Why does the USA have so many people in jail?

I came across this article today on the BBC site.I am interested to hear everyone's ideas about why US has more people in jail than any other country in the world - and more per capita than either Russia or China which we tend to view as punitive countries with less respect for human rights.Is it because we have more crime or because we define crime more broadly?Is it because we have more criminals or because we have more aggressive law enforcement?Or is it merely a reflexion of cultural influences on youth that are stronger in the US than elsewhere, e.g. Hollywood glamorization of crime or some such?Shouldn't Americans be ashamed of this statistic, and if not, why not?

So you would like to see more people in jail in Soctland?If you click over to the page "UK and Western Europe" you will see that, per capita, England and Wales are No. 1 in W. Europe for incarcerating people, with Scotland in third place.
So you seem to be quite good at locking people up already.But let's not morph this into an argument for or against rehabilitation efforts (remember, unless they are on death row, you have to let them out sooner or later, so we are all better off if they get some training and counselling while in prison).What we are interested in is the question 'why'.I have a strong personal inclination that DCA is right.
We have far too many people in jail in the US for minor drug offenses that do not constitute a real crime against anyone.I am tempted to take the position that we are locking far too many people up because of our over-zealous definitions of crime.(Now I guess the conservatives will come out of the woodwork and challenge that - given that they are the ones that like to make everything a crime that they happen to frown on).

Yes, we have plenty of recent examples of how those who can afford the best legal advice can buy the justice system in America.OJ Simpson, that Beretta guy, and Michael Jackson all come to mind.It would also be revealing to post the racial breakdown of our jail population. I know I have seen these stats out there but I don't have time to try and track them down right now. I know that black males under 30 are highly represented.So people below might be inclined to rail against some criminals getting off too easily, but are we really putting the right people in jail most of the time? I suspect not.I remember once a long time ago Keith Richards was busted at an airport with heroin and the judge made the Stones do some benefit concert by way of recompense. I wonder he would have to do for a joint? Maybe one song? Certainly not 60 years.America has become way too punitive when it comes to punishing behavior deemed socially undesirable, but which really falls short of a reasonable definition of crime. It's another influence from the Christian Right. The poor are disproportionately disenfranchized from protection in this enterprise because the legal system is set up to work well only for those who can afford it.

Actually, from that link,

quote:

---

133 per 100,000 adult population.
While this number reflects a decrease in incarceration rates for eight years in a row, it still represents an increase over the last decade.
The number of Aboriginal prisoners, women in prison and youth in detention continues to increase.
On any given day in Canada during 2001-2002...

​

An average of 155 000 individuals were under the supervision of Correctional Service Agencies in Canada. (a 2% increase from 2000-2001).
There were approximately 32 000 adults prisoners in custody. These totals include both federal and provincial prisoners.

---

That rate of 133 / 100,000 is slightly lower than England and almost identical to Scotland.This message has been edited by EZscience, 04-06-2006 02:16 PM

Yes, lower security Canadian jails can look a lot like country clubs - but you still can't leave. You could argue they are too generous to prisoners - a lot of people do, but you can only be so punitive before you begin defeating all opportunity for rehabilitation. You have to let people out some day. Keep in mind, higher security prisoners have to earn the right to transfer to lower security facilities to enjoy the benfits and can be transfered back if they abuse them. I wonder if you and Brian would like to take all incentives away for rehab and simply dump high-security inmates straight back on the street when their sentences are up?
Because you have to provide some opportunities for benefits to create incentives for good behavior and rehab.

I found 2004 stats for the US federal prison system .

quote:

---

At yearend 2004 there were 3,218 black male sentenced prison inmates per 100,000 black males in the United States, compared to 1,220 Hispanic male inmates per 100,000 Hispanic males and 463 white male inmates per 100,000 white males.

---

So we lock up almost 7 X more black men than white men and 2.6 X more hispanic men.

Yes, I know the Fraser Valley well.
You have a maximum security facility (Matsqui) and the super-max facility Kent in Agassiz and another medium security one I forget the name of.So there is a heavy concentration of prisons in that area, including some minor work camps where they get lower security treatment.
There have also been prison breals from the heavier security facilities. But does this mean we should do away with the whole system of down-scaled security for good behavior?Your experience is very personal and very horrifying.
It also explains some of your bias - understandably, I might add.But we have to be wary of extremism in both directions.
We can't just throw away the key on all prisoners because of events like these. We would end up putting more criminals back on the street if we did that. We don't here about all the rehabed prisoners that make good after they get out - because most of them want to put that experience behind them.

Thanks Ringo.I think a lot of people work and live around ex-cons without ever knowing it.The point is, we aren't being lax on law enforcement just because we treat prisoners with some dignity and give them some opportunity.
There is a point where being overly punitive will be self-defeating.
But try telling that to Republicans down here...But I am still looking for more theories on WHY we put so many people in jail in the States ?
No one wants to take issue with my position that we are now defining crimes too broadly, especially in drug enforcement?
Or is it simply that we are putting people in jail for so much longer for the same crime that the system is so full?

I'm going to have to call you on this Crash.Revenge might be a self-gratifying emotion for individuals, but it cannot be used as a premise for a legal system or society's system for dealing with crime. Society needs to set a higher example for people to follow.How much revenge is enough? Too much?
How can revenge be balanced in a justice system?
Wouldn't we end up subjecting criminals to crime?
How is any kind of sanctioned revenge going to set an example for society to follow?Besides, do you really think that if we had a better system of delivering 'revenge' to criminals that this would have an impact on the crime rate?

The fact we also have illegal aliens in jail is only one byproduct of the system that puts so many people in jail in the first place.
We can't hold them accountable for our system - they can't even vote.
Also, remember that, once in jail, they will be turned over to Immigration upon their release and deported.
The fact we have so many in jail is probably partly a function of our wide definitions of crime and partly a function of how ridiculously long we put people away for.
Why not just deport them right away instead of paying to keep them in jail?

I completely agree.
I can think of two things right off that no one should have to go to jail for:
A drug habit.
Prostitution.Ever consider why marijuana isn't legal while hundreds of toxic synthetic drugs are available by prescription?Pretty much anyone could grow it easily so there's no effective way for the government to tax it (as they do alcohol and tobacco, both of which are obviously more damaging) and no money to be made from it by our parasitic pharmaceutical industry.

Now I can see from where you live you are probably up against this problem more directly than most of us, but consider this.Most of the 12 million illegals are actually here because they are willing to do work that NO American would do.Would you clean hotel rooms for $2.67 per room?
That's what they pay at the Comfort Inn here in town.
Ever picked oranges? Tough, dirty work and the trees are spiny as hell. I can tell you right now, without migrant farm labor fresh market citrus would go unpicked in Florida.
As Schraf noted, ALL your produce and food would increase in price,
not to mention the cost of a hotel room and many other services.
These people would not be here if we didn't have the jobs for them. OK, now you have got me in the extremely uncomfortable position of having to defend a Republican policy {{{shiver}}}But it is NOT an 'amnesty program'.
That phrase is the real spin job being done by the radical right.Look at the facts.The process will take them 9 years. (!!)
(It actually took me that long in US before I got my green card legally, and I had a Ph.D. when I got here, but I don't resent them that opportunity)
They have to pay restitution of about $2,000.
They have to maintain continuous employment for that period.
They will have to have a spotless record of behavior.
And there are even more requirements I can't remember.Nothing is being given to these people for free.
It is merely a good faith effort to get them to 'come in from the cold' and become full participants in society.So I suppose you support putting more people in jail by creating a whole new class of felons, including any good samaritan who would help an illegal alien?
Wouldn't that just give us an even bigger prison population to care for?
Oh, yeah, and build a longer fence. Yep - that'll work.This message has been edited by EZscience, 04-07-2006 09:17 AM

OK, lots of different issues here.
I will definitely come back to address your comments over the weekend - won't have time today - but FYI I am defintitely NOT in favor of unlimited immigration and I AM in favor of screening.
In the case of those already here and working, I see it as a choice between putting them in jail (which we can't seem to do effectively anyway) where we will get NO constructive contribution from them, and giving them some alternative path to become valid members of society so we do get some contribution from them.
More later. EZ

I suspect its a case of him having prior convictions both in and out of prison. Sometimes they can give you a lot more time for the same offense IN jail than out of it.

Isn't that the truth.
Vengence is so constructive.
We have won so many Muslim hearts and minds we can't count them...