Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

1 In 32 Americans In Jail, On Parole
FOX ^ | 11/30/06 | Kasie Hunt

Posted on 11/30/2006 11:21:21 AM PST by Froufrou

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 percent over the previous year, according to a report released Wednesday.

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 percent while the number of male inmates rose 1.9 percent. By year's end, 7 percent 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 offenses have accounted for 49 percent of total prison population growth.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crime; drivebymedia; felons; left; msm; pendulumswing; sobstory; wod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-140 last
To: traviskicks
looks like federal prisoners are only a small percentage of total prisoners.

The states incarcerate many more than the feds but victimless drug crimes account for the increase in the incarceration rate for both feds and states. We have increased incarceration from 200,000 to over 2,000,000 in the last thirty years with no reduction in drug abuse or violent crime.
.
121 posted on 12/01/2006 11:17:26 AM PST by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Stone Mountain
Well, if drugs were legal, people wouldn't be jailed for possesion. And if we used a small fraction of the billions and billions of dollars we are wasting on drug enforcement right now, not to mention taxing drugs, we would have way more than enough money to help people who want treatment. Right now, if you want treatment, you are generally put on a waiting list and if you're lucky, you'll get called up. And people are reluctant to do that because they could risk going to prison. We could finance the tretment of every drug addict in the country who wanted help and have money left over from what we are wasting on the war on drugs.

You want drugs to be legal so people can use them without fear of being prosecuted. In the same breath, you want the taxpayer to cover the cost of drug treatment for those individuals. That is morally WRONG. If an individual chooses a path that causes self destruction, it is not just or reasonable to impose a penalty on the rest of society to rescue him/her from the consequences. That includes medical treatment, welfare, disability...the whole lot.

122 posted on 12/01/2006 12:12:19 PM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Stone Mountain
Really? I don't know one person who was curious about drugs who didn't try them or couldn't acquire them because they were illegal.

That says a lot about your social circle. I don't hang around with druggies, nor do I feel the need to campaign for making it easier for them to get drugs or sponge off the taxpayer to carry their dead weight when the drugs turn them into criminals or individuals who are incapable of sufficient earnings to support themselves without taxpayer assistance.

Functional addicts includes nearly every smoker. Even so, their drug addiction to nicotine results in "nickie fits" that can only be satisfied by taking a 10 minute+ "break" away from productive work multiple times a day. It was common in the 30's and 40's for unions to negotiate "smoke breaks" into contracts. People took up the addiction just to avail themselves of the contractually arranged breaks. I saw plenty of that at the phone company in the 80s.

I'm really not interested in "functional addicts". If a current employee or applicant fails a drug test, the job is over. Even unskilled labor a places like Walmart has to live up to that expectation.

123 posted on 12/01/2006 12:20:35 PM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: timer
Sci fi is prescient on many levels, but it is also pure fantasy in most cases. Try implementing something like the exploding neck rings in "Wedlock". You'll be shot down immediately. When I was young the states ran mental hospitals to care for the mentally deranged who were dangerous to themselves and society. The ACLU closed them down. It was deemed "inhumane" to incarcerate them with free medical services, clean beds, clean clothes and 3 square meals each day. They are the people we call "homeless" on the streets today. We only incarcerate them now after they have committed a felony. Sometimes they avoid prosecution because of "diminished" capacity. A short stay for "evaluation" and they are back on the streets.
124 posted on 12/01/2006 12:29:34 PM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
Really? I don't know one person who was curious about drugs who didn't try them or couldn't acquire them because they were illegal. That says a lot about your social circle,

It says nothing about my social circle. Is this what passes for argument in your world? Give me a break. Are you telling me you know people who are curious about drugs, want to try drugs, and yet they aren't for the sole reason that it is illegal? Really? REALLLLY?

I don't hang around with druggies

Me either. Nice ad hominem. Again.

nor do I feel the need to campaign for making it easier for them to get drugs or sponge off the taxpayer to carry their dead weight when the drugs turn them into criminals or individuals who are incapable of sufficient earnings to support themselves without taxpayer assistance.

This doesn't happen to the majority of drug users. but since you aren't interested in discussing functional addicts, there's really nowhere to go with this conversation. You should realize though, that the majority of people who use drugs are not addicts and it does not ruin their lives or their jobs. This isn't anecdotal evidence from "my druggie friends" (and btw, way to make a point by insulting my friends) - this is knowledge you can acquire by doing a little bit of research. But apparently, since this doesn't fit into your conception of what a drug user is, you will refuse to research it, or to learn more about what a funtional addict is. Well, I tried.

Are you able to answer my question about why heroin is so much worse than alcohol? Or are you just going to assert it like your other unsupported assertions? Oh.. and to head off your next ad hominem, I do not use, nor have I ever tried heroin nor do my friends to the best of my knowledge. I do, however, take the time to learn about these issues because they are important to our society. I can tell you aspects of heroin addiction that are much worse than alcohol and I can tell you aspects of alcohol addiction that are much worse than heroin. As far as making a judgement on which drug is "worse," that's all it is, a personal judgement call. Unless, of course, you have some objective criteria that you can explain to me that is applicable here.

Functional addicts includes nearly every smoker.

Yes. So you do admit there are functional drug addicts out there. Isn't this making MY point?

As far as passing a drug test - surely you don't believe that everyone who passes a drug test is drug-free? Or is it possible you are this naive? There are many ways to beat drug tests (again, not info from my druggie friends, but easily availble information) and for that matter, there are many companies that don't drug test at all. Deny the existence of functional hard drug addicts all you want. They're still out there.

125 posted on 12/01/2006 2:29:18 PM PST by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
You want drugs to be legal so people can use them without fear of being prosecuted.

Actually, I think drugs should be legal because I believe that everyone should have the ultimate decision in what they choose to ingest into their own body, not the government. Glad to clear this up for you.

In the same breath, you want the taxpayer to cover the cost of drug treatment for those individuals. That is morally WRONG.

It is morally wrong if you view drug addiction as a criminal problem. I view drug addiction as a medical problem. I believe that chronic alcoholics should get assistance from the government to get sober if they are so inclined to try. Why? Not because they "deserve" it. But because, it's cost-effective to treat alcoholics - they are more likely to get better paying jobs, less likely to go on welfare, and will have better health in general so they won't use emergency rooms as much, etc, etc. Same thing with drug addicts. I think it's both moral, and financially profitable for our government to supplement drug addicition recovery programs for those drug addicts who want to kick. Try, just for a minute, to visualize a drug problem as a medical condition instead of a criminal one. You don't have to agree with it - just do the thought experiment. Wouldn't it be so much more cost-effective if our government treated drug usage in this way than in the way we're doing now? Which, by the way, by pretty much all accounts, has been completely ineffective.
126 posted on 12/01/2006 2:39:24 PM PST by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

Well, the homeless question is getting somewhat off the subject. Mexico : 1970 : spent winter quarter there with architectural class(foreign field trip). Found out they don't have born-handicapped mexicans. If they are born HC papa takes them out and drowns them, buries the body like a dog. You see, mexico is such a POOR society(witness the FLOOD of illegals)that they simply can't afford people who don't pull their own weight. About the only "homeless" you'll find are in mexico city, out in the countryside it's DO...or DIE. Thus our large homeless population is a testament to our WEALTH, we are a fabulously wealthy country compared to virtually all the world. 911 was JEALOSY-driven if anything, just like the palesinian jealosy of israel. In my native Montana the average wage is around $22,000/year, and it's listed near the bottom of all states; in afghanistan it's $200/year. The poorest US state is 100 times richer than a similar ecotope in asia.


127 posted on 12/01/2006 5:53:46 PM PST by timer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Stone Mountain
I disagree with the premise that it is the responsibility of taxpayers to compensate for people who won't take personal responsibility for their lives. That includes paying attention in school so you can get a good job and not ingesting drugs to damage your body with the expectation that the government or a private institution will pay to fix the problem you caused for yourself. Being an addict is a voluntary choice. Be it tobacco, heroin, alcohol, cocaine or meth. When you make a bad choice, you should be the one who deals with the consequences...including the financial ones. If the consequences of your behavior lead to additional criminal behavior, you should be prosecuted accordingly.
128 posted on 12/01/2006 7:13:05 PM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido

I agree...I was just placed on probation here in Lake County,Il. for traffic offences(not DUI)...at my first visit to probation office....this man had my whole history, including offences when I was a juvenille.(35yrs ago) That stuff never goes away. It is with you for life.


129 posted on 12/01/2006 7:33:20 PM PST by justkillingtime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

On that particular point - fair enough - on a purely intellectual level I actually agree with you. But in real life, it doesn't work as well. It's just that I believe it's cost-effective to provide treatment to those seeking it because of the long-term financial benefits to society I mentioned. But it's not like I don't understand that argument - it just doesn't seem practical to me given the failure of the WOD so far.


130 posted on 12/01/2006 11:19:41 PM PST by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou
I'm in. Standing up, count me...

The words of a true FReeper, a great American.

131 posted on 12/02/2006 4:35:15 AM PST by the invisib1e hand (* nuke * the * jihad *)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

Especially appreciated, from someone whose opinions I find to be of great value. [bow low]


132 posted on 12/02/2006 5:42:38 AM PST by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Froufrou
bow low

I pray right now that I bow lower.

133 posted on 12/02/2006 8:20:50 AM PST by the invisib1e hand (* nuke * the * jihad *)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
The ACLU closed them down.

Not true. Public outrage closed them down. The system was being abused and innocent people were being confined and "treated". The 1975 movie, "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", raised public awareness of the problem. We are seeing the same abuses of power in the drug war.
.
134 posted on 12/02/2006 10:15:21 AM PST by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: mugs99
Public outrage closed them down. The system was being abused and innocent people were being confined and "treated". The 1975 movie, "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", raised public awareness of the problem. We are seeing the same abuses of power in the drug war.

Hollywood hyperbole closed them down. Too bad Hollywood can't be billed for the daily cost of washing urine and feces out of the doorways of businesses in downtown areas. It's a bonanza for bleeding heart liberal politicians in places like San Diego. Mild weather and a huge tax base encourage the lefty politicians to throw out the welcome mat at taxpayer expense.

135 posted on 12/02/2006 11:52:57 AM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
Hollywood hyperbole closed them down.

Hollywood hyperbole is responsible for the majority of our problems. Too many adults are as gullible as children.
.
136 posted on 12/02/2006 1:46:21 PM PST by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Rakkasan1

Point being,damn near everything is a crime now.

Not counting traffic violations, almost every person breaks the law several times each year -- business owners monthly, if not weekly. Virtually every person is a criminal.

In spite of massive lawlessness individuals and society have increasingly prospered year after year, decade to decade and generation to generation.

According to the politicians and bureaucrats each of the 3,000 new laws and regulations they create each year are necessary and are proclaimed necassary stop persons and society from running headlong to destruction. And those are just federal laws. Each State government creates about a fifth that many each year.

But the laws are being violated left and right. Obviously the new laws are unnecessary.

Valid laws prohibit the initiation of force. Such as murder, assault, rape, theft extortion, and fraud. 98% of the population doesn't violate those laws or rights to not be violated.

That's not a political choice. It's the nature of human consciousness to not violate those rights held by oneself and all other individuals.

The founding fathers never intended nor wrote a constitution that would permit the government to turn all citizens into criminals.

It has been a bipartisan affair of congress. Of the three choices, listed most to least favorable.

  1. Have your party (Republican/conservative/right or Democrat/liberal/left) party be in power.
  2. Have neither party in power. Classic liberal as known and existed at the founding of the United States. 98% of the population already abides classic liberal laws.
  3. Have the other party in power.

So long as the duopoly exists in power, lasting change for the better will never happen. A never-ending flip flop from one "evil" to another. Voting for evil always begets evil.

137 posted on 12/02/2006 2:49:09 PM PST by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

disagree with the premise that it is the responsibility of taxpayers to compensate for people who won't take personal responsibility for their lives.

Absolutely. Also absolute is that taxpayers shouldn't be responsible for paying to apprehend, process and jail persons that don't take personal responsibility to not abuse drugs.

138 posted on 12/02/2006 3:06:22 PM PST by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Zon
Also absolute is that taxpayers shouldn't be responsible for paying to apprehend, process and jail persons that don't take personal responsibility to not abuse drugs.

The discovery of drug abuse is usually secondary to a criminal offense. Drunk driving resulting in an accident. Shoplifting or burglary to acquire financial resources to pay for more drugs. Homicide when a drug deal goes bad. It is very common for our local officers to pull a vehicle over for a traffic offense. Subsequently, the driver is found to have an outstanding warrant. A search of the vehicle frequently turns up illegal drugs. Every one of those circumstances was created as a volitional act of the driver.

139 posted on 12/02/2006 4:44:46 PM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin

The discovery of drug abuse is usually secondary to a criminal offense.

I agreed with you that the taxpayer shouldn't pay for the drug abuser's rehabilitation. I stand 100% firm on that. You don't want the taxpayer to pay for the drug abusers irresponsibility of their own life, but then in the next breath you want the taxpayer to pay for drug abuser's irresponsibility for their own life.

Aside from the hypocrisy of that...

The discovery of drug abuse is usually secondary to a criminal offense. Drunk driving resulting in an accident. Shoplifting or burglary to acquire financial resources to pay for more drugs. Homicide when a drug deal goes bad.

Driving while intoxicated is an unnecessary risk to other drivers and pedestrians and that's why it is illegal -- it's a threat to other drivers. Shoplifting and burglary is a violation of property rights. Homicide is a violation of inalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

A search of the vehicle frequently turns up illegal drugs. 

Drug possession violates no persons rights.

Every one of those circumstances was created as a volitional act of the driver.

DWI, shoplifting, burglary and homicide all violate a person's individual rights.Drug possession doesn't violate another person's individual rights or inalienable rights. It appears that you're going down the road of claiming communist/socialist/group rights trumping inalienable rights.

140 posted on 12/02/2006 5:15:31 PM PST by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-140 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson