Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Are things as they should be. Some figures in the article, below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_180073.html
The growing prison population has bipartisan roots, which I [Ryan Grim]explore in a book be published soon, This Is Your Country On Drugs. Throughout the 1980s, Democrats in Congress and state governments around the country increased prison sentences for drug offenses, coming down particularly hard on crack. In 1986, Congress instituted mandatory-minimum sentences for powder and crack cocaine. To trigger the powder minimum, a dealer needed to possess 500 grams. For crack, just five grams. Two years later, the law was extended to anybody who was associated with the dealer -- girlfriends, roommates, etc.
In 1991, Michigander Allen Harmelin argued that his life sentence for possessing roughly a pound and a half of cocaine is cruel and unusual. The Supreme Court ruled that it is neither. California enacted its three-strikes law in 1994 -- three felonies equals a minimum of 25 years -- and the feds one-upped the state, declaring a third felony to result in life without parole. Twenty-three more states enacted three-strikes laws by 1995.
In 1984, just over 30,000 people were in prison for drug crimes; by 1991, the number had soared to more than 150,000. The Department of Justice found in a study of the prison population that the average length of a federal stay drastically increased between 1986 and 1997. If you walked into prison in 1986, your average stay would have been 21 months. In 1997, it was 47 months. For weapons offenders, the rise was from 23 to 75 months, and for drug offenders, it was from 30 to 66 months.
Not all criminals could expect such increased time behind bars, however: A bank robber could expect 74 months in 1986 and only 83 months a decade later.
Three-strikes laws and lengthening prison sentences explain what appears to be a contradiction: U.S. crime rates are falling while U.S. incarceration rates are rising. It stands to reason that if fewer people are committing crimes, then fewer people should be locked up. But locking up fewer people every year and putting them away for much longer mushrooms the prison population.
The result is that more than one out of every 100 Americans is currently in prison. If you're a black male between 20 and 34, there's a better than one in nine chance that you're imprisoned. To keep all of these people behind bars, states spent a combined $44 billion in 2007.
--
NOTE: see kendo's posting #4 below for some comparative figures. thanks, K.!
NOTE2: i've supplied some figures, similar to Kendo's, in post #7.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_180073.html
The growing prison population has bipartisan roots, which I [Ryan Grim]explore in a book be published soon, This Is Your Country On Drugs. Throughout the 1980s, Democrats in Congress and state governments around the country increased prison sentences for drug offenses, coming down particularly hard on crack. In 1986, Congress instituted mandatory-minimum sentences for powder and crack cocaine. To trigger the powder minimum, a dealer needed to possess 500 grams. For crack, just five grams. Two years later, the law was extended to anybody who was associated with the dealer -- girlfriends, roommates, etc.
In 1991, Michigander Allen Harmelin argued that his life sentence for possessing roughly a pound and a half of cocaine is cruel and unusual. The Supreme Court ruled that it is neither. California enacted its three-strikes law in 1994 -- three felonies equals a minimum of 25 years -- and the feds one-upped the state, declaring a third felony to result in life without parole. Twenty-three more states enacted three-strikes laws by 1995.
In 1984, just over 30,000 people were in prison for drug crimes; by 1991, the number had soared to more than 150,000. The Department of Justice found in a study of the prison population that the average length of a federal stay drastically increased between 1986 and 1997. If you walked into prison in 1986, your average stay would have been 21 months. In 1997, it was 47 months. For weapons offenders, the rise was from 23 to 75 months, and for drug offenders, it was from 30 to 66 months.
Not all criminals could expect such increased time behind bars, however: A bank robber could expect 74 months in 1986 and only 83 months a decade later.
Three-strikes laws and lengthening prison sentences explain what appears to be a contradiction: U.S. crime rates are falling while U.S. incarceration rates are rising. It stands to reason that if fewer people are committing crimes, then fewer people should be locked up. But locking up fewer people every year and putting them away for much longer mushrooms the prison population.
The result is that more than one out of every 100 Americans is currently in prison. If you're a black male between 20 and 34, there's a better than one in nine chance that you're imprisoned. To keep all of these people behind bars, states spent a combined $44 billion in 2007.
--
NOTE: see kendo's posting #4 below for some comparative figures. thanks, K.!
NOTE2: i've supplied some figures, similar to Kendo's, in post #7.
Last edited:
