360degrees

It seems obvious to me that only the most violent offenders should be locked away in cells. I am certain the public would feel the same way if they were given information about punishments other than prison. This means quality information about sentencing options.

The crime control impact of the "Three Strikes" law has long been overstated by its proponents. Crime in California was declining before the "Three Strikes" law was passed and has continued to decline in California and nationally. In fact, crime has declined more in states without "Three Strikes" laws than it has in states with "Three Strikes" laws.

There is an urgent need for better "sorting" — deciding which people convicted of crimes should go to prison and which should be sanctioned in other ways. This is due to the continued growth of incarceration in the state and federal prisons....

I disagree with the so-called better sorting. The sorting system is another methodology for incarceration and with this methodology we are saying that incarceration is the answer. In addition, by sending people to prison we are also saying that something is wrong with them as individuals, and we are no taking into consideration the social, political, criminal justice, and educational structures in our capitalist economy that incubate and produce socio- pathology. Our political leaders, the media, law enforcement officers, and government officials continue to promote fairy stories about crime by victimizing the victims. Again, a class analysis tells us that poor people are the ones being incarcerated. No wonder the prisoners struggle is a class struggle. Let me clarify that I am not promoting the incarceration of rich people instead. What I am saying is that it is time that we recognize that in our neo-liberalism era our criminal justice system has become a socio-political problem by itself. One step in starting a democratic transformation is to move into humanistic alternatives to incarceration. Let not ask how can we continue incarcerating people; let us ask instead, how can we stop incarcerating them.

The basic assumptions about what role the criminal justice system plays in protecting society from criminals and criminality needs to be re-examined; from the apprehension of suspects, through the courts, and the subsequent penalties for criminal behaviors. Because the criminal justice system is composed of self-monitoring components (law enforcement, adjudication and detention), other public and private resources need to be included in constructing the most effective responses to crime and the treatment of criminals in our society. The "urgent need for better sorting" is just an indicator of the overall need to re-assess how the criminal justice system can better utilize taxpayer dollars for the public's safety, crime reduction, and crime prevention. Any profitable business or institution concerned about its products routinely conduct on-going evaluations to monitor the quality of services and ways to improve them, as needed.

360exchange — Question 2

Ellen Halbert It seems obvious to me that only the most violent offenders should be locked away in cells. I am certain the public would feel the same way if they were given information about punishments other than prison. This means quality information about sentencing options. In a perfect world, sorting decisions should be made by the community. Here in Austin, Texas, we have two such programs: our Circle Sentencing Accountability Project and our Neighborhood Conference Committees. In these processes, the victim, offender and community members come together to decide how that offender can best repay his victim and his community. These processes build community, give victims a voice that they will never have in the regular criminal justice system and hold the offender accountable. (I could go on, but only have 200 words!) When community programs aren't available, I feel those decisions can best be made by the courts. However, in order for those kinds of decisions to really work, courts should have many, many well funded options available. This hasn't happened. Across the nation, we see millions (and billions) of dollars being spent on prisons and what it takes to run them, while money for community corrections shrinks.
Vinnie Schiraldi The crime control impact of the "Three Strikes" law has long been overstated by its proponents. Crime in California was declining before the "Three Strikes" law was passed and has continued to decline in California and nationally. In fact, crime has declined more in states without "Three Strikes" laws than it has in states with "Three Strikes" laws. Within California, a county-by-county statewide analysis of "Three Strikes" showed that counties which used the "Three Strikes" law most frequently had smaller drops in crime than those which used the law less frequently. Sacramento County, for example, sent several times as many offenders to prison under "Three Strikes" as San Francisco, but San Francisco's crime rate has dropped more precipitously than Sacramento's. Juvenile crime has dropped more in California since "Three Strikes'" passage (1994) than adult crime, even though "Three Strikes" does not apply to juveniles. There were a great many demographic and other factors which contributed to the decline in crime in California. Unemployment has been cut nearly in half, and the state has passed several gun laws designed to reduce gun homicides, including one of the nation's first assault- weapons bans. But some self-aggrandizing politicians have made a career of touting "Three Strikes" as the cure-all for crime, despite volumes of data to the contrary. No one should expect that facts and hard data will dissuade those politicians on an issue like "Three Strikes" which has more value to them as a political tool than as a crime-control mechanism.
Mario Reyes There is an urgent need for better "sorting" — deciding which people convicted of crimes should go to prison and which should be sanctioned in other ways. This is due to the continued growth of incarceration in the state and federal prisons.... The Legislature and the Governor are implementing a plan to address this issue.... They have chosen policy options that they believe are both cost effective and minimize the risk to public safety. The three policy or programmatic changes are: Require offenders currently sent to state prison (and then kept under state parole supervision) to instead be punished at the local level. Examples include (1) shifting from state to local government the punishment for specified offenses such as petty theft with a prior, (2) keeping in county custody those inmates with less than specified time to serve instead of sending them to state prison and (3) eliminating state parole supervision for nonviolent offenders, placing them instead under county parole. Change the amount of time certain inmates serve in prison. Examples include increasing good time / work credits so that inmates are released earlier, and releasing certain inmates over age 60 to home or medical detention programs. Offer more programs and services that would reduce the recidivism of inmates.. Examples include offering proven drug treatment programs to more inmates and improving inmate work and education programs. The changes in the policies would reduce the inmate population by varying amounts thereby resulting in differing amounts of savings in prison construction and operations as well as providing safety and security for the public as well as the inmates.
Luis Barrios I disagree with the so-called better sorting. The sorting system is another methodology for incarceration and with this methodology we are saying that incarceration is the answer. In addition, by sending people to prison we are also saying that something is wrong with them as individuals, and we are no taking into consideration the social, political, criminal justice, and educational structures in our capitalist economy that incubate and produce socio- pathology. Our political leaders, the media, law enforcement officers, and government officials continue to promote fairy stories about crime by victimizing the victims. Again, a class analysis tells us that poor people are the ones being incarcerated. No wonder the prisoners struggle is a class struggle. Let me clarify that I am not promoting the incarceration of rich people instead. What I am saying is that it is time that we recognize that in our neo-liberalism era our criminal justice system has become a socio-political problem by itself. One step in starting a democratic transformation is to move into humanistic alternatives to incarceration. Let not ask how can we continue incarcerating people; let us ask instead, how can we stop incarcerating them.
Carl Johnson, Jr. The basic assumptions about what role the criminal justice system plays in protecting society from criminals and criminality needs to be re-examined; from the apprehension of suspects, through the courts, and the subsequent penalties for criminal behaviors. Because the criminal justice system is composed of self-monitoring components (law enforcement, adjudication and detention), other public and private resources need to be included in constructing the most effective responses to crime and the treatment of criminals in our society. The "urgent need for better sorting" is just an indicator of the overall need to re-assess how the criminal justice system can better utilize taxpayer dollars for the public's safety, crime reduction, and crime prevention. Any profitable business or institution concerned about its products routinely conduct on-going evaluations to monitor the quality of services and ways to improve them, as needed. The mechanisms for "sorting" already exist within the criminal justice systems (i.e. misdemeanors / felonies, court assessments, sentencing structures) but are fragmented by the specific responsibilities of each agency. The police are concerned about arrests, the district attorney's office with convictions, and jurists with sentencing.There are other auxiliary resources (i.e. legal, medical, mental health, social workers, family, employers, etc.) involved in a "defendant's" contact with the criminal justice system. Their collective assessments of an "defendant" can provide insights useful to the court's decision-making process. The predominant concern of any "sorting" decisions for people convicted of crimes, violent or non-violent, should be made in the best interests of the public's safety. The very nature of most felony offenses deem them as punishable crimes. This may not necessarily be true with misdemeanor convictions or first time offenders, who merit alternatives to incarceration. Whatever "sorting" decisions are made for convicted people, they all should be mandated to participate in a therapeutic process that addresses the criminal behaviors inherent in their lawbreaking. An individual's self-accountability for social responsibility is a "sorting" mechanism that will have a long-term effect on inmate recidivism and crime reduction.