|
The report is very misleading, because it doesn't say that one in 100 adults are in prison for long-term sentences. It says that they are in either prison or jail. Most of the people who are in jail are being held there on a short-term basis. In fact, most of the people who are in jail haven't even been convicted of anything yet. Most of the people who are in jail are people who were arrested for domestic violence, or shoplifting, or DUI, or more serious crimes, and who haven't been able to make bail, and are waiting for their arraignment or trial.
You could change that 1-100 ratio very dramatically by simply letting many of those people out of jail pending trial, but the question is, "Which ones are you going to release?" Should we release the wifebeaters, so they can go home and finish the job? Should we release the shoplifters, so they can go back to the department stores and shoplift enough so that they can pay a good lawyer? Should we release the DUIs or the more serious felons, such as armed robbers, murderers, rapists? Of course not. So, when people claim that in America we jail too many people, nobody has an acceptable plan for deciding which people ought to be held in jail and which ones ought to be released. The best method we have is to take each and every arrested person before a judge, and furnish the judge with complete information about the person and the alleged crime, and let the judge decide whether the person can be safely released pending trial. Truthfully, there probably is no better system available.
After people are convicted, they are either sentenced to pay a fine or perform community service, or to be incarcerated. Minor criminals usually go to a county workhouse or similar facility (where they serve short terms from a few days to a few months), and serious felons usually go to a prison (where they serve a period of years).
Should we stop incarcerating DUIs for from 3 to 30 days, or repeat shoplifters for 10 days, or wife beaters for 30 days? Most people would say those penalties are usually reasonable and should be served.
If we limit our discussion only to people who are being held in prison for serious felonies, which ones should we release? Should we release the armed robbers, or the rapists or the arsonists, or the murderers. Logically you could make a case for releasing the white collar criminals, because they aren't violent crimes, but, would that be acceptable to most people? Probably not. My point is that it is very easy to look at the numbers and claim that we're incarcerating too many people, but it's much more difficult to decide where exactly to reduce the numbers.
There is a myth that lots of folks are being sent to long terms in prisons for possession of a single marijuana cigarette, but that's all it is - a myth. That happened occasionally in "the old days," but even then it didn't happen often. Nowadays, the penalty in most states for mere possession of a single marijuana cigarette simply wouldn't allow a judge to impose such a sentence, or anything remotely resembling it. In my state, which I believe is very typical, it's a $100. fine with no possibility of incarceration, and it's considered a civil offense, rather than a criminal offense. You don't go to jail. You pay the fine at the window. The drug offenses that are most likely to draw long sentences are ones involving sale, or possession for sale.
All the most knowledgeable judges and lawyers and government officials and community activists and educators in the field of corrections have been looking for practicable answers to those questions throughout my lifetime, and they haven't found them yet.
This is one of those subjects where politicians like to shock people with the numbers of incarcerated people, and promise to change it, because lots of voters would like to see their tax money going to schools rather than prisons, but until somebody can answer these questions, trust me, they don't have a solution.
Last edited by Sailormon6; 04-01-2008 at 11:19 AM.
|
Connect with Facebook
