Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditUPDATE: Sen. Webb will introduce legislation today to overhaul the criminal justice system.
****
Our criminal justice system is broken. The US represents 5 percent of the world's population but accounts for nearly 25 percent of its prison population. We are incarcerating at a record rate with one in 100 American adults now locked up--2.3 million people overall. As a New York Times editorial stated simply, "This country puts too many people behind bars for too long."
But people who have been fighting for reform for decades are seeing new openings for change. The fiscal crisis has state governors and legislators looking for more efficient and effective alternatives to spending $50 billion a year on incarceration. At the federal level, there is reason to believe that the Obama administration and a reinvigorated Department of Justice will take a hard look at the inequities of the criminal justice system and work for a smarter and more effective approach to public safety. Finally, there are Congressional leaders--none more prominent than Senator Jim Webb --who understand that the system isn't functioning as it should and there is an urgent need for reform.
Indeed advocates for reform couldn't ask for a better standard-bearer than Senator Webb. As a decorated former Marine and Reagan Administration official no one is going to slap him with the politically-dreaded "soft on crime" label that has stymied so many Democrats who have taken on this issue in the past. There is a "Nixon goes to China" quality to Webb's call for change--a law and order man who described his reform effort as "an act not of weakness but of strength."
As a journalist Webb wrote on the need for reform after visiting Japanese prisons and seeing a fundamental fairness and effectiveness that he recognized as lacking in the US criminal justice system. As a Senator he's held hearings which have highlighted racial disparities in sentencing, the staggering costs of incarceration and effective and cost-efficient alternatives, and a futile and racially biased drug policy.
Now Senator Webb is poised to establish a commission with a broad mandate to examine issues like drug treatment, effective parole policy, racial injustice, education for inmates, reentry programs--the myriad of issues intertwined in wasteful, ineffective criminal justice policies. Look for him to lay out that mandate with specificity in the coming weeks, and make an aggressive push to bring this issue to the forefront in both Congress and the media, much as he was able to do with the GI Bill.
Webb sent me an e-mail saying, "I feel very strongly about the need to put the right people behind bars. But we're locking up the wrong people too often all across our country. Mental illness isn't a crime. Addiction isn't a crime. We need to make sharp distinctions between violent offenders and people who are incarcerated for non-violent crimes, drug abuse and mental illness. We must raise public awareness about the need for criminal justice reform and find viable solutions. My staff and I are finalizing proposed legislation that could be introduced in the next two weeks to establish a national commission that will take a comprehensive look at where our criminal justice system is broken and how we can fix it."
While it's critical that Senator Webb is raising these issues at the national level where they have received so little attention, Marc Mauer, Executive Director of The Sentencing Project, points out that 90 percent of the US prison population is incarcerated in state prisons and only 10 percent in federal prisons. Mauer said there is a growing awareness at the state level that our drug and sentencing policies have "gotten out of hand" and that the fiscal crisis presents an opportunity to do something about it.
"The fiscal crisis gives governors and legislative leaders the opening to do what many of them have known should be done for some time, but [they] didn't have a political comfort level to do it," Mauer said. "Now they can talk about issues like excessive sentences for drug offenders, and too many people being sent back to prison for technical violations of parole."
One legislative reform effort is occurring in Senator Webb's own Virginia--a state that abolished parole in 1995 and is second only to Texas in number of executions. This session, a bill will be taken up that would allow prison officials to release non-violent offenders 90 days before their sentences are up. This would primarily be achieved by offering drug treatment programs at the beginning of an individual's incarceration rather than only at the end. (Which begs the question--if we are truly serious about rehabilitation of inmates why are we only offering addicts treatment for a disease at the end of a sentence?!) Upon successful completion of the treatment program these individuals would be eligible for early release. The legislation also provides for more non-violent offenders to be sent to community-based programs or be monitored electronically rather than incarcerated.
A similar program was undertaken in Washington state and a four-year study of 2,600 inmates released early showed significant cost savings and no negative consequences in terms of recidivism. Mauer said the coalition rallying around the Virginia proposal is diverse and particularly encouraging in what has traditionally been a "tough on crime state."
Other states taking action on criminal justice reform include: Michigan which is addressing re-entry issues and shifting resources to parole officers and community-based programs; Kansas cut parole revocations by 50 percent in a two-year period by increasing oversight of parole officers and using alternatives to incarceration such as increased drug testing and electronic monitoring; California issued a court ruling this week that the state must address its failure to provide adequate health and medical services in prisons by reducing the population by a third--nearly 55,000 persons--through "shortening sentences, diverting nonviolent felons to county programs, giving inmates good behavior credits toward early release, and reforming parole."
Now is also a hopeful, unique moment in New York state where the top three political leaders all support real reform and there is a chance to repeal the wasteful, ineffective, and unjust Rockefeller-era drug laws--after thirty-five years! This week I moderated a panel --cosponsored by The Nation, the Correctional Association of New York, and The New School's Center for New York City Public Affairs--of government officials and reform leaders working to downsize prisons, reform probation and parole, and provide effective community-based prisoner reentry programs. The Correctional Association of New York is leading the "Drop the Rock" campaign that includes an Advocacy Day in Albany in March.
Greg Berman, Director of the Center for Court Innovation --a non-profit think tank in New York--said, "The question is: can we come up with meaningful, cost-effective responses to non-violent crime that do not rely on incarceration? Drug courts, mental health courts and community courts--the so-called 'problem-solving courts'--all show enormous potential. Most criminal cases are not complicated in a legal sense, but they are committed by people with complicated lives. Scratch the surface and you find addiction, mental illness, joblessness, etc. These problem-solving courts are linking offenders to drug treatment, counseling, job training in lieu of incarceration. But unlike some rehabilitation efforts in the past, they are requiring participants to return to court on a periodic basis to ensure accountability. There is a growing amount of evidence suggesting that this approach can change sentencing practice--dramatically reducing the use of jail, for example--while also reducing both substance abuse and recidivism."
Despite a fiscal crisis which has caused at least forty states to make or propose cuts in vital services like education and health care --and ample evidence of the effectiveness of alternatives to incarceration--the battle for reform on the state level is still a difficult one.
"It's far from a done deal that this will automatically lead to prison reductions," Mauer told me. "One option is to say let's reconsider sentencing policies, reduce the population, close prisons and save money. The other choice is to say let's cut out alternatives to incarceration, community-based drug treatment, and other programs, and you can see those cost savings very quickly. I think that would be a shortsighted way to go but it's going to be tempting for a lot of legislators to think about doing that. I think that's the battle that is going to be fought in different states."
That's why the effort of Senator Webb and his colleagues at the federal level is so critical. They can galvanize support for repealing unjust policies like those that treat a low-level user of crack the same as a major drug dealer, or five grams of crack the same as 500 grams of powder. They can ensure that we use needed federal dollars for public safety in smart and effective ways. For example, the Second Chance Act to provide job training, drug treatment, and other re-entry programs was passed with broad bipartisan support in 2008 but no funds have been appropriated. Finally, with Senator Webb's commission, we can begin the process of transforming our criminal justice system so that prisons are reserved for violent offenders and other vital resources are used to support alternatives like drug treatment, effective parole policies, education, and reentry programs.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
I wonder what our local ditto-heads will say about the necessity of "locking up all them goll-durn drug addicts" and not going easy on them???
Posted by Mask at 02/12/2009 @ 4:40pm
Now this isn't the Senator Webb whose earlier "acts of strength" caused him to vote for the Bush/Cheney Fisa bill last year is it? If so I'd hate to see what an act of cowardice looks like.
Posted by john lowell at 02/12/2009 @ 4:51pm
HAPPY to be right.....when I said Gregg (or any Repub) wouldn't be smart to take this job! My hat tip do go to Se. Gregg for his "Act of Strength" to admit he had erred!
OBAMA BURNED: GREGG WITHDRAWS AFTER POLICIES TOO MUCH TO STOMACH
Thu Feb 12 2009 16:18:14 ET
For Immediate Release:
Senator Gregg Statement on His Withdrawal for Consideration of U.S. Commerce Secretary
Sen. Gregg stated, �I want to thank the President for nominating me to serve in his Cabinet as Secretary of Commerce. This was a great honor, and I had felt that I could bring some views and ideas that would assist him in governing during this difficult time. I especially admire his willingness to reach across the aisle.
�However, it has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me. Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy.
�Obviously the President requires a team that is fully supportive of all his initiatives.
�I greatly admire President Obama and know our country will benefit from his leadership, but at this time I must withdraw my name from consideration for this position....
Posted by Happy at 02/12/2009 @ 4:54pm
http://begthequestion.info/
Posted by chadshef at 02/12/2009 @ 5:06pm
And while we're at it I see that our savior has scored another cabinet related triumph by sliming Judd Greg with racist suggestions. But maybe that's because next month is black history month and we haven't yet spent quite enough time as Americans focusing on our differences.
If what just happened to Judd Greg on this census business isn't out-and-out racism I don't know what is. Maybe some among our redeemer's disciples think we ought to change the name of the first family's residence to the Black House.
Posted by john lowell at 02/12/2009 @ 5:07pm
>>>For example, the Second Chance Act to provide job training, drug treatment, and other re-entry programs was passed with broad bipartisan support in 2008 but no funds have been appropriated. <<<
Thank you for taking on this important but overlooked issue, KVH! I think it is overlooked because it affects primarily Hispanic and African-American men.
The basic problem is the American public is still on a vengeance kick and wants to feel good about being tough on those they think have been given too many breaks in life.
What some governors are starting to realize is vengeance is expensive - too expensive - and comes at the expense of other state priorities like k-12 education. Prison guards in California make more than teachers, when it should be clear to anyone that teachers play a much more valuable role to society. This salary disparity is due in large measure to the success of the prison guard lobby, which continues to fight for more prison construction and against early release measures like what was recently announced by the federal courts in California due to 200% overcrowding.
Funding the Second Chance Act and implementing Obama's Prison-to-Work initiative will help, but like you said, most (90%) inmates are incarcerated at the state, not the federal level, so these programs won't affect most ex-offenders.
TRUE "victim's rights" starts with re-rehabilitating the ex-offender, because a "new" victim is created each time we fail to re-rehabilitate. Being in favor of rehabilitation does not mean you are soft on crime, it means you are smart enough to understand the root cause and willing to do something permanent to reduce crime.
Posted by Metteyya at 02/12/2009 @ 5:09pm
In the face of a serious criminal justice problem moral indignation at the staggering numbers locked up, does not hack it.
The overwhelming majority now behind bars need to be there. We saw in the 1980 and 1990s what happens when they are not.
Those now incarcerated are irredeemable, a lost cause Our concern must not be with them, but with the young, keeping the young out.
And for that we need something new, an out of the box approach.
Consider this:
http://xellex.freehomepage.com/CROSS/
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/12/2009 @ 5:22pm
Posted by Happy at 02/12/2009 @ 4:54pm
Gregg is just doing a publicity stunt for the Republicans.
The answer is to go nuclear on the filibuster, which I think is an unconstitutional restriction on the majority in Congress to pass legislation as intended by the Founders.
This forces the Republicans to realize that they will have NO power over the Democrats, and stop this power-tripping nonsense and get real about fessing up to their mismanagement of the economy under Bush and changing the direction of this country to avert disaster.
You can NOT stimulate the economy without government spending, so this philosophical nonsense the Republicans keep pushing - the philosophy that has run the economy into the ground - is the one we should continue pursuing.
Republicans are acting like a driver who is obviously off course but continues going down the wrong road!
Posted by Metteyya at 02/12/2009 @ 5:26pm
>>>Those now incarcerated are irredeemable
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/12/2009 @ 5:22pm<<<
How could HUMAN BEINGS be irredeemable? Are you suggesting that if you break the law in other parts of the world, you are redeemable, but when you break the law in the US you are not? How else do you explain the 10% recidivism rates in many parts of the world, but 70-90% recidivism rates in this country?
Why are other countries able to succeed at "redeeming" human beings when we continue to be such a dismal failure?
I think a simple look at our system 30-50 years ago allows one to recognize that the root cause of our irredeemable problem is that we gutted all efforts at serious rehabilitation. And if you look at the difference between criminal justice systems where human beings are redeemed and our own, you will see the key difference is the emphasis on rehabilitation there and the emphasis on punishment here.
Human beings ARE redeemable, but you must have a criminal justice system and public that believes they are. Otherwise pessimistic attitudes like your own and the lack of rehabilitation programs are what cause the irredeemable problem.
Posted by Metteyya at 02/12/2009 @ 5:44pm
Republicans are acting like a driver who is obviously off course but continues going down the wrong road!
Posted by Metteyya at 02/12/2009 @ 5:26pm
So why is Magic still in the car? Why does he still hangs in there going state to state while hoping more than just a handful of RINOs will buy into his Pork Bill?
We're HAPPY to have the Pork Bill to be entirely your bill and even harbor some lottery chance to kill it!
Mystery of mysteries!
Posted by Happy at 02/12/2009 @ 5:46pm
Posted by Metteyya at 02/12/2009 @ 5:44pm
All violent felons are irredeemable.
Posted by ACook at 02/12/2009 @ 5:58pm
Posted by Happy at 02/12/2009 @ 5:46pm
Republicans have clearly lost ANY sort of leadership with any sense, and have turned over the keys to the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys.
The problem is that Rush and Sean do NOT know how to drive!
Have you even considered that Obama's economic stimulus will succeed, and as a consequence in 2012 STEEP losses in Congress in Republican members will result?
Maybe that is what the Republicans want - a total meltdown where no voter ever again gives them any credibility on the economy or ever trusts them again to lead on this critical kitchen table issue.
Posted by Metteyya at 02/12/2009 @ 5:59pm
Metteyya at 5:44pm asked:
>> How could HUMAN BEINGS be irredeemable? <<
Why not?
You, in all probability, are irredeemable.
Look at the site:
http://xellex.freehomepage.com/CROSS/
. . . before you wring your hands.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/12/2009 @ 6:08pm
Posted by ACook at 02/12/2009 @ 5:58pm
No human being is irredeemable, and the story of Moses the former murderer that is supposed to inspire Jews and Christians illustrates this fact.
I guess when it is black and brown men, then we can ignore these stories because they are not human, right?
Posted by Metteyya at 02/12/2009 @ 6:15pm
Thank you Senator Webb for taking on the obomination called our Justice System. It is a far cry from Just. Finally someone with the political will to do something to turn this country around. Very few citizens are irredeemable and need help to be good citizens. Not locked away and forgotten about. In California our sentences have become so outrageous they no longer come close to fitting the crimes. In California we fire teachers and close schools so we can build more prisons and hire more guards. The sad part the public at large doesn't even realize what is happening until one of their family members is caught up in the system. Their faith in the system ends up in tatters and their lives destroyed for many behaviors that shouldn't be criminalized and incarcerated for. Prisons create more criminals than the streets.
The US Supreme Court may soon be deciding the fates of every state prison that believes it is OK to treat prisoners with cruelty and inhumanity.
Our Governor and Legislators in CA have vowed to fight the Federal Government for the right to abuse prisoners as they see fit rather than reform it's abysmal prison conditions. They have ignored the dozens of reports at their disposal complete with roadmaps to fix the system. They have ignored 77 court orders to do so over a decade. Simple things like sentencing and parole reforms they fight against. The Powerful Law Enforcement Unions and their special interest groups send in their fear mongering troops and put pressure on Legislators when anyone suggests it might be a good idea.
This should be an interesting court case. Will the Federal Government release all its' control over the states and allow state Governments to continue to violate the Constitution of the United States at will?
Posted by Morris1 at 02/12/2009 @ 7:52pm
Have you even considered that Obama's economic stimulus will succeed, and as a consequence in 2012 STEEP losses in Congress in Republican members will result?
Posted by Metteyya at 02/12/2009 @ 5:59pm
NO, out of the question....the Pork Bill will not succeed in strengthening our economy for the long haul.
The economy beyond `09 may do better than this very moment.....but it will be on a long-term trend of decline with every uptick lower than the previous and every downtick lower than the previous low......
With this Pork Bill baking in even greater deficits forever, and those Boomers ahead of me getting more and more SS checks & MediCare......average public pension fund underfunded by 40~70%.....it's not a pretty future.....good thing the wife & I won't be drawing `salaries' too much longer....time gets near to join the ever-increasing number of takers.
Posted by Happy at 02/12/2009 @ 7:56pm
Posted by Happy at 02/12/2009 @ 7:56pm
And you are willing to gamble the ENTIRE future of your party on this point of view?
What is your fallback if the stimulus succeeds?
This is the question a responsible leader of the Republican party would ask, but instead they are gambling the rent money on a lottery where the odds of winning are less than getting hit by lighting TWICE!
Posted by Metteyya at 02/12/2009 @ 8:10pm
What is your fallback if the stimulus succeeds?
Posted by Metteyya at 02/12/2009 @ 8:10pm
The economy is cyclical and will recover on its own with or without the Pork Bill......just lower over the long term WITH the bill. The stock market is making that abundantly clear.
When the economy improves, I well know your side will claim Pork did it and I'm just as certain, many other factors will be responsible.
Posted by Happy at 02/12/2009 @ 8:24pm
So, as long as a drug addict isn't violent...
you guys wouldn't want them to be locked up, right?
Posted by Mask at 02/12/2009 @ 8:28pm
Metteyya at 6:15pm wrote:
>> No human being is irredeemable, and the story of Moses the former murderer that is supposed to inspire Jews and Christians illustrates this fact.
I guess when it is black and brown men, then we can ignore these stories because they are not human, right?<<
I hedged my bet in my earlier post, but now I am sure: you are absolutely a lost cause Metteyya, irredeemable, irretrevable, unrectifiable, a hopeless case, Amen.
As to Moses, for Christians and Jews he came to the aid of a slave being beaten. In wrestling that overseer, Moses throttled the wretch.
Your morality it seems, doesn't distinguish between justifiable homicide and murder.
You are young Metteyya, though I suspect, old in years.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/12/2009 @ 8:34pm
"The economy is cyclical and will recover on its own with or without the Pork Bill......just lower over the long term WITH the bill. The stock market is making that abundantly clear.
When the economy improves, I well know your side will claim Pork did it and I'm just as certain, many other factors will be responsible."----Posted by Happy at 02/12/2009 @ 8:24pm
So basically "you're right" no matter what happens, right, HAPP?
Economy goes further south, you blame the "Porkulus" bill?
Economy improves, bill was "meaningless" or "didn't let it get EVEN BETTER"?
Now you've just go to hope the general public buys that theory....which of course they won't, since it obviously belogns to the realm of the 28%ers who still think Dubya was a great President.
Posted by Mask at 02/12/2009 @ 9:41pm
Economy goes further south, you blame the "Porkulus" bill?
Posted by Mask at 02/12/2009 @ 9:41pm
Right you are! And, of course, you'll blame it on Bush!
Posted by Happy at 02/12/2009 @ 9:48pm
you'll blame it on Bush!
Posted by Happy at 02/12/2009 @ 9:48
actually, it goes way back.
but let's start with nixon; 1971 and rubber money is on!
then the carter-volcker madness,
then reagan's spend-o-tax-cutto-thon,
then hwush's broken bubble,
then clinton's deregurama,
then wush's plain stupidity.
and now we've got geithner.
sheesh.
the blindly greedy leading the greedily blind.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2009 @ 10:10pm
All violent felons are irredeemable.
Posted by ACook at 02/12/2009 @ 5:58pm
that's not what jesus says.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2009 @ 10:12pm
actually, it goes way back....
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2009 @ 10:10pm
Takes a Canuck to tell it like it really is! And, to return the favor of honesty......
Since " it goes way back".....that means we've met the enemy...and it's We, the People!
It's like that guy who alerted the SEC about Madoff 7~8 years ago.....he didn't alert a credible media source, like the WSJ or Barrons....probably because he didn't want to risk a lawsuit.......and rightly so, given our litigious society (that is strictly made possible by Dems/Libs).
Posted by Happy at 02/12/2009 @ 10:25pm
Posted by Happy at 02/12/2009 @ 9:48pm
Gee, can't imagine why an economic downturn would get blamed on the guy who ran the country for 8 years??!?!?!?!?
BTW, seems despite "the truth" (that the stimulus is bad regardless of its actual effect on the economy)...
those NOT in the 28% Club will likely credit Obama if the economy is good and reward him and the Democrats in 2010 and 2012.
Posted by Mask at 02/12/2009 @ 10:30pm
those NOT in the 28% Club will likely credit Obama if the economy is good and reward him and the Democrats in 2010 and 2012.
Posted by Mask at 02/12/2009 @ 10:30pm
IF the economy is better, much better, with my portfolio in much better shape, perhaps most 28% Club can see Magic as Clinton II rather than Carter....everybody wins! I'm forever grateful for Clinton's dot.com & economy in general boom....he didn't screw up and worked well with the Repub Congress to leverage up Reagan's Peace Dividend...all of which freed me to be....hehehehe...HAPPY!
Sorry to be selfish....by 2012, planning for actual retirement will be Job One!
Posted by Happy at 02/12/2009 @ 10:43pm
heheheh ----- eh?
Posted by winyahn at 02/12/2009 @ 11:00pm
It's always tiring to hear the liberal whine about the high rate of incarceration in this country.
Have you ever considered the possibility that we simply have a larger percentage of fuck-ups in this country than in other parts of the world? It's also true (though politically incorrect to mention) that many of these fuck-ups are dark skinned. This can largely be traced back to the complete melt-down over the past 30 years in black culture. (70% out-of-wedlock births, etc. - ask Bill Cosby if you don't believe me)
The most effective solution for our high incarceration rate would be to expand the application of the death penalty to all violent felonies. By executing all violent felons and harvesting their organs we can "kill two birds with one stone" (so to speak) - we can empty the prisons and greatly reduce the waiting time for those needing replacement organs.
Since drugs, prostitution and gambling should all be legalized, regulated and taxed you could go ahead and release those conviced of non-violent "vice" crimes as far as I'm concerned. This in conjunction with executing the violent predators should reduce our prison population by about 90%.
Posted by vertigoskippy at 02/12/2009 @ 11:21pm
"It's always tiring to hear the liberal whine about the high rate of incarceration in this country."
it's clear that this person knows absolutely nothing about Law or Statistics; otherwise, how could he say something as ridiculous as:
"Have you ever considered the possibility that we simply have a larger percentage of fuck-ups in this country than in other parts of the world?"
actually, i hadn't considered that. thank you so much for the brilliant, deep thoughts.
Posted by darladoon at 02/12/2009 @ 11:40pm
This salary disparity is due in large measure to the success of the prison guard lobby,
Posted by Metteyya at 02/12/2009 @ 5:09pm
I guess we know why you aren't referring to them correctly; they are the Prison guard UNION.
You wouldn't want to disparage a union so you use the term "lobby" instead.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 12:42am
Thank you for taking on this important but overlooked issue, KVH! I think it is overlooked because it affects primarily Hispanic and African-American men.
Posted by Metteyya at 02/12/2009 @ 5:09pm
Perhaps you ought to check the data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. This report presents data from the National Prisoner Statistics program.
Males accounted for most (93.1%) of the 1.5 million sentenced prisoners under jurisdiction.
Black males made up the largest percentage of the overall sentenced population (36.3%) and the sentenced male population (39.0%) (table 5).
An estimated 471,400 white males made up 30.8% of the overall sentenced population and 33.0% of the sentenced male population.
Hispanic males made up about a fifth of both populations.
The largest absolute number and percentage of sentenced females were white (50,500 prisoners or 47.9%), followed by black females (29,300 prisoners or 27.8%) and Hispanic females (17,600 prisoners or 16.7%)
http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p07.pdf
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 12:52am
30% plus of California prisoners are illegal aliens and the bulk of prisoners are gang members. I will guess that the gang bangers are not there for getting high at a party. I do not want these guys released and I would like the illegals sent back home. Execute all the child molesters, murders, and violent repeaters.
Remove sir conditioning, hot showers, cable, exercise equipment, and offer free cigarettes, French fries, buttered popcorn, and donuts. Prisoners should not have an increase in life style,better conditions than our military, or free operations for organ transplants. Murdered gas bad heart attack, too bad.
Those few adjustments above should have a positive influence one prisons.
Tough cold hard ass position by me? You bet. Jail should never be a place anyone would be willing to experience more than once.
Re introduce chains gangs.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/13/2009 @ 12:59am
BTW
Drug offenses make up only 19.5% of inmates
Violent offenders make up 53%
Burglary, theft, fraud and the like make up 19.2%
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 01:02am
Letter to the Editor,
The Nation is an excellent magazine.
But one aspect of your magazine's presence on the Internet is being neglected. Stop allowing yourselves to be embarrassed by your lack control over the "Comments" blog for your online readers.
It is an elementary, but crucial, mistake to not monitor the blog, to assure it is used in an adult, informative, worthwhile-to-read manner.
Please don't just take my word for this. Ask someone who you expect to give you good feedback. You are doing a great disservice to your readers by allowing yourself to be sabotaged. Whether it is being done intentionally or not, I'm not certain.
A small cadre of perhaps twenty incestuous bloggers are injecting themselves into every article that you publish online. Some of them pollute every single article! The same people post again, and again, and again, with boring predictability, and even worse, with rarely anything interesting to say. The gibberish is often comprised of looping, personal brickbats hurled at one or another of the twenty boring, tragically home-bound(?), desperately needy partners in the blogging circle jerk.
This condition is very bad. Clear some space to allow an upgrade in this public activity to occur.
Just limit the number of times that any one of the trolls can post in one day. Is one post a day not adequate for any person, no matter who that person may be?
More people than the Tragic Twenty will be more willing to contribute, once the conversation is pulled out of the litter box it has been allowed to devolve into.
Perhaps more interestingly, you must consider the possibility that The Nation is being attacked by some right-wing action that wants to piss in your soup. Let me give you one reason why I am suspicious.
Posted by Dr_Lightning at 02/13/2009 @ 01:06am
As a libertarian/Republican, I do agree with removing many of the drug offenses.
However, many drug dealers are also engaged in other criminal activities as part of gang activities. Prosecutors often go for the easier drug possession convictions on these folks because they don't have enough evidence for a conviction on the more serious violent offenses.
so, in that regard, I think that the statistics are somewhat misleading about the number of violent criminals.
All you have to do is remember that the US couldn't get Capone on murder and racketeering so they put him away on tax evasion.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 01:06am
Letter to the Editor (cont.) A couple of weeks ago, just to do a comparison, I just went to the web site of The American Spectator magazine.
I wanted to check how many "liberal" and/ or "leftist" blog entries there were for one of the articles in THAT magazine.
I clicked the top story on the list of the available claptrap.
I scrolled to the bottom and began reading/scannning the comments of those people who responded to add something to the article, which was about the Republican vote fraud expert, Ken Blackwell. I started counting the entries that could only be taken as a Republican and/or fascist group of sentences.
I stopped counting when it got to twenty straight pro-Republican or fascist blog comments to the Blackwell article; unmitigated, bilious, Orc-speak.
At The Nation's public blog & comments, the distribution is close to a fifty-fifty split between posts that might be expected to be placed on the site of the USA's foremost magazine that presents political views that are to the left-of-center, and the other fifty percent is absolute right-wing or fascist drool.
On the web site of The Nation?! I suspect that there is something organized going on.
Bring your web site up to modern standards. Control the trolls. It is the professional step that you must take to help make your web site good for YOUR constituency.
Thanks.
Dr. Lightning http://www.feedbooks.com/userbook/2988
Posted by Dr_Lightning at 02/13/2009 @ 01:07am
Perhaps more interestingly, you must consider the possibility that The Nation is being attacked by some right-wing action that wants to piss in your soup. Let me give you one reason why I am suspicious.
Posted by Dr_Lightning at 02/13/2009 @ 01:06am
Dr_Lightning
Do you have issues with open debate? I will admit that it isn't always pretty and some really empty-headed insults can take the place of serious disagreement on issues.
However, the controls you speak of offer a squelching of open democratic debate and as a conservative poster who respects the Nation for providing such a forum, I hope they don't consider your post seriously.
It would not benefit any of us from either end of the political spectrum to see your wishes enacted.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 01:20am
The "vice" crimes of drugs, prostitution and gambling are all legal in either certain forms (alcohol) or certain places (legal Nevada brothels and several legal casinos, racetracks and miscellaneous forms of legal gambling.)
Legalizing drugs would not mean heroin would be available at 7-11, it have to take the form of a medical treatment. Allow addicts to acquire drugs through doctors.
As for prostitution and gambling, the business models already exist. It may not be a pleasant prospect of a legal brothel opening up in your hometown, but they're probably already there, operating illegally.
What has the criminalization of these vices done for the country? The U.S. prison population is huge from drug sentences as well as violent crimes resulting from sale of drugs or prostitution. Gangs have open warfare for control of these vices and we have one of the most corrupt police forces in the western world.
Posted by koroviev at 02/13/2009 @ 01:32am
Let Senator Webb read today's WPost editorial: Two Dead, No Answers. It tells of a 15 year old addict who killed a man in 2006. Out after 2.5 years in jail he killed two others.
What released this reptile?
A social climate salted by the tears and orchestrated by the hand-wringing of idoelogues like vanden Heuvel.
These moral paragons hold up to society the enormous prison population, as a recrimination Opportunist politicians can be counted on tospring forward and to yodel on cue.
They don't know how to reduce the crime rate, but they do know how overcome the embarrassment of 2+ million behind bars. Identify the bulk as petty criminals, mentally ill, mere drug abusers and release them. Vola, problem solved.
That mentality gave New York City in 1990, when the population was under 7.5 million, 2,260 homicides. After Guiliani took over the town's population gained close to a million and homicides fell into the 600 range. In short, vanden Heuvel morality, in NYC alone, annually killed thousands of people.
No, slimming the bulging prisons by letting the lowlifes out is a criminal solution. The answer is to reduce the torrent into the prisons.
And there is a quick and effective out of the box solution to keep youngsters our of the can.
Look at this site:
http://xellex.freehomepage.com/CROSS
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/13/2009 @ 05:00am
More taxes for jails and prisons, which are filled with union workers...
less money for schools and drug rehabilitation programs..those things are filled with unions.
How about it cons, more taxes for prisons?
Posted by crabwalk at 02/13/2009 @ 07:52am
Posted by koroviev at 02/13/2009 @ 01:32am | ignore this person | warn this person
good points all.
the corruption of gov't vice police is shown by the fact that the gov't encourages, and profits from, gambling, in the form of Lotto.
I live in a neighborhood of rather poor people, and I see them handing over wads of cash in that suckers game, and my heart breaks.
gov't needs money? legalize the weed and most of all TAX the weed, and the budget will go a long way to balance.
In Austria the gov't held a monopoly on cigarettes. most of the cheaper cigs were the gov't brands. you could still buy Marlboro, but they were more expensive.
let all the vice and drug cops join the manufacturing workers on the dole line.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 08:53am
and bring back the 90% top tax bracket. it's the american way.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 08:55am
Posted by Happy at 02/12/2009 @ 10:43pm
I'm sorry, HAPP.
Did you just compliment Bill Clinton?!??!?
AND consider the possibility that things might get better under Obama?!??!!???!?!
Posted by Mask at 02/13/2009 @ 09:03am
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 12:52am
I was referring to the per capita representation.
When one reflects on the 12% population of blacks in the US, having a 36% representation in prison means they are over-represented there.
Same with Hispanic men.
It's just like immigration. When the immigrants were white and European, then being an immigrant was a "good" thing - now we have a "immigration problem".
Rehabilitation and human redemption were considered "good" things when the prison population was mostly white - now these are "dirty" words.
The subtlety of racism continues to escape most Americans.
Posted by Metteyya at 02/13/2009 @ 11:01am
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/12/2009 @ 8:34pm
There are plenty of people in prison for "justifiable" homicide. I read stories all the time of women who kill their batterers but still end up in prison in this country.
What one person thinks is "justified" may not always be justified in the eyes of the law, and if Moses were in the US he CLEARLY would have been convicted of murder and sent to prison - which I think is the point about our over-incarceration here.
Posted by Metteyya at 02/13/2009 @ 11:08am
Posted by Metteyya at 02/13/2009 @ 11:01am | ignore this person | warn this person
excellent post. we have reached a milestone with Obama's election, but we are not a color blind nation yet.
once the former white majority gets used to not being the majority, we will be further along.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 11:09am
Posted by Dr_Lightning at 02/13/2009 @ 01:06am
The way to change the discourse is to post intelligent comments, not policing.
You always have the option to put someone on "ignore" and then you won't see their comments at all.
Many of the regulars do have interesting things to say on occasion which is why I don't put them on "ignore", and then I skim over the "blogging circle jerk" (as you call it) that seems revolve around personal attacks and "gotchas".
Posted by Metteyya at 02/13/2009 @ 11:18am
Mett,
"It's just like immigration. When the immigrants were white and European, then being an immigrant was a "good" thing - now we have a "immigration problem". One BIG deffernce here..
You missed the point...we don't have an immigration problem...we have an ILLEGAL immigration problem.
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/13/2009 @ 11:21am
The way to change the discourse is to post intelligent comments, not policing.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 11:25am
Bring your web site up to modern standards. Control the trolls. It is the professional step that you must take to help make your web site good for YOUR constituency. Thanks. Dr. Lightning http://www.feedbooks.com/userbook/2988 Posted by Dr_Lightning at 02/13/2009 @ 01:07a
Do you have a problem with the First Amendment? Or are you so uncertain of your own political beliefs that you just don't want them questioned?
Posted by twillie at 02/13/2009 @ 12:05pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 02/13/2009 @ 11:21am
You obviously do NOT understand the history of immigration in this country.
NO "legal" restrictions were placed on European immigrants in the largest wave from 1812-1860.
The "first" restriction on immigrants was placed on ASIAN immigrants in 1875 and continued with the CHINESE exclusion law.
http://www.ellisislandimmigrants.org/ellis_island_immigrants.htm
Posted by Metteyya at 02/13/2009 @ 12:07pm
Again, back on-topic....
just want to be clear...
our conservative friends have NO problem with stopping the locking up of NON-violent drug offenders....right?
Posted by Mask at 02/13/2009 @ 12:24pm
our conservative friends have NO problem with stopping the locking up of NON-violent drug offenders....right?
Posted by Mask at 02/13/2009 @ 12:24pm
What did I say Mask?
As a libertarian/Republican, I do agree with removing many of the drug offenses.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 01:20am
But as I added, we have to make sure that they are not also engaged in violent crime and were sentenced for drug crimes just because they didn't have enough evidence to convict for the murders and other violence they committed but couldn't be convicted on.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 1:16pm
Posted by Dr_Lightning at 02/13/2009 @ 01:07am
You know, I think the good doctor has a point.
Posted by ficheye at 02/13/2009 @ 1:38pm
good diagnosis, bad remedy.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 1:47pm
Do you have a problem with the First Amendment?
the first amendment does not apply here. read it again.
say I publish a paper. I get many submissions, some I publish some I don't. maybe the ones that can't spell and can't write, or can't think I don't publish. It's my paper. the first amendment does not apply.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 1:50pm
Consider this:
http://xellex.freehomepage.com/CROSS/
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/12/2009 @ 5:22pm
Ok I bit ... and I almost read all of it, too. Do you actually consider the (bone ignorant-dog dumb...) arguments a foundation for sarcasm or perhaps irony, or are you really this stupid?
Posted by V at 02/13/2009 @ 1:55pm
Do you have a problem with the First Amendment?
the first amendment does not apply here. read it again.
say I publish a paper. I get many submissions, some I publish some I don't. maybe the ones that can't spell and can't write, or can't think I don't publish. It's my paper. the first amendment does not apply.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 1:50pm
Agreed; 1st amendment applies to public forums
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 1:58pm
1st amendment applies to public forums
no, it applies to congress and congress only.
say I run a university and we're having a public forum on the holocaust. a holocaust denier wants to participate. I throw him out on his ear,(a metaphor).
not a first amendment issue. read it again.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 2:03pm
1st amendment applies to public forums
no, it applies to congress and congress only.
say I run a university and we're having a public forum on the holocaust. a holocaust denier wants to participate. I throw him out on his ear,(a metaphor).
not a first amendment issue. read it again.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 2:03pm
Really Emile? Can you cite any constitutional scholar that supports your statement?
Anyone else agree with Emile that the 1st amendment only applies to Congress?
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 2:11pm
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 1:16pm
Just checkin' Larry.
See? There CAN be bipartisanship. If we can get a Religious Rightie like lvlib onboard for de-criminalization, it CAN happen with broad-based support.
Posted by Mask at 02/13/2009 @ 2:17pm
Anyone else agree with Emile that the 1st amendment only applies to Congress?
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 2:11pm
No but I don't speak for everyone.
Posted by k330k at 02/13/2009 @ 2:27pm
congress shall make no laws...
you right wing trolls are always talking about strict interpretation of the constitution.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 2:31pm
liverty, you are welcome to show me a more expansive constitutional statement. until you do, pffft.
we're not taking a poll.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 2:33pm
>>>you right wing trolls are always talking about strict interpretation of the constitution.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 2:31pm<<<
Except when it comes to "inventions" like the filibuster!
I really can't wait to read Scalia and Roberts' opinions on how the Founders intended for a minority in the Senate to veto the legislation of the majority.
Should be interesting reading!
Posted by Metteyya at 02/13/2009 @ 3:10pm
liverty, you are welcome to show me a more expansive constitutional statement. until you do, pffft.
we're not taking a poll.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 2:33pm
Ok Emile, show me and others where this wording limits free speech to just the Congress?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 4:21pm
the burden of proof is up to you. and you have failed. strict constitutionalist indeed. hahahahaha.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 4:59pm
congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. that's what's in the constitution. anything else?
Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 5:09pm
the burden of proof is up to you. and you have failed. strict constitutionalist indeed. hahahahaha.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 4:59pm
congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. that's what's in the constitution. anything else?
Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 5:09pm
Emile, I'm worried about you. For a bright fellow, these are very inane responses..
You claimed that the first amendment only applies to Congress and I have asked you to show me where it says that.
The first amemdment is a right of the people with a ban on Congress infringing upon that right. It is NOT a right granted to solely to Congress as you stated.
"1st amendment applies to public forums
no, it applies to congress and congress only.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 2:03pm"
Still care to argue your point?
And I'm surprised no one else including Mask has jumped into this.
Posted by antisocialist at 02/13/2009 @ 6:25pm
you have not proved anything.
the constitution states that congress may not etc. it says nothing else. you show me where it says anything else in the constitution about the free speech.
you know very well that I will not read anything that mask posts.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 7:52pm
Although the First Amendment only explicitly applies to the Congress, the Supreme Court has interpreted it as applying to the executive and judicial branches. Additionally, in the 20th century the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the limitations of the First Amendment to each state, including any local government within a state.wiki
so what it means is that gov't may not infringe on freedom of speech.
nothing about public forums, that one you just made up.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 8:42pm
V at 02/13/2009 @ 1:55pm said:
>> Ok I bit ... and I almost read all of it, too.
http://xellex.freehomepage.com/CROSS/
Do you actually consider the (bone ignorant-dog dumb...) arguments a foundation for sarcasm or perhaps irony, or are you really this stupid? <<
Yes, I am that stupid and think that that is an approach worth considering.
But I don't understand why supplying reasons for your judgment is too much for a genius like you.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 02/13/2009 @ 9:00pm
Jesus, I'm sorry i brought the first amendment. What I meant was, does the bad Dr. have a problem with people speaking their mind? I'm not saying I have a right to post here (conjuring rights out of thin air is, after all, a prog thing), I'm just saying, I want to read opposing views. Exclusion of opposing views is a tool for tiny, tiny minds.
Posted by twillie at 02/13/2009 @ 11:55pm
There is worse news: 1 in 31 adults are in jail, in prison, or on parole. The recent case of two judges in Pennsylvania charged in an incarcerate for pay scheme, as well as the shenanigans of sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona, only illuminates the corruption in the system that conservatives have fostered to put justice under the foot of the not so "free market" of predatory capitalism.
Posted by afrothetics at 02/14/2009 @ 08:15am
Twill, there is nothing wrong with a discussion of free speech and the constitution.
I continue to thank the Nation for providing this unruly, often jejeune, but unique forum.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2009 @ 09:44am
Posted by afrothetics at 02/14/2009 @ 08:15am | ignore this person | warn this person
those two judges are likely to get 8 years in the slammer. good. the ones who paid the kickbacks too will face justice.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/14/2009 @ 10:33am
That brings us up to 2011. Looking back, why did it take so long for Washington to admit it had been holding on to a dead vision of the 1950s, even as it called itself Democratic and Progressive? Thank God Washington finally said, "We give up. We do not know what to do," and began listening to former outsiders, who had predicted the Big Contraction.
Economists of the working class and middle class, like Michael Hudson and Jamie Galbraith, and the ideas of Amy Lovins got us to a much better theoretical footing for the mechanism of national prosperity and how to keep it running. Without thinkers like these three, we would never have arrived at the magnitude of new thinking needed to address the Big Contraction and remake Western society successfully. It may have been true as Parker Palmer said in Dec. 2008, the rich had not suffered enuf yet to let go of the old and for viable solutions to be embraced by the young and the motivated.
Now in 2011 we have addressed entitlement debt, corporate excesses and have a new vision for the middle class and how to grow it--not as juvenile, inconsistent public citizens but as dedicated Statesmen and Stateswomen, hardened and disciplined in the fires of adversity, like the Founding Fathers were. This has brought us peace again.
In 2009 the nation bet its future on returning to the happy-face economy of the 1950s sooner or later, by hook or by crook. By 2010 that delusion died--needed to die.
Things that worked to turn the
for full version call me 310-287-2813
Posted by Bruce_Dickson at 02/15/2009 @ 7:05pm
Posted by Metteyya at 02/13/2009 @ 11:18am regarding: Posted by Dr_Lightning at 02/13/2009 @ 01:06am
"The way to change the discourse is to post intelligent comments, not policing..."
There is an occasional need for moderation of posted comments, which may be libelous, slanderous, etc. This is certainly not a free-for-all, either because everyone observes some level of civility, or because some posts get deleted before becoming visible on the board.
I participated in John Kerry's online Townhall Meeting, initially as a frequent poster (citizendave) in the veterans' forum, and for a short stint as a moderator. I was "fired" as a moderator because I was insufficiently relentless in deleting posts that were inane, nonsensical, or critical of Senator Kerry.
As a frequent lurking reader in this space I have often thought that the atmosphere here does not promote the kind of discussion I wish for. (My Ignore List has 24 entries.) My opinion at the moment is that mere civility in this space engenders "more heat than light".
I know an attorney who is a blowhard, die-hard Republican, who does not argue -- he politely waits for his turn to set us all straight on Reality. His noisy negativity does nothing to advance the exchange of ideas at this critical juncture in American history.
Perhaps we should try a parallel forum that requires Nation Associates membership to participate. I know we are not all of one mind. We could enhance the level of debate by tuning out the worst of the noise level. However, the risk of even a mild form of censorship is that it may put a chill on the imagination. I thought that some of my best posts on Senator Kerry's forum were in response to some of the most provocative posts from the opposition. We didn't have "Ignore" then.
Posted by radiowavey at 02/15/2009 @ 8:52pm
Webb's a stud & KVH is the female equivalent. Brave as hell, with huge hearts.
Posted by winyahn at 02/15/2009 @ 11:12pm
winyahn:
Have you been to Finland?
Posted by sntauri at 02/15/2009 @ 11:18pm
<i>Posted by emile duBois at 02/13/2009 @ 8:42pm </i>
The "public forum" point is actually true; that's part of the logic underlying many school speech cases, for instance. The argument is that when the government creates a public forum (i.e., a venue in which diverse views are supposed to be welcome), it assumes an obligation not to enact content-based restriction unless there is a compelling state interest in doing so.
However...the "public forum" point still applies only to government. Though the First Amendment has been interpreted to include a prohibition of state governments as well as the federal government, it is still only a restriction on government. The Bill of Rights is essentially a list of explicit limitations on government power, not a list of facilitative rights that the government is obligated to ensure. This is why the Fourteenth Amendment, for instance, does not protect against someone's decision to specifically exclude African-Americans from entering their private home. This is also why the standard for outweighing First Amendment protection is a compelling STATE interest. It applies specifically against government, and can be outweighed only by a compelling interest that GOVERNMENT has.
Posted by Thrawn at 02/16/2009 @ 10:08pm