[wvns] US prison population at all time high
US prison population at all time high
By Naomi Spencer
29 September 2007
http://wsws.org/articles/2007/sep2007/pris-s29.shtml
The "war on terror" is endlessly peddled by the American political
establishment as a crusade for freedom and liberty around the world.
Yet, as the latest prison figures again demonstrate, far from
representing freedom, justice and democracy, the United States is
notorious for its propensity to jail its own population.
The US incarcerates a far higher percentage of its population than any
other country, with its prison population accounting for fully a
quarter of the world's prisoners. In 2006, newly released Census
Bureau data indicate, the US incarcerated population stood at 2.1
million. According to separate figures put out by the Justice
Department, by June 30, 2006, the prison population stood at well over
2.2 million.
No other country in the world comes close to these numbers. The far
more populous China ranks second, with a prison population of
approximately 1.5 million. The number of incarcerated persons in the
US now exceeds the population of all but three cities in the country,
and is equivalent to the combined populations of Seattle, Boston,
Atlanta and Washington, D.C.
The number of inmates held in US state and federal prisons in 2006 was
more than double the 1990 prison population, according to the Census
Bureau's American Community Survey. The research and advocacy group
The Sentencing Project estimates that in 2006, one in every 133
Americans was in prison or jail. Excluding the child population from
the total brings this ratio close to one in every 100 adults behind bars.
Minorities continue to make up an enormously disproportionate
percentage of the incarcerated. Approximately 41 percent of the adult
correctional population were black in 2006, and 19 percent were
Hispanic. One in every nine black men between the ages of 25 and 29
were incarcerated in 2006, as were one in 26 Hispanic and one in 59
white men of the same age group. According to the Justice Department's
Bureau of Justice Statistics, black men have a one in three chance of
serving time in prison at some point in their lives; Hispanic men have
a 17 percent chance; white men have a 6 percent chance.
The Census survey also found an increase of the female incarcerated
population. As a percentage of the total prison population, women
increased from 8 percent in 1990 to 10 percent in 2006.
Since the late 1970s, the prison population has increased sixfold, and
the number of people on probation or parole has also skyrocketed. The
overall correctional population (either in prison or on parole) has
grown during this time from 1.8 million to well over 7 million people.
Another 4.3 million ex-convicts live in the US. The total population
of the United States is approximately 300 million.
The figures from the Justice Department and Census measure the number
of prisoners at any given time. However, during the course of one
year, a far larger number of people spend at least some time behind
bars. According to the 2007 Public Safety Performance review by the
Pew Charitable Trusts, more than 600,000 people are admitted to state
and federal prisons, and more than 10 million spend time in local
jails, over the course of any given year.
Driving this increase in prisoners has been a shift from
rehabilitative to punitive "tough on crime" policies. The
incarceration rate increased dramatically beginning in the early
1990s, in tandem with a drastic growth in inequality and the
dismantling of social programs. While the rich amass ever-higher
concentrations of wealth, social infrastructure and economic
opportunities have deteriorated.
The crumbling of industry, education, healthcare and drug
rehabilitation programs in America finds its consequences in all the
social ills plaguing society's poorest layers—unemployment, debt,
despair, addiction, homelessness—and gives rise to domestic
disturbances, theft, and property and drug crimes. The response of the
ruling elite to these problems is more prisons.
Another unsurprising consequence of this economic polarization has
been an increasingly aggressive policing of minor crimes. State
legislatures have enacted laws that have removed much of the judicial
system's ability to make independent decisions outside of severe
sentencing laws. Drug possession, child support non-payment,
shoplifting, and other various minor offenses catch more of the poor
in "three-strikes laws," which mandate long sentences for repeat
offenders.
At the same time, funding has been redirected away from public defense
and rehabilitation programs and toward prosecution and punishment.
Even as violent crime has dropped over the past decade, longer and
more rigid mandatory sentences for non-violent offenses have resulted
in the huge growth in incarceration.
As Allen Beck, deputy director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics,
told the Washington Post, "The growth wasn't really about increasing
crime but how we chose to respond to crime. When you increase the
likelihood of a person going to prison for a conviction, and then you
increase how long you keep them there, it has a profound effect."
According to a new report from The Sentencing Project, drug arrests
have more than tripled in the last 25 years, to a record 1.8 million
arrests in 2005. The so-called war on drugs has pushed the number of
incarcerated drug offenders up by 1,100 percent since 1980. During
this same period, rates of drug use declined by half.
The overwhelming majority of drug arrests are for possession of
marijuana, and most persons in prison for a drug offense have no
history of violence or high-level drug selling activity.
The racial disparity is enormous in drug sentencing as well. The
Sentencing Project reports that while blacks constitute 14 percent of
regular drug users in the US, they make up 37 percent of those
arrested for drug offenses and 56 percent of those held in state
prison for drugs.
The number of prisoners held without being sentenced is also on the
rise, according to the Justice Department figures. In 2006, 62 percent
of jail inmates were awaiting trial, up from 51 percent in 1990 and 56
percent in 2000. Most were arrested on drug offenses.
The number of prisoners held in private, for-profit facilities rose by
more than 10 percent in one year. This represents a dramatic leap in
the growth of the for-profit prison industry that dovetails with the
growth of police state measures at large. The prison industry—the
network of private companies that operate the prison system—now has
annual revenues of approximately $40 billion a year.
Virtually all of these prisons are horrifically overcrowded. State
prisons were operating at 99 to 113 percent of capacity, and the
federal prison system was operating at 134 percent of capacity. This
compounds the dangers and brutality of prison life. Inmates are
exposed to physical and sexual assault, and put at risk for diseases
such as HIV/AIDS or developing mental illness.
===
CRIMINALIZING MARIJUANA COSTS TAXPAYERS $42 BILLION A YEAR
http://www.MarijuanaPolicy.org
MARIJUANA POLICY PROJECT - Marijuana prohibition costs taxpayers $41.8
billion every year in law enforcement expenses and revenues according
to a new report. Key findings from the report include:
- Marijuana arrests constitute 5.54 percent of all U.S. arrests,
costing taxpayers $10.7 billion.
- The total U.S. marijuana supply is 14,349 metric tons annually, with
a retail value of $113 billion.
- Marijuana prohibition diverts the entire $113 billion in sales from
the legal, taxed economy. Based on the White House Office of
Management and Budget's estimate that 28.7 percent of the U.S. gross
domestic product goes to federal, local, and state governments as tax
revenue, marijuana prohibition costs $31.1 billion in lost tax
revenues annually.
===
Decriminalizing Drugs: A Good Idea That Probably Won't Happen
By Harrell Rhome, Ph.D.
http://wethepeoplenews.ccppc.org/0207/drugs.htm
The "war on drugs" is a fiasco and a failure. Even the name is a lie.
It is not a war on drugs, but a war on the American people. This
worrisome and wearisome war, if it really is to stop drugs, is a
catastrophe. With our porous, essentially unguarded borders, we either
can't or won't stop illegal immigration, drugs, terrorists or anything
else. As far as controlling drugs once they enter the country, almost
anyone who wants them, no matter where they are, can find them in a
shockingly short time. Think about it. We can't even keep drugs out of
maximum-security prisons, much less off the streets and out of our
schools. What is more, the "drug war" has filled our prisons with
people who are not violent criminals. For decades, the Latin American
drug producing nations have pointed out our insatiable national drug
consumption and appetite, which is staggering. No one grows a crop
unless there are consumers. This creates uncounted billions of dollars
(and other currencies), into underground economies all around the
world. In some countries, the drug trade is the number one source of
income. Some countries have oil; some have drugs. There is heavy
demand for both, and this is bound to continue. Countries with oil and
drugs and other valuable resources are ever targeted for control by
the New World Order Powers That Be. But, let's return to drugs and
America. No matter how many expensive and often dysfunctional
prevention and treatment programs are in place, they are evidently
even less successful than the law enforcement approach. It is widely
known that combined policing efforts stop maybe ten percent of the
total volume. Many treatment programs would be happy with a 10%
success rate!
Without saying more, it's clear that the elaborately organized and
well-funded strategies of both law enforcement and treatment are not
just failing, but create additional problems. We've spent decades
futilely beating our heads against a wall of stone, never trying a new
strategy. Isn't it time to venture out and try something new? What
kind of private business could continue to operate with such a dismal
record? Not yours or mine, to be sure. But on the elevated and etheric
levels where the Powers That Be commune, decisions are made
differently from you and I. The PTB want things just as they are with
the super-lucrative legal and illegal drug trade. New anti-drug
strategies are introduced from time to time to pacify the public with
the false impression that the misnamed war on drugs is a serious
enterprise. But on the national scene, practically no one who really
matters seriously addresses these issues at all. From that alone, we
can hypothesize that the PTB have things just as they want. What is
more, when required, critics and proponents of serious change are
dealt with savagely. If you think I'm exaggerating, just ask the
families of the more than a few chiefs of police, judges, journalists,
legislators, and their families from South America all the way to the
U.S. border, blown up or gunned down in cold blood. No one is doing
anything and there are reasons. First, why interfere with something so
lucrative? And if you were to try, you or your family could be killed.
Would most Americans and their officials take the risk? You decide.
What Would Happen If Drugs Were Decriminalized?
Notice that the term is decriminalized, not legalized. However,
legalization is also an option, and drugs could be taxed and
controlled in much the same way as alcohol and tobacco. Some states
already monopolize liquor sales, so we would have both state-owned
liquor stores and state-owned pharmaceutical stores. Both of the
already legal dangerous drugs, alcohol and tobacco, are more harmful
and addictive than many banned substances. Why the hypocrisy? Let's
deal with this honestly. Would more people use drugs? In the
beginning, they might, but the faux war on drugs doesn't deter anyone
who really wants them. Usually overlooked by the carefully controlled
and contrived media is that the USA doesn't just have a problem with
drug consumption. As are Afghanistan, Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, et al,
we are a drug-producing country. The largest cash crop in the USA and
Canada is marijuana. And, we mustn't overlook America's other druggie
delight, methamphetamine, until just recently cooked up and sold in a
neighborhood not far from you and me. However, this has all changed.
Precursor chemicals can no longer be purchased in large quantities.
Will these new laws decrease meth use? Actually, it could make it
worse, with a purer and more potent product with secure distribution!
The only real change is that meth manufacturing and distribution is
now solidly in the hands of the cartels.
And, let's not forget the drug consumers. U.S. media and lawmakers
never address the fact that our heavy demand for drugs is the basic
problem, not the producers. What is more, we must honestly face the
fact that a lot of people like drugs; otherwise they wouldn't use
them! The horror stories, mostly in the local news, are about people
that have very genuine and awful problems. Be that as it may, that
does not fully describe America's drug culture. Regardless of what we
want to believe, occasional and casual users abound, throughout the
various levels of society. Hence, we have an even greater demand.
Anyone of any age can get drugs in spite of all the draconian and
unjust laws. Minors surely shouldn't use drugs, but they shouldn't use
alcohol and tobacco either. Yet they do, despite what the law says.
Naturally, either legalization or decriminalization should keep strict
laws in place protecting minors. Nevertheless, more and more
consenting adults are saying they don't need the ever-enlarging nanny
state to determine what they do in their private lives. Others feel
that, even though they do not use drugs, they oppose laws curtailing
personal freedom. Medical marijuana introduces even more complexities,
but no space for that now. The fact is that the public is tired of the
PTB lies. Remember the anti-drug craze of the `50s and the "Reefer
Madness" film? Which was a big lie? All that happened was that it got
worse. Today, so-called drug resistance programs in schools are mainly
a disappointment. One definition of insanity is the inability to stop
repetitive self-destructive behavior. Does that describe us?
There are many clear and cogent arguments against draconian laws, so
no need to recapitulate them here. In addition, very logical legal
arguments say that Federal drug regulation is fundamentally
unconstitutional. If that were actually to become a fact, then our
basic questions are still valid, but the particular legal procedure
would vary from state to state. My opinion is that this would be the
proper way in the tradition of American personal freedom. Let each
state decide whether to decriminalize, legalize, keep things the same,
or make even stricter laws. While lives are lost and ruined by drug
use, ineffective laws and harsh punishments ruin just as many or more.
And, if you are so naïve as to think that the prison system is
actually correctional and really helps anyone, then you obviously have
neither talked to anyone who has been inside the corrupt and
ineffective system, nor spoken to a relative or close friend of
someone caught up in that web of madness. Some naïve and misguided
folk seem to think that "a little dose of jail" might do some good.
They are tragically and utterly wrong. There is little or no drug
treatment or much of any other kind of rehabilitative care either. If
you don't believe me, check it out. Prisons help virtually no one --
other than the PTB.
America has a horrendous drug problem, and our domestic dilemmas
usually hurt others all around the world. There's no time to deeply
explore our national obsession, but read the words of that most
expressive cyber-columnist, Barbra-renee Brighenti, who helped
significantly by critiquing my article, doesn't entirely agree; but
dear readers, ponder these things. Here are truly profound words
describing our confounding cultural conundrum.
"Drugs are used by society to anaesthetize its pain. Almost anything
can be used and is used for this purpose. … Why is the country in
crises? Why do we need to anaesthetize? What is the pain? We use
drugs, alcohol, sex, food, money and power to kill the things we feel.
Of course if this country wanted to clean up its drug problems it
would be finished in a week. But on top of money, jails, etc, drugs
are a great way to keep people silent, daydreaming, broken. Most
tribes used drugs to get their warriors prepared to do terrible things
-- we use everything as a drug perhaps not to feel the terrible things
we do. When I look at the food crises, the pharmaceutical drug crises,
the legalization of even more violent-destructive substances is not
something I would agree with. But then again it may help the whole
culture 'hit bottom' quicker. Or we could take away all of the
crutches and see where we are at? The PTB will make money either way -
but you are debating only the method to keep drugs available, thus it
is fait accompli that they are part of American culture, and that is
sad." barbra-renee@ebroadstar.com. [From an email to the author,
emphasis added.]
In Mel Gibson's Apocalypto, one scene affected me deeply. The high
priest stands atop the sacrificial pyramid saying, "We are a people of
great destiny. We are the masters of time." They were not, and neither
are we. Yet the sacrifices go on; heads continue to roll down the
steps, all to no avail. Of course, we are a people of destiny, but
have we squandered our blessing?
But what else would happen if some drug laws were eliminated and
others were liberalized, in a rational way? Perhaps most importantly,
major organized criminal syndicates, not to mention international
terrorist organizations, would essentially be de-funded. Gangs, which
are growing rapidly all over the country and are a threat to national
security, would lose membership because a major source of their income
would dry up. The ill-advised "noble experiment" with alcohol
prohibition back in the 1920s is responsible for the rise of organized
crime in this nation, and the "drug wars" have kept it well endowed
ever since. If drugs were decriminalized, the crime rate would drop
drastically, especially crimes of theft, burglary and robbery, crimes
most often committed to buy drugs. If very little or no drug money is
available to the cartels, the reform movements in a number of
countries could solve many problems and make a better world. If drugs
were legally available, then there is no need to commit crimes to buy
them. Nor would there be much of a need for illegal drug dealers.
Consequently, the prison population would decrease rapidly, saving
billions of dollars and future damaged lives. The police could
concentrate on important crimes, and the money saved could provide the
very best drug research and treatment programs, free of charge, for
anyone who wanted them.
Why It Will Probably Never Happen
The banking system has a "substance abuse problem." That is, the
international banking and trade cartels are "addicted to drugs," or
more precisely, to the handling and processing (a.k.a. laundering) of
drug money. They are dependant on this perpetual cash infusion. Back
in the old days, Fr. Flanagan of Boys Town said there was no such
thing as a bad boy. Now, "money town" says there is no such thing as
bad money. Dirty money can be rehabilitated, recovered and washed
clean. Once funds are laundered, they are used just like any other
money, i.e., invested to make more money. Such projects include
shopping malls, resorts, hotels, banks, real estate developments,
entertainment, new miracle drugs, – you name it. When investors make
money, it gets spread around the whole economy, but especially among
the Powers That Be.
Likewise, the prison industry is a huge corporate business, more and
more of them built each year. Most are essentially slave labor
institutions, producing products and services directly competing with
private business. Did you know that? Certainly, law enforcement
officials oppose any change, as most agencies are dependent on drug
seizure money, which has become an essential and irreplaceable part of
their budgets. There are other factors working against reform, but no
need to belabor the point. The Powers That Be don't want change, so
there will likely be none. What can you do? If enough reasonable,
rational people of like mind start writing letters and calling their
"congress critters", perhaps at least some of the more extreme and
draconian penalties could be eliminated.
What is done today in the false name of fighting drugs is a sad,
tragic and traumatic failure. Isn't it time to try something else?
Yes, of course, but virtually no one other than the Libertarian Party,
Congressman Ron Paul and a few others have ever stepped forward, but
they and other progressives have little or no impact. As some of you
may know, in the early 20th century, when drug regulations were first
enacted, more than a few lawmakers and legal scholars opposed the
whole thing on constitutional grounds. There is absolutely no
precedent, they said, for the federal government to regulate drugs in
any way. Thus, the 10th Amendment would have applied, leaving the
matter up to the various states. Unfortunately, this rational and
logical position was overruled and ignored. In spite of that, many
states have implemented a more enlightened approach, even though the
Feds never waive their ubiquitous powers to come in and do what they
want regardless of what the citizens have decided in their own states.
The whole subject of drug reform has been successfully demonized, but
we can still hope that an increasing accumulation of open minds might
have an eventual effect.
With this type of article, there is always polarization; some eagerly
agreeing, others vehemently disagreeing. However, if you are more or
less in the undecided center on all of this, and are looking for new
ideas and new information, then I primarily address you. This issue
must be part of a national dialogue, with all points of views
considered. Could Americans get together and solve some of this if
repressive governments, hegemonies, corporations and cartels got their
ugly hands off the machinery of decision-making? In the same vein,
could countries currently saddled with drugs and corruption create a
clean and honest society? In other words, without domineering
governments imposing a dictatorial Brave New World/Animal Farm "nanny
culture", dictating our every move and thought, and without
exploitative cartels sucking the people's blood dry, could we actually
create a freer and better world? Why not? Stranger things have
happened. So what do YOU think? Readers are invited to correspond.
Harrell Rhome is a freelance writer, with articles in both print and
online publications, including The Nationalist Times newspaper, and is
a Contributing Editor for The Barnes Review historical journal.
Harrell is an English-language columnist on Tsunami Politico, an
online multilingual magazine out of Buenos Aires. See articles on
rather diverse topics at http://www.tsunamipolitico.com/truth9.htm.
*********************************************************************
WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE
To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
Please consider donating to WVNS today.
Email ummyakoub@yahoo.com for instructions.
To leave this list, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:wvns-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:wvns-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
No comments:
Post a Comment