Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

United States of America is the #1 Prison State reports the Boston Globe

By 28 Comments

No wonder Massachusetts spends more on incarceration then education.  Each adolescent committed to the Department of Youth Services costs $23,000 a year – the tuition and fees at a community college are about $3000 a year.

Each young adult committed to a state correctional facility costs over $40,000 a year – and in the mean time, children are fatherless and motherless, and once released, these folk cannot get jobs or go into housing, leaving recidivism sometimes the only way to get fed and housed.

Apparently, the vast number of these folks are nonviolent offenders, with drug use and addiction or illegal economic activity arising from the drug trade and the failure to invest in our educational infrastructure including updated vocational education the culprit.  We need 90,000 new workers trained as laboratory techs and data workers that we are importing from elsewhere because Massachusetts is not educating its own – we are incarcerating them instead.

We can do better – this is not a matter of rhetoric but governance.  Apparently, Massachusetts for all its vaunted educational institutions received a c- in governance while Washington State got an A-.  You don’t have to take my word for it:

http://www.boston.com/bostongl…

Maybe we need to elect more officials with degrees in governance-related fields who know what the word “performancestat” means, and who can read and use statistics and planning tools.  What a novel concept…

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • That will show the world that were better than those barbarians in Iran and Saudi Arabia who hate freedom! Especially since we’d have to execute tens of thousands of prisoners in order to sink behind China and Russia.

      <

      p>The US is the only western country in the World to still execute prisoners. That does not bring me pride in my country.

      <

      p>

        • China as over 4 times as many people then the US exceeding the US’s population by 1 Billion, yet the US has more prisoners. Also, as I noted in a previous post, The Guardian says “Compared with the UK, America has proportionately five times as many prisoners, with 750 out of 100,000 of its residents incarcerated, as opposed to Britain’s 148 per 100,000.” So no, I don’t take pride in those statistics.

          <

          p>And to self-plagiarize, I also commented:

          <

          p>”If America is the best country on the face of the planet, why must we jail so many of our residents? Is this acceptable? Or is America better than that? And when will the “fiscally responsible” (LOL!), tough on minorities poor people guys not named Scooter er…tough on crime Republicans realize that their version of tough on crime, vis-à-vis the prison industrial complex and the war on drugs, is anything but fiscally responsible?”

          <

          p>Perhaps we should get real about how we jail non-violent offenders, get real about sentencing, actually rehabilitating people in prison so they don’t repeat offend, stop allowing corporations from make huge profits by keeping people incarcerated, and attack the root causes of our prison population (economics, education, etc) instead of the very unChristian method of executing people we don’t like. Let’s work to prevent people from going to jail in the first place rather than looking for Peter Porcupine’s “Final Solution to the Prison Problem” – that’s the America I want to live in.  

          <

          p>

    • it is well documented that maintaining a death penalty system is more expensive than just incarcerating death row inmates for life.

      <

      p>also, during his 5 years as governor of texas, even george bush, the death penalty king bar none, “only” managed to execute 155 prisoners.  and this despite legal changes he made to grease the skids of the execution system.

      <

      p>so, what peter porcupine proposes for massachusetts would
      1.  spend even MORE money, and
      2.  not have a decently* increased death toll to show for it.

      <

      p>so even if you’re a person with blood lust, you won’t be satisfied with the outcome of a porcupine-style approach to the prison problem.

      • …the “respect and dignity in all human life” party would be willing to execute people if means more money in their pockets. The idea that it’s OK to execute human beings based on a financial bottom line is utterly abhorrent.  

        • for the way he unblinkingly supported renewing the death penalty because he said that he thought New! and Improved! lab tests could prevent innocent people from being wrongfully snuffed.  Sadly, it’s the same fallible/corruptible people handling the evidence and running whatever test you can devise.  So there is no “bulletproof” way of preventing wrongful executions.  Not to mention the ethics of executing even a truly guilty human being.  But none of this seemed to bother “right to life” Romney.  The sanctity of life for him (and too many other Republicans) apparently begins at conception and ends at birth.

      • …and look at the record on exoneration.

        <

        p>To execute an American who was, in fact, innocent of the charged crime would be murder, and the blood of the innocent would be on all of our hands.

        <

        p>Therefore, in my eyes, the death penalty is not acceptable.  I am far to familiar with the judicial system .

        <

        p>For anyone who thinks that the death penalty is fool proof, I recommend either seeing the play “12 Angry men” or renting the video.    “Witness Testimony”  will never be the same for you.

    • The first time—they weren’t content just stealing all of my wifes jewelry—they almost beat my dog to death..

      <

      p>The second time they finished off the jewelry and both daughters jewelry , they apparently were dissastisfied with the haul. This past summer a drug addicted carpenters helper stole my wifes engagement ring—I got it back.

      <

      p>If I had been able to catch these people in the act I would have killed them, no problemo. The cops caught the first trio and wouldn’t allow me to speak to them. I told the judge and jury that if they don’t go away for a looooong while, then I will deal with them and they could give me life for all I care.

      <

      p>As far as I am concerned they can keep these shitbums in jail for life and double my taxes. At least I won’t have to worry about having my wife or daughters killed when the interupt a B&E.

      <

      p>Anyone read about those two guys in Randolph that just got 25 years? They not only did the home invasion. They raped the women, forced people to urinate and defacate on one another etc.

      <

      p>Please—-spare me with your bleeding hearts. Wait until you are a victim of a crime and see the impact it has on children and women. Ask a rape victim how she feels when the POS gets two years and probation.  

      <

      p>The only thing Koranic law got right is cutting their hands and feet off.

      • You honestly put up that straw man?

        <

        p>OBvisouly people who commit violent and/or property crimes should go to jail, no matter what the motive. (Though, I would argue, for people addicted to drugs, you would get less recidivism if you coupled incarceration with treatment, costing the state less in the long run and lowering the chance they will do something like it again, or worse, making your wife and daughters SAFER. You can’t put someone in jail for a life sentence for breaking into your house if they didn’t commit violence.)

        <

        p>It’s the people who get 5-15 years for getting caught possessing a gram of pot, or what have you, the nonviolent drug offenders, that people are talking about. Getting them OFF drugs BEFORE they commit violent crimes is better for safety, better for our pocket book, and morally more compassionate.

        • That should read: “lowering the chance they will do something like it again or worse, making your wife and daughters SAFER”

          <

          p>The extra comma makes it looks like it’d be worse to make your wife and daughters safer.

  3. here are some interesting stats to support the article.  clearly, the “war on drugs” is a failure.  we haven’t substantially reduced drug use.  but we have spent staggering amounts of money arresting and incarcerating a huge number of americans.

      1.  “Prisoners sentenced for drug offenses constituted the largest group of Federal inmates (55%) in 2001, down from 60% in 1995 (table 18). On September 30, 2001, the date of the latest available data in the Federal Justice Statistics Program, Federal prisons held 78,501 sentenced drug offenders, compared to 52,782 in 1995.”

         Source:  Harrison, Paige M. & Allen J. Beck, PhD, US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2002 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, July 2003), p. 11.

      2. In 2001, drug law violators comprised 20.4% of all adults serving time in State prisons – 246,100 out of 1,208,700 State prison inmates.

         Source:  Harrison, Paige M. & Allen J. Beck, US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2002 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, July 2003), Table 17, p. 10.

      3. Over 80% of the increase in the federal prison population from 1985 to 1995 was due to drug convictions.

         Source: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1996 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, 1997).

      4. “Between 1984 and 1999, the number of defendants charged with a drug offense in U.S. district courts increased about 3% annually, on average, from 11,854 to 29,306.”

         Source: Scalia, John, US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Drug Offenders, 1999 with Trends 1984-99 (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, August 2001), p. 7.

      5. “As a result of increased prosecutions and longer time served in prison, the number of drug offenders in Federal prisons increased more than 12% annually, on average, from 14,976 during 1986 to 68,360 during 1999.”

         Source: Scalia, John, US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Drug Offenders, 1999 with Trends 1984-99 (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, August 2001), p. 7.

      6. “In 1995, 23% of state prisoners were incarcerated for drug offenses in contrast to 9% of drug offenders in state prisons in 1986. In fact, the proportion of drug offenders in the state prison population nearly tripled by 1990, when it reached 21%, and has remained at close to that level since then. The proportion of federal prisoners held for drug violations doubled during the past 10 years. In 1985, 34% of federal prisoners were incarcerated for drug violations. By 1995, the proportion had risen to 60%.”

         Source:  Craig Haney, Ph.D., and Philip Zimbardo, Ph.D., “The Past and Future of U.S. Prison Policy: Twenty-five Years After the Stanford Prison Experiment,” American Psychologist, Vol. 53, No. 7 (July 1998), p. 715.

      7. According to ONDCP, federal spending to incarcerate drug offenders totals nearly $3 Billion a year — $2.525 Billion by the Bureau of Prisons, and $429.4 Million by Federal Prisoner Detention.

         Source:  Office of National Drug Control Policy, “National Drug Control Strategy: FY 2003 Budget Summary” (Washington, DC: Office of the President, February 2002), Table 3, pp. 7-9.

      8. “The United States has the highest prison population rate in the world, some 701 per 100,000 of the national population, followed by Russia (606), Belarus (554), Kazakhstan and the Virgin Islands (both 522), the Cayman Islands (501), Turkmenistan (489), Belize (459), Bermuda (447), Suriname (437), Dominica (420) and Ukraine (415). “However, more than three fifths of countries (60.5%) have rates below 150 per 100,000. United Kingdom’s rate of 141 per 100,000 of the national population places it above midpoint in the World List; it is the highest among countries of the European Union.)”

         Source:  Walmsley, Roy, “World Prison Population List (Fifth Edition)” (London, England, UK: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, 2003), p. 1.

      9. “Over 9 million people are held in penal institutions throughout the world, mostly as pre-trial detainees (remand prisoners) or having been convicted and sentenced. About half of these are in the United States (2.03m), Russia (0.86m) or China (1.51m plus pre-trial detainees and prisoners in ‘administrative detention’).” According to the US Census Bureau, the population of the US represents 4.6% of the world’s total population (291,450,886 out of a total 6,303,683,217).

         Source:   Walmsley, Roy, “World Prison Population List (Fifth Edition)” (London, England, UK: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, 2003), p. 1.; US Census Bureau, Population Division, from the web at http://www.census.gov/main/www… accessed July 8, 2003.

     10. “Overall, the United States incarcerated 2,212,475 persons at yearend 2003.” This total represents persons held in:

         Federal and State Prisons 1,387,848 (which excludes State and Federal prisoners in local jails
         Territorial Prisons 16,494
         Local Jails 691,301
         ICE Facilities 10,323
         Military Facilities 2,165
         Jails in Indian Country 2,006 (as of midyear 2002)
         Juvenile Facilities 102,338 (as of October 2002)

         Source: Harrison, Paige M. & Allen J. Beck, PhD, US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2003 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, Nov. 2004), p. 1.

     11. “The rate of incarceration in prison and jail was 714 inmates per 100,000 residents in 2002, up from 601 in 1995. At yearend 2003, 1 in every 140 U.S. residents were incarcerated in State or Federal prison or a local jail.”

         Source: Harrison, Paige M. & Allen J. Beck, PhD, US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2003 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, Nov. 2004), p. 2.

     12. The U.S. nonviolent prisoner population is larger than the combined populations of Wyoming and Alaska.

         Source: John Irwin, Ph. D., Vincent Schiraldi, and Jason Ziedenberg, America’s One Million Nonviolent Prisoners (Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 1999), pg. 4.

     13. “Since 1995 the sentenced inmate population in State prisons has averaged a growth of 3.3% per year. During this period 15 States had an average annual growth of at least 5%, led by North Dakota (up 9.8%), Oregon (up 8.7%), and West Virginia (up 8.3%). Between 1995 and 2003 the Federal system grew an average of 7.7% per year, an average annual increase of 8,532 inmates.”

         Source: Harrison, Paige M. & Allen J. Beck, PhD, US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2003 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, Nov. 2004), p. 4.

     14. “In 2003 the growth in the number of inmates under State or Federal jurisdiction (2.1%) was less than the percentage increase recorded for 2002 (2.6%) (table 2). ( Jurisdiction is defined on page 10.) The population under the jurisdiction of State and Federal authorities increased by 29,901 inmates during 2003, smaller than the increase in 2002 (up 36,112). Since December 31, 1995, the US prison population has grown an average of 43,266 inmates per year (3.4%).”

         Source:  Harrison, Paige M. & Allen J. Beck, PhD, US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2003 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, Nov. 2004), p. 2.

     15. According to the US Justice Department, between 1990 and 2000 “Ove
    rall, the percentage of violent Federal inmates declined from 17% to 10%. While the number of offenders in each major offense category increased, the number incarcerated for a drug offense accounted for the largest percentage of the total growth (59%), followed by public-order offenders (32%).”

         Source: Beck, Allen J., Ph.D., and Paige M. Harrison, US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2001 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, July 2002), p. 14.

     16. There were 5.9 million adults in the ‘correctional population’ by the end of 1998. This means that 2.9% of the U.S. adult population — 1 in every 34 — was incarcerated, on probation or on parole.

         Source: Bonczar, Thomas & Glaze, Lauren, US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Probation and Parole in the United States (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, August 1999), p. 1.

     17. In 1990, of the 739,960 sentenced prisoners in Federal and State prisons, 370,400 were African-American. According to a 2004 report, “At yearend 2003 black males (586,300) outnumbered white males (454,300) and Hispanic males (251,900) among inmates with sentences of more than 1 year (table 11). More than 44% of all sentenced male inmates were black.”

         Source: Beck, Allen J., Ph.D., and Christopher Mumola, US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1998 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, August 1999), p. 9; Harrison, Paige M. & Allen J. Beck, PhD, US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2003 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, Nov. 2004), p. 9, Table 11.

     18. Assuming recent incarceration rates remain unchanged, an estimated 1 of every 20 Americans (5%) can be expected to serve time in prison during their lifetime. For African-American men, the number is greater than 1 in 4 (28.5%).

         Source: Bonczar, T.P. & Beck, Allen J., US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Lifetime Likelihood of Going to State or Federal Prison (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, March 1997), p. 1.

     19. “Since 1982 total justice expenditures more than quadrupled from nearly $36 billion to over $167 billion, a 366% increase. The average annual increase for all levels of government between 1982 and 2001 was 8% (table 1).”

         Source:  Bauer, Lynn & Steven D. Owens, “Justice Expenditure and Employment in the United States, 2001” (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, May 2004), NCJ202792, p. 2.

     20. “- Overall, local police spending represented 30% of the Nation’s total justice expenditure, and State corrections accounted for the second largest portion, 23%. “- Police protection is primarily a local responsibility; accordingly, local governments spent 70% of the total police protection expenditure in the country in 2001. “- Corrections is primarily a State responsibility, and the State governments accounted for 63% of the Nation’s corrections expenditure. “- Judicial and legal services in the United States were funded primarily by local (42%) and State (36%) governments.”

         Source: Bauer, Lynn & Steven D. Owens, “Justice Expenditure and Employment in the United States, 2001” (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, May 2004), NCJ202792, p. 4.

     21. “Expansion of Nation’s justice system, 1982-2001
         “The increase in justice expenditures over nearly 20 years reflects the expansion of the Nation’s justice system. For example, in 1982 the justice system employed approximately 1.27 million persons; in 2001 it reached over 2.2 million.
         “Police protection
         “One indicator of police workload, the FBI’s arrest estimates for State and local police agencies, grew from 12 million in 1982 to an estimated 13.7 million in 2001. The number of employees in police protection increased from approximately 724,000 to over 1 million.
         “Judicial and legal
         “The judicial and legal workload, including civil and criminal cases, prosecutor functions, and public defender services, also expanded during this period. Cases of all kinds (criminal, civil, domestic, juvenile, and traffic) filed in the nearly 16,000 general and limited jurisdiction State courts went from about 86 million to 92.8 million in the 18-year period, 1984-2001. The juvenile court workload also expanded from 1 million delinquency cases in 1982 to nearly 1.7 million in 2000. The total of judicial and legal employees grew about 97% to over 488,000 persons in 2001.
         “Corrections
         “The total number of State and Federal inmates grew from 488,000 in 1985 to over 1.3 million in 2001. The number of local jail inmates tripled from approximately 207,000 in 1982 to over 631,000 in 2001.5 Adults on probation increased from over 1.3 to about 4 million persons. Overall, corrections employment more than doubled from nearly 300,000 to over 747,000 during this period.”

         Source:  Bauer, Lynn & Steven D. Owens, “Justice Expenditure and Employment in the United States, 2001” (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, May 2004), NCJ202792, p. 6.

     22. In 1997, there were 216,254 drug offenders in state prisons (out of a total State prison population of 1,046,706 that year). Of these, 92,373 were in for possession, 117,926 were in for trafficking, and 5,955 were in for other drug crimes. Only 41.9 percent of State drug offenders were under the influence of drugs at the time of their offense.

         Source: Mumola, Christopher J., “Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997” (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, January 1999), p. 3, Table 1.

     23. In 1997, there were 55,069 drug offenders in federal prisons (out of a total Federal prison population of 88,018 that year). Of these, 10,094 were in for possession, 40,053 were in for trafficking, and 4,922 were in for other drug crimes. Only 25 percent of Federal drug offenders were under the influence of drugs at the time of their offense.

         Source: Mumola, Christopher J., “Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997” (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, January 1999), p. 3, Table 1.

     24. “Nineteen percent of State prisoners, and 16% of Federal inmates said that they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs. These percentages represent a slight increase from 1991, when 17% of State and 10% of Federal prisoners identified drug money as a motive for their current offense.”

         Source: Mumola, Christopher J., “Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997” (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, January 1999), p. 5.

     25. “Department of corrections data show that about a fourth of those initially imprisoned for nonviolent crimes are sentenced for a second time for committing a violent offense. Whatever else it reflects, this pattern highlights the possibility that prison serves to transmit violent habits and values rather than to reduce them.”

         Source: Craig Haney, Ph.D., and Philip Zimbardo, Ph.D., “The Past and Future of U.S. Prison Policy: Twenty-five Years After the Stanford Prison Experiment,” American Psychologist, Vol. 53, No. 7 (July 1998), p. 720.

     26. “Over the past twenty-five years, the United States has built the largest prison system in the world. But despite a recent downturn in the crime rate, we remain far and away the most violent advanced industrial society on earth.”

         Source: Currie, E., Crime and Punishment in America (New York, NY: Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 1998), p. 3.

     27. “Since the definition of homicide is similar in most countries, absolute comparisons of rates are possible. For the pe
    riod 1998 to 2000, the average rate (the number of homicides per 100,000 population) was 1.7 in EU Member States with the highest rates in Northern Ireland (3.1), Spain (2.8) Finland (2.6), Scotland (2.2) and Sweden (2.1). The rate in England & Wales (1.5) was below the average. For the other countries, the highest rates were found in South Africa (54.3), Estonia (11.4), Lithuania (8.9), Latvia (6.5) and the USA (5.9).”

         Source: Barclay, Gordon & Cynthia Tavares, “International Comparisons of Criminal Justice Statistics 2000,” Home Office Bulletin 05/02 (London, England, UK: Home Office Research, Development, and Statistics Directorate, July 12, 2002), p. 3, from the web at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/r… last accessed Oct. 12, 2002.

     28. If one compares 1996 to 1984, the crime index is 13 points higher. This dramatic increase occurred during an era of mandatory minimum sentencing and “three strikes you’re out.”

         Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports 1996 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, 1997), p. 62, Table 1.

     29. “We must have law enforcement authorities address the issue because if we do not, prevention, education, and treatment messages will not work very well. But having said that, I also believe that we have created an American gulag.”

         Source: Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey (USA, Ret.), Director, ONDCP, Keynote Address, Opening Plenary Session, National Conference on Drug Abuse Prevention Research, National Institute on Drug Abuse, September 19, 1996, Washington, DC, on the web at http://165.112.78.61/MeetSum/C…

     30. According to the Department of Justice, studies of recidivism report that “the amount of time inmates serve in prison does not increase or decrease the likelihood of recidivism, whether recidivism is measured as parole revocation, re-arrest, reconviction, or return to prison.”

         Source: An Analysis of Non-Violent Drug Offenders with Minimal Criminal Histories, Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice (1994, February), p. 41.

     31. The table below shows the average sentence (mean and median) imposed on Federal prisoners for various offenses in 2000.

         < td>
         Average Federal Sentence
         Offense  Mean    Median  
         All Offenses  56.8 months    33.0 months  
         All Felonies  58.0 months    36.0 months  
         Violent Felonies  63.0 months  
         Drug Felonies  75.6 months    55.0 months  
         Property Felony – Fraud  22.5 months    14.0 months  
         Property Felony – Other  33.4 months    18.0 months  
         Public Order Felony – Regulatory  28.0 months    15.0 months  
         Public Order Felony – Other  46.5 months    30.0 months  
         Misdemeanors  10.3 months    6.0 months  

         Source: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Criminal Case Processing, 2000, With Trends 1982-2000 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, November 2001), p. 12, Table 6.

     32. States spent $32.5 billion on Corrections in 1999 alone. To compare, states only spent $22.2 billion on cash assistance to the poor.

         Source: National Association of State Budget Officers (NASBO), 1999 State Expenditure Report (Washington, DC: NASBO, June 2000), pp. 38, 68.

     33. Since the enactment of mandatory minimum sentencing for drug users, the Federal Bureau of Prisons budget has increased by 1,954%. Its budget has jumped from $220 million in 1986 to $4.3 billion in 2001.

         Sources: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1996 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, 1997), p. 20; Executive Office of the President, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2002 (Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 2001), p. 134.

     34. “Despite the investment of more than $5 billion for prison construction over the past decade, the prison system is currently operating at 32 percent over rated capacity, up from 22 percent at the end of 1997. These conditions could potentially jeopardize public safety.”

         Sources: Executive Office of the President, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2002 (Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, 2001), p. 134.

     35. “At yearend 2003 the Federal prison system was operating at 39% over capacity. Overall, State prisons were operating between 100% of their highest capacity and 16% above their lowest capacity (table 9).”

         Source:  Harrison, Paige M. & Allen J. Beck, PhD, US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2003 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, Nov. 2004), p. 7.

     36. From 1984 to 1996, California built 21 new prisons, and only one new university.

         Source: Ambrosio, T. & Schiraldi, V., “Trends in State Spending, 1987-1995”, Executive Summary-February 1997 (Washington DC: The Justice Policy Institute, 1997).

     37. California state government expenditures on prisons increased 30% from 1987 to 1995, while spending on higher education decreased by 18%.

         Source: National Association of State Budget Officers, 1995 State Expenditures Report (Washington DC: National Association of State Budget Officers, 1996).

     38. “In 1999 the United States spent a record $147 billion for police protection, corrections, and judicial and legal activities. The Nation’s expenditure for operations and outlay of the justice system increased 309% from almost $36 billion in 1982. Discounting inflation, that represents a 145% increase in constant dollars.”

         Source:  Gifford, Sidra Lea, US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Justice Expenditure and Employment in the United States, 1999 (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, February 2002), p. 1.

     39. “The total number of State and Federal inmates grew from 488,000 in 1985 to over 1.3 million in 2001. The number of local jail inmates tripled from approximately 207,000 in 1982 to over 631,000 in 2001. Adults on probation increased from over 1.3 to about 4 million persons. Overall, corrections employment more than doubled from nearly 300,000 to over 747,000 during this period.”

         Source:  Bauer, Lynn & Steven D. Owens, “Justice Expenditure and Employment in the United States, 2001” (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, May 2004), NCJ202792, p. 6.

     40. According to a report on prison growth by the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center, “The few studies on the local economic impacts of prisons to date have not found significant positive impacts. For example, a study by the Sentencing Project challenges the notion that a new prison brings economic benefits to smaller communities. Using 25 years of data from New York State rural counties, the authors looked at employment rates and per capita income and found “no significant difference or discernible pattern of economic trends” between counties that were home to a prison and counties that were not home to a prison (King, Mauer, and Huling 2003). According to a recent study by Iowa State University, many towns that made sizeable investments in prisons did not reap the economic gains that were predicted (Besser 2003). Another analysis in Texas found no impacts as measured by consumer spending in nearly threefourths o
    f the areas examined (Chuang 1998).”

         Source:  Lawrence, Sarah and Jeremy Travis, “The New Landscape of Imprisonment: Mapping America’s Prison Expansion” (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, April 2004), p. 3.

     41. According to a report on prison growth by the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center, “The economic benefits of new prisons may come from the flow of additional state and federal dollars. In the decennial census, prisoners are counted where they are incarcerated, and many federal and state funding streams are tied to census population counts. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office (2003), the federal government distributes over $140 billion in grant money to state and local governments through formula-based grants. Formula grant money is in part based on census data and covers programs such as Medicaid, Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Social Services Block Grant (U.S. General Accounting Office 2003). Within a state, funding for community health services, road construction and repair, public housing, local law enforcement, and public libraries are all driven by population counts from the census.”

         Source:  Lawrence, Sarah and Jeremy Travis, “The New Landscape of Imprisonment: Mapping America’s Prison Expansion” (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, April 2004), p. 3.

     42. According to a report on prison growth by the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center, “Every dollar transferred to a “prison community” is a dollar that is not given to the home community of a prisoner, which is often among the country’s most disadvantaged urban areas. According to one account, Cook County Illinois will lose nearly $88 million in federal benefits over the next decade because residents were counted in the 2000 Census in their county of incarceration rather than their county of origin (Duggan 2000). Losing funds from the “relocation” of prisoners is also an issue for New York City, as two-thirds of state prisoners are from the city, while 91 percent of prisoners are incarcerated in upstate counties (Wagner 2002a).”

         Source:  Lawrence, Sarah and Jeremy Travis, “The New Landscape of Imprisonment: Mapping America’s Prison Expansion” (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, April 2004), p. 3.

     43. According to a report on prison growth by the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center, “The effect of prisoner location on population counts may also influence the allocation of political representation and, therefore, political influence (Haberman 2000). In Wisconsin, the number of state prisoners who were housed in other states (known as interstate transfers) caused concern because these prisoners would be counted in the decennial census in the states where they were incarcerated. In 1999, U.S. Representative Mark Green introduced a bill (unsuccessfully) that proposed changes to the census policy so Wisconsin prisoners held in other states would be counted as Wisconsin residents.”

         Source:  Lawrence, Sarah and Jeremy Travis, “The New Landscape of Imprisonment: Mapping America’s Prison Expansion” (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, April 2004), p. 3.

     44. “In December 2000, the Prison Journal published a study based on a survey of inmates in seven men’s prison facilities in four states. The results showed that 21 percent of the inmates had experienced at least one episode of pressured or forced sexual contact since being incarcerated, and at least 7 percent had been raped in their facility. A 1996 study of the Nebraska prison system produced similar findings, with 22 percent of male inmates reporting that they had been pressured or forced to have sexual contact against their will while incarcerated. Of these, over 50 percent had submitted to forced anal sex at least once. Extrapolating these findings to the national level gives a total of at least 140,000 inmates who have been raped.”

         Source:  Human Rights Watch, “No Escape: Male Rape in US Prisons – Summary and Recommendations,” 2001, from the web at http://www.hrw.org/reports/200… last accessed Oct. 9, 2004.

    For a more complete perspective, read Drug War Facts sections on Alcohol, Crack, Drug Use Estimates, Gateway Theory, Race and Prison, and Women.

    Copyright © 2000-2005, Common Sense for Drug Policy
    Updated: Thursday, 06-Jan-2005 14:04:59 PST

    • If I read the above correctly, reforming our drug laws might cut the U.S. incarceration in half, but it would still be twice that of the European union! To reduce it the rest of the way, we might have to look at our greater social stratification: the U.S. has an alarmingly widening gap between affluent and poor — why, like Russia and other states with high incarceration rates.

    • Now the Boston Globe today says then teen pregnancy is up and several days ago stated that 25% of teen girls are walking around with a STD. How about we cut all funding for these sex ed courses that are a dismal failure.

      <

      p>Forty years ago getting knocked up was unacceptable. Ergo teen pregnancy was almost unheard of

      <

      p>Our society has its priorities ass backwards.

      • “Forty years ago getting knocked up was unacceptable. Ergo teen pregnancy was almost unheard of”
        true.  you never heard of it because those teens were hustled off to have abortions or babies out of your eyeshot.  but they did have those abortions and babies, count on it.  or are you saying that in years past men could keep their dicks in their pants?  please say it, because i need to laff my ass off.

        • Is that the fathers are shamed into supporting their progeny.  Back in the good ol’ days, they could just brag about “nailing the chick” without having to take any responsibility.

          <

          p>PS:  From this report:

          <

          p>Between 1988 and 2000, teenage pregnancy rates declined in every state and in the District of Columbia.

          <

          p>The teenage pregnancy rate among those who ever had intercourse declined 28% between 1990 and 2002.

          <

          p>Teen pregnancy rate in 1972: 95.1
          In 2002:  75.4

      • …Teen STD rates are higher in places with no Sex ed or “abstinence only” programs. So if you want higher teen STD/pregnancy rates, shut down sex ed.  

        • Teen STD rates are higher in places with no Sex ed or “abstinence only” programs. So if you want higher teen STD/pregnancy rates, shut down sex ed.

          <

          p>Teen STD rates are higher in places that serve more fried food.  So if you want higher teen STD/prenancy rates, open more KFCs.

          • Like America?

            <

            p>We can look at the international statistics and see that US has far lower incidence of teen STD, pregnancy, and abortion rates than places that have, comprehensive broad sex ed programs like Netherlands, Germany, and France.

            <

            p>http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs…

            <

            p>Sex ed reduces abortion.  

            • Sex ed reduces abortion.

              <

              p>But, you said:

              <

              p>

              Teen STD rates are higher in places with no Sex ed or “abstinence only” programs.

              <

              p>Implying that adbstinence only caused higher teen STD rates.  Maybe it wasn’t the ‘abstinence only’.  Maybe it was the fried food.  

  5. No wonder Massachusetts spends more on incarceration then education.  Each adolescent committed to the Department of Youth Services costs $23,000 a year – the tuition and fees at a community college are about $3000 a year.

    <

    p>It’s no wonder.    The cost of building a prison costs, say, the same as building a school but with fewer inmates than students (a lot fewer!), the cost per capita for an inmate is of course a lot more than the cost per capita student.  

      • You say:

        it’s cheaper to educate than incarcerate, by a lot.

        <

        p>Costs to incarcerate in Mass in 2001:  $413 million
        Cost per resident to incarcerate:  $63

        <

        p>Cost to education: $10.3 BILLION0.3 BILLION

        <

        p>Is $10.3 Billion greater than $413 million?

        <

        p>On a per felon cost versus per student cost, let’s lament that the former exceeds the latter and attempt to change it.  How? By incarcerating more felons.  Guaranteed to bring down that per felon cost because most of the incarceration costs are fixed not variable.  

        <

        p>Cost per felon compared to cost per student, what a meaningless statistic!

  6. It is not too unusual for three generations of a family to be at the same facility. Based upon one’s home life, being locked up isn’t so bad.  You know where you’ll be, have medical care, protection, heat in the winter and air conditioning in the summer, get exercise, some discipline, free legal advice and three good meals a day. Just like perpetual childhood.  

    <

    p>The Suffolk County Jail even has large screen TVs.  Who could want more!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Archives