1 in every 32 U.S. adults behind bars, on probation or on parole in 2005

A record 7 million people - or one in every 32 American adults - were behind bars, on probation or on parole by the end of last year, according to the Justice Department.

Of those, 2.2 million were in prison or jail, an increase of 2.7 per cent over the previous year, according to a report.

More than 4.1 million people were on probation and 784,208 were on parole at the end of 2005. Prison releases are increasing, but admissions are increasing more.

Men still far outnumber women in prisons and jails, but the female population is growing faster. Over the past year, the female population in state or federal prison increased 2.6 per cent while the number of male inmates rose 1.9 per cent. By year's end, 7 per cent of all inmates were women. The gender figures do not include inmates in local jails.

"Today's figures fail to capture incarceration's impact on the thousands of children left behind by mothers in prison," Marc Mauer, the executive director of the Sentencing Project, a Washington-based group supporting criminal justice reform, said in a statement. "Misguided policies that create harsher sentences for nonviolent drug offenses are disproportionately responsible for the increasing rates of women in prisons and jails."

From 1995 to 2003, inmates in federal prison for drug offences have accounted for 49 per cent of total prison population growth.

The numbers are from the annual report from the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics. The report breaks down inmate populations for state and federal prisons and local jails.

Racial disparities among prisoners persist. In the 25-29 age group, 8.1 per cent of black men - about one in 13 - are incarcerated, compared with 2.6 per cent of Hispanic men and 1.1 per cent of white men. And it's not much different among women. By the end of 2005, black women were more than twice as likely as Hispanics and over three times as likely as white women to be in prison.

Certain states saw more significant changes in prison population. In South Dakota, the number of inmates increased 11 per cent over the past year, more than any other state. Montana and Kentucky were next in line with increases of 10.4 per cent and 7.9 per cent, respectively. Georgia had the biggest decrease, losing 4.6 per cent, followed by Maryland with a 2.4 per cent decrease and Louisiana with a 2.3 per cent drop.

"How many of those incarcerated are American citizens? A goodly portion of them are Mexican criminals."

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, there were 91,117 non citizens in our state and federal prisons at midyear in 2005. That does not include county jails, only prisons.

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t6422005.pdf

There were a little over 1.4 million in state and federal prisons then, and again that figure does not include those in county jails, city jails, etc., only those in actual penitentiaries.

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t6132005.pdf

I couldn't find the 2005 numbers with respect to how many Hispanics in general were in our prisons, but I did find the 2003 numbers. In 2003 there was a little over 1.3 million people in state and federal prisons (not jails). Of that 1.3 million, 203,700 were listed as Hispanic. Most were probably actually citizens because in 2005 only a little over 91,000 of over 1.4 million locked up in state and federal prisons were non citizens.

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t634.pdf

"In simple terms, about three and one eighth percent of us have been caught misbehaving and convicted."

No, that is the percentage currently incarcerated or under some sort of post conviction supervision. A much higher percentage of Americans have been "caught misbehaving and convicted."

"The demographics might prove enlightening."

I'll give you a link to the 2003 race demographics I that is what you are getting at. More blacks were in prisons than whites, and less than half as many Hispanics were in prison than whites.

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t634.pdf

This link shows the percentage of woman incarcerated in our prisons (not jails) compared to men from 1925 through 2004:

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t6282004.pdf
*This one will also shows how our incarceration rate and total number of people in prison has grown over the decades.

This one shows demographic stats for jails as opposed to prisons:

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t6172005.pdf

Across the board, incarceration rates are higher for blacks and Hispanics than whites. I personally don't think people of different races can be inherently more criminal than those of other races. I think it probably has more to do with poverty and socioeconomic status. Certainly not all poor people are criminals, but there is just about always more crime in the more impoverished areas than in other areas. It's like that everywhere and it's always been like that. I work in a predominantly white county and here most everyone arrested and convicted and incarcerated is white. Most all of them tend to be poor too. About 80% of those arrested end up with public defenders, and more than that actually qualify for public defenders but some of them scrape up money somehow to hire a lawyer. Those who don't qualify for public defenders still don't tend to be rich by any means. Only a tiny percentage have plenty of money to hire the best lawyers and so on. I think that the reason we see so much racial disparity is that a much higher percentage of blacks and Hispanics are poor folks, and also some of it really does come from the fact that people of these races are targeted more by police than whites. That does happen. I've worked in the criminal justice system for many years and I can see what is going on. Some of it is racism, and some of it is just "good fishing." If an officer pulls over a car load of young black males he's much more likely to find guns, drugs, or someone with an outstanding warrant than if he pulls over a car load of white boys. In my county you don't see that many car loads of young black males, but police know that if they pull over a group of young whites they know to be from the rougher parts of town the likelihood of making an arrest goes way up. It's the same principle at play.

I'm all for hard labor...but this is what I found:

NIJ evaluation studies consistently showed that boot camps did not reduce recidivism regardless of whether the camps were for adults or juveniles or whether they were first-generation programs with a heavy military emphasis or later programs with more emphasis on treatment.
Most of the research suggested that the limitations of boot camps prevented them from reducing
recidivism or prison populations, even as they achieved other goals. These limitations mostly resulted from—
* The length of stay
* Insufficient preparation of boot camp inmates for reentry into the community.
* Conflicting or unrealistic goals or mandates set by
State legislatures.
* The absence of a strong underlying treatment
model.

(1993 NIJ Report) http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/197018.pdf

From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_camps
"However, altogether there are no research findings in favour of boot camps in light of any of the initial intentions. Recidivism rates in the US among former prison inmates and boot camp participants are roughly the same. Yet, the effects of boot camps are controversially disputed, some surveys claiming lower re-offence rates, others showing no change as compared to persons serving normal time. Surveys also show different results concerning the reduction of costs. Critics add, that the emphasis on authority can only result in frustration, resentment, anger, short temper, a low self-esteem and aggression rather than respect. According to a report in the New York Times there have been 30 known deaths of youths in US boot camps since 1980."

The shortage of landfill space was a crisis invented to sell the notion of recycling in the US. The shortage of prison space is somewhat more real, but still solvable and no real crisis.

The first step would be to provide adequate deterrent and punishment for minor, non-dangerous offenses (assuming we could agree on what these are) without prison. Why should we let Malaysia and now Equador take the lead on alternative punishments? Whipping and the stocks were used at the time of the signing of the Constitution, and we should bring them back. And if it's a "living" document, and we can use other nations' jurisprudence for precedent (Singapore, Equador), we don't even have to worry about the history of it.

Second, it is not that hard to build more prisons. Don't be swayed by statistics on what other countries do. Before long, we would be listening to Jimmy Carter or the UN if we go that route. Look at what works, what needs to be done, and just do it. If our prison statistics are so barbaric the world is astounded, why do some many citizens of these other countries keep trying to get here so fast? Did the criminals running in the streets of their home countries drive them out?

"Whipping and the stocks were used at the time of the signing of the Constitution, and we should bring them back."

Public whipping isn't coming back. I don't think it would be such a bad thing. I'd much rather have thirty lashes than thirty days in jail. I just don't think the public would accept whipping or the stocks in this day and age.

"If our prison statistics are so barbaric the world is astounded, why do some many citizens of these other countries keep trying to get here so fast?"

Because the U.S. is an economic powerhouse full of opportunity? Look, if prison was so damned effective then why is it our crime rate tends to be on the high side for large modern nations? Why is it so many other nations have much lower crime rates yet they imprison a far smaller percentage of their people and don't engage in things like public whipping, etc., or even the death penalty? (I'm not opposed to the death penalty, by the way.) I don't know that it is barbaric for us to imprison a larger percentage of our population than any other country in the world. I just think think it is incredibly expensive and perhaps wasteful and likely to cause more problems than it solves. I think we could reduce our incarceration rates without seeing any major spike in crime. We could even reduce crimes against innocent people if we were better at targeting those offenders likely to commit these crimes again and locking them up much longer than we do today. I think we should take a more scientific approach instead of passing so many new laws guided by emotion. We should gather data and analyze it. Look at those who harm others and try to determine which ones are most likely to reoffend and beef up their sentences accordingly. Use statistics, use psychological evaluations, develop and use risk profiles, etc., to help in determining appropriate sentences designed to offer maximum protection to our communities without costing us an arm and a leg. If we would use a lot more science and a lot less emotion and politics in developing our criminal laws we could cut our prison populations and reduce crime at the same time.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.