Hello Crime Fighters:

I've been harping for lots of years on these very pages about prison reform. We put TOO many people behind bars for TOO long. Of course, nobody cares much about what an excon has to say on the matter. People expect it.

Most elected officials, afraid of being tarred as soft on crime, ignore these problems. Sen. Jim Webb, a Democrat from Virginia, is now courageously stepping into the void, calling for a national commission to re-assess criminal justice policy.

This country has the world's highest incarceration rate. Although we have less than 5 percent of the world's population, we have almost one-quarter of the world's prisoners. And for the first time in history, more than 1 in 100 American adults are behind bars.

Many convicts are serving long mandatory sentences for nonviolent crimes, including minor drug offenses. Mandatory sentences are just plain stupid on their face. They take power OUT of the judge's hands, who has a job for LIFE, and puts it directly INTO the prosecutor's hands, who have political ambitions….

The system is also extraordinarily expensive. Billions of dollars now being spent on prisons each year could be used in far more socially productive ways.

The time could be right. The economic downturn should make both federal and state lawmakers receptive to the idea of reforming a prison system that is as wasteful as it is inhumane.

Or, are you right wingers happy with the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" philosophy of old?

excon

I don't think it serves any purpose for putting non-violent drug users in cages.

I can't see anything changing, though. "Getting tough on crime" is a political tool that has been used for ages.

Hello Em:

Nobody could foresee a young inexperienced black man being elected president, either.

To quote an old Dylan song, "the times, they are a changing".

excon

I think the system needs to be revamped.
We put a drug user in jail and let pedophiles walk the street. Makes no sense to me.
I think there should be more rehabilitation for some crimes nonviolent ones) this would allow those people to go back out and be productive and I think there are some crimes where there should be life imprisonment.

How about this?
Reinstate corporal punishment for certain non-violent crimes instead of incarceration. The money saved could be used toward vocational training for those offenders that would be willing to participate in the program.

Legalize weed and watch as incarcerations drop by 80%

Tax it like they do cigarettes and watch as the national debt disappears.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

LOL! Good one Gal..
Oh, your not joking are you??

Hoo-ray Jimmy! :)

I'm glad my usually red-blooded state is gaining some middle ground with Webb and Kaine.

Oh, and gal - I'm really, really glad you don't run my city, county, state, or country. Scary stuff you have there. :eek:

How about rehabilitation for non-violent offenders. Teach these people a real trade or skill and provide business's incentives for hiring them. Also, after they've served their time there criminal record should be erased.

Furthermore, I would like to see non-violent criminals doing more community work rather than spending time behind bars. Heck, let the government employ them at a reduced rate, they could learn a usable skill, reduce payroll for our government agencies, etc.

Let's help give these people the means to be productive law abiding citizens rather than practically forcing them to resort to crime because they can't get a job and/or skills to succeed. It would cost us less in the long run.

What??

So your telling me you wouldn't rather see these people hung like Gal does??

Gal said corporal punishment, not hanging. I imagine he means something like 20 lashes plus a dose of education. I agree on the education part, unsure on the corporal punishment; I will have to think about that more and address it tomorrow.

I would like to add though that I knew some old school cops from the 60's and 70's when community policing was possible. They used to tell me that the best way to keep a youngster from turning to a life of crime was to give him a beating to scare the crap out of him. Turns out that according to them, many of those kids never got into trouble again. I wonder if that is where Gal is coming from in suggesting corporal punishment?

Hello Tex:

Used to?? They haven't changed their ways. They're still trying that crap - with ADULTS too...

However, I have to challenge their reasoning... They don't beat up kids to HELP them... They beat up kids because they're bastards.

excon

I'm with you on rehabilitation (though I think it's possible for certain violent offenders too), but I don't think one's criminal record should be erased. Imagine you own a company and are looking for a director of finance. You hire someone who you think is a great fit, only he embezzled a million dollars from his last company and was just released. No criminal record means there's no way you can know about this history and protect your business. Bad idea.

Yet on the other hand these people have paid their debt to society and hopefully have been rehabilitated. If they have a criminal record nobody will touch them, even if the job they are applying for has nothing to do with their past offenses. It's discrimination, warranted perhaps, but discrimination just the same.

My point is, how do you give these people the hand up they need rather than keep them in a perpetual state of having a hand out or paying for their incarceration if you don't remove the impediments from gaining useful employment.

Employers aren't protected from people who steal from them for the first time who don't have a record and where is the data that suggests that rehabilitated criminals who are employed represent a greater risk to an employer than someone who doesn't have a record?

Sounds sensible and right to me.

Key word there is "hopefully". Our current prison system does very little to rehabilitate criminals - that's part of the problem. There is employment out there for people who have criminal records, it may not be the type of job they want, but there are opportunities out there. And until SOCTUS decides criminals are a protected class - it's not discrimination.

Well you certainly don't do it by removing the rights of the employer! I'm all for rehabilitation, for teaching a trade, for educating people in our prisons so they have a better chance later in life. I'm all for work programs, and for the prison system working with certain employers to help released criminals transition into the "real" world. But I'm NOT for erasing one's criminal record, since that means as an employer, I can't protect MY interests.

I guess you've never looked up recidivism rates... But let's go with your "rehabilitated criminals" qualifier - who deems them rehabilitated? The prison system? Pardon me, but I don't know if I trust their judgement. Going back to my finance example, let's say this guy went to prison, did whatever rehabilitation one would do for that type of crime, got out, and secured a job stocking shelves at a grocery store. He works his way up to cashier, and maybe eventually floor manager. Ten years have passed with no incidents. He applies at my company as a budget analyst - I'm a lot more likely to hire him after ten years of no incidents than hire him fresh out of prison. But if I know about his history, I can take steps to keep an eye on him until I fully trust him. Now he's got a job, and I've protected my company. No erasing of criminal records necessary.

However, given a choice a candidates the person with the record is much less likely to be hired even though there is no incident for 10 years. Perhaps you are on to something; how about after being released from prison you keep your nose clean for 10 years your record is then erased? That is an incentive for the former criminal and for the employer they know that any potential employee either has never committed a crime or has been clean for 10 years?

It's also incentive to commit a crime in the first place. It removes consequences - if you do that, what's the point in punishing in the first place?

It's like telling your kid they can't have dessert after lunch, but they can have dessert after dinner. Some kids will learn to behave - other will learn to do without until dinner.

Beyond that, you're still taking away the right of the employer to be properly informed about their employees.

The ONLY reason I have a problem with this is that there are plenty of NON-offenders that would love to be in a position to have a trade learned for free, with businesses having incentives to hire them.

Why should the criminals get a privilege for free that others have to pay for? That's almost incentive for people of low income to commit crimes to be able to get into said program.

A 19 year old boy does something stupid and gets caught selling an ounce of marijuana. He has a criminal record for life; he may as well had murdered someone as a criminal record will disqualify him from almost the same opportunities as a murderer.

The ongoing punishment of having a criminal record on the books long after he has served his sentence does not fit the crime.

Then what happens is that this person will likely only have menial jobs and likely give up or revert to a life of crime.

My point is, carrot or stick? The stick didn't work as a deterent and to keep beating them with that stick for the rest of their lives doesn't sound like it will produce a productive law abiding citizen. Instead let's offer them a carrot. Carrots motivate much more than sticks do in the long run.

I would like to have EXCON weight in on this, since he is an excon.