Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The real issue is cost to keep someone in jail. Right now its costs roughly 40k a year to keep someone in jail, but that number should be going up because the state prison system is under a court ordered recievership) Addiontionally as the jail population gets older that number will grow because as long as someone is in jail, it is the responsibility of the state to pay for health care. So if the prisoner needs an organ transplant or has cancer, well the state has to pick up that cost too.
That is probably the strongest reason to start releasing some of the non violent offenders. Money spent on prisoners is money that isn't available to be spent on keeping up the roads, paying for schools etc.
For what the state is spending to send some one to prison for 8 years, it could send someone to college and medical school. But if that money goes to higher education, thing about what the state gets back in terms of higher tax revenues.
The other issue is why are these people in prison. A large percentage of the population in jail are mentally ill. When we closed the state mental hospitals a lot of the mentally ill started self medicating and then got picked up for drug crimes.
But the psych facilities in a prison are much more expensive to run than what it costs to run a regular psych hospital. In a psych hospital, the nurses aren't paid as much as prison guards, but they have much more education and training in dealing with this population. You also don't need to over engineer the place quite as much as they do in a jail.
There are better less expensive ways of addressing a lot of these problems.
With the state prison system in recievership, the cost of warehousing these people is only going to go up.
There are better less expensive ways of addressing a lot of these problems.
Psych inmates are extremely dangerous. The staff in forensic hospitals is assaulted daily. You cannot put these people into regular psych hospitals ... it's just not practical nor is it safe.
For the sake of argument ... let's say we release these people. Who's going to hire them in this economy? Especially the psych cases who are extremely dangerous and who really can't function in society.
You've got tens of thousands of people with NO criminal records looking for work right now. Employers are NOT going to hire criminals over legitimate applicants.
These people are going to be wards of the state or county one way or the other. The idea that releasing them is going to save the taxpayers a lot of money is pure fantasy ...
Psych inmates are extremely dangerous. The staff in forensic hospitals is assaulted daily. You cannot put these people into regular psych hospitals ... it's just not practical nor is it safe.
Last year a Psych Patient killed her Doctor... the orderly only left the room to retrieve something from the hallway and that's all the time it took for a family with small children to loose their mother...
It happened at the new John George county mental hospital in Alameda County...
The real issue is cost to keep someone in jail. Right now its costs roughly 40k a year to keep someone in jail, but that number should be going up because the state prison system is under a court ordered recievership) Addiontionally as the jail population gets older that number will grow because as long as someone is in jail, it is the responsibility of the state to pay for health care. So if the prisoner needs an organ transplant or has cancer, well the state has to pick up that cost too.
That is probably the strongest reason to start releasing some of the non violent offenders. Money spent on prisoners is money that isn't available to be spent on keeping up the roads, paying for schools etc.
For what the state is spending to send some one to prison for 8 years, it could send someone to college and medical school. But if that money goes to higher education, thing about what the state gets back in terms of higher tax revenues.
The other issue is why are these people in prison. A large percentage of the population in jail are mentally ill. When we closed the state mental hospitals a lot of the mentally ill started self medicating and then got picked up for drug crimes.
But the psych facilities in a prison are much more expensive to run than what it costs to run a regular psych hospital. In a psych hospital, the nurses aren't paid as much as prison guards, but they have much more education and training in dealing with this population. You also don't need to over engineer the place quite as much as they do in a jail.
There are better less expensive ways of addressing a lot of these problems.
With the state prison system in recievership, the cost of warehousing these people is only going to go up.
I think more effort needs to be applied in the direction of cost cutting... There's a Sheriff in Arizona that employs a military style methods saving the county millions of dollars.
Medicare kicks in when Citizen inmates reach age 65... so there is an offset.
I'd start with the public school system, which can use improving on just about every front. And there should be money available to students for postsecondary education and trade schools.
Then I'd make sure that adequate funds were provided to domestic violence intervention, mental health, and addiction recovery programs so that all could be served in every community. Right now deep cuts are being made to a lot of social programs and nonprofit budgets that assist underprivileged people. That's the first thing that goes when governments trim their budgets, and citizens are often glad because they don't think that "those people" deserve any help.
The criminal justice system needs a complete overhaul, and the racist aspects simply have to be addressed. And when people end up in jail, they should be able to gain skills and knowledge that make them employable once they leave. Sure, some people aren't going to take advantage of these programs, but I suspect they'd make a difference for quite a few. Then maybe we could weed out the people who truly have no conscience from those who just need a little help learning pro-social behavior.
Sometimes you don't have to give people very much before they get the personal momentum to do things on their own. But it takes compassion and a willingness to see our own biases and greed. I'd be relieved to see my tax money go toward making society better for all, even if that meant that some people seemed to be getting something for free. Big deal. I would certainly find that preferable to where it's going now, which is primarily the pockets of the uber-rich and private entities at the Federal Reserve.
What if The People someday got a "bailout"? Then we'd be getting somewhere.
to start with, post secondary education: we do have this, for anyone and I mean anyone that wants to continue their education.It is called, need scholarships, grants, student loans, etc. There is absolutely no reason anyone who wants to continue their education for them not to be able to. yes, in many cases they made have to get a part time job, poor babies. I can guarantee you, most criminals have no desire to get more education unless it is in the form of "how to steal, cheat, do drugs, or rob banks with out getting caught" Most cities and states have very active domestic violence protection. As for intervension, I will not address that as I really do not know. I do work with domestic violence programs some. Racist aspects, oh come on: there are more minorities in prison because there are more minorities that comment crimes. What do you suggest is the answer to that one?? Sorry, yes, there is always room for improvement, but I don't buy your view for one second. It is just more liberal junk..
Nita
Edwardius, I do agree about the cost..Let's not release them necessarily but put them to work..
Psych inmates are extremely dangerous. The staff in forensic hospitals is assaulted daily. You cannot put these people into regular psych hospitals ... it's just not practical nor is it safe.
For the sake of argument ... let's say we release these people. Who's going to hire them in this economy? Especially the psych cases who are extremely dangerous and who really can't function in society.
You've got tens of thousands of people with NO criminal records looking for work right now. Employers are NOT going to hire criminals over legitimate applicants.
These people are going to be wards of the state or county one way or the other. The idea that releasing them is going to save the taxpayers a lot of money is pure fantasy ...
At least until the economy gets better.
Has anyone heard of Delancey Street Foundation based in San Francisco? Look it up on the internet. It is an outstanding organization that gives felons and drug-addicted criminals, who have hit rock bottom, the chance to become productive, ligitimate and responsible law-biding citizens who are crime free and drug free while living in a last resort community where vocational training and education are offered. Residents spend from 2-4 years in this facility rebuilding their lives. This program has documented proof that seemingly dregs of society can be rehabilitated and can totally turn their lives around. The best thing about it is that it is self-supporting and privately funded. If my son ever sees the outside of the prison walls again, this is where he will go to begin a new life.
Has anyone heard of Delancey Street Foundation based in San Francisco? Look it up on the internet. It is an outstanding organization that gives felons and drug-addicted criminals, who have hit rock bottom, the chance to become productive, ligitimate and responsible law-biding citizens who are crime free and drug free while living in a last resort community where vocational training and education are offered. Residents spend from 2-4 years in this facility rebuilding their lives. This program has documented proof that seemingly dregs of society can be rehabilitated and can totally turn their lives around. The best thing about it is that it is self-supporting and privately funded. If my son ever sees the outside of the prison walls again, this is where he will go to begin a new life.
Yes... I have donated to Delancey because they do make a difference when someone has the desire from within to change...
The real issue is cost to keep someone in jail. Right now its costs roughly 40k a year to keep someone in jail, but that number should be going up because the state prison system is under a court ordered recievership)
Quick question before I make my comments: Is this a literal $40K straight-out, or does it include some monies that are actually paid by the work of the prisoners themselves (such as cooking their own food, doing their own laundry, cleaning/janitor services/repairs, etc., etc.)? I hope that question makes sense.
Okay. That said...Yes. It costs a lot of money to keep someone in jail. And this should NOT be an "encouragement" (or threat tactic) to cause states to release criminals into our neighborhoods, sorry. This is part of being in a society. There are certain things we have to pay for if we want a certain quality of life. Since there have always been and will always be criminals in every society, containment of criminals is one of these things.
Just like we pay for home security systems, we pay for locks, alarms, secure/difficult to break into housing; we pay for safe cars, we pay for medicine; we pay for all kinds of things that keep us safe...so too do we pay to keep ourselves safe from criminals.
Would it save an incredible amount of money if we didn't "have to" pay for those criminals to stay in jail? Of course! Other miracles that would save us tons of money include: if people suddenly stopped starving, we'd save a TON in Welfare. If only our roads would suddenly magically come to life and become self-regenerating, we'd save a TON on road repair. If only our children could be born with a lot of knowledge, we'd save a TON on public education.
But none of these things is realistic, and you know the true irony here? The ONE of all these things that people do literally have control over is whether or not they become criminals...and put themselves into prison. That's the real shame here: saving money on keeping inmates is possible, but that possibility is tossed out the window when people "drive high," perform break-ins and other such "non-violent" (???) crimes.
Sympathy and second chances: ABSOLUTELY! That's why the person does get two chances before not being let out again. These prisoners already did get a first chance...and a second. Do a percentage of these people actually rehabilitate? Yes, but for one thing, as one of the posters above described, these people generally do demonstrate that by behaving, by showing some degree of motivation (like the firefighter program, etc.).
The legal system is of course faulty; anything created by human beings is faulty in some way--we're not perfect. One of its "faults" is that it doesn't include psychic people who can weed out which people "really! seriously!!" are rehabilitated and not just sheistering their way back onto the streets to commit crimes. That's why you have to not commit crimes in the first place. (This should be pretty elementary stuff here...) If that thought doesn't deter them, and if even having been busted before doesn't deter them, then why should actually being incarcerated deter them? One thing people haven't mentioned here is that crimes are even committed while in jail. But we should "guess" that because it's been X amount of years, this guy or that woman can be released and will not commit crimes once outside? How do you figure that?
And by the way, "underprivileged and abused" MY *SS. The abuse I suffered as a child (and my sister) would make your stomach turn. Every kind, literally, and shall I leave it at that? Thank you. Including a 4-times-married mother and constant moves...all the negatives. And no money, certainly. You know what? I've supported myself with no help from anyone from the age of not quite 18 and so has my sister, we have children we adore, and we surely don't commit any crimes. And we're not unusual. Show me any person on the planet who can honestly say he or she suffered no trauma as a child and I'll show you someone who is either a liar or has a poor memory.
I was watching, I think, Gangland USA--my husband put it on--and the one guy was describing how nobody wanted to get "real jobs" on the outside because once you've lived the life pulling in major bucks every single night for doing illegal stuff, suburbia is never, ever going to do it for you. So even handing these people (who committed crimes against other people and society, remember!!!!) homes, money, etc. won't keep them from committing crimes. I mean that's just silly.
If this woman's son has been an exemplary prisoner for these past 12 years, he is almost certainly a candidate for some sort of volunteer or work program to help his cause. Or simply to be a good person. I don't see the OP mentioning any of that, very tellingly. Criminals lie, folks. When you sneak around, break into someone's home, steal things, try to get away with driving high...you're lying. Right? So what's telling the system that Joe X isn't lying, that he really is rehabilitated or trying to get that way? Not a bunch of useless excuses and pleas to Mommy to help his poor little almost-40-year-old self. What has he done to show the system that he's different now?
Anything?
If not, then again, sorry, but they don't hire psychics in the penal system to hold a seance to determine which prisoners really aren't just habitual criminals. What this 37-year-old man is showing the world is that even now he doesn't feel like doing anything himself. He's getting Mommy to do it. Don't think that's lost on the legal system, either.
Am I being harsh? "Non-understanding"? No and no. As I said, these people do get second chances. They're not innocent victims; they're committing the crimes. I will continue to pay to have dangerous people kept from my and your neighborhoods just as I continue to pay to repair bridges and roads and have a police force and firefighters and libraries. Don't even try to threaten society with how big an expense these people can become. In my eyes, that's about the most hideously manipulative device I can imagine to get criminals back on the streets...and only shows a criminal's true colors. Use society for his own aims; that's the M.O.
I should add something to the post I wrote above...
As for improving schools, YES. Not because it will suddenly create a utopia where nobody ever grows up to be a criminal (again, some people will be criminals no matter what; other people will not be criminals no matter what), but simply because cruelty to children is reprehensible no matter how you slice it. So, yes, school should be a healthy, safe haven, cheerful, with adequate teachers.
One issue doesn't have as much to do with the other in my ideal as it seems to with others, but I agree with the goal. Yes, improve the schools.
No, don't reverse Three Strikes, sorry.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
