Prison reform; need quicker executions, more jails, and need to increase incarnation to reduce crime

[OldWiseGuy]

While, on paper, increasing the prison sentences sounds like it will reduce crime rates (I held that belief myself at one time), mountains of statistical evidence would show us otherwise...which is what ended up changing my mind on the subject.

The link between crime and poverty is an unmistakable one.

I'll preface my next statement with the following stat:
88% of people will end up in the same economic situation as their parents (statistically speaking)

So, if you're a young person living in the inner city, here are essentially your options.
1.) Work hard/study hard and gamble on the odds that you'll be one of the 12% that makes it out.
2.) Give up and resign to the fact that you're going to be poor.
3.) Find a way to get money through less-than-legal means.

Locking people up for longer doesn't address the underlying causes for for why they're choosing option 3 in the first place (Legitimate opportunities are limited; but they don't want to be broke)

The answer is giving them a 4th option. The countries that have given a 4th option (Free college education) have realized 40%+ reductions in their crime rates within 10 years as a result. ...and it's been done in enough countries that we can't say it's a fluke...as to where our system of over-penalizing hasn't dropped our crime rates one bit.

Free education is the one place where I stray from the libertarian platform...because, to me, if Rich Johnny with a 2.5 GPA gets to go to college because of his parents' high income debt fre, but Poor Billy with a 2.5 GPA cannot because of his parents' low income (unless he wants 10 years worth of student loans to pay back), one can't really say that Johnny and Billy had an equal chance to succeed and prosper in life.

***I made sure to mention the 2.5 GPA and the loans aspect since the typical rebuttal to this is "Well, he could've just worked hard and gotten a scholarship", or "He could've just taken on student loans" I wanted to make it apparent that we should be discussing the average scenario, and not the rare cases where a kid has such an exceptional level of intelligence that schools are knocking down there door to get them to go there for free.

I don't think this plan would work in America. If our economy recovers we will need more skilled workers than college graduates. The next best step for the 'wretched ghetto poor' isn't college, but the trades and the labor market.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't think this plan would work in America. If our economy recovers we will need more skilled workers than college graduates. The next best step for the 'wretched ghetto poor' isn't college, but the trades and the labor market.

With how many things are moving out of the manual labor realm and into the tech realm, I guess I just don't see how that can be true...coupled with the fact that there are too many other countries out there who can offer manual labor so much cheaper than we can domestically. (thus the reason companies started outsourcing to begin with)

Are you considering Tech school a "trade school"? If so, then you might be on to something.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

With how many things are moving out of the manual labor realm and into the tech realm, I guess I just don't see how that can be true...coupled with the fact that there are too many other countries out there who can offer manual labor so much cheaper than we can domestically. (thus the reason companies started outsourcing to begin with)

Are you considering Tech school a "trade school"? If so, then you might be on to something.

Absolutely. The downside for the wretched ghetto poor is that technical education is often more difficult than college.

The only logical way for our economy to recover is the return of manufacturing, which will require more 'indians' than 'chiefs' (apologies to Red Fox).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A life without parole sentence would certainly suffice to incarcerate someone deemed otherwise worthy of death in America.

60 percent of Americans disagree with you (that's the majority, for those of you in Rio Linda).

 

[Honey Parallel]

If what Obama blustered on about in at least two state of the union addresses would actually come to pass there would be hope for people who are hopeless.
Revoke the outsourcing tax credit corporations currently enjoy. Make it a tax penalty instead and that bolsters the government general fund.
Give the tax credits to those companies that return to America to manufacture and produce goods and services. Give what is now happening in New York, a few years tax free grace period to new business opening in America.

Given tax credits to those who open manufacture and give training and opportunity to the disenfranchised and the poor.

But that would require the leadership and the lawful support of people who are not enemies of this nation.

 

[Honey Parallel]

60 percent of Americans disagree with you (that's the majority, for those of you in Rio Linda).

Prove it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The only logical way for our economy to recover is the return of manufacturing

The only way I can see that happening is if they're somehow able to remove the incentive for outsourcing. Since we can't force other countries to set their prices higher, that would only leave one option...trying to legislate away outsourcing. Not an easy task to accomplish considering even the most liberal business CEO like Tim Cook of Apple would still despise the idea of not being able to get cheap Chinese labor to assemble those iPhones.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Incarceration limits the criminal to crimes within the prison. This is a good thing. Once out many reoffend, which supports incarceration as a means of reducing crime. Police routinely admit that it is the 'small fish' that they catch. The really smart crooks elude capture and continue committing all sorts of crimes.

Well, one reason many reoffend is because few people are willing to take a chance on them. Am I saying that some people would not re-offend anyway no, BUT, the fact that in northern Europe they have safer prisons, less incarceration, and less re-offending as opposed to over half re-offending, often committing WORSE crimes upon release and more rehab tells me our methods are NOT working

 

[dogs4thewin]

You are going against the powerful criminal justice establishment, and they will win.

Well, while not everywhere has a drug court they are becoming more common maybe because they have been proven to work.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Public support of the death penalty runs around 60 percent, year in and year out. If the government is listening more killers would be executed, not fewer. The delightful irony is that most people claim to be liberal, and yet support for the death penalty remains high.

Support IS decreasing, and actually at least two states have dropped the death penalty in recent years. Also the death penalty cost MORE than life without parole. Even with fewer appeals it takes TWO trials to sentence someone to death that are often long and the state paying for both teams of lawyers.

 

[Vylo]

The death penalty should be much more expedient, but should require a higher standard of certainty than reasonable doubt, and thus be used less.

Drugs should be legalized and regulated.

There should be 2 tiers of prison. The first should be run almost like a commune, where you try to rehabilitate the prisoners and get them the skills and mindset to function in society when they get released, that way they don't just turn back to a life a crime. The second tier should be for the irredeemable and life sentences, we let people like Sheriff Joe Arpaio run them. If you do like to play nice in the first tier, you get to complete your stay (and possibly even extend it!) in the second.

 

[ValleyGal]

While, on paper, increasing the prison sentences sounds like it will reduce crime rates (I held that belief myself at one time), mountains of statistical evidence would show us otherwise...which is what ended up changing my mind on the subject.

The link between crime and poverty is an unmistakable one.

I'll preface my next statement with the following stat:
88% of people will end up in the same economic situation as their parents (statistically speaking)

So, if you're a young person living in the inner city, here are essentially your options.
1.) Work hard/study hard and gamble on the odds that you'll be one of the 12% that makes it out.
2.) Give up and resign to the fact that you're going to be poor.
3.) Find a way to get money through less-than-legal means.

Locking people up for longer doesn't address the underlying causes for for why they're choosing option 3 in the first place (Legitimate opportunities are limited; but they don't want to be broke)

The answer is giving them a 4th option. The countries that have given a 4th option (Free college education) have realized 40%+ reductions in their crime rates within 10 years as a result. ...and it's been done in enough countries that we can't say it's a fluke...as to where our system of over-penalizing hasn't dropped our crime rates one bit.

Free education is the one place where I stray from the libertarian platform...because, to me, if Rich Johnny with a 2.5 GPA gets to go to college because of his parents' high income debt fre, but Poor Billy with a 2.5 GPA cannot because of his parents' low income (unless he wants 10 years worth of student loans to pay back), one can't really say that Johnny and Billy had an equal chance to succeed and prosper in life.

***I made sure to mention the 2.5 GPA and the loans aspect since the typical rebuttal to this is "Well, he could've just worked hard and gotten a scholarship", or "He could've just taken on student loans" I wanted to make it apparent that we should be discussing the average scenario, and not the rare cases where a kid has such an exceptional level of intelligence that schools are knocking down there door to get them to go there for free.

My thinking here is that poverty is linked more to crimes that do not warrant the death penalty. Isn't the death penalty a sentence only for first degree murder? Even rich people murder (think inheritance, insurance, etc). This thread is about the death penalty, not about lowering recidivism rates for people found guilty of theft, robbery, etc.

I think Vylo says it well:

but should require a higher standard of certainty than reasonable doubt, and thus be used less.

Too many people are being executed even if they are not guilty. Sometimes this means even new evidence is not accepted in order to be given a new trial - even when that evidence is overwhelming. I think those responsible for last-minute clemency decisions simply couldn't be bothered to re-try or review, or even have an independent review done. Imo, ANY execution should be preceded by an independent review such as the innocence project or other similar group. And the review should include a review of evidence that was not allowed in court for whatever reason. After all, there is likely exculpatory evidence that was not permitted simply because the evidence was not collected according to the book and therefore rendered inadmissible. Too many mistakes can be made along the way... death penalty should be used only in those rare occasions that there is overwhelming evidence to support guilt.

 

[Vylo]

Yeah, I'm talking about close to "beyond a shadow of a doubt". You would probably need a new terminology for the level of evidence.

Uncoerced, reliable confessions of the crime would be one thing that could allow this.

The Boston Bomber would be one of those who has such a mountain of evidence against him, the death penalty would be an option, just to use as an example.

 

[heatedmonk]

I can't post links yet but I think it would greatly assist everyone but the author of this post to do a little research on what they're advocating here.
Since 1971 and according to Death Penalty Info.org, 155 people that were sentenced to execution have been exonerated on appeal. Average number of years between being sentenced to death and exoneration: 11.3 years.Number of cases in which DNA played a substantial factor in establishing innocence: 20155.

America has the greatest number of incarcerated individuals of any nation on earth. First and third world included. Incarcerating more people isn't going to stop crime. Adjusting the circumstances that cause people in certain areas to resort to crime can reduce the number of inmates nationally.

 

[Vylo]

Incarcerating more people isn't going to stop crime

Very true, and neither is punishment over rehabilitation. Even in countries like Japan, where crime is much lower, they have seen huge recidivism rates similar to the US. There is a big push for them to change their methodology over to rehabilitation focused, similar to Norway.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

So, you're okay with executing innocent people?

It's bad enough that we jail innocent people, it's completely unacceptable to execute innocent people.

I'm sure that if Christ truly judges folks, he'd judge someone who promoted a system that caused innocent people to die the same way he'd judge any murderer.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Prove it.

This is a well known statistic. Look it up yourself.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Support IS decreasing, and actually at least two states have dropped the death penalty in recent years. Also the death penalty cost MORE than life without parole. Even with fewer appeals it takes TWO trials to sentence someone to death that are often long and the state paying for both teams of lawyers.

Support hangs around 60 percent. It changes a bit depending on the headlines.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

[

Support IS decreasing, and actually at least two states have dropped the death penalty in recent years.

Either two very liberal states, or done against the wishes of the citizens.

Also the death penalty cost MORE than life without parole.

If we can reduce the cost of lighting we can reduce the cost of executing (no pun intended) the death penalty.

Even with fewer appeals it takes TWO trials to sentence someone to death that are often long and the state paying for both teams of lawyers.

Sentencing criminals to death and actually carrying it out are two different things. Very few are actually put to death, which really makes it a very expensive non-issue.

 

[Foamhead]

That is exactly what I said, when did I say otherwise, I guess you didn't read what I wrote.

You come in the middle of a argument and you have no idea what is going on. People are alleging we are executing innocent people. WE ARE NOT, BECAUSE NO ONE NEEDS TO PROVE INNOCENCE. Not guilty is not the same as innocence.

Everyone is not guilty, until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no innocence in the legal system.

Not guilty does not = innocent.

I read every post in the thread and I stand by what I said. You seem to be arguing "Well...even if someones acquitted they are still probably guilty." Your views are despicable...murder to save pennies.