Our editorial Wednesday noted some costly consequences of Jessica’s Law, including the need for 1,880 more prison beds over the next 10 years, at a possible cost of $192.4 million in construction and $63 million a year for operations, according to the Kansas Department of Corrections. The 2007 legislative session could see action on two other tough-on-crime measures: one for repeat drunken drivers that could add 4,000 inmates over the next decade and one sending registered sex offenders back to prison if they are caught in places where kids can be found. Expect more debate on whether Kansas should get into the private prison business but little talk of freeing up capacity by cutting sentences for nonviolent offenders. (Remember the attorney general campaign fight over Senate Bill 323, anyone?)
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
62 Comments
I’d like to see more work release type centers for DUI. REAL sex offenders should be differentiated from kids just having sex.
Certainly we should differientate between the “Romeo & Juliet” sex offender and the real thing.
But let’s be clear. If I could sit down with most of you and show you the sentencing grid in this state, your response would almost uniformly be “huh?” Because, in Kansas, a thief, as long as he doesn’t break into homes or commit crimes while on felony probation, can steal forever and NEVER go to prison. Yes, folks, I said NEVER.
And DUIs. I’m still waiting for us to take those seriously. 4th offense – 4TH, mind you, gets the offender a minimum 90 days, maximum a year. And how many do drunks kill a year?
In the great scheme of things for gov’t to spend dollars on, prisons rank near the top. Cry me a river, and build the damn prison.
All sex is offensive to at least half of the people living in this state. Therefore just about everyone has been an “offender” at one time or another in his/her life.
And DUIs. I’m still waiting for us to take those seriously. 4th offense – 4TH, mind you, gets the offender a minimum 90 days, maximum a year. And how many do drunks kill a year?
Yes, its so convenient to demonize certain classes of people. But at least half of the people arrested for DUI are only marginally impaired by alcohol. People routinely pass the impairment tests, yet are sill “over the limit.”
The current law is about right.
GMC, thanks for bringing up the sentencing grid. While I do not practice Criminal Law, I have reviewed the grid from time to time, and there are truly some “huh” moments when looking at it. Your comments on the 4th DUI are also right on point.
Before other bloggers start taking off on the courts and the lawyers, let me remind them that the sentencing grid is a product of various statutes enacted by the legislature, which, contrary to popular belief, is not made up solely of lawyers; in fact, IIRC, lawyers are in a distinct minority. It represents a graphical rendition of the sentences authorized by the legislature for various crimes, and reflects the political compromises inherent in the system.
“Marginally impaired” is no less dangerous, perhaps more so. I have no desire to have folks “marginally impaired” driving three-ton missiles around my neighborhood. They have lowered their inhibitions and raised their willingness to engage in risky driving at exactly the time their ability to do so (reaction time, judgment) is impaired. Real bright.
And I can tell you that if you pass the “impairment tests,” as you put it, you are unlikely to be arrested. It is, after all, the FAILING of those tests which provides probable cause for the arrest in the first place.
Think this through before you spout off, Door King.
In answer to your question, for the past 6 years (according to KS DOT stats), an average of 88 people have died each year on Kansas roads due to DUI drivers.
Raptor, by comparison, we average in this state approximately 100-110 murders a year. Nearly as many killed by DUI’s (and just those that can be documented) as are murdered.
90 days. 4th offense.
Let’s get serious, shall we?
Driving drunk is certainly being impaired, but let’s not forget all those other impairments: exhaustion, many prescription drugs, most illegal drugs, cell phones, kids fighting in the back seat, mental illness, some communicable diseases, pressure at work and just plain stupidity!Let’s face it- at one time or another, most of us have driven while impairedby something. Why single out alcohol?
Jed:
All that is true enough! Some of those are illegal now (other drugs, for example, whether illegal or legal, to a level where one cannot drive safely). But for the most part, you’ve cited life. If you can find a way to measure and regulate driving with life and all that goes with it, good luck.
We have entirely too many people in prison for petty crap.
If prisons are full and we need more, then why not put the non-violent offenders into boot camps or work release programs. Would these be cheaper to build and run?
Also, let’s start making the criminals pay the victim back in compensation. I don’t mean to order them to pay a fine to the court, I mean make them work and earn money to pay the victim. And if the work is menial yard work, then so be it.
Let’s start making criminals accountable for their actions. There are consequences for everyone’s actions and I don’t buy this idea that if there is no room in prison for them, then just let them go on probation. That’s nonsense. That is why we have these morons because we allow them to be morons.
Lucee, in many cases restitution is ordered as a conditon of probation; I’ll leave it at that, as I don’t fish in that particular pond.
And I can tell you that if you pass the “impairment tests,” as you put it, you are unlikely to be arrested. It is, after all, the FAILING of those tests which provides probable cause for the arrest in the first place.
That is not correct. You will take and pass the impairment tests, and them be given the breathalyzer test. The impairment tests are for humiliation, since if a cop suspects you have been drinking, or doesn’t like your face, you will ALWAYS be given the breath test, no matter what the evidence. Why even give the impairment tests; they are worthless in court.
90 days. 4th offense.
Let’s get serious, shall we?
Most habitual drunken drivers never hurt anyone but themselves; if you check the stats carefully, you’ll find three quarters of fatal accidents in which alocohol is involved are single car accidents, and the only fatality is the driver. What you are asking is to stiffen the penalties for people who can “potentially” might harm someone. I think we all know the consequences of preemptive actions.
Why don’t we clap everyone in prison who owns a gun: all are potentially harmful I suspect in about the same proportion as drunken driving.
90 days. 4th offense.
Let’s get serious, shall we?
Also, let’s start making the criminals pay the victim back in compensation. I don’t mean to order them to pay a fine to the court, I mean make them work and earn money to pay the victim. And if the work is menial yard work, then so be it.
Let’s start making criminals accountable for their actions.
Who would a marijuana smoker compensate?
Door King:
I can tell you bluntly, after working with these cases, you are wrong. It’s called PROBABLE CAUSE; a necessary prerequisite to arrest. The breathalyzer blow is POST-arrest.
The field sobrieties ARE admissible in court, as well, with two exceptions – a PBT and nystagmus. Wrong again.
It’s obvious you have your own axe to grind. A personal history, perhaps?
Just for fun and a good laugh, a “field test” that speaks volumes.
http://www.break.com/index/drunk_fails_sobriety_test.html
“Why don’t we clap everyone in prison who owns a gun: all are potentially harmful I suspect in about the same proportion as drunken driving.”
It’s early, and we’ve already hit stupid statement of the day. Care to back that up? You can’t of course, because we both know it’s a ridiculous contention.
We’re not punishing potential harm, here, Door King. The law punishes ACTS; driving drunk is an ACT. Duh.
“We have entirely too many people in prison for petty crap.”
We’ve got to talk, JR. I’ll sit down with you with the sentencing grid, and you’ll see just how “petty” the prison (and non-prison) offenses are, and how much history one must accumulate to actually go to prison. There is an enormous amount of misinformation on this subject.
Gee do ya think this editorial post and the one above could be related?
If you didnt lock up so many pot growers, smokers and retailers, maybe we would have enough prison beds for the real offenders?
duh
This sexual predator thing needs to be expanded. Lets make the Predator stuff Retroactive, especially for the boomer parents out theres. We suggest 2 things for AG Morrison -
1. Investigate all KS birth records and find who was pregnant or gave birth before she was 18. Then arrest the fathers now and force them to register as Sexual Predators. And you kids out there can help by looking up your parents anniversary and adding up your age. See what you find out about your soccer mom and dad. We now know they can never change and must now be locked up forever.
2. Since this sex was likely CONSENTUAL, we urge the lawmakers to now include the FEMALES on the register list since they participated in this terrible behavior voluntarily. They will now sign up as Registered Sluts. There will be a SLUT Registery posted with pictures on line.
NOW will likely want to get in on this for equality etc. Once we get this Equality steam roller going…look out.
Since neither or your parents will now be able to get a job, own a home etc. the state will now take care of all your families. And they will not be able to live within 12 miles of a school, church etc. so we propose to set up special Predator Cities to house them. One will be for Males labeled as “Predator Town”. One will be for Females labeled “Slut Town”.
“Predator Town” will require round the clock armed guards to keep the males IN.
“Slut Town” will require round the clock guards to keep us OUT.
Or if this fails to garner lawmaker support we could have some sanity set in…but very doubtful.
It’s early, and we’ve already hit stupid statement of the day. Care to back that up? You can’t of course, because we both know it’s a ridiculous contention.
Really? Didn’t someone in here write that the number of murders in Kansas equals the number of alcohol related driving fatalities?Since most murders are caused by guns, I’d say my statement is more than true.
Let’s say, for example, that half of all male kansans have driven drunk at least once in their lives, and half of all male kansans own guns. Don’t look so stupid, now, does it? And that doesn’t even include the accidental shootings and suicides.
But here’s the rubber. There has never ever been any proof that drunken driving is any more dangerous than sober driving because the baseline studies to determine how many miles are driven while drunk have never been done.
If they were I’d expect we’d find legally drunk people are probably involved in about four or five times more fatal accidents per mile driven than sober drivers. I would also guess that at the lower limits of legal drunkeness, a driver is only a tiny bit more likely to have an accident than a sober driver, and much less likely than a teenager or a driver over 80. It is very unlikely than an individual drunken driver will ever hurt anyone. That is why the laws as they stand are about right.
What you fail to realize is that a drunken driver is still extremely UNLIKELY to cause a fatal accident or be in one. Just as a gun owner is extremely UNLIKELY to cause an accident or murder someone.
But it is obvious that if there were no guns, there would be fewer murders, suicides, and accidents; just as it is obvious that if there were no alcohol, there wouldn’t be any accidents caused by drunk people.
All i have to say is WTF mrbill?
What r u smoking? What ever it is, be sure to share cause its got to be good to come up with that load…
“Since most murders are caused by guns, I’d say my statement is more than true.”
And there’s the fallacy. Murders are no more “caused” by guns than drunk driving is “caused” by cars or liquor.
Both are caused by PEOPLE who commit ACTS. Owning a firearm (with of course appropriate safety precautions) is not illegal or inherently dangerous; firing off rounds at random in populated areas is both illegal and dangerous. Drinking is legal, and not (if with moderation) particularly dangerous. Drinking and driving (roughly the same as firing off random rounds) is illegal, and dangerous.
ACTS, not possibilities, in both cases.
You contend the risk of the driver at “lower limits” is relatively low. The odds of any individual random round actually hitting someone is relatively low. Do you propose making firing off rounds at random in town legal? Or maybe just a few rounds; perhaps a “lower limit” on the number of rounds?
Door King, the first rule, when one finds oneself in a hole, is to quit digging. Wanna quit digging now?
And KFG, your point is valid; however, my experience is that there are far fewer of those folks in prison than you realize, at least in Kansas state prisons. Practically NO ONE goes to prison for smoking pot, unless they have enormous criminal histories. And that takes person crimes in the criminal histories (i.e. rapes, robberies, assaults, etc), not just drug crimes.Very few go for selling pot, for the same reason, again, absent that serious criminal history. So while I don’t particularly want to fill up beds with potheads, that is not in fact the real problem.
No, our drug problem is with a quite different (and levels of magnitude nastier) drug: meth.
I use to live on one of the busier streets on town, and had a traffic cop as a landlord. According to him, somewhere between 25-50% of drivers passing my house on any given Friday or Saturday night were legally drunk. I don’t recall the accident rate being appreciably higher than usual.The drunks are at least trying to drive; half the bozos talking on cell phones aren’t even aware that they ARE driving!
I cannot believe people are seriously trying to say drunk drivers aren’t dangerous on the road. You obviously are retarded or drunk and driving right now!
PM,I’m hardly retarded and I don’t drink, unless you count Diet Pepsi. What I’m just saying is that our fixation on drunk drivers to the exclusion of all the other forms of impairment isn’t getting us very far in terms of traffic safety. Few of us here drive drunk, but most of us have, at one time or another, driven just as impaired, be it physically, emotionally, technologically or chemically. We need to set aside our prejudices regarding the morality of demon rum and take a dispassionate look at all forms of impairment, and how best to address this issue. Obviously, our current solutions are not working.
GMC, if you can without too much trouble, what is your best guess on the increase in meth prosecutions in your jurisdiction or the state over the past 5 year period? And, since I’m being quite pushy, in your opinion, knowing that for Kansas it is still early in the game, how successful has the “behind the counter” sales law been in reducing the number of labs, etc.
This stuff is very, very dangerous and represents (as I understand it) a real threat to bogging down law enforcement given the dangers of meth labs, behavior of meth addicts, and the resources needed to clean up the labs.
Jed:
I’m not disagreeing with you, I’m just not sure how we’re to enforce a statute against “driving while harried” or “driving while annoyed.” I know that driving while drunk can be enforced.
I also note that drunks driving have a physiological impairment that no amount of attention or care will overcome. The harried or worried mom CAN focus and drive well. It’s not easy, of course, as anyone who’s driven with a carload of kids can attest. But it can be done. She can put the phone (or hamburger, etc.) down. Most of the distractions you note are just that – distractions.
Try as she might, however, a chemically induced physiological impairment cannot be “set aside” with focus. Nothing short of time will “fix” that problem, and during that time, she should not be driving.
We’ve lost our focus here with DUI’s anyway. There is a broader discussion that should be going on over just which offenders bed space should be reserved for, and what kind of criminal justice system we want to have. As a professional working in that system, I obviously have my own thoughts. But I’m very interested in hearing, in a broader sense, what others think.
VT:
Yea, meth is nasty stuff; every bit as nasty as you’ve heard. I don’t have the time now to look up hard numbers (I’m trying to write a brief!!!), but meth prosecutions have risen steadily over the last decade. Certainly, meth is far more common than any drug here except pot (and alcohol, of course).
The good news is that putting ephedrine behine the counter has dramatically reduced the home-grown meth labs. The bad news is that the meth simply gets imported in from elsewhere, usually Mexico, and is often purer. We have, in a sense, simply traded one problem for another. On balance, it’s a trade I’ll take, prefering not to have a meth lab blow up in my neighbor’s house.
Thanks, GMC.
Good luck with the brief; I’m assisting with one right now (civil matter), and was taking a break before breaking my brain a bit more!
legal brief = oxymoron!
Door King, the first rule, when one finds oneself in a hole, is to quit digging. Wanna quit digging now?
I’m not telling you anything: I’m just reporting facts. The fact is no one knows how dangerous drunk driving is because no one knows how many mile are driven drunk. You have to know the one before you can know the other.
Your anology about random firing of rounds is also absurd. Murder isn’t caused by random firing but by deliberate firing, and yes, people are a cause, but they wouldn’t be nearly as successful if they were throwing rocks. When you read the autopsy report, I believe you’ll see something like “cardiac arrest due to hemmorage.” People don’t cause hemmorage; bullets do.
Also you completely ignor accidents and suicides. Here’s the bottom line. Many more people are killed annually in the U.S. by guns than by drunk drivers.
It’s a fact: Live with it.
About 60 percent of the annual 35,000 suicides in the U.S.A. are accomplished with firearms.
In 2002, there were 16,204 murders, 71 percent were committed by firearms.
You can add to that about 1,000 accidental deaths.
About 17,000 people were killed in alcohol related accidents, and that number is padded because an alcohol related accident counts any accident in which a BAC of a driver or victim is over 0.02. Deaths of drunken pedestrians are counted, as well as motorcycle accidents.
The D.U.I. laws and gun ownership laws are about right in my opinion.Except we ought to in Kansas stop treating a woman who is slightly over the limit who forgot to get milk at the grocery store the same as a dead drunk teenager driving the wrong way down an interstate.
GMC,Laws, however great or well written or draconian, are not an effective solution for every problem, eg. our current(nearly eternal) War on Drugs, our illegal alien problems,etc. If we are to solve these difficulties, we need to look for solutions elsewhere, or in combination with laws.Further, our one-punishment-fits-all approach to criminal behavior apparently has little effect on crime rates, and escalating sentences postpones the problem without solving it. At a cost to taxpayers of up to $50,000 a year to warehouse each criminal, exactly who is paying for their crimes? We, as a society need to get creative fast!
GMC, as a professional who, at one time was tangentially involved in the system, I have a few thoughts. Now, if I can half-way articulate them.
Prison bed space should first be reserved for the truly bad actors: murderers, rapists, arsonists, violent sexual predators; dealers of drugs (yeah, I include pot dealers right now), given that a)as we all knew in the late 60s, heroin and coke were to be avoided, as that s**t kills; b) meth is truly bad stuff, it kills, too; those convicted of aggravated robbery; those convicted of burglary; those covicted of aggravated assault; certain “white collar” crimes, including but not limited to securities fraud. Add to that anyone who is convicted of DUI involved in an accident resulting in serious injury or death to others.
Confinement facility space for parole violators, unless the violation was the result of commission of one or more of the acts set out above; those convicted of DUI more than once; those convicted of simple assault; those convicted for criminal fraud, e.g., defrauding an innnkeeper by intentionally writing a bad check; there’s a whole lot more, but cannot think clearly enough.
Rehab for first time DUIs is a must; as well as for those convicted of drug possession (first timers).
Continuation of the post-sentence confinement for the sexual predators at mental hospitals.
Simple theft; right now, I am torn on this. At some point, they deserve incarceration; what that point is I don’t know.
Another comment on repeat DUIs; somehow, maybe after the third (?), together with all other penalties, forfeiture proceedings for the vehicle which they were operating when arrested and for which convicted.
On what kind of judicial system we should have; I presume you are asking about structure, rather than the heavier theories, e.g., the Napoleonic Code, guilty until proven innocent as opposed to our constitutional innocent until proven guilty. I would favor a special “drug court”; in large municipalities, a night court to handle the incessant flow of “minor” cases; otherwise, I kind of like what we have.
Just a few thoughts. Happy briefing.
must want your old job back vaughn; under your rules, most everyone would be in jail; of course, this is kansas, so what’s the diff?
must want your old job back vaughn; under your rules, most everyone would be in jail; of course, this is kansas, so what’s the diff?
If you hate it so much, DK, why don’t you leave?
I have a real problem with the mandatory sentences for non-violent offenders. We have filled the jails up with people that could be handled in a different way and setting yet those who commit violent crime often serve less time that drug users. Mandatory sentencing is just a politician’s dream. It makes the poor dumb public feel good but doesn’t make them safer.
I am leaving.
I’m not in the field of criminal justice. But I tend to agree with Brenda Shull — there must be a better way than mandatory sentencing which is filling up our jails and requiring more jail space. At a meeting a week or so ago, I asked Sedgwick County Sheriff Steed about his proposed jail expansion. He said it will be built north of the existing jail, between it and the short east-west street. Sheriff Steed also said his county jail is for people charged with a crime but not yet found guilty.
Brenda, JWink:
Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any substantial mandatory, actually must serve it, jail time for non-violent offenders. In Kansas, actually serving time is generally limited to:1) person crimes high on the grid (murder, rape, robbery, residential burglary,etc.2) other felonies commmitted by a person with a prior history of person offenses (generally two or more prior person felonies), and3) mandatory time on some offenses (DV battery, DUI), but that mandatory time is measured in days, not months.And for the first two, a judge may depart from the presumed prison sentence for “substantial and compelling” reasons.
Drug possession offenses (absent the serious history noted above) ARE sentenced to probation and treatment.
While there are some mandatory minimums in federal sentencing (perhaps that is what you refer to), they don’t generally exist in Kansas. And this is part of the problem. There is a serious disconnect between the reality of sentencing and the public perception of sentencing.
VT: I tend to agree with you, but I’d probably push for drastic modification of the current sentencing grid as a first step. It seems to me that it removes discretion from exactly in our system who should have it – judges – and places it into my hands. I don’t think that’s necessarily good (though I’d take the job of world dictator!!). Fewer boxes, more discretion. It is certainly unfair to treat similarly situated people differently; it is equally unfair to treat differently situated persons the same, and the grid tends to do just that.
GMC, I agree with the modification of the sentencing grid; I do not like the stripping of discretion from judges. However, there is something to be said for uniformity of sentencing when the defendants are similarly situated.
For GMC’s #3 above: “mandatory time”. Instead of the 48-hour or 5-day etc for many of these try this: Report at “corrections” at 7AM. Spend the day picking up trash and attending AA meetings. Toss in some counseling and introduction to treatment. Serve “lunch” (cold sandwich). Cut loose at 9PM. Repeat however many days to fulfill the sentence (I would count that as a full day)
We don’t pay for lodging or meals other than “lunch”. Offender has a worse day than he would have down in County lockup.
Ben, sounds good and I like it; but, there would need to be statutory amendments, of course, to get there. Also, what, if any, additional expense would be incurred for the security needed to make sure no one takes off.
My guess is that the security would cost a lot less than jail. I’m looking at a population that knows they are in “deep doo-doo” already. Some security could probably be provided by trustees from County Jail as well.
Ben-
We do programs similar to that now. Some “jail” time can be served on house arrest or on electonic monitoring (ankle bracelets). Sedgwick county has a day reporting center similar to what you propose.
In short, it (or similar) is being done now. And more of that kind of sentencing, for some offenses, can be done.
But it’s not the answer to the problem.
The first priority of government is protection of the lives and property of its citizens. Prisons are a part of that. Kansas, by comparison with other states, is NOT over-prisoned. While sending people to prison is expensive, NOT sending them (when appropriate) has costs too. They’re just not direct costs, neatly in budgets, measurable and chargable in tax revenues and expenditures. Rather, they are the costs in decreased personal security in our homes, businesses, streets, and the attendant costs in security systems, bars on the windows, police calls, etc.
Society uses both carrots and sticks. Do the right things, and the carrot arrives – job, house, etc. Do the wrong things and the stick – arrest, prosecution, and ultimately prison – may be a consequence. That stick, hanging out there, is a deterrent. It is only effective as a deterrent if we are willing to use it, if necessary. Looking for ways NOT to use it sends the wrong message; and yes, the criminal justice system is all about sending messages. And the message we send in many cases right now, I’m afraid, is “we don’t really mean it.”
Problem with house arrest is its too painless. My concept is designed to be as big a stick as County time. What I am looking for is a cheaper stick that stings just as much.
I think you’ll find over the past 20 years incarcerations have doubled, tripled or quadrupled, and the violent crimes rates have dropped a few percentage points. I suppose what you need to be looking at is how fast imprisonment has increased compared to population increase. Anyway, far too many people are in prison, on probation or on parole.
We don’t pay for lodging or meals other than “lunch”. Offender has a worse day than he would have down in County lockup.
While his family starves and you pay the cost.
Door King, what are your suggestions for whom to reserve bed space in prisons, and reforms to the justice system?
Get rid of the guns. Stop putting people in jail for pot; find a way to make stimulants safer, and sell those and tax them; driving the really nasty stuff off the market. Legalize LSD and the psychedelics. Relentlessly educate on the harms of drug use: it works — look at our smoking statistics.
Give mercy and descretion back to judges. Every single crime is different; why are the sentences the same?
Forget retribution; it solves nothing and costs money. The ONLY reason for incarceration should be to protect society from violence.
Lower the age of consent to 14 or maybe 12, or perhaps to the onset of sexual maturity. Sex is not a crime; rape is a crime. A willing partner is a participant, no matter what the age, or what religionists think.
Let people over 70 out of jail. They probably aren’t going to hurt anyone.
Stop using prisons as mental health treatment systems. 15 or 20 percent of inmates in many states are completely nuts. Treat them; give them free meds; it’s cheaper.
Stop using prisons to solve merchandizing problems. We have the tech to almost completely elminate forgeries and no funds checks. Surely technology can find a way to keep people from walking out of stores with shoplifted items.
In other words instead of constantly seeking retribution for nothing, we should constantly be thinking of ways to make people behave by outsmarting them. Most criminals really aren’t very smart.
Eliminate criminal records of everyone after certain periods are passed, so people can work.
Provide homeless shelters, and programs for the unfortunate.
Love thy neighbor as thyself.
DK -
Much of that’s a wish list, not a serious proposal. And it depends a lot on “technology” to “fix” stuff; i.e. “making stimulants safer” and “eliminating forgeries and no fund checks.”Unfortunately, as anyone who has had their credit card hijacked can attest, technology doesn’t “fix” human nature. A fix to one problem simply creates different avenues for mischief in another. Thieves steal because they’re thieves; changing technology doesn’t fix the problem, it merely changes the means.
Human nature hasn’t changed for 10,000 years, and no amount of technology will fix it now.
I’d actually agree with you on some things; judges should have more discretion than a rigid sentencing grid permits. And there certainly is a serious issue with the mentally ill in prisons, though the solution (if there is a single solution) is far more complex than simply handing out free meds.
On other issues, I’ll leave you with a simple we disagree, at this point.
Door King – for some of those on my ‘list’ (and you will note I am referring to County jail) the days can be weekends if the guy is working. Couple with ankle bracelet etc. I’m looking here at simple drug cases, DUI, etc.
By the way, if he is incarcerated then we are even more likely to be paying for his family.
DK, I agree with your comments on the mentally ill in prison. I agree with GMC that there is likely more than one “solution” to the problem.
With respect to the mentally ill who are imprisoned because they represent a threat to others, they, IMO, should not be in society. Thus the “solution” would be involuntary commitment into a facility for the mentally ill, as opposed to imprisonment; a distinction without much of a difference, if the patients are merely warehoused without any real treatment.
DK – I think your stance is ludicrous? Would you like to explain to some parent why their child was killed by a man who was “minimally impaired” because he missed that stop sign and broadsided them? As far as giving non-violent offenders more opportunities, let me assure you that gets you nothing but repeat offenders. Let me give you some background – My ex was on probation for federal drug charges (a fact i did NOT know at the time) One of the terms of his probation was no drinking, being around bars or liquor stores, and no drug use. He had to meet monthly with a probation officer and was subject to random drug and alcohol tests. When I met him, we spent many nights down at the local bar drinking. About 8 months in to our relationship, he began using drugs again (a fact I also was not aware of, as I was living in MO at the time and coming back on weekends to see him) roughly 10 months into me knowing him, he failed a drug test during his monthly probation visit. His probation officer sent him back to rehab, and his probation was extended by the courts an additional six months, and he was then subjected to weekly visits and random UA’s. Less than three months after leaving his rehab stint, he was back to using drugs again. (during this time I discovered I was pregnant – can’t plead ignorance now – although he did lie about why he was in rehab and told me it was for drinking, not drugs) Less than a month after that he failed ANOTHER drug test. This time, he was sentenced to house arrest for 30 days. Before his 30 days were up, he failed ANOTHER drug test. His house arrest was extended 60 days. Before this 60 days were up, he failed to provide required paperwork to his probation officer. (so he says – I am going for he failed another UA) He was sentenced to a 28 day in-patient lock-down rehab treatment. Once released from treatment, he spent 3 months in a halfway house on work-release. (during this time our son is born) After his release from the halfway house, he managed to stay clean for about 2 months. He was then arrested for DUI (this being his second, his first occurred about 3 years prior). FINALLY, they sentenced him to 10 months in prison for a probation violation. He gets out, and he has “served his time”. He is no longer on probation, and is no longer monitored for drug and/or alcohol abuse. And I would bet you dollars to donuts (we are no longer together, haven’t been since the house arrest stint) he is at the very least drinking again. Now, does this sound like an ideal to you? Because I have to tell you that this sounds EXACTLY like what your proposal will net us – when do you propose we say “when”? And how do you see this as possibly being cost effective? The simple fact of the matter is that if we don’t make people face consequences, they don’t stop the bad behavior – and for many of these people, things like probation and house arrest are not “consequences” because they do not significantly limit their behavior…
Wendy: explain why the 80 year old missed the stop sign and killed your child.
Tolerance means risk. Intolerance doesn’t eliminate it.
And generalizations from a sample of one are the problem.
And obviously, wendy, the prison time did nothing to alter you husband’s addiction
Addiction is a MEDICAL problem, Wendy.
You are intolerant.
DK -
I’d say (and I have considerably more experience than a sample of one) that Wendy’s experience is fairly typical. Just what experience do you bring to this discussion?
Despite the public perception, we are not locking up addicts willy-nilly. We understand that treatment is cheaper and more helpful, long term, than prison. But the carrot of treatment only works if the stick of prison is out there. It helps provide the motivation, if you will.
And addiction is PARTLY a medical problem. It’s also a behavior problem. A problem of ACTS.
How ’bout the guy who breaks into my car, then the neighbor’s car, then the garage, then the church down the street, etc., etc. How much “tolerance” should we exhibit? How much theft should we tolerate before we say enough?
GM70: I suggest you imprison the person; saddle him with a record so he can’t work, and teach him how to really steal.
There are no solutions to some problems in society. I don’t know what you do about a petty thief: but I do know spending $25,000 a year to lock up someone who steals a few hundred dollars a year is stupid. Maybe you could make them pick up trash for a weekend and pay back the victims out of the money saved by not clapping them in jail?
Maybe we could dye them green? Who knows. But the solution to every single thing that bothers or disgusts us is not throwing people in jail. It’s expensive, counterproductive, and stupid.
Do what Japan does, make prisons into brain washing boot camps and make them so horrible that people would rather die than go back. It’s works for Japan, the recidivism rate is really low there.
Does japan put pot smokers into brain washing boot camps? Sounds like a right wing wet dream. And if you read the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_system_of_JapanYou’ll find it is a right wing wet dream. Recidivism rate is 47 percent.
Actually, Door King, I am NOT intolerant. I am WELL AWARE of the fact that Addiction is a medical problem – My father is a recovering alcoholic – he has been sober for 13 years now. I was totally supportive of my ex working through his addiction, in fact I attended Al-Anon meetings that were held at the same time as his AA meetings. I visited him in rehab. I personally quit drinking with him the FIRST time he went through rehab – now i realize that since I am not an addict it is not quite the same, however, I worked hard to create an environment that would help him succeed – HE chose to go back to that life. The ONLY REASON he even went in to rehab was because the court forced him to. If you don’t want help, all the help in the world won’t help you – and then we will be right back where we started with these people using and abusing, and believe me, drug use DOES lead to other crimes, because people do stupid things when they are high. But giving them chance after chance to “get better” when they don’t want to costs us MUCH MORE than putting them in prison for a few months and maybe teaching them a lesson – because all his rehab stints and house arrest time were paid for by the courts who ordered them, and that stuff is just as if not more so expensive…
Door King, what’s the recidivism rate in this country?