|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 23 2014 03:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2014 02:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 23 2014 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2014 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 23 2014 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2014 01:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 23 2014 01:03 farvacola wrote:On July 23 2014 01:01 EmilA wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, but is it really possible to buy private prison stock? Like, is it publicly traded? Yes, two of the largest prison organizations, the Geo group and the CCA, are publicly traded and actually include the supposed benefit of "high recidivism" in their investor prospecti. No joke. If you're talking about the HBO clip, it was a reference to high recidivism in the US not high recidivism specific to CCA. Can't you see that doesn't matter? They are saying high recidivism rates are good... No public prison would ever suggest high recidivism rates are good... Yes they would. The numbers work the same way for a public prison. If you're considering building a new prison, high recidivism rates are a "good thing" because it means that your prison population is stable and the construction project won't be a waste. Yes but the public doesn't 'want' to build new prisons. Building prisons is a bad thing, that we should only do because we have no other reasonable alternative, not because we see an opportunity to use draconian laws to create free labor forces and turn a profit. A stable prison population is yet another thing that is good for private business (as well as a growing population) where as a declining population is a sign of success for public prisons. I don't know why you are so bent on making public prisons and private prisons seem the same when they obviously are not? Still true after using private prisons. Reality hasn't changed! It reads that when you use private prisons the public doesn't change its mind and suddenly want more prisons. No the public doesn't, but the prison industry and the shareholders profiting from it do, and that's the fundamental difference. This puts the prison industries motives in direct contrast with the public's. Combine that with the study that showed when it comes to who influences laws, public opinion finishes last behind rich people and the lobby hobby. You see that we end up building and filling prisons for profit instead of trying to reduce our need for them. There is no legitimate reason we should have more people in prison than ANYWHERE in the world, trying to correct that glaring and obvious problem is in direct opposition of the intentions of the private prison industry.
People also profit from public prison construction, supplying prison equipment and working at prisons. You can also profit from buying muni bonds tied to public prisons (tax free!).
Private prisons also have an incentive to increase billable services given to prisoners. Private prisons can also take the public off the hook for fixed costs in the event of prison populations falling. Private prisons also give the public another financing tool to build more prisons - which is often necessary given overcrowding.
Also, good contract construction can mitigate a lot of the bad incentives.
All in, this shouldn't be a big enough issue to warrant the amount of attention it gets.
|
And why do you think we have strict drug laws? Could inequality be related to those?
|
On July 23 2014 03:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2014 03:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2014 02:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 23 2014 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2014 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 23 2014 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2014 01:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 23 2014 01:03 farvacola wrote:On July 23 2014 01:01 EmilA wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, but is it really possible to buy private prison stock? Like, is it publicly traded? Yes, two of the largest prison organizations, the Geo group and the CCA, are publicly traded and actually include the supposed benefit of "high recidivism" in their investor prospecti. No joke. If you're talking about the HBO clip, it was a reference to high recidivism in the US not high recidivism specific to CCA. Can't you see that doesn't matter? They are saying high recidivism rates are good... No public prison would ever suggest high recidivism rates are good... Yes they would. The numbers work the same way for a public prison. If you're considering building a new prison, high recidivism rates are a "good thing" because it means that your prison population is stable and the construction project won't be a waste. Yes but the public doesn't 'want' to build new prisons. Building prisons is a bad thing, that we should only do because we have no other reasonable alternative, not because we see an opportunity to use draconian laws to create free labor forces and turn a profit. A stable prison population is yet another thing that is good for private business (as well as a growing population) where as a declining population is a sign of success for public prisons. I don't know why you are so bent on making public prisons and private prisons seem the same when they obviously are not? Still true after using private prisons. Reality hasn't changed! It reads that when you use private prisons the public doesn't change its mind and suddenly want more prisons. No the public doesn't, but the prison industry and the shareholders profiting from it do, and that's the fundamental difference. This puts the prison industries motives in direct contrast with the public's. Combine that with the study that showed when it comes to who influences laws, public opinion finishes last behind rich people and the lobby hobby. You see that we end up building and filling prisons for profit instead of trying to reduce our need for them. There is no legitimate reason we should have more people in prison than ANYWHERE in the world, trying to correct that glaring and obvious problem is in direct opposition of the intentions of the private prison industry. People also profit from public prison construction, supplying prison equipment and working at prisons. You can also profit from buying muni bonds tied to public prisons (tax free!). Private prisons also have an incentive to increase billable services given to prisoners. Private prisons can also take the public off the hook for fixed costs in the event of prison populations falling. Private prisons also give the public another financing tool to build more prisons - which is often necessary given overcrowding. Also, good contract construction can mitigate a lot of the bad incentives. All in, this shouldn't be a big enough issue to warrant the amount of attention it gets.
Private prisons cut staffing and expenditures. There are fewer jobs at private prisons than there are at the public ones. You are just making up reasons now.
|
On July 23 2014 03:56 IgnE wrote:
And why do you think we have strict drug laws? Could inequality be related to those?
Strict drug laws were a response to a growing crime and drug problem.
|
On July 23 2014 03:58 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2014 03:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 23 2014 03:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2014 02:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 23 2014 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2014 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 23 2014 02:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 23 2014 01:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 23 2014 01:03 farvacola wrote:On July 23 2014 01:01 EmilA wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, but is it really possible to buy private prison stock? Like, is it publicly traded? Yes, two of the largest prison organizations, the Geo group and the CCA, are publicly traded and actually include the supposed benefit of "high recidivism" in their investor prospecti. No joke. If you're talking about the HBO clip, it was a reference to high recidivism in the US not high recidivism specific to CCA. Can't you see that doesn't matter? They are saying high recidivism rates are good... No public prison would ever suggest high recidivism rates are good... Yes they would. The numbers work the same way for a public prison. If you're considering building a new prison, high recidivism rates are a "good thing" because it means that your prison population is stable and the construction project won't be a waste. Yes but the public doesn't 'want' to build new prisons. Building prisons is a bad thing, that we should only do because we have no other reasonable alternative, not because we see an opportunity to use draconian laws to create free labor forces and turn a profit. A stable prison population is yet another thing that is good for private business (as well as a growing population) where as a declining population is a sign of success for public prisons. I don't know why you are so bent on making public prisons and private prisons seem the same when they obviously are not? Still true after using private prisons. Reality hasn't changed! It reads that when you use private prisons the public doesn't change its mind and suddenly want more prisons. No the public doesn't, but the prison industry and the shareholders profiting from it do, and that's the fundamental difference. This puts the prison industries motives in direct contrast with the public's. Combine that with the study that showed when it comes to who influences laws, public opinion finishes last behind rich people and the lobby hobby. You see that we end up building and filling prisons for profit instead of trying to reduce our need for them. There is no legitimate reason we should have more people in prison than ANYWHERE in the world, trying to correct that glaring and obvious problem is in direct opposition of the intentions of the private prison industry. People also profit from public prison construction, supplying prison equipment and working at prisons. You can also profit from buying muni bonds tied to public prisons (tax free!). Private prisons also have an incentive to increase billable services given to prisoners. Private prisons can also take the public off the hook for fixed costs in the event of prison populations falling. Private prisons also give the public another financing tool to build more prisons - which is often necessary given overcrowding. Also, good contract construction can mitigate a lot of the bad incentives. All in, this shouldn't be a big enough issue to warrant the amount of attention it gets. Private prisons cut staffing and expenditures. There are fewer jobs at private prisons than there are at the public ones. You are just making up reasons now.
Public prisons skimp on expenses too - just look at CA.
|
On July 23 2014 03:56 IgnE wrote:
And why do you think we have strict drug laws? Could inequality be related to those?
Drug laws acted as a substitute for conviction in a lot of cases. Law enforcement and the courtroom would use that evidence to convict people that were (usually wrongly) deemed as troublemakers or people that "belong" in prison, but couldn't be convicted on violent or serious crime. The sentencing is obviously absurd and abused to enact implicit social policies (like racism) in certain areas, and has the unintended side effect of magnifying inequality.
|
On July 23 2014 03:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2014 03:56 IgnE wrote:
And why do you think we have strict drug laws? Could inequality be related to those? Strict drug laws were a response to a growing crime and drug problem.
And I guess the growing crime and drug problem was a bunch of schizophrenics who weren't getting mental health treatment? Or are you listening to yourself and realize the circularity of your arguments?
|
On July 23 2014 04:07 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2014 03:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 23 2014 03:56 IgnE wrote:
And why do you think we have strict drug laws? Could inequality be related to those? Strict drug laws were a response to a growing crime and drug problem. And I guess the growing crime and drug problem was a bunch of schizophrenics who weren't getting mental health treatment? Or are you listening to yourself and realize the circularity of your arguments?
My arguments are sound. The crime rate increased dramatically and governments got tough on crime (drugs and other offenses).
Also, mental institution populations declined in the 60's and 70's after the public decided that mental hospitals were inhumane. Subsequently, a large number of people with mental health issues wound up in prison.
These are both facts. If you want to dispute them I'll dig out my sources.
|
On July 23 2014 04:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2014 04:07 IgnE wrote:On July 23 2014 03:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 23 2014 03:56 IgnE wrote:
And why do you think we have strict drug laws? Could inequality be related to those? Strict drug laws were a response to a growing crime and drug problem. And I guess the growing crime and drug problem was a bunch of schizophrenics who weren't getting mental health treatment? Or are you listening to yourself and realize the circularity of your arguments? My arguments are sound. The crime rate increased dramatically and governments got tough on crime (drugs and other offenses). Also, mental institution populations declined in the 60's and 70's after the public decided that mental hospitals were inhumane. Subsequently, a large number of people with mental health issues wound up in prison. These are both facts. If you want to dispute them I'll dig out my sources.
You are truly impossible to deal with. You change the argument every time.
You should have said above: "Ok, so private prisons don't create jobs (but CA state prisons are also cutting jobs to save money (because they refuse to raise taxes))."
I'm not arguing with you that crime didn't increase. Are you dense? What changed in the late 60's and early 70's that would have led to crime spiking throughout the late 70's and early 80's? Could it be inequality? That thing that you said was implausible a page back because the severity of drug laws supposedly was the better explanation? The public rightly decided that mental prisons were inhumane. If you want to adjust the graph I posted by including the mental prison population alongside the official incarceration rate before 1980 then maybe you would have a point. The point being that perhaps, just maybe, metal prison + regular prison populations have been stable since the early 70s. Somehow I don't think that will explain it though.
|
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — An evangelical Christian group plans to try to convert children as young as 5 at Portland apartment pools, public parks and dozens of other gathering spots this summer — a campaign that's got some residents upset.
They've banded together in recent weeks to warn parents about the Child Evangelism Fellowship's Good News Club, buying a full-page ad in the local alternative weekly to highlight the group's tactics.
"They pretend to be a mainstream Christian Bible study when in fact they're a very old school fundamentalist sect," said Kaye Schmitt, an organizer with Protect Portland Children, which takes issue with the group's message and the way it's delivering it.
CEF says Protect Portland Children is a shadow group run by atheists who seek to dismantle Christian outreach. The group said its methods are above reproach.
"Children are easy to manipulate, we all know that," said CEF's vice president Moises Esteves. "We don't use any of the schemes and high-pressure tactics that we're accused of. Nothing could be further from the truth."
Esteves' group decided to hold its annual summer mission program in Portland because of the area's irreligious leanings.
Trying to reach young people in Oregon presents the group with two strongly secular demographics.
Gallup polls in 2008 and 2012 have consistently indicated that Oregon is among the least religious states in the country, with one of the fewest populations identifying themselves as "very religious."
Source
|
Norway28924 Posts
anyway, drug laws and mentally ill patients might explain spikes and downturns in the american graph. But not why the american incarceration rate is 10x that of Norway and between like 5x and 10x that of like, any other comparable country.
|
On July 23 2014 04:22 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2014 04:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 23 2014 04:07 IgnE wrote:On July 23 2014 03:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 23 2014 03:56 IgnE wrote:
And why do you think we have strict drug laws? Could inequality be related to those? Strict drug laws were a response to a growing crime and drug problem. And I guess the growing crime and drug problem was a bunch of schizophrenics who weren't getting mental health treatment? Or are you listening to yourself and realize the circularity of your arguments? My arguments are sound. The crime rate increased dramatically and governments got tough on crime (drugs and other offenses). Also, mental institution populations declined in the 60's and 70's after the public decided that mental hospitals were inhumane. Subsequently, a large number of people with mental health issues wound up in prison. These are both facts. If you want to dispute them I'll dig out my sources. You are truly impossible to deal with. You change the argument every time. You should have said above: "Ok, so private prisons don't create jobs (but CA state prisons are also cutting jobs to save money (because they refuse to raise taxes))." I'm not arguing with you that crime didn't increase. Are you dense? What changed in the late 60's and early 70's that would have led to crime spiking throughout the late 70's and early 80's? Could it be inequality? That thing that you said was implausible a page back because the severity of drug laws supposedly was the better explanation? The public rightly decided that mental prisons were inhumane. If you want to adjust the graph I posted by including the mental prison population alongside the official incarceration rate before 1980 then maybe you would have a point. The point being that perhaps, just maybe, metal prison + regular prison populations have been stable since the early 70s. Somehow I don't think that will explain it though.
![[image loading]](http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/C/20130803_USC155.png)
Source
^ Mental hospitals were emptied out and slowly many made their way to jail.
Mentally ill persons increasingly receive care provided by corrections agencies. In 1959, nearly 559,000 mentally ill patients were housed in state mental hospitals (Lamb, 1998). A shift to "deinstitutionalize" mentally ill persons had, by the late 1990s, dropped the number of persons housed in public psychiatric hospitals to approximately 70,000 (CorrectCare, 1999). As a result, mentally ill persons are more likely to live in local communities. Some come into contact with the criminal justice system.
In a 2006 Special Report, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) estimated that 705,600 mentally ill adults were incarcerated in State prisons, 78,800 in Federal prisons and 479,900 in local jails. In addition, research suggests that "people with mental illnesses are overrepresented in probation and parole populations at estimated rates ranging from two to four time the general population" (Prins and Draper, 2009). Growing numbers of mentally ill offenders have strained correctional systems. Source
|
On July 23 2014 04:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2014 04:22 IgnE wrote:On July 23 2014 04:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 23 2014 04:07 IgnE wrote:On July 23 2014 03:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 23 2014 03:56 IgnE wrote:
And why do you think we have strict drug laws? Could inequality be related to those? Strict drug laws were a response to a growing crime and drug problem. And I guess the growing crime and drug problem was a bunch of schizophrenics who weren't getting mental health treatment? Or are you listening to yourself and realize the circularity of your arguments? My arguments are sound. The crime rate increased dramatically and governments got tough on crime (drugs and other offenses). Also, mental institution populations declined in the 60's and 70's after the public decided that mental hospitals were inhumane. Subsequently, a large number of people with mental health issues wound up in prison. These are both facts. If you want to dispute them I'll dig out my sources. You are truly impossible to deal with. You change the argument every time. You should have said above: "Ok, so private prisons don't create jobs (but CA state prisons are also cutting jobs to save money (because they refuse to raise taxes))." I'm not arguing with you that crime didn't increase. Are you dense? What changed in the late 60's and early 70's that would have led to crime spiking throughout the late 70's and early 80's? Could it be inequality? That thing that you said was implausible a page back because the severity of drug laws supposedly was the better explanation? The public rightly decided that mental prisons were inhumane. If you want to adjust the graph I posted by including the mental prison population alongside the official incarceration rate before 1980 then maybe you would have a point. The point being that perhaps, just maybe, metal prison + regular prison populations have been stable since the early 70s. Somehow I don't think that will explain it though. Source^ Mental hospitals were emptied out and slowly many made their way to jail. Show nested quote +Mentally ill persons increasingly receive care provided by corrections agencies. In 1959, nearly 559,000 mentally ill patients were housed in state mental hospitals (Lamb, 1998). A shift to "deinstitutionalize" mentally ill persons had, by the late 1990s, dropped the number of persons housed in public psychiatric hospitals to approximately 70,000 (CorrectCare, 1999). As a result, mentally ill persons are more likely to live in local communities. Some come into contact with the criminal justice system.
In a 2006 Special Report, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) estimated that 705,600 mentally ill adults were incarcerated in State prisons, 78,800 in Federal prisons and 479,900 in local jails. In addition, research suggests that "people with mental illnesses are overrepresented in probation and parole populations at estimated rates ranging from two to four time the general population" (Prins and Draper, 2009). Growing numbers of mentally ill offenders have strained correctional systems. Source
And it makes it better that we're paying companies to not take care of crazy people so they'll show back up?
|
On July 23 2014 03:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2014 03:42 IgnE wrote:On July 23 2014 02:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 23 2014 02:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:what's the real problem in this case? I mean from my perspective it'd be draconian drug laws combined with a culture of wealth-glorification combined with gross systematic inequality making crime the only perceivably realistic way for many to have a shot at achieving the american dream and thus a feeling of self worth combined with your population having a particularly vengeful mindset, but I'm not sure you agree with my analysis nor with all of that being problematic.  for what it's worth though I agree that if those factors were fixed private prisons would not by themselves be problematic - private rehabilitation centers don't strike me as particularly problematic and some prisons could certainly be that. The inequality argument doesn't seem to hold water. Crime has been falling for a decade plus and prison populations have been falling for a few - all in the face of higher inequality. Tough drug laws and lack of mental healthcare are the culprits. ![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/U.S._incarceration_rates_1925_onwards.png) Do you really mean to tell me that "the inequality argument doesn't seem to hold water" because prison populations have slightly fallen after going up wildly since the 1970s? You and I are looking at the same graph right? You have a way of using words that is more than a little deceptive. There has been a massive spike followed by a tiny dip and you focus on the tiny dip as the trend line. That and the fact that much more obvious culprits are to blame - strict drug laws and mental health.
I think the word you are looking for but keep dodging is draconian. 'Strict' implies they are remotely reasonable or fairly enforced. I don't think anyone thinks that the entirety of the spike in incarceration is a result of private prisons, the point is that their intentions are in opposition of the intentions of the justice system and society on whole.
No question that the idiotic drug laws we have were/are a primary culprit. But we can't ignore how obvious a problem like this is.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2FP4U8B.png)
|
On July 23 2014 04:50 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2014 04:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 23 2014 04:22 IgnE wrote:On July 23 2014 04:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 23 2014 04:07 IgnE wrote:On July 23 2014 03:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 23 2014 03:56 IgnE wrote:
And why do you think we have strict drug laws? Could inequality be related to those? Strict drug laws were a response to a growing crime and drug problem. And I guess the growing crime and drug problem was a bunch of schizophrenics who weren't getting mental health treatment? Or are you listening to yourself and realize the circularity of your arguments? My arguments are sound. The crime rate increased dramatically and governments got tough on crime (drugs and other offenses). Also, mental institution populations declined in the 60's and 70's after the public decided that mental hospitals were inhumane. Subsequently, a large number of people with mental health issues wound up in prison. These are both facts. If you want to dispute them I'll dig out my sources. You are truly impossible to deal with. You change the argument every time. You should have said above: "Ok, so private prisons don't create jobs (but CA state prisons are also cutting jobs to save money (because they refuse to raise taxes))." I'm not arguing with you that crime didn't increase. Are you dense? What changed in the late 60's and early 70's that would have led to crime spiking throughout the late 70's and early 80's? Could it be inequality? That thing that you said was implausible a page back because the severity of drug laws supposedly was the better explanation? The public rightly decided that mental prisons were inhumane. If you want to adjust the graph I posted by including the mental prison population alongside the official incarceration rate before 1980 then maybe you would have a point. The point being that perhaps, just maybe, metal prison + regular prison populations have been stable since the early 70s. Somehow I don't think that will explain it though. Source^ Mental hospitals were emptied out and slowly many made their way to jail. Mentally ill persons increasingly receive care provided by corrections agencies. In 1959, nearly 559,000 mentally ill patients were housed in state mental hospitals (Lamb, 1998). A shift to "deinstitutionalize" mentally ill persons had, by the late 1990s, dropped the number of persons housed in public psychiatric hospitals to approximately 70,000 (CorrectCare, 1999). As a result, mentally ill persons are more likely to live in local communities. Some come into contact with the criminal justice system.
In a 2006 Special Report, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) estimated that 705,600 mentally ill adults were incarcerated in State prisons, 78,800 in Federal prisons and 479,900 in local jails. In addition, research suggests that "people with mental illnesses are overrepresented in probation and parole populations at estimated rates ranging from two to four time the general population" (Prins and Draper, 2009). Growing numbers of mentally ill offenders have strained correctional systems. Source And it makes it better that we're paying companies to not take care of crazy people so they'll show back up?
Note that the two statistics on the last two pages are definitively not compatible. Because if 600/100k people are mentally ill AND in prison, it can not possibly be the case that only 500/100k people are in prison in total. Thus, something is awry here.
|
On July 23 2014 04:55 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2014 04:50 Jormundr wrote:On July 23 2014 04:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 23 2014 04:22 IgnE wrote:On July 23 2014 04:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 23 2014 04:07 IgnE wrote:On July 23 2014 03:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 23 2014 03:56 IgnE wrote:
And why do you think we have strict drug laws? Could inequality be related to those? Strict drug laws were a response to a growing crime and drug problem. And I guess the growing crime and drug problem was a bunch of schizophrenics who weren't getting mental health treatment? Or are you listening to yourself and realize the circularity of your arguments? My arguments are sound. The crime rate increased dramatically and governments got tough on crime (drugs and other offenses). Also, mental institution populations declined in the 60's and 70's after the public decided that mental hospitals were inhumane. Subsequently, a large number of people with mental health issues wound up in prison. These are both facts. If you want to dispute them I'll dig out my sources. You are truly impossible to deal with. You change the argument every time. You should have said above: "Ok, so private prisons don't create jobs (but CA state prisons are also cutting jobs to save money (because they refuse to raise taxes))." I'm not arguing with you that crime didn't increase. Are you dense? What changed in the late 60's and early 70's that would have led to crime spiking throughout the late 70's and early 80's? Could it be inequality? That thing that you said was implausible a page back because the severity of drug laws supposedly was the better explanation? The public rightly decided that mental prisons were inhumane. If you want to adjust the graph I posted by including the mental prison population alongside the official incarceration rate before 1980 then maybe you would have a point. The point being that perhaps, just maybe, metal prison + regular prison populations have been stable since the early 70s. Somehow I don't think that will explain it though. Source^ Mental hospitals were emptied out and slowly many made their way to jail. Mentally ill persons increasingly receive care provided by corrections agencies. In 1959, nearly 559,000 mentally ill patients were housed in state mental hospitals (Lamb, 1998). A shift to "deinstitutionalize" mentally ill persons had, by the late 1990s, dropped the number of persons housed in public psychiatric hospitals to approximately 70,000 (CorrectCare, 1999). As a result, mentally ill persons are more likely to live in local communities. Some come into contact with the criminal justice system.
In a 2006 Special Report, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) estimated that 705,600 mentally ill adults were incarcerated in State prisons, 78,800 in Federal prisons and 479,900 in local jails. In addition, research suggests that "people with mental illnesses are overrepresented in probation and parole populations at estimated rates ranging from two to four time the general population" (Prins and Draper, 2009). Growing numbers of mentally ill offenders have strained correctional systems. Source And it makes it better that we're paying companies to not take care of crazy people so they'll show back up? Note that the two statistics on the last two pages are definitively not compatible. Because if 600/100k people are mentally ill AND in prison, it can not possibly be the case that only 500/100k people are in prison in total. Thus, something is awry here.
I think the graph I posted was prison population, not mentally ill exclusive.
|
On July 23 2014 04:50 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2014 04:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 23 2014 04:22 IgnE wrote:On July 23 2014 04:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 23 2014 04:07 IgnE wrote:On July 23 2014 03:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 23 2014 03:56 IgnE wrote:
And why do you think we have strict drug laws? Could inequality be related to those? Strict drug laws were a response to a growing crime and drug problem. And I guess the growing crime and drug problem was a bunch of schizophrenics who weren't getting mental health treatment? Or are you listening to yourself and realize the circularity of your arguments? My arguments are sound. The crime rate increased dramatically and governments got tough on crime (drugs and other offenses). Also, mental institution populations declined in the 60's and 70's after the public decided that mental hospitals were inhumane. Subsequently, a large number of people with mental health issues wound up in prison. These are both facts. If you want to dispute them I'll dig out my sources. You are truly impossible to deal with. You change the argument every time. You should have said above: "Ok, so private prisons don't create jobs (but CA state prisons are also cutting jobs to save money (because they refuse to raise taxes))." I'm not arguing with you that crime didn't increase. Are you dense? What changed in the late 60's and early 70's that would have led to crime spiking throughout the late 70's and early 80's? Could it be inequality? That thing that you said was implausible a page back because the severity of drug laws supposedly was the better explanation? The public rightly decided that mental prisons were inhumane. If you want to adjust the graph I posted by including the mental prison population alongside the official incarceration rate before 1980 then maybe you would have a point. The point being that perhaps, just maybe, metal prison + regular prison populations have been stable since the early 70s. Somehow I don't think that will explain it though. Source^ Mental hospitals were emptied out and slowly many made their way to jail. Mentally ill persons increasingly receive care provided by corrections agencies. In 1959, nearly 559,000 mentally ill patients were housed in state mental hospitals (Lamb, 1998). A shift to "deinstitutionalize" mentally ill persons had, by the late 1990s, dropped the number of persons housed in public psychiatric hospitals to approximately 70,000 (CorrectCare, 1999). As a result, mentally ill persons are more likely to live in local communities. Some come into contact with the criminal justice system.
In a 2006 Special Report, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) estimated that 705,600 mentally ill adults were incarcerated in State prisons, 78,800 in Federal prisons and 479,900 in local jails. In addition, research suggests that "people with mental illnesses are overrepresented in probation and parole populations at estimated rates ranging from two to four time the general population" (Prins and Draper, 2009). Growing numbers of mentally ill offenders have strained correctional systems. Source And it makes it better that we're paying companies to not take care of crazy people so they'll show back up?
We're paying companies to do what the state tells them to do.
|
There have been some pretty great case studies on how sentences (excuse me if I am using the wrong term here) for non-violent crime/ misdemeanors that avoid incarceration by mandating service, training, counseling, etc. dramatically reduce recidivism.
The fact we throw people in prison (or rather, shovel money into prison, inc.'s pocket) despite this evidence says something's wrong.
|
Norway28924 Posts
On July 23 2014 05:37 ticklishmusic wrote:
There have been some pretty great case studies on how sentences (excuse me if I am using the wrong term here) for non-violent crime/ misdemeanors that avoid incarceration by mandating service, training, counseling, etc. dramatically reduce recidivism.
The fact we throw people in prison (or rather, shovel money into prison, inc.'s pocket) despite this evidence says something's wrong.
yeah, but the issue is one of mentality. most americans want criminals to be harshly punished. I don't think prisons are the cause of this - rather I think prisons are the way they are because most americans (at least out of the voter base - conveniently convicted felons are not included ) want them to be that way. 
|
On July 23 2014 05:37 ticklishmusic wrote:
There have been some pretty great case studies on how sentences (excuse me if I am using the wrong term here) for non-violent crime/ misdemeanors that avoid incarceration by mandating service, training, counseling, etc. dramatically reduce recidivism.
The fact we throw people in prison (or rather, shovel money into prison, inc.'s pocket) despite this evidence says something's wrong.
We have a nice little experiment called 'Scandinavia' that proofs exactly that. (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/01/why-sweden-closing-prisons)
Everyone who thinks that what American legal system is doing makes sense is in denial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
