360degrees

Luis Barrios

The United States population comprises only 5 percent of the total world population; however, our prison population constitutes 25 percent of the total world's prison population. Current discussions about "crime reduction" have incorrectly attributed the decrease to the incarceration process, not taking into consideration community restorative justice programs that are playing a significant role in reducing crime by providing and teaching mediation, conflict resolution, and alternatives to violence. We also need to acknowledge the work that communities of faith are making in crime reduction. It must also be acknowledged that some of the "gangs" are transforming their collectivity, moving away from crime and becoming street organizations. While many factors have contributed to the apparent reduction in violent crimes, crimes against women and against gay/lesbian/bi-sexual/transgender have not decreased.

Our capitalist society fosters a criminal justice system that responds to the interest of a ruling class. Economic agendas control the prison business, which arrests, prosecutes, and incarcerates people meeting a specific racial/ethnic/class profile. This explains the racial/ethnic disproportion of incarceration for Latinos and Blacks. However, crimes of the ruling class, such as corporate or state crime, are less prosecuted than street crime. The statement that in the United States "poor people go to prison and rich people get richer" is certainly true.

360exchange — Question 1

Luis Barrios The United States population comprises only 5 percent of the total world population; however, our prison population constitutes 25 percent of the total world's prison population. Current discussions about "crime reduction" have incorrectly attributed the decrease to the incarceration process, not taking into consideration community restorative justice programs that are playing a significant role in reducing crime by providing and teaching mediation, conflict resolution, and alternatives to violence. We also need to acknowledge the work that communities of faith are making in crime reduction. It must also be acknowledged that some of the "gangs" are transforming their collectivity, moving away from crime and becoming street organizations. While many factors have contributed to the apparent reduction in violent crimes, crimes against women and against gay/lesbian/bi-sexual/transgender have not decreased. Our capitalist society fosters a criminal justice system that responds to the interest of a ruling class. Economic agendas control the prison business, which arrests, prosecutes, and incarcerates people meeting a specific racial/ethnic/class profile. This explains the racial/ethnic disproportion of incarceration for Latinos and Blacks. However, crimes of the ruling class, such as corporate or state crime, are less prosecuted than street crime. The statement that in the United States "poor people go to prison and rich people get richer" is certainly true.
Ellen Halbert As a nation, we are inundated with stories about crime from the printed media and the litany of real crime dramas that permeates our television viewing. Because of this, our society feels that most of the crime that is committed is violent, and people are afraid. It isn't the fear of crime itself that is so frightening; it is the fear of violent crime. However, the truth is violent crime comprises only a small fraction of overall crime. The majority of our crime is nonviolent, and it is that offender who has fueled the most rapid expansion of a prison population in the history of the free world. For example, here in Texas our prison beds have zoomed from around 50,000 in the early 90's to 150,000 in 2000, and almost 80 percent of those beds are filled with nonviolent offenders. Even if the study written about in the New York Times is true, it neglects to mention other costs. The human costs to families split apart and children without parents. And the money that goes to building prisons isn't available for schools, universities, parks, job training, highways.....the list is endless. It is a travesty that we continue to throw our money at the wrong end of the criminal justice system. There are many less expensive nonprison, community-based sanctions for offenders that can be more effective than locking them in a cell. However, those kinds of options are often ignored for the more appealing, vote-getting stance of "getting tough on crime."
Carl Johnson, Jr. The existing state and federal criminal justice policies cannot be justified when the population targeted for enormous prison growth is mostly minority groups, drug addicts, homeless people and the mentally ill. The question in need of study is how do our state and federal criminal justice and government officials define "real" crimes, and what is the most effective way to increase the public's safety from "real" criminals. The level of criminal activity at any given time is unpredictable, and most studies of criminal behavior are reactive. In the best interest of the public's safety, now and in the future, it is way past time to implement effective social justice policies, focused on legitimate rehabilitation in prisons and crime prevention in schools. It is obvious to all by now that prison is not a deterrent to crime. Any other public or private institution costing the taxpayers 40 billion a year, along with other financial and societal costs, certainly deserves more scrutiny about the role it plays in crime reduction. There are many proven and considerably less costly alternatives to incarceration, which have been successful in reducing crime. These resources, outside of the state and federal criminal justice systems, need to be included in all our efforts to combat crime in our society.
Mario Reyes Does the growth of incarceration and the significant drop in crime in 1990 justify a prison building boom that has accounted for 5 percent to 25 percent of the 10 year decline in crime? Does this justify state and federal criminal justice policies that cause the number of Americans behind bars to approach 2 million? According to the CDC biannual spring 1997 population projections, the state prison inmate population will grow from its current level of almost 150,000 to 242,000 by June 2006. The reason for the growth of incarceration is due to the trend of about 10,000 inmates per year that has continued since the mid 1980s with little interruption. The growth is mostly due to the result of recidivism, the new admissions from the courts, and since Mar. 7, 1994, the "Three Strikes and You're Out Law". Other minor contributing factors are the closing down of state mental hospitals, immigration holds and minors being convicted of an adult crime.... According to the Legislative Analyst Office, May 20, 1997, the California Department of Corrections attempted to choose options that we believe are both cost-effective and minimize the risks to public safety. Our approach includes measures that (1) are likely to decrease recidivism through enhancement of work programs and substance abuse treatment programs, (2) shift certain groups of offenders to incarceration or supervision in the community, and (3) change sentencing laws for certain nonviolent and non-serious offenses carrying relatively short terms so that these individuals are punished at the local level instead of being placed in state prison. None of the elements of our plan would involve amendment of the Three Strikes law enacted by the Legislature and the voters. We estimate that adopting our plan would save the state about $1.6 billion in one-time capital outlay costs for new prisons and $700 million in annual operating costs for the CDC by 2005-6. (This estimate assumes state financial assistance for county supervision of state parolees. Annual savings would be offset further to the extent the state provides additional funding for local entities.) Average annual growth in operating costs for the CDC would be reduced from 7.4 percent (assuming no policy change) to 6.1 percent -- an amount that would still exceed overall General Fund revenue growth (assuming moderate economic growth in California over this time period). One major benefit at the state level from implementing our plan would be to reduce the considerable impacts on the CDC operations resulting from large inflows and outflows of inmates. In 1995-96, the total inmate population grew by about 10,000. Over the entire year, however, CDC took in almost 127,000 inmates and released 117,000 inmates. These huge flows through the system create a significant challenge for the department in performing such functions as classification, placement, transportation, and employment of inmates. To the extent that our recommendations reduce the number of offenders who are sent to prison for very short time periods, this drain on the department operations would be less. My opinion: We the people voted for the Three Strikes You're Out Law, Minors being Convicted of an adult crime, etc. As a result of our vote, the crime rate has decreased, the prison system is becoming overly crowded with inmates, which is causing the state to purchase more prisons to accommodate this fact. The stateā and federal jobs are the safety and security of the public as well as the inmates. I feel that we the state and federal department of corrections are upholding our obligations and then some. Now, is what we are doing justifiable? Yes. Personally, as a society, I feel that we need to aggressively get back to the basics and install more family values, contribute more to our communities to help lower the criminal activity in our society. By doing this along with the state implementing the plan to reduce inmates, population will bring a significant decrease in the growth of the inmate population.
California Secretary of State Bill Jones For too long the criminal justice system contained so many loopholes that criminals never believed they would actually be required to serve the sentences ascribed to specific crimes. The deterrent value of the potential penalties was virtually non-existent to the criminal on the streets. When California voters passed the Three Strikes law in 1994, the message to career criminals was clear: "Straighten up," "Go to Jail," or "Leave the State." The result has been the largest drop in crime for any state in the nation over the last six years. Since 1993, California's crime rate has dropped 41% while the rest of the country has only seen a 19% decline. The best part about the decline in California's crime rate is that much of the reduction was accomplished through deterrence and the targeting and incarceration of the state's most prolific offenders -- without new prison construction. When the Three Strikes law was passed, officials projected prison population would increase 52% by 1998. Because of the deterrent value of the law, the growth rate was only half of the projected increase and earlier this year the total number of inmates in California prisons started to decline for the first time in recent history. To achieve the full deterrent value that tough sentences provide, policy makers must have sufficient prison capacity to ensure that convicted criminals serve the full sentences they are given. When the criminal culture understands that the revolving prison door is closed, we will see the value of deterrence.
Vinnie Schiraldi I think we need to seriously question how much of the drop in crime is attributable to the increase in incarceration in the first place, and what we could have done with that money in the second, in order to answer this question. For example, during the 1990s, the Texas incarceration rate grew at the highest rate of any state and twice the national average. The New York State incarceration rate grew at a rate which was the third smallest in the country. So, from a crime control standpoint, if prisons are the answer to crime, Texas should have mightily outshone New York. Not so. Although Texas added five times as many people to its prisons as New York did during the 1990s, New York's crime rate dropped 26% more than Texas' did. Texas currently experiences a crime rate which is 30% higher than New York's even though its incarceration rate is 80% higher than New York's. The problem with the way we discuss the connection between imprisonment and crime is that it's always discussed in extremes -- should we spend the money on prisons or dump it in the Atlantic Ocean. Of course, the answer to whether spending billions more on prisons need to be rephrased -- compared to what? In California, voters will be able to decide on an initiative in November which will divert 37,000 non-violent persons convicted on drug possession from California's prisons and jails into treatment. The California Legislative Analysts' Office estimates that this initiative -- Proposition 36 -- will save between $150 - $200 million dollars a year, $120 million of which will got to create a drug treatment "superfund" to treat diverted drug offenders. So taking money and carefully selected prisoners out of prison and putting them into treatment would, in both the long and the short run, reduce crime at greater rates that funneling that money into costly and debilitating prisons.