[quote name='tstrimple' timestamp='1307030799' post='4818707']It amazes me how people focus on this isolated incident where a ship-lifter gets hit with three strikes. This is FAR from the norm.

FWIW, I'm not focussing on that isolated incident -- the sentiment applies to all cases of unnecessary incarceration.

Does the threat of incarceration reduce crime rates -- no.
Does incarceration help rehabilitate repeat offenders -- no.[/quote]
I'm not sure those are accurate assumptions to be made. Incarceration isn't just to rehabilitate. It's also to punish and in the case of repeat offenders isolate them from the general population, the latter of which surely reduces crime rates.

edit: and I'm fairly certain I have committed fewer crimes due to the threat of incarceration, so it has been reduced by at least a couple crimes :-p

[quote name='tstrimple' timestamp='1307030799' post='4818707']It amazes me how people focus on this isolated incident where a ship-lifter gets hit with three strikes. This is FAR from the norm.

FWIW, I'm not focussing on that isolated incident -- the sentiment applies to all cases of unnecessary incarceration.

Does the threat of incarceration reduce crime rates -- no.
Does incarceration help rehabilitate repeat offenders -- no.
Does incarceration reinforce criminality -- yes.
Is the punishment of incarceration proportional to the crime -- sometimes, often not.
Is the US using incarceration for purposes where evidence demonstrates that it's a bad idea -- yes.
Are the root causes of these criminal behaviours being addressed -- no.
[/quote]

How could you make the case that the threat of incarceration doesn't reduce crime? It's patently absurd. Probably every person living in America can think of something they haven't done for fear of jail. Second, you would have to have some objective way of finding out every person that hasn't committed a crime did so because of jail fears. I would agree that it's not a thought for some criminals, but to say it inherently has no effect on crime is craziness.

As far as prison addressing root problems or rehabilitating, I doubt there is anyone who thinks prison is a *good* solution to those problems. However, in a free society, if someone is going to get the short end of the stick, it should be the rapists and murderers and not the law abiding citizens.

I submit my city (Charlotte), as a good example. Charlotte is a city where repeat, violent, offenders are released early and often (3 strikes? Try 37!). It's not uncommon for armed robbers to have 5, 6, 7 arrests. Now is prison going to rehabilitate someone like this? Probably not, but I'd rather him be behind bars than un-rehabilitated in my neighborhood. I'm not the bad guy, why should I get a gun in my face because we haven't found a better solution to his problem?

Incarceration reduces crime? Maybe but the causes of crime are not affected by incarceration.. poverty, drugs, gangs, illegal activity, high risk taking, etc.. some kid grows up in the hood, joins a gang, does a few robberies, sure he know's he could go to jail but is that gonna stop him? Nah.. that's the last thing from his mind..His whole world is his status in the gang. When you grow up having nothing, enduring misery after misery, the threat of prison is no threat at all..

Now incarceration will stop some blue collar worker from say robing a store. Because he has too much to lose, his freedom, money he could earn, family, etc...But he wouldn't do that either way , most people follow the rules.. But only to an extent, if people feel wronged enough they will act, like in the case of infidelity etc..

Then there is the case of drug addicts, they are so hopelessly addicted, incarceration is also no threat to them. The immediate need for the fix is far stronger than any future threat of incarceration. After the fix they might have regret / remorse but usually their crimes are impulsive.

How about the career criminal, one who was raised with in a culture of crime, would threat of incarceration stop them? Nah, they like the gang member exist within an isolated world, where criminal activity is rewarded and encouraged.. Organized crime families, financial fraud rackets, smugglers, rebel insurgents, etc.. I doubt fear of going to jail is going to stop them (the money/cause is to good), however it will definitely make them more vigilant. Look at Enron, how many of them ended up in jail? 1? and they stole over 5 billion dollars.. If you asked them the fear of going to jail would stop them, i doubt very much they would care, the rewards too high.

I would argue incarceration doesn't reduce crime much at all, it's just a punishment which we've come up with which is acceptably humane. In the past they would just chop off an arm or something (you could also pay a large fine) but we've moved beyond that and the only real punishment acceptable is incarceration. It's definitely not preventive overall, its mostly punitive imo.

-ddn

If that's the case in Charlotte then I would say that they represent a failure at the other end of the spectrum. I would tend to believe, or at least hope, that violent repeat offenders would be in jail sufficiently long that they'd simply not have the lifespan to be a 7-time offender. For my part, I don't think I've ever said, and certainly didn't mean to say, that some kind of N-Strikes is inherently bad -- only that it does, irrefutably, represent a primary factor in the size of the prison population over-time and, as such, it should be applied in moderation -- this is precisely the reason it should not be applied to petty or non-violent crimes. At the same time, we should not have unrealistic expectations that harsher punishment reduces the rate at which crime occurs.

I'm certainly not saying we should put criminals in time out and hope them to be good when they get out a brief while later. Prison should be punishing, its not meant to be easy. I do believe its possible for a person to demonstrate a pattern of criminal behavior which ought to put them in prison for great lengths of time, or possibly even indefinitely -- I also believe that bar to be fairly high; certainly higher than has been used in contemporary practice. But I also see that move as about 2/3rds segregation (removing that individual's ability to victimize the populace) and only about 1/3rd punative -- at that point, judiciously applied, that person is probably beyond hope of rehabilitation and reentering the population.

Likewise, while I am not "pro" death-penalty, neither do I believe it should be abolished. I believe, and history has shown, that individuals can posses a great capacity to inflict evil. Many will say that the existence of the death penalty is justified by its deterrent value -- but I tend to believe that the actual deterrent at play in a criminal's mind as he plans or commits evil acts is largely negligible. For myself, I don't even seek to justify it in those terms -- I simply believe that those who commit the most evil of evil acts should have absolutely everything taken from them, including their very being. Whether it acts as a deterrent, or provides closure to victimized families is moot, though I do hope that some benefit is granted, aside from simply wiping an evil from this earth. However, as with N-Strikes, a death sentence should truly be an exception to the rule. There is no taking it back, so the individual must be certainly guilty, all circumstances must be accounted for, and the bar must be especially high -- even no murder should automatically grant that the death sentence is a sentencing option. A large part of me believes that, ideally, a second jury of some kind would ultimately decide between life imprisonment and death in cases where it was an option, but that they would be entirely distinct from the jury which decides guilt or innocence.

What is it that makes you so afraid of accepting that only half the people in jail are violent?

A) I'm not afraid of anything....I could care less why douche bags are in jail. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. (Don't try and turn me into your straw man)
B) To get back to the premise of this thread, I don't see how being nonviolent somehow makes committing a crime more acceptable and warranting that a person shouldn't go to prison. (See Madoff)
C) I also didn't see nothing in that wiki article that said a large portion of these nonviolent criminals, that are serving long prison sentences, are in prison for stealing purses or other insignificant bs.
D) I refuse to accept this article's viewpoint because it doesn't give enough information to back it up. How many of these nonviolent criminals were arrested with a weapon, have a past history of violence, had their violent crime removed for snitching, plea bargained their violent act away, are in a criminal gang, etc.

Why is the presentation of those statistics considered "spoon feeding" of some kind of wacky way of thinking??

<ignoring you again going the straw man route> The fact that it doesn't give you enough information to make an intelligent decision. It's like going to an apple fan boy site to discuss Microsoft.

If you really think it's being biased, instead of just presenting the reported facts, go slap a NPOV violation on it.

No need...It's wiki, by design all its articles are like this. (If it really provided you with the information you needed it would take you months to read through it)

Incarceration reduces crime? Maybe but the causes of crime are not affected by incarceration.. poverty, drugs, gangs, illegal activity, high risk taking, etc.. some kid grows up in the hood, joins a gang, does a few robberies, sure he know's he could go to jail but is that gonna stop him? Nah.. that's the last thing from his mind..His whole world is his status in the gang. When you grow up having nothing, enduring misery after misery, the threat of prison is no threat at all..

Now incarceration will stop some blue collar worker from say robing a store. Because he has too much to lose, his freedom, money he could earn, family, etc...But he wouldn't do that either way , most people follow the rules.. But only to an extent, if people feel wronged enough they will act, like in the case of infidelity etc..

Then there is the case of drug addicts, they are so hopelessly addicted, incarceration is also no threat to them. The immediate need for the fix is far stronger than any future threat of incarceration. After the fix they might have regret / remorse but usually their crimes are impulsive.

How about the career criminal, one who was raised with in a culture of crime, would threat of incarceration stop them? Nah, they like the gang member exist within an isolated world, where criminal activity is rewarded and encouraged.. Organized crime families, financial fraud rackets, smugglers, rebel insurgents, etc.. I doubt fear of going to jail is going to stop them (the money/cause is to good), however it will definitely make them more vigilant. Look at Enron, how many of them ended up in jail? 1? and they stole over 5 billion dollars.. If you asked them the fear of going to jail would stop them, i doubt very much they would care, the rewards too high.

I would argue incarceration doesn't reduce crime much at all, it's just a punishment which we've come up with which is acceptably humane. In the past they would just chop off an arm or something (you could also pay a large fine) but we've moved beyond that and the only real punishment acceptable is incarceration. It's definitely not preventive overall, its mostly punitive imo.

-ddn

I respect what you're saying, but what is the alternative. Provide a cost-reasonable, safe, effective, alternative to what we are doing today that doesn't endanger our demote the quality of life for law-abiding citizens. I haven't seen any reasonable solutions so far that would work on a large scale.

[quote name='d000hg' timestamp='1306869479' post='4817985']
[quote name='ChurchSkiz' timestamp='1306852471' post='4817883']
If you don't want to go to prison, don't break the law. What a concept...

A program about Miami jails in the UK recently made the point that those giant jails are exclusively for those awaiting sentence, i.e. not guilty... they can be in maximum security violent facilities for years while still legally innocent.

How's that for a concept.
[/quote]

That's a different discussion. If people that are awaiting trial are stuck in prison for years then that is a major issue.

Also, awaiting sentencing is not the same as not guilty. Awaiting sentencing means you are a convicted criminal but your sentence hasn't been decided yet. Maximum security could be appropriate depending on the crime. If you're in maximum security you probably won't get out for time already served at sentencing so I can't see this would be a problem in all but the rarest of cases.
[/quote]
Sorry I meant they are awaiting trial. They have not yet been convicted.

Sorry I meant they are awaiting trial. They have not yet been convicted.

I don't think that's correct. Most trials are within the first month if the criminal doesn't ask for it to be pushed back, and if they take too long then the charges will be thrown out. In wisconsin, for example, the trial has to begin within 90 days for felonies unless the defense petitions for a later date.

[quote name='d000hg' timestamp='1307204120' post='4819449']
Sorry I meant they are awaiting trial. They have not yet been convicted.

I don't think that's correct. Most trials are within the first month if the criminal doesn't ask for it to be pushed back, and if they take too long then the charges will be thrown out. In wisconsin, for example, the trial has to begin within 90 days for felonies unless the defense petitions for a later date.
[/quote]Well the documentary made it pretty clear the entire jail was full of unconvicted people awaiting trial. It also claimed that the term 'jail' is specifically for un-convicted prisoners and 'prison' is for convicts... that part I'm not sure about because obviously everyone uses both interchangeably.

This is about the program: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Theroux:_Miami_Mega_Jail

Theroux spends time in "Main Jail" (PTDC), one of the most notorious sections of the Miami jail system,[sup][1][/sup] including time on the fifth and sixth floors of the PTDC, where many of the most volatile inmates are incarcerated. Being held for pre-trial, the inmates are to be considered innocent until proven guilty. [/quote]
In fact the jail is even called the Pre-trial detention center. http://www.miamidade.gov/corrections/pre_trial_detention.asp

This is about the program: http://en.wikipedia....Miami_Mega_Jail

Theroux spends time in "Main Jail" (PTDC), one of the most notorious sections of the Miami jail system,[sup][1][/sup] including time on the fifth and sixth floors of the PTDC, where many of the most volatile inmates are incarcerated. Being held for pre-trial, the inmates are to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

In fact the jail is even called the Pre-trial detention center. http://www.miamidade...l_detention.asp
[/quote]

There is a large difference between saying, "[color=#1C2837][size=2] those giant jails are exclusively for those awaiting sentence, i.e. not guilty... they can be in maximum security violent facilities for years while still legally innocent," and "one large jail in the city with one of florida's highest crime rates holds people exclusively for pre-trial." There's 30,000 felonies in the city every year. It makes sense that they would need a complex just for people awaiting or in the middle of trial.
[color=#1C2837][size=2]

[color="#1c2837"][size=2]Even so Florida's speedy trial laws only extend to 175 days (longer than most states), which is hardly close enough to considered most inmates being held for pre-trial for years.
[color="#1c2837"][size=2]

[color="#1c2837"][size=2]And being innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean that you should be considered safe or not a flight risk. There is a good reason people are held for pre-trial and why we have bail in the system.