JAIL OVERCROWDING - Sheriffs estimate anywhere from 50-90 percent of inmates held on drug charges

KFDX ^

[chance33_98]

JAIL OVERCROWDING

County jails across Oklahoma are overcrowded, and drugs are getting the blame. Sheriffs across the state estimate anywhere from 50 to 90 percent of their inmates are being held on drug charges, and methamphetamine seems to be the drug of choice. The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation says the state is making more meth arrests per capita, than any other state in the union.

[chance33_98]

The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation says the state is making more meth arrests per capita, than any other state in the union.

In Oklahoma? A surprise to me.

[chance33_98]

bump to the list

[ThreeYearLurker]

Are the inmates being held in Oklahoma jails, convicted of breaking Oklahoma's laws?

Yes?

If so, then they deserve to be there.

[caisson71]

Get out those tents!

[chance33_98]

If so, then they deserve to be there.

Agreed.

[maximus@Nashville]

Congradulations to the OBI. As the said in Vietnam, "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out"

[CecilRhodesGhost]

As a shareholder in several leading US prison-industry stocks, I am totally in favor of tough sentences, three-strike rules, etc. People need to start seeing prisons as economic-development for their states and local communities, and not some wishy-washy place to "reform" society's outcasts. The War on Drugs is a not getting as much headline space in America now, but it remains a steady cash stream for so many areas during the current economic uncertainties. Jail over-crowding should be answered not with the whines of reformers or the demands of pot-smoking criminal elements.... but rather with the tapping of more carpenter hammers and nails as more prisons are constructed.

[eno_]

You're serious? I would agree if the crimes were repeat property crimes and violent crimes. I'm all in favor of three strikes. But the drugs-cause-crime thing is way out of whack when 90% of prisoners, or even 50% of prisoners are there on a drug rap. We already have a huge prison population. We need to be able to focus on real criminals that have an effect on honest people's lives. I have no desire to pay a duggie's room and board if I don't have a reason to.

[Odyssey-x]

Maybe we should use all that Prison labor for public works projects. It's better than raising taxes. Heck, Stalin built the whole soviet industrial infrastructure in 10 years using mostly gulag labor. Think what we could accomplish! Besides, you can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs. Come to think of it, I don't think we're arresting enough people. I think the cops are letting people off to easily. We should also copy the soviets by having quotas of people they have to arrest. They already have that now for traffic tickets in some locals, why not for drug crimes?

BTW, that was sarcasm.

[maximus@Nashville]

The explosion of violent and property crimes are based on the need for drug-money. I would be in favor of making sure that no drugs get into the prisons, to give the inmates a chance to dry-out and kick the habit. If that could be done during thier first incarciration, there would not be so many going back to jail.

[eno_]

Read the threads on FR regarding crime and police effectiveness. Numerous instances where police can't be bothered with property crime. Here, you have a prison system that might be 90% full of drug cases. Clearly, there will be some overlap between drug users and habitual criminals, maybe a high overlap, but at this incarceration rate, we are obviously leaving sober theives and muggers on the street.

This is why I am in favor of three-strikes laws, AND I'm in favor of ending the War on (some) Drugs: We might have too much prison space, and it is being used up to house minor drug cases. We might have too little prison space, and we need to build more. But we will not know which it is until we put people in prison for violent and property crime, not drug crime. And we can only do that by allocating our police and court and prison resources to that task. Drug busts are too easy. They soak up resources without producing a known result.

Lastly, there is no benefit to me to put an addict who is not otherwise a criminal - or even a dealer when you come down to it - in prison if they are not stealing from me or robbing me. This might meet someone's idea of a social agenda, but why should I pay for this?

[eno_]

They already have [quotas] now for traffic tickets in some locals, why not for drug crimes?

Be careful what you joke about, it may turn out to be fact.

[DETAILER]

You're serious? I would agree if the crimes were repeat property crimes and violent crimes. I'm all in favor of three strikes. But the drugs-cause-crime thing is way out of whack when 90% of prisoners, or even 50% of prisoners are there on a drug rap. We already have a huge prison population. We need to be able to focus on real criminals that have an effect on honest people's lives. I have no desire to pay a duggie's room and board if I don't have a reason to.

I have to disagree - most people who end up in jail have been arrested numreous times already. Sentenced to probation, community service, etc., over and over again. Or got suspended sentences and probation when they should have actually been locked up. These are also the people that are stealing honest people blind. I'm 30 something and have already been burglarized on four separate occasions. And one of them I was actually in the house sleeping. Pretty damn quit burglar. The majority of these people are stealing and destroying property to break in - for their drug habits. Lock them up!

[eno_]

But the result would be the same for you - maybe even better - if the perps who broke in to your place were sent away on a three strikes law.

Did the cops take a report? Ever hear anything about your property? Get anything back? Ever hear of the burglars being arrested? Or did they have "more serious" crimes to attend to? Ever consider that a drug habit might get you sent to rehab, whereas if you have no excuse for being a burglar you go to jail? Sure there are addicts that steal, but there are addicts that don't, and thieves that are sober. How sure are you that the people stealing from you are in jail on drug charges (think about that one a minute)? Wouldn't you prefer to live in a world where your burglary was top of the list instead of taking a quick trip to the corner to bust the small-time dealer standing there?

[NC_Libertarian]

They've got a meth EPIDEMIC going on right now in OK.

Prohibition doesn't work. Meth, along with crack, are symptoms of the drug war. They would not exist as we see them otherwise.

Meth is particularly difficult to control. Right now you could do a search on the internet, take a trip to wal-mart and purchase a few hundred dollars worth of supplies, and make hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of meth, this afternoon. And you could be done before dinner time.

It's time we wisened up on drug policy. These enforcement dollars are being utterly wasted while countless lives continue to be destroyed.

[NC_Libertarian]

Are the inmates being held in Oklahoma jails, convicted of breaking Oklahoma's laws?

Yes?

If so, then they deserve to be there.

The point is, we have finite resources.

[NC_Libertarian]

I fully support tough-on-real crimes measures. But drug prohibition creates so many problems (including real crime), while solveing nothing - and in fact makeing the problem worse.

If you care about anything more then your portfolio's bottom line, consider we should be using our prisons to lock up violent offenders for life, without parole.

Murder, rape, armed robbery? Life, no questions, no parole.

Bar fight? 20 years.

Cruelty to animals? Life.

Beating your wife? Suspended sentence.

But the point is we need to be tougher on the violent, and smarter with our drug policy.

[eno_]

"But the point is we need to be tougher on the violent, and smarter with our drug policy."

Bingo. Now, we do not even know the basic parameters of the crime problem, mostly due to the WoD: because of the WoD, most property crime goes unsolved. How many burglars are there? How many are habitual repeat crimminals? Would three strikes PLUS an effective police emphasis on burglary put a big dent in burglaries? Until we free up the police and the courts and the prisons to try this, who could possibly know!

I wonder if there is a scorecard on police effectiveness: Crime rate vs. arrest rate vs. incarceration rate vs. drug busts. I bet it would be very informative.

[DETAILER]

I'm all for people with drug problems getting all the help they can.... my problem is the ones that are robbing and mugging and whatever, in order to support a drug habit. And these people have generally had many opportunities to get help if they wanted it. By the time someone has got enough of a record to go to jail, they probably deserve it.

And no, I never got any of my stuff back, the police had me come down to the station to fill out the report, and to my knowledge no one has ever been arrested... I need to get me a big dog.

[eno_]

Actually, I don't really care if they "get help" or not as long as they are not robbing me. By definition, the ones in jail are not the ones robbing you? WOuld they rob you? Who knows, and we'll never find out 'till the cops take a break from drug busts to find and bust your burglars. You could get lucky and your burglars get busted for dope, but what are the odds of that? The clearance rate for burglaries shows the odds must be pretty bad. What I'm saying is bust the burglars. If there is 100% overlap between burglars and addicts, well, the same people end up in jail. But I would bet that if you want to stop burglary, arresting burglars is more productive than arresting drug users.