Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Kirk picks a fight with Obama on health care. Why?
Next Post: Morning Shorts
Posted in:
[posted by Mike Murray]
As the two articles below indicate, US AG Eric Holder criticized U.S. incrimination and rehabilitation policy of criminals because it does very little to combat the likelihood of a criminal re-offending.
* AG Eric Holder to States: Stop Building Prisons
The country’s top federal law enforcement official says there are too many people in prison. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder made the remark in Chicago yesterday to members of the American Bar Association.
* Prisons not the answer to crime problems: Attorney General
“Today, one out of every 100 adults in America is incarcerated — the highest incarceration rate in the world,” he said. But the country has reached a point of diminishing returns at which putting even greater percentages of America’s citizens behind bars won’t cut the crime rate.
That’s in part because once people spend time in prison, they’re likely to keep engaging in the kind of behavior that sends them back to prison, he said.
“Most crimes in America are committed by people who have committed crimes before,” Holder said. “About 67 percent of former state prisoners and 40 percent of former federal prisoners are re-arrested within three years of release. If we can reduce the rate of recidivism, we will directly reduce the crime rate.”
Prisoners who undergo drug treatment and/or work training in prison are 16 percent less likely to re-offend after their release, he said.
* If you want some anecdotal evidence of the problem with criminals repeating their past mistakes, here is one that is also good for a laugh…
An 86-year-old Chicago woman was arrested for the 61st time over the weekend — for shoplifting anti-wrinkle cream from a North Side grocery, police said.
Ella Orko’s first arrest, for petty larceny, came in 1956.
So here is today’s question: Do you think there is a problem with the way the U.S. approaches criminal rehabilitation? If you have a problem with the current practice of incarceration as rehabilitation, please provide an alternative.
posted by Mike Murray
Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 2:56 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Kirk picks a fight with Obama on health care. Why?
Next Post: Morning Shorts
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Prisoners who undergo drug treatment and/or work training in prison are 16 percent less likely to re-offend
I guess we can look at it both ways. Despite treatment, 84% are likely to re-offend again.
So do we need more effective treatment, more jail time because treatment is likely to be ineffective, or do we live with the consequences and save jail time for the most dangerous offenders?
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 3:07 pm
Please folks, wait to comment about the current practice of incarceration in Illinois until you look at this shocking series that came out YESTERDAY from the Belleville News Democrat. (There is even a warning about the content.) They have 7 different stories about Tamms. Here are 3 of them.
Inmates in Illinois’ only supermax prison face battle proving mistreatment
http://www.bnd.com/homepage/story/865378.html
In Illinois’ only supermax facility, inmates are in cells 23 hours a day
http://www.bnd.com/news/local/story/865377.html
EDITORIAL: Why Tamms matters to all
http://www.bnd.com/editorial/story/866411.html
Comment by you left something out Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 3:12 pm
What Holder apparently failed to discuss in detail was the astonishing racial disparities in US prison populations. According to The Sentencing Project three fourths of all those in prison for drug offenses are people of color. In the Illinois (general) incarcerated population the black/white disparity is 9 to 1.
He also apparently didn’t discuss the huge financial benefits to politically connected contractors (not to mention all those rural communities whose economic life depends on the local jail) resulting from those high incarceration rates in the US. That’s billions in profits nationally.
It’s not only barbaric, but also questionable how long we can afford this unless we want our Quinn
tax hike to go even higher.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 3:21 pm
The problem is really about poverty in our country. Improve the income gap, make everybody be able to live comfortably, and most crime will go down.
Keep prisons for violent crimes only. There are better ways to handle non-violent crimes and minor drug users. Prison makes people who committed minor crimes into criminals. Spend less on incarceration, more on education and rehabilitation.
Comment by lgr Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 3:22 pm
I think the more important question which may underly the US AG’s statement is this: many no longer view imprisonment as an effective deterrent to committing crimes — therefore, how should the system be changed to ensure that there is an effective deterrent for crimes committed?
If jail is no longer an effective deterrent, what should replace it?
I many times hear the arguement that a more immediate, physical punishment (e.g, corporal punishment) should be instituted (as it is in other countries with lower crime rates). Is this truly an option in the US that protects against “cruel and unusual punishments?”
I remember when spending a night in “jail” was an effective deterrent for most people. With that deterrent having lost its effectiveness (for many years now) it will be very difficult to find a new, effective deterrent that will burn into the societal conscience enough to where the mere thought of it will stop someone from commiting a crime.
Comment by unclesam Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 3:23 pm
Six - your reasoning is flawed. The 16 percent reduction is related to the likelihood of re-offending. “Likely” is not the same as “likelihood” as you suggest with your comment that “84% are likely to re-offend”.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 3:26 pm
===I guess we can look at it both ways. Despite treatment, 84% are likely to re-offend again.===
No you can’t look at it that way. The 16% number comes from the decrease in likelihood that an incarcerated individual who receives treatment will re-offend relative to their untreated counterparts.
To answer the question, yes there is a problem. Hard time should be reserved for people that commit violent crimes. A separate penal system should be used for the processing and rehabilitation of those who commit drug crimes and petty offenses. You could even use preexisting facilities, just institute two separate correctional arms.
Comment by Obamarama Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 3:33 pm
I am all for looking for a better solution, but mission one is to protect the 99 from the one who is committing the crimes.
As long as there is no danger to the security of the general public, all options should be explored.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 3:42 pm
I would suggest that part of the problem is we place people whi have committed minor drug and theft offesnes, and DUI, into prison. We take small time softcore criminals and turn them hardcore behind bars.
Plus its tough to get a job with a criminal record. I would reduce more minor offesnes to tickets in palce of jail time; and consider work release and home confinement for non-dangerous offenders.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 3:42 pm
After serving on the board of a youth social service agency for over fifteen years and a ten year career in educational publishing, it seems to me that if we decriminalize or legalize and control drugs, just like alcohol, the violence in poorer neighborhoods will decline, just like violence declined after the repeal of prohibition.
Gangs are drug distribution businesses that require security (violence) to maintain their share of the marketplace (territories). Destroy their businesses and the gangs will have diminished appeal to potential recruits because they will have no way to provide income to their members.
Finally, police departments and newspapers can stop aiding gang recruitment by reporting the sentences arrested drug dealers will receive if convicted instead of the “street value” of the drugs apprehended. The drugs are illegal and they should be treated by legitimate society as having no value.
So here are three suggestions:
Decriminalize/legalize drugs.
Support distribution of birth control and condoms to teenagers to postpone pregnancies by younguns not ready to be parents and provide guidance.
Smaller classes in schools where there are students from families with a history of dropping out. (I actually believe all schools should be neighborhood schools with small classes. Put money in the system up front in schools and park programs etc. to foster good development instead of after the fact when individuals have begun to commit crimes
Comment by chimack Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 3:43 pm
Not really sure of the answer to this one. I don’t like the idea of mandatory minimums for drug offenders. But it should be pointed out that as the incarceration rate has climbed nationally over the last 20 years or so, the violent crime rate has dropped.
Comment by FDR Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 3:47 pm
This from a representative of the federal government, which won’t let the states decriminalize medical marijuana? I basically agree with him, but would recommend leadership by example.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 3:55 pm
Prisons have become the social agency of last resort because they can’t turn away clients as well as the rural development engine of desperation cuz they’ll go where other business won’t. Prisons have had nothing to do w/ rehabilitation in at least two decades; they’ve simply been warehouses for mandatory minimum get-tough-on-crime legislation used to elect politicians. The proto-typical Frank Luntz “no new taxes/increase prison sentences for every crime/truth in sentencing/life without parole” political campaign. But I think I’m ranting.
Comment by Abe's Ghost Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 4:04 pm
“Finally, police departments and newspapers can stop aiding gang recruitment by reporting the sentences arrested drug dealers will receive if convicted instead of the “street value” of the drugs apprehended. The drugs are illegal and they should be treated by legitimate society as having no value.”
Thats a really good idea which I have never thought of. I don’t know how much it would help, but it certainly couldn’t hurt.
Comment by 19th Ward Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 4:10 pm
I see a problem with your line “..incarceration AS rehabilitation”. Incarceration is punishment, and a temporary means of protecting those outside the walls, but not a likely rehabilitator (unless you consider becoming a more proficient felon as “rehabilitation”. I wish incarceration would be a rehibilitator, but I think 99% of hardcore jailbirds would laugh at that notion. Save the rehab $ for 1st time offenders, and don’t waste it on the ONE Percenters.
Comment by You Go Boy Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 4:12 pm
If you get a chance, check out the program, Probation Challenge, run, in Chicago, by Rev. Harold Bailey for 30 years. What he has done, attempting to control recidivism, is precisely what Holder is talking about. Funding has always been a major problem
Comment by DE Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 4:12 pm
yes, there’s a problem. kids don’t learn early enough that crime
is wrong, we don’t do enough to treat at the juvy or adult level.
what to do:
1) deal with first time offenders…..as juveniles. first time they get picked up by police, time to go see a judge, who will play the wise parent role as intended, but this will teach kids that the consequences matter. direct them to after school activities at park, religious facility, school. unless the crime is a crime against person, a first time offender gets a severe scolding but
is cut a break. but by a judge. kids get WAY too many
station adjustments so that by the first time they are actually
arrested, regardless of age, they have learned that crime
has no consequences.
2)for repeat juvenile offenders, there must be facilities to take them in, and try to change their behavior. in the Thompson years, many juvy facilities were closed cause of a need for adult facilities. kids who hurt people need to be away. kids who go
in need psych, drug, educational tests and treatment, the works.
one last try to make sure they do not graduate to adult crime.
3) provide lots and lots of drug rehab for those in adult prison. and teach prisoners to read. same thing for the kids.
4) ensure that those with minor drug crimes are not in prison, if only to shut up the doubters who think our prisons are filled with dope smokers. dope plus a crime against person does not equal minor offense. if an adult offends for the first time, and
does not have a juvenile record, and does not commit a crime against person, cut them a break. which the judiciary usually does already.
5) people who hurt people don’t belong in society. murder, sexual assault, these things are deadly serious and if there are so many people doing that, and we need lots and lots of prisons, oh well Eric Holder. bad people belong in prison. or put to death, yep, i’m a believer.
Comment by Amy Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 4:28 pm
Prison is increasingly used as a holding tank for the mentally ill. Unfortunately, prison isn’t treatment — and the mentally ill won’t magically be cured by a stint in prison or jail. As community based social services decline, the jails and prisons are going to step into the gap and pick up the slack.
All this at a huge cost to the taxpayer — institutionalization is very expensive.
I understand there are some really violent and dangerous criminals out there. But there are others who aren’t as violent and dangerous and who need an opportunity to redeem themselves. They should be able to learn a skill that will help them survive outside prison or jail without criminal activity.
Instead they are locked up and then live with a lifetime label of “felon” which prevents them from housing or decent employment. Have you noticed that everything is a felony — but it isn’t an effective preventive measure. Prisons are filling faster than we can build them. we build and operate more and more prisons and jails, and pay more and more dollars to incarcerate people. This is not cost effective and isn’t having the desired result.
I think the system should focus on rehabilitation of the less dangerous offenders, and less on creating an entire subclass of citizens with limited opportunities. Community based services and treatment for mental illness and substance abuse issues is waaaaayyyyyy less expensive than building bigger prisons.
Comment by SouthernGirl Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 4:41 pm
A good education and a chance at a decent job would go a long way to helping the problem.
Comment by Mike an Ike Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 4:52 pm
Great that Holder is bringing attention to this major social problem. the US incarcerates way too many people, often for relatively minor violations and at a huge cost to society both in terms of the millions of dollars spent on prisons and the fact that rather than rehabilitating offenders, stays in prison seem to lead them to a life of further crime. We need more programming and educational opportunities especially for nonviolent offenders and less of the inane, self-righteous “tough on crime” attitude that has led us to such destructive policies in the first place.
Comment by Nickname Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 5:00 pm
The problem of the education excuse is that there is free education through high school available for all citizens. There is also a lot of post high school education available.] for little or no money. What more should we do?
If the folks do not take advantage of free education when it is offered, how many different ways do you need to repackage the same product just to see if those uneducated will return?
Comment by Plutocrat03 Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 5:11 pm
How many bedrooms does Holder have in his home?
Comment by Ricketts Field Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 5:14 pm
I saw Public Enemies this weekend (don’t waste your time, it was awful), and there was a throw-away line spoken by the actor portraying J. Edgar Hoover announcing “the first war on crime in our nation’s history.” The first of anything is never called the first because no one knows if there will be a second. World War I was known as the Great War until we did it again.
But Michael Mann’s disaster of a movie reminded me of the whole concept of the war(s) on crime and it’s more recent incarnation, the war on drugs (which is a war on people btw). We warehouse criminals, we don’t rehabilitate. Then we turn them loose back into the poorest communities and keep them from participating in our economy. Which turns many back to the underground economy which sends them back to prison.
An African-American man is more likely to be in prison today than in college. That is not acceptable under any circumstance. So this is a very long way of saying, yes, I have a problem with the way the U.S. approaches criminal rehabilitation.
But no, I don’t have any easy alternative beyond decriminalizing drugs and eliminating that black market economy. I suspect, if there is an answer that can win public support in this country, it will make the current health care reform debate look like beanbag. And cost ten times as much.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 5:26 pm
Anon-
I see your point. So the math goes like this:
If, say, 50% of first time offenders are “cured” by their first experience with the criminal justice system, that means 50% are not “cured” and are likely to offend and encounter the system again.
If treatment of all offenders ensures a reduction of 16% in the likely repeaters, the balance shifts to something like: 58% of first time offenders are “cured” by their first encounter with the “criminal justice + treatment” system, and 42% are not and are likely to encounter the system again.
It’s a reduction for sure, although still a modest one. And there is always going to be a hard core of people that just need to be separated from society for its own protection. So the onus is still on the system to identify and rehabilitate all who are willing and able… and to make sure that the truly incorrigible don’t charm their way through the cracks as supposedly “rehabilitated” citizens, only to victimize others despite our good intentions.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 6:02 pm
If you want to know what is EVIL about prisons today, read the stories Sunday and Mnnday in the Belleville News Democrat (!) about Tamms. Guys commit a minor crime, or guys have mental illness, and wind up in 24/7 solitary confinement FOR LIFE! Sick society, or what!?
Comment by moby Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 6:40 pm
While I’d like to believe that there’s a different approach that would be more feasible, it certainly doesn’t sound as if Holder or anyone he’s working with has found it yet.
Guantanamo should have taught this Administration by now that an effective (emphasis added) plan to deal with prisoners who are released is required BEFORE taking action–and before gradiose announcements are made to the public.
As a Voter, I’d also like to understand exactly who is going to be held responsible–and to what degree–if these types of programs backfire and harm others.
Comment by Ahem...The REAL Anonymous Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 6:51 pm
While we’re on the topic, wasn’t there something in the 80s or 90s about a rehab program for murderers, child molesters, or serial killers that went very wrong (i.e., the guys that were being rehabilitated were allowed to leave prison for work as part of the program)? Near Boston maybe? Or are the wires in the old head getting twisted?
Comment by Ahem...The REAL Anonymous Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 7:11 pm
People are awfully quick to say there’s no alternative to prisons as we know it… But I’ve seen glimmers of alternative systems that a society could take up and run with. There is a documentary (cannot find the title) that compares the Ohio supermax (where prisoners are kept in total social isolation for years) to a comparable population of offenders in California, where instead of instituting social isolation, they do hyper-socialization. The prisoners do intensive group therapy all day every day, and instead of a culture of suspicion and violence, they gradually build mutual support and self-transformation. People say, yeah but that would take a lot of money–but at supermaxes, which are the opposite of rehabilitation, costs are astronomical. Why not put that money into helping prisoners become better people?
Comment by Ollie Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 7:15 pm
Thanks. I’d be interested in seeing the documentary.
Comment by Ahem...The REAL Anonymous Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 7:41 pm
I’m not exactly sure how allot of you think that education is gonna is going to keep these guys from reoffending. It’s called addiction for a reason. Wether it’s drugs, liquor or sex offenders. Not sending multiple DUI offenders to jail is laughable. Guess you want to wait till they kill someone??? As far as having guys in prison with mental illness, What did everyone think was gonna happen when the government closes down mental health facilities and expects these guys out on the street to stay on their meds all by themselves? As far as those articles in the Belleville paper. I haven’t read them but as short as the state is on money why would they minor offenders in a facility that’s 3 or 4 times the cost of all other facilities in the state??? Don’t think so.
Comment by D Wareham Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 7:41 pm
Evidence based practices for treatment protocols that offer sustainable models for recovery whereas the success rates exceed 70% exist and are current providers to the State. Therefore to lump them all together a mistake, yet the very same programs that perform are at risk of substantial budget cuts. In general, studies indicate that for every $1 spent on treatment the state saves $7 (Studies: univ. of Chicago 1994 for State of California; Roosevelt University 2007 Illinois saves $8 with every $1 spent) There should be tremendous public support for programs that address the issue of substance abuse and alcoholism with these types of success rates — the lives and money saved are a huge return on our investment. Consequently, cuts are devastating to both lives and budgets…bottom line expect accountability from your providers, agencies and politicians and lets do our homework.
Comment by Results driven Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 8:05 pm
I think the problem might be, D, that some are talking about criminal rehabilitation while others are talking about folks who probably should be in mental health facilities–or aren’t distinguishing between the two.
Comment by Ahem...The REAL Anonymous Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 8:08 pm
Sorry, Results, but again, are you referring to criminal rehabilitation in prisons, or are you referring to substance abuse programs in general. Reading what you wrote, makes me wonder about someone who committed a heinous crime who also happens to be an alcoholic, was caught, and winds up in prison.
Are you saying that once he goes through treatment for alcoholism, there’s a “good chance” that he won’t commit another heinous crime?
Comment by Ahem...The REAL Anonymous Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 8:17 pm
While we’re digressing about Eric Holder and the ABA, please note that a local newspaper, the Belleville News-Democrat, has produced a fantastic series of articles on Illinois’ supermax prison, Tamms Correctional Center. The series shows the wrong-headedness of Illinois’ (and the U.S.’s) approach to incarceration. And it also shows that you don’t need to be a big city paper to do investigative journalism.
Comment by All politics is local Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 8:25 pm
Providing better education and job opportunities to the poor will have its greatest effect on the crime rate IF it enables them to obtain jobs that can support spouses and children, so they can get married and form stable, intact families where children can be brought up with a sense of belonging, knowledge of right and wrong, and an idea of what real manhood/womanhood means. Do that and it will take care of or at least lessen a lot of problems — crime, addiction, gang membership, teen pregnancy, etc. Any measures that make it easier for the poor or minorities to form and support stable family units (despite any stupid mistakes they may have made in their youth) should be encouraged.
Comment by Bookworm Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 8:47 pm
let’s go ask countries like Iran and China and see how they handle thieves , murders , and child molesters!
Comment by understaffed Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 9:05 pm
I know some guys in for life. They are murderers. They will tell you anything to impress you. They will claim to have gotten religion, claim to feel bad about what they did to their families, friends, and to the people and the families they murdered. They will attend classes. They will dress up. They will do anything to get you to believe that they are a better person than they were before they went to prison.
But they are lying. They have no conscience. They feel little guilt over their crimes. They are playing you for a fool.
All their lives, these guys thought they were smarter than you, and if you got in their way, they harmed you. All their lives they told what they believed you wanted to hear, just to get off from a conviction. All their lives they have been claiming to be a victim, while all the time victimizing innocent women, men and children.
There are evil people in this world. Go ahead and define evil however you wish - or be really stupid and claim it doesn’t exist. But it does. The men and women who deal with evil people have respect for it. They fight it. They are afraid of it, because they have witnessed it’s absolute lack of respect for the innocent.
Before we start wringing our little hands and start pouting about how awful we are for locking people up, start talking to the people who have been raped. Talk to the women who are lucky to be alive. Talk to the children to cannot sleep at night after witnessing evil.
Then stop second-guessing what the good people who invest their expertise and lives in keeping you safe. Respect them. Recognize that they care just as much as you in preventing innocent people from being locked up. Talk to the lawyers who work daily to bring justice to our world. Talk to the police who risk everything they have every day. These people are not the victimizers. These people are the ones we cannot live without.
It is fashionable from the safety they provide us to question the work they do. It is fashionable from the safety they provide us to question our society’s values. When you are locking your doors tonight, remember that we have to respect the reality of evil before we live with our doors unlocked.
As to those who believe we can eliminate crime by legalizing it - stop locking your doors completely, and start living out your stupidity. I hope you can survive.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 9:43 pm
understaffed,
Why don’t you go ask them for the rest of us, who have somewhat higher benchmarks for criminal justice systems.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 9:45 pm
You know more than one person in prison for life for committing murder? Really?
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 9:47 pm
better educational and job opportunities bookworm???? They’re talking about letting out 6.000 inmates while the economy is in the crapper and they’re are cutting college support and raising tuition. What do you all think these guys will do when they get out in times like these???
Comment by D Wareham Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 9:49 pm
===It is fashionable from the safety they provide us to question the work they do. It is fashionable from the safety they provide us to question our society’s values. When you are locking your doors tonight, remember that we have to respect the reality of evil before we live with our doors unlocked.===
VM ordered the Code Red apparently.
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 9:51 pm
Job 1: Specific deterrence: keep the bad guy away from civilized society
Job 2: general deterrence: incentive for other bad guys to avoid going to jail
Job 3; rehabilitation.
Do 1 & 2 first, 3 is nice, but not required
Just make sure only the ‘bad’ guys get put away. The ‘victimless’ crimes are at the margin…need for judgement here.
Comment by Bobs yer Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 9:52 pm
1st one of the 6,000 that graduates to something more serious when he gets out early and has nothing better to do. That will put an end to Quinn’s hope of being elected Governor. 6.000 chances to screw up!
Comment by D Wareham Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 9:55 pm
The American penal system has focused on attempting to incapacitate inmates rather than rehabilitating or otherwise deterring them. Perhaps the ultimate attempt at incapacitation was California’s version of the 3-strikes law, which increased that state’s prison population over the past decade.
Three-strikes in California is now effectively dead, as the state is releasing thousands of offenders the law says it should detain. Why? Even before the current deficit, the state couldn’t afford to imprison such a large population.
One solution is to narrow the focus of incapacitation. Rewriting sentencing guidelines so that recidivists of specifically violent crimes are more likely to serve longer terms than repeat offenders of non-violent crimes is a way to start.
That is necessary, but insufficient. Changing the function of our prisons from a focus on incapacitation to education/rehabilitation is complicated, expensive, yet ultimately what will need to happen to reduce the long-term financial burden on the state. (It might also have long-term social benefits.)
Aside from the penal code, finding a way to place vulnerable young men (over the past century, both homicide rates and non-violent crime rates tend to increase when there’s a larger share of 15-25-year-old males as a fraction of the general population) in stable jobs with futures is a great long-term deterrent for crime. That would assume a functioning economy, which is a good goal. One of the many reasons Congress approved billions in federal spending during the New Deal was “child-saving,” preventing a generation of young men from following the example of hobos…or of revolutionaries.
Comment by Boone Logan Square Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 10:45 pm
I doubt that very many people are truly rehabilitated in prison. Drugs as others have stated are the problem. If they were legal, there would be no profit motive in dealing them, it would decrease the amount of drug abusers as well as cripple gangs. I have heard many of the top people in law enforcement privately acknowledge the futility of the present system, but know they’d be fried if they ever said it publicly. Damn shame.
Comment by Avy Meyers Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 11:11 pm
D Wareham, obviously, I meant that as a long-term goal and not something that’s going to be accomplished overnight in a bad economy.
As for why the state would place “minor” offenders in a place like Tamms: the article mentions inmates who were sent there for throwing (ahem) bodily fluids at guards — several years ago, that action was made a Class 2 felony aggravated assault, via a bill that passed the GA with hardly any debate. (I know because an inmate from Tamms wrote to my office and asked if we could look up the Public Act that made it so.)
This may have seemed like a good idea at the time — also, given the fact that the rate of HIV infection among prison inmates is higher than among the general population, it seemed like a valuable safety measure as well.
But, has it also resulted in more mentally ill inmates being locked away in a place where they will only go more and more crazy? Perhaps so.
Comment by Bookworm Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 11:19 pm
All I gotta say is tell him next time don’t throw stuff at the employees and they won’t throw him in the hole. I will agree with ya tho. The mentally ill should be in an institution for the mentally ill. only problem is the state already opened the doors and let them out of those places. Now they get incarseration instead of treatment. have a good night see ya
Comment by D Wareham Tuesday, Aug 4, 09 @ 11:31 pm
BooneLogan: Nice post. Though it is a great luxury to wallow in anger, the government’s obligation to use tax dollars wisely requires that we take rational approaches to our crime problems.
Comment by Quizzical Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 12:05 am
47th ward i hope your not running for re-election. As for the criminal justice system it speaks for itself. You have no money you do the time. Ask everyone that’s locked up from cook county. Ask them how dirty the cops are up there. Just like the cop that assaulted the waitress. Do you think it’s ok to get drunk kill someone with your bentley and spend only 24 days in prison? Money talks everywhere. I know a personal friend who was drunk and killed a cop. He didn’t do a year in prison. Cost the family over 250,000 dollars. If you need the last name I will provide it to you. Have you ever set foot in a max prison? There is no rehab. You get with your gang for protection and strap your shanks on (homemade knife).If your lucky you won’t get raped. Gangster Disciples allow homosexuality after locked up for so long. They also extort their own members for “dues”. You need to study up on your gang laws and find out what really goes on inside a max prison.
Comment by understaffed Wednesday, Aug 5, 09 @ 9:30 am
47th ward Check the news on the inmates stabbed up at Cook County Jail. Gangs at their finest! Welcome to Hell!
Comment by understaffed Thursday, Aug 6, 09 @ 9:55 am