Crime In The Us

[Amppax]

This is somewhat of a spin off of the Death Penalty thread, specifically these posts by J_lol & myself:

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1325560959' post='2362087']
When we talk about overcrowded prisons, the answer is stopping throwing people in for victimless drug possession crimes and other bull like that, not killing off the dangerous ones.
[/quote]

[quote][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]While I don't necessarily agree completely with your post, I agree with what I believe (please correct me if i'm wrong Jlol) is the main point: that the solution to our criminal justice issues isn't to implement the death penalty more widely, but through changing the system itself. And I do agree with this, if this is what Jlol meant. [/font][/color][/quote]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1325574462' post='2362147']
well, i was a bit more specific, but yes that is what i meant.

Its pretty clear to see the American penal system is all kinds of screwed up
[/quote]

Also, and this is a fact that I just learned, the US has the highest percentage of its population incarcerated in the world ([url="http://www.prisonstudies.org/info/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php?area=all&category=wb_poprate"]http://www.prisonstu...gory=wb_poprate[/url]). Clearly, this shows to me there is a serious problem with how the US handles crime. So I would like to hear peoples thoughts on what they think the problem is, and what can be done to fix the system.

[Papist]

People stop committing crimes, prisons get less crowded.

[BG45]

Short Answer: As a PhD student in this field, Heck if I know.

Somewhat less short answer, but still not long: There are currently 7 million people in the United States who are either incarcerated or under some form of supervision by the criminal justice system (such as probation and parole). While the whole legalizing drugs thing isn't popular, it would go a long way to emptying out our prisons, even if it were just "softer" drugs. 56% of all federal inmates are in prison for drug related offenses. Last year we reduced the 100-1 disparity in crack to cocaine to 18-1. Abolishing zero tolerance policies and three strikes laws would also greatly reduce our prison population; for example, in California it is a felony to steal a one dollar fruit (forget what it is) from the grocery store. If you steal just that piece of fruit on 3 separate occassions, you're in there for life.

Now this isn't to say our prison overcrowding is all the fault of our laws or attitudes towards drugs (though, fun fact, we spend 1 day of the War on Drugs funding as our entire human trafficking budget). Our entire criminal justice system is built upon the deterrence theories that were first advocated by Cesare Beccaria in the 1700s; which holds as some key tenets, that we're all inherently hedonistic, that we can make rational choices and weigh the costs and benefits of the crimes we commit, and that the punishment must be swift, certain, and just severe enough for the crime. Now the theory's been added to over the years, but the basics still hold the same.

In our legal system now, however, you're probably going to plea out and get a reduced sentence. Or you're going to get sentenced, and then have it reduced because of overcrowding once you're inside. The journal [i]Criminology & Public Policy [/i]recently did an entire issue on the topic of mass incarceration which suggested a number of things (some rather sensical, some outright ridiculous) on reforming the system. On the ridiculous end of things, there were suggestions like hiring more Police (Durlauf & Nagin, 2011) because that would somehow result in more deterrence and less crime. On the more sensical end of things, there were rehabilitative programs, which despite the 1970s report that said otherwise and killed rehabilitation in prisons mostly, has been shown to have the greatest impact on lessening reoffending when combined with cognitive-behavioral therapies.

Unfortunately, when people do try to innovate, they usually screw up a good idea. Recently, Montana decided to have an early release program for low risk offenders. In theory, this sounds great. However, Montana requires you to line up employment and housing in their traditional parole model; the early release program didn't require that. They essentially just told inmates "Congrats, you're free, get out of our prison". The men who were released had insanely high re-arrest rates, which Wright & Rosky (2011) pointed out a few reasons for:
1) They didn't have employment or housing lined up, both socially bond you to society.
2) Low risk was a category of physical dangerousness, not recidivism. Most of the people who were released were drug and property offenders (aka, the most recidivating offenders we have).
3) These men weren't prepared in any way for the changes outside the walls. It may not sound like much of a reason, but think about the past ten years. In 2001, I barely knew anyone with a cell phone. The internet was primarily 56k in many states and almost every rural area. ATMs were big, but not as widespread as they are now. You can't even apply for jobs at some retail locations these days without using the internet, and if you've not been able to ever use it, that's a big hurdle to get across. Things that may have been legal may now be illegal and vice versa.

So somewhat short answer but longer, I really don't know how to even try to fix the system, because it is...Just. That. Broken.

[4588686]

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1325880648' post='2364052']
Short Answer: As a PhD student in this field, Heck if I know.
.
[/quote]

One of the surest signs that somebody is actually becoming an expert in their field. Knowledge of tends to illuminate just how much we don't know.