One in 32 Americans in jail or on parole in 2003!

July 26, 2004

WASHINGTON - A record 6.9 million adults were incarcerated or on probation or parole last year, nearly 131,000 more than in 2002, according to a Justice Department study.

Put another way, about 3.2 percent of the adult U.S. population, or 1 in 32 adults, were incarcerated or on probation or parole at the end of last year.

A record 4.8 million adults were on probation or parole in 2003, about 73,000 more than the year before. About 70 percent of adults involved in federal, state or local corrections systems fall into this category. The states of California and Texas together accounted for about 1 million.

The number of adults on parole after serving a prison sentence rose by 3.1 percent from 2002 to 2003, to more than 774,500 people. That compares with an average annual rise of about 1.7 percent since 1995 for those on parole, a figure that has been increasing at a much slower rate than those in jails (4 percent a year), in prison (3.4 percent) and on probation (2.9 percent).

Since 1995, states around the country have increased the use of mandatory parole after prison release and cut down on use of discretionary releases overseen by parole boards, the report says.

The report, released Sunday, focused most on the characteristics of those on probation or parole. Its findings include:

Almost half of all probationers were convicted of a felony, with 25 percent convicted of a drug violation.

Washington state had the highest number of people on probation per 100,000 population, at 3,767.

New Hampshire had the lowest rate at 426.

Of the 2.2 million people discharged from probation in 2003, three out of five met the conditions of their supervision.

Another 16 percent were jailed because of a rule violation or a new crime, with 4 percent becoming fugitives.

About 95 percent of those on parole had been convicted of a felony.

Of the 470,500 parolees discharged from supervision last year, 38 percent went back to jail for a new crime or a rule violation, with 9 percent becoming fugitives.

Source: MSNBC

The more people in prison just proves to me that MAYBE, just MAYBE the judicial system is finally getting their act together.  ;)

I wonder what this is doing for the illegal drug economy? ::)

Probably not a darned thing.  For every "drug dealer" they get off the streets, there are 4 more waiting in the wings to take their place ;)


Well naturally, its called free market capitalism.  When there is a demand, someone will take the risk to fill it.  Those who loss, in this case go to jail at public expense instead of just lossing their ASSets.

One in thirty people in prison?  That means the rest are paying a thousand dollars a year - each - to keep them there.  It doesn't mean the judicial system's "getting its act together", it means something is totally screwy that so many people should be behind bars

What percentage of prisoners grew up in poverty?
It costs LESS per annum to give a person a good start in life, from prenatal care to college, than it does to per annum to keep a person in prison.
Republicans despise they idea of giving anybody anything, except tax cuts to rich people, but when the taxpayers "give" 50, 60, 70 grand a year per prisoner, they get nothing back. 
Yeah, it keeps some bad people off the street, but if we don't come to terms with what makes people bad in the first place, we'll only produce more and more bad people and spend more and more tax money on prisons.

When I read the article, I knew a lot of right-wingers reading it would say "one in thirty-two people in prison is not nearly enough." That's been the mentality for the past 25-years and it's only gotten us an increasing rate of incarceration every year.  Don't we want to see incarceration rates falling instead?

One thing's for sure, we need to stop locking people up on marijuana charges.  The number of people in prison for pot is absurd.  A lot of non-violent drug-crime convicts are in there on mandatory minimums.  Thus, violent criminals are getting out earlier to accomodate a high population of non-violent convicts.  This is a terrible policy!

One thing's for sure, we need to stop locking people up on marijuana charges.  The number of people in prison for pot is absurd.  A lot of non-violent drug-crime convicts are in there on mandatory minimums.  Thus, violent criminals are getting out earlier to accomodate a high population of non-violent convicts.  This is a terrible policy!


Agreed.

One in thirty people in prison?


Let's not forget that a lot of these people MAY be multiple-offenders.

If somebody is put on parole for 2 different crimes, do they count as 1 or 2 people?  What if they are locked up for one crime, while on parole for a seperate crime?

And don't forget, you can put on parole or probation for offenses like Drunk Driving, Shoplifting, and other minor crimes which often have little to no jail time involved.  I am sure that this partially skews the statistics.

What percentage of prisoners grew up in poverty?


I am sure not even half.

Did Lyle and Eric Menendez grow up in poverty?  Michael Milkin?  Martha Stewart?  Scott Peterson?  Kevin Mitnick?  Robert Blake?  Winona Ryder?  Robert Downey Jr?

Myself, I do not care *HOW* poor somebody was.  That does not excuse criminal behavior.

Myself, I do not care *HOW* poor somebody was.  That does not excuse criminal behavior.


I agree with you here.

It is my belief that most criminals are a product of poor parenting. But that's another subject.

I am sure not even half.
I don't know, but I wouldn't be so sure.

Did Lyle and Eric Menendez grow up in poverty?  Michael Milkin?  Martha Stewart?  Scott Peterson?  Kevin Mitnick?  Robert Blake?  Winona Ryder?  Robert Downey Jr?

Myself, I do not care *HOW* poor somebody was.  That does not excuse criminal behavior.

Sigh.  I'm not interested in excusing criminal behavior.  I'm interested in determining the causes of criminal behavior and engineering social conditions that will aid in preventing it.
If we go with the right-wing notion that that there is not "society," only individual behavior, then we are rendered powerless against crime.  We may only respond to crime by building more and more gulags.
Martha Stewart and Winona Ryder committed minor crimes.  I don't see either of them as embarking on a criminal career.  A lot of hard lefties would say getting as rich as Martha Stewart takes a criminal mind, but I'm talking about literal criiminality.  Robert Downey, Jr., as far as I know, is only a criminal insofar as he's a drug addict.  I don't think it helps anybody to call drug addicts "criminals."  Again, that's not saying it's OK to be a drug addict.  
The Menendez brothers got what they deserved.  If Peterson did what he's accused of, he's an amoral sociopath and ought to be put away so he can't hurt anybody else!
Michael Milkin should be rotting in for his crimes for the rest of his life.  The Enron guys should get the same treatment.  Unfortunately, white collar crime is treated with kid gloves, and the more you steal, the easier they go on you.  Martha Stewart's getting five months for practically nothing, Charles Keating and Neil Bush, on the other hand....

These statistics amaze me.  I guess it's partially because of the "mandatory" sentencing that has become the norm for drug-related offenses.
ummm, what about the other 10%? LOL! ;D


Cheer,

Even if they did not get jail sentences, the people who are now in the slammer under mandatory sentencing would still have most likely been on probation or parole.  So they would STILL have been in the statistics.

I agree 100%.  I just don't understand the mentality of this...let's let someone go who has a history of being violent so we can lock up someone who smoked a joint or two and (most likely) wasn't violent ::)


Tell that to the parents of a cocaine addict who died, who got started on drugs by his local marijuana dealer.  Or tell it to the parents of two 14-year-old kids who lived down the street from me, who are now dead because some 18-year-old smoking dope mowed them down.  His friends were saying "Gee, he never smoked more than one or two joints."  He was so stoned he did not even know that he ran over those two kids on their motor scooters.

Selling marijuana is not an innocuous act.

Mind you, in my opinion, all drugs should be legalized and sold over the counter at drug stores and taxed.  That takes much of the criminal element out of the picture.  Not ALL of it, of course. But a good start.  And by officially taking the "illegal" label off of it, the "cachet" also is greatly minimized, making it LESS ATTRACTIVE for kids to try it.

Are my comments above somewhat inconsistent?  Yes.

Tell that to the parents of a cocaine addict who died, who got started on drugs by his local marijuana dealer.   Or tell it to the parents of two 14-year-old kids who lived down the street from me, who are now dead because some 18-year-old smoking dope mowed them down.  His friends were saying "Gee, he never smoked more than one or two joints."  He was so stoned he did not even know that he ran over those two kids on their motor scooters.
Well, you know the old sing-song, but it's the truth.  Alcohol is much more impairing to one's CNS than pot.  The number of people killed in marijuana-related accidents is miniscule compared to the number of people killed in alcohol-related accidents, and yet alcohol remains legal (however, not for 18-year olds on or off motor scooters.  Were they 18-year olds on motor scooters, or did they run down kids who were riding motor scooters?)  Besides, whatever happened to personal responsibility?  You're gonna blame the dope instead of the dope who smoked the dope and acted like like a dope?
I don't smoke marijuana anymore, but I smoked it aplenty in my past.  I do not recommend it for anyone who wants to get anything done in life!  Anyway, as much pot as I smoked, I was never once tempted to try cocaine, heroin, LSD, or even hallucinogenic mushrooms.  Well, that's not true.  I was tempted to try psychedelics, but after careful research,* I decided against it.
In the raver scene, you have teenage newbies who never even smoked a cigarette getting high on Ecstacy.  When the latest heroin chic was going around the high schools, kids who never even tried pot died over overdoses.
The key to drug abuse prevention is education.  I mean more than just "Don't do drugs, kids."  I mean real self-knowledge, self-awareness, and philosophy.  These things are completely de-emphasized in our consumer culture.

*Books such as Aldous Huxley's The Doors of Perception/Heaven and Hell,
LSD: My Problem Child by Dr. Albert Hoffmann, the Swiss scientist who discovered LSD, and Tom Wolfe's Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test.

However, we are digressing from the topic...

Well, you know the old sing-song, but it's the truth.  Alcohol is much more impairing to one's CNS than pot.  The number of people killed in marijuana-related accidents is miniscule compared to the number of people killed in alcohol-related accidents, and yet alcohol remains legal (however, not for 18-year olds on or off motor scooters.  Were they 18-year olds on motor scooters, or did they run down kids who were riding motor scooters?)  Besides, whatever happened to personal responsibility?  You're gonna blame the dope instead of the dope who smoked the dope and acted like like a dope?
I don't smoke marijuana anymore, but I smoked it aplenty in my past.  I do not recommend it for anyone who wants to get anything done in life!  Anyway, as much pot as I smoked, I was never once tempted to try cocaine, heroin, LSD, or even hallucinogenic mushrooms.  Well, that's not true.  I was tempted to try psychedelics, but after careful research,* I decided against it.
In the raver scene, you have teenage newbies who never even smoked a cigarette getting high on Ecstacy.  When the latest heroin chic was going around the high schools, kids who never even tried pot died over overdoses.
The key to drug abuse prevention is education.  I mean more than just "Don't do drugs, kids."  I mean real self-knowledge, self-awareness, and philosophy.  These things are completely de-emphasized in our consumer culture.

*Books such as Aldous Huxley's The Doors of Perception/Heaven and Hell,
LSD: My Problem Child by Dr. Albert Hoffmann, the Swiss scientist who discovered LSD, and Tom Wolfe's Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test.

However, we are digressing from the topic...


The reefer-headed 18 year old was driving a pickup truck on the wrong side of the road.  He mowed down two 14-year-olds who were legally riding their scooters.  He was so out of it that he did not even know he had run over two kids until the ambulance showed up and he asked why the ambulance?

Yes, I know alcohol is bad.  But the subject was marijuana, and some people seem to think that reefer is somehow "less serious" or innocuous, a victimless crime.  It isn't.

Should someone go to the slammer for possessing a couple of roaches?  Probably not.  But "possession of weed with intent to distribute" is a different thing altogether.  And NOT innocuous.

Let's not forget that a lot of these people MAY be multiple-offenders.

If somebody is put on parole for 2 different crimes, do they count as 1 or 2 people?  What if they are locked up for one crime, while on parole for a seperate crime?

And don't forget, you can put on parole or probation for offenses like Drunk Driving, Shoplifting, and other minor crimes which often have little to no jail time involved.  I am sure that this partially skews the statistics.

Sorry, misread the stats... one in 30 either in prison *or* on parole... still at 770k in prison (just over ten times what we have over here), that's still really rather a lot... But I think you'll find it's a count of people rather than crimes (unless they've not managed to realize that it *is* the same person - that still happens relatively frequently even with AFIS checks, but it's a small number compared to hundreds of thousands)


Are my comments above somewhat inconsistent?  Yes.

No, they're not: they would only be inconsistent if you believed that legalisation would of itself lead to more abuse of marijuana than happens already.  Personally, I agree with you that legalisation would put the whole shebang on a much more sensible footing than it is now...

But I think it's kind of screwy when dope usage counts as a more serious crime than drunk driving...

Well, you know the old sing-song, but it's the truth.  Alcohol is much more impairing to one's CNS than pot.  The number of people killed in marijuana-related accidents is miniscule compared to the number of people killed in alcohol-related accidents, and yet alcohol remains legal (however, not for 18-year olds on or off motor scooters.


Yes, but Marijuanna is illegal.

Here is another big difference, it is IMPOSSIBLE to detect "marijuanna intoxication".  I know in California, DUI (Driving Under The Influence) is the SAME offense, for drugs OR alcohol.  So if you are pulled over for being high on pot, IT IS THE SAME OFFENSE as being pulled over to drinking to much beer.

Here is another big difference, it is IMPOSSIBLE to detect "marijuanna intoxication".  I know in California, DUI (Driving Under The Influence) is the SAME offense, for drugs OR alcohol.  So if you are pulled over for being high on pot, IT IS THE SAME OFFENSE as being pulled over to drinking to much beer.

How do they know?