go away.

Then you have to look at the number of people who would be put out of work on the other side. How much money is passed from the feds to state and local .govs to fight the war on drugs? Despite the fact that legalization is the right thing to do, it will never happen here.

Art is right, too many things are illegal, And to think it all started with 10 commandments on a stone tablet. Maybe we could go back to that and think real hard about how we supplemented them with other laws?

That said, crime has been trending down, and I would like to see credit given where it's due. Lock more criminals up and crime goes down. Rather simplistic but it works.

Jeff
 
Lock more criminals up and crime goes down. Rather simplistic but it works.

But which "crimes" are really crimes (in mal se), and which are just more feel-good BS (mal prohibitum) cooked up to make folks feel safe, keep cops (lawyers, judges) employed, and legislators looking busy?

Execution drastically reduces recidivism, too.

I'm all for locking up/executing (as the case may be) more robbers, rapists, kidnappers, murderers and child molestors; but con men, burglars, forgers and dopers can be diverted and certainly shouldn't be jailed before sex and violent offenders - particularly with limited finances.
 
Art (and others): when I first arrived at The Firing Line, I was convinced that illegal drugs should remain illegal, and that dealers and users should be punished.

Congratulations on making a convert out of me. :)
 
I found this site on prison statistics...I haven't digested all the data yet, but it doesn't seem to support the conclusion that non-violent drug offenders are surging?

Link: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/corrtyp.htm
corrtyp.gif

Over half of the increase in State prison population since 1995 is due to an increase in the prisoners convicted of violent offenses.

Lot of data here that may further the discussion...
 
oops...the previous chart was state level...the trend for federal crime is indeed higher for drug-related:
fedtyp.gif


Of cases concluded in Federal district court since 1989, drug cases have increased at the greatest rate.
 
A substantial portion of those in jail now are repeat offenders, so of the 5.6 million people with prison experience, many of those are included in the 2.1 million currently in jail, no? I just have a sneaky suspicion that some of these people are being counted twice in order to inflate the numbers.
 
The drug offender numbers aren't very accurate in at least two ways that I know of.

First off, all crimes convicted are listed on the stats, even if the critter has multiple convictions. In other words, if you have John A. Critter, convicted of 1)Attempted Capital Murder; 2)Aggravated Robbery; 3)Aggravated Sexual Assault of a Farm Animal; 4)Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity/Kidnapping and 5)Possession of Controlled Substance, Penalty Group 1, Over 2 ounces -- he shows up on the crime stats as a drug offender.

Secondly, plea bargains. You have a critter popped for something majorly serious - say Sexual Assault of a Child. During his arrest for the child molestation, he is also busted with user weight of whatever his recreational pharmaceutical of choice is. Since the officers fully intend to throw not only the book at the pervert, but also the library, they file on his butt for the dope, as well as the molestation.

Since trials can be bloody expensive for the County/District, those who control the County/District purse strings are heavily in favour of plea bargains vs. trials.

DAs like the plea bargain, because it's an easy win for their record and multiple drug convictions look good to the voters come re-election time.

Critters like the plea bargain, because Simple Possession is jolly well better than a conviction for a violent crime any way you look at it.

And, let us not forget that should the critter play his cards right he can get on the local teevee station and snivel about the unfairness of the drug laws and his incarceration. Said snivelling to produce an incredible amount of correspondence from people who can obviously spare the time, paper, ink, and stamps to pat the critter on his little paw and wail about miscarriages of justice, but who can't spare time, ink, paper or stamps to write the Texas Dept of Criminal Justice and ask for a FOIA request on the critters criminal history. :fire:

LawDog
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top