In the United States, we have a severe under-incarceration problem

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/tssp16pr.cfm

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON — More than half (57 percent) of violent offenders who were released from state prison in 2016 served less than three years before their release, the Bureau of Justice Statistics announced today. About 1 in 25 violent offenders served 20 years or more before their release.

These findings are based on prisoner records from BJS's National Corrections Reporting Program and reflect 2016 releases. They are based on state prisoners' initial release after serving time for a given offense and exclude persons who had been released after serving time for an offense, returned to prison for violating community supervision and were released again.

The average time an offender served in state prison in 2016, from the date of first admission to initial release, was 2.6 years. The median amount of time served (the middle value in the range of time served, with 50 percent of offenders serving more and 50 percent serving less) was 1.3 years. Persons serving less than one year in state prison made up 40 percent of first releases in 2016.

Based on 2016 release data, the average time served before initial release by state prisoners who were sentenced for a violent offense was 4.7 years and the median time was 2.4 years. Offenders sentenced for murder or non-negligent manslaughter served an average of 15 years and a median time of 13 years in state prison before initial release. State prisoners sentenced for rape or sexual assault served an average of 6.2 years and a median time of 4.2 years before initial release.

An estimated 96 percent of violent offenders released in 2016, including 70 percent of those sentenced for murder or non-negligent manslaughter, served less than 20 years before initial release. Roughly 1 in 5 persons released in 2016 after being sentenced for rape or sexual assault served 10 or more years before initial release.

State prisoners serving time for drug offenses, including trafficking and possession, served an average of 22 months and a median time of 14 months before their initial release. About 3 in 5 offenders released after serving time for drug possession served less than one year before their initial release.

In general, state prisoners served an average of 46 percent of their maximum sentence before their first release. Violent offenders served 54 percent of their maximum sentence, property offenders served 42 percent, drug offenders served 41 percent and public order offenders served 45 percent.

Persons in state prison for rape or sexual assault served an average of 62 percent of their maximum sentence before initial release. Those in prison for drug possession served an average of 38 percent of their maximum sentence length.

---

We are not emptying prisons of rapists and murderers so we can lock up people who get caught with a dime bag.

On the whole, the criminal justice system is a revolving door where violent criminals are repeatedly loosed upon society where they re-offend against more victims. (Some specific areas are better about this than others)

And keep in mind, those are just the ones who get caught. Most violent crimes are not solved...meaning a suspect isn't charged, prosecuted or jailed for it. Homicide numbers are often used to represent violent crime in total, but it is not the only form of violent crime and plenty of people are maimed in "lesser" violent crimes like aggravated assault, etc. Even so, the nationwide homicide clearance rate is less than 60%.

When you factor out justifiable homicides and crimes where the perpetrator and victim were known to each other the clearance rates even for homicide are frighteningly low...meaning that the criminals who commit those crimes are only ever hassled by the police in a minority of the violent crimes they actually commit.

When odds are they won't be charged with a violent crime for committing one, and that even if they are arrested and prosecuted for one that they are likely to serve a rather paltry sentence for it...

In the most violent places in the United States, getting caught and locked up for a full ride for a crime like murder is the least likely outcome of actually committing murder. Is it any wonder, then, that those places are violent?

Austerity measures in public service are slowly killing our country.

LE agencies are massively under-resourced, courts are massively under-resourced, and the prison system is massively under-resourced, not to mention being an ineffective mix between rehabilitation and punishment. It's neither to a committed criminal.

Too bad we cant freeze them all like that stallone and snipes movie, never have to release them.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

Next...

https://s15-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bi...4480fc006632a4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TCinVA

We are not emptying prisons of rapists and murderers so we can lock up people who get caught with a dime bag.

---

Who said we were?

The argument isn't that rapists and murderers are being released to make room for people busted with dime bags. It's that we're arresting and incarcerating more people with dime bags than we are violent offenders.

Maybe if we reallocated some resources from drugs and instead focused on violent crimes things could change?

Just a thought.

Then we have the issue of the drug war being a primary contributor to violence. I can't help but think there are alternative solutions overall. The question is - what social changes are necessary to eliminate addicts? Eliminate prescription opiods entirely? I think the alternative, make them OTC available and let the junkies simply die. No more Narcan, no more hospital admittances for OD'ing individuals? Harsh, but if you cut off the demanders - suppliers will burn themselves up fighting for smaller pieces of the pie. Eventually making it easier to focus on stemming the few remaining suppliers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RevolverRob

Who said we were?

The argument isn't that rapists and murderers are being released to make room for people busted with dime bags. It's that we're arresting and incarcerating more people with dime bags than we are violent offenders.

Maybe if we reallocated some resources from drugs and instead focused on violent crimes things could change?

Just a thought.

Then we have the issue of the drug war being a primary contributor to violence. I can't help but think there are alternative solutions overall. The question is - what social changes are necessary to eliminate addicts? Eliminate prescription opiods entirely? I think the alternative, make them OTC available and let the junkies simply die. No more Narcan, no more hospital admittances for OD'ing individuals? Harsh, but if you cut off the demanders - suppliers will burn themselves up fighting for smaller pieces of the pie. Eventually making it easier to focus on stemming the few remaining suppliers.

---

Banning narcan would be a wonderful first step. No consequences enables stupid behaviour.

The amount of people in prison for simple possession is very small. Of those, I'd guess they are there due to a distribution charge that was plead down.

I'd recommend "Ghettoside" to better understand the real criminal justice system. Murder is a very hard charge to get a conviction on. Selling drugs is a much easier charge to convict on. When the police have to target someone for drug distribution, who do you think they favor - that's right, murderers they can't make cases on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RevolverRob

Who said we were?

The argument isn't that rapists and murderers are being released to make room for people busted with dime bags. It's that we're arresting and incarcerating more people with dime bags than we are violent offenders.

Maybe if we reallocated some resources from drugs and instead focused on violent crimes things could change?

Just a thought.

Then we have the issue of the drug war being a primary contributor to violence. I can't help but think there are alternative solutions overall. The question is - what social changes are necessary to eliminate addicts? Eliminate prescription opiods entirely? I think the alternative, make them OTC available and let the junkies simply die. No more Narcan, no more hospital admittances for OD'ing individuals? Harsh, but if you cut off the demanders - suppliers will burn themselves up fighting for smaller pieces of the pie. Eventually making it easier to focus on stemming the few remaining suppliers.

---

So long as peacocking idiots mumbling about drug use over repetitive bass can sell millions of records, and thereby glorify the use and 'lifestyle' associated with it, we'll never see an end to the demand.

But the rest of the logic is sound. I've known 6 people personally that went on to become junkies - and every single one of them was pretty much useless before they were full-on junkies. Becoming a junkie just elevated them from 'the do-nothing of the family that keeps begging relatives for money' to the 'family junkie that steals shit from family members and lies about everything'.
Mom's heart is usually broken about it, but siblings and other relatives usually wish they'd just disappear for good, instead of continuing to cause heartache and financial hardship for the family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Hearne

The amount of people in prison for simple possession is very small. Of those, I'd guess they are there due to a distribution charge that was plead down.

I'd recommend "Ghettoside" to better understand the real criminal justice system. Murder is a very hard charge to get a conviction on. Selling drugs is a much easier charge to convict on. When the police have to target someone for drug distribution, who do you think they favor - that's right, murderers they can't make cases on.

---

To illustrate this point in something shorter than book form, one can read of the tale of "Rabbit":

https://www.theadvocate.com/new_orle...9476afd67.html

...a dude who plead to murders to get his federal drug charges reduced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RevolverRob

The argument isn't that rapists and murderers are being released to make room for people busted with dime bags. It's that we're arresting and incarcerating more people with dime bags than we are violent offenders.

---

Yeah, that’s bullshit.

I was recently at a conference with 500+ narcotics agents. One of the speakers asked the room if anyone had ever put someone in prison for just marijuana. One guy out of everyone raised his hand. He said the only reason his guy went to prison was because his criminal history was absolutely terrible.

In my state, and I’d imagine most others (but not all), simple possession is a misdemeanor, punishable by no more than 11/29. People don’t generally go to prison for misdemeanors. Plus, my state is a “cite and release” state. Most people, barring a few exceptions, get written a ticket for most misdemeanors and never see the inside of the county jail.

I’ve been in LE for 11 years, narcotics for 9. I’ve arrested a LOT of drug dealers. I can think of maybe 2 that actually went to state prison.The rest got probation.

Because of that, we prosecute the majority of our targets in federal court. Even then, the US Attorney’s Office will not prosecute a marijuana case unless you literally have tons of marijuana involved. The only exception is if firearms/violence is involved.

Sure, there are a lot of marijuana users in prison. But they’re not there for using marijuana.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Hearne

I'd recommend "Ghettoside" to better understand the real criminal justice system.

---

Is that a book?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drang

Is that a book?

---

https://www.amazon.com/Ghettoside-Tr.../dp/0385529996

When actions have little true consequences, people do stupid shit. OD as many times as you like cause some poor schmuck will have to shoot you up with narcan and save your ass. Hmmm why stop doing stupid shit? Rape someone bad you can safely roll the dice and get off easy; why stop doing stupid shit.

We don’t have an under incarnation problem or an over incarceration of wrong crimes problem. We have a problem of being too efficient at protecting stupid folks from the co sequences of their stupid acts. Be that narcan or self defense laws that make defense a legal nightmare for the victim or selling the tale of government will keep you safe... pick your poison.

A predictable problem. Locking up bad people and throwing away the key is politically unacceptable. Include localized corruption between higher level offenders and city governments, and here we are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peally

Banning narcan would be a wonderful first step. No consequences enables stupid behaviour.

---

Narcan runs contrary to the process of natural selection.

It'll of course vary from state to state, but here the big legislative trend is against incarceration. "Smart on crime" is the buzzword.

To start, our felonies are graded E-A, with C and below being presumed to be eligible for probation. Each class of felony has a term of years it's punishable by: for E it's 1-6, for C it's 3-15, etc. etc. etc. The idea is sound: the more severe the crime, the worse the potential exposure.

But, as part of our getting smart on crime, we also consider an offender's criminal history in their sentencing, using ranges. Again, this is a pretty sound idea -- more felonious people ought to get more time. We range them I-IV, and prior felonies range you up in general. However, there's a caveat: the ranging felony must, in general, be the same classification as the convicting offense, a higher classification, or within two classifications lower. So, a guy convicted of a B felony with five convictions for E felonies but no Ds, Cs, Bs, or As will still be a Range I and only be looking at eight to twelve years.

But wait: there's more. Each range also has a release eligibility date -- how much of a sentence must be served before being paroled. For a Range I, it's 30%; Range II is 35%; Range III is 45%; and Range IV is 60%. The parole people like to ensure they have room for the really bad people, so many people get paroled at their RED date, and if they don't, they'll get another hearing in a year or so where they'll likely get it. It's like stacking coupon codes on an online sale: take an additional 50% off on top of the 30% discount we're already giving you.

In English, what this means is this: Friday I sent somebody to prison for eight years. He'll actually be out in around 2.8-3.5 years, because even though he's a range II offender with a few prior felonies, he's a "nonviolent" offender (and thus prioritized for getting out of prison) and his release eligibility date is 35% of that eight years.

Over these next few legislative sessions, we expect our legislature to get even smarter on crime. But hey -- at least there's room in prison for the Really Bad People...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blues

Next...

https://s15-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bi...4480fc006632a4

---

Only 5 at once?

One of my guys responded to a call this morning where the "victim" was convicted of murder in 2014. Not manslaughter, but murder. He was out roaming the streets after about four years. I don't think people realize this is how the system actually works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 11B10

Only 5 at once?

---

Austerity budget.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RevolverRob

The argument isn't that rapists and murderers are being released to make room for people busted with dime bags. It's that we're arresting and incarcerating more people with dime bags than we are violent offenders.

Maybe if we reallocated some resources from drugs and instead focused on violent crimes things could change?

---

I filed Patrol drug cases for close to two years which means I filed Possession of Marijuana charges probably 1500 times. I got a lot of property dispositions after those cases were adjudicated. The overwhelming majority of them got a $750 fine, a year of unsupervised probation, and a mandatory drug class. Just to be clear we’re talking about dime bag possession.

I don’t remember anyone getting DOC time off a straight possession charge. I have had people tell me they went to DOC for a POM charge. My first question is always what were you originally charged with? 99% of the time they got a sweet plea deal and got multiple sale charges dropped to possession or you have a repeat offender with multiple DOC stints who got caught holding.

You have to work at getting Prison time for dope in Arizona. I’m talking about Dangerous or Narcotic drugs here not weed. Usually you’re a three time dope loser who got caught again or you’re a burglar with felony convictions so you get some DOC time based on your record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RevolverRob

Who said we were?

The argument isn't that rapists and murderers are being released to make room for people busted with dime bags. It's that we're arresting and incarcerating more people with dime bags than we are violent offenders.

Maybe if we reallocated some resources from drugs and instead focused on violent crimes things could change?

Just a thought.

Then we have the issue of the drug war being a primary contributor to violence. I can't help but think there are alternative solutions overall. The question is - what social changes are necessary to eliminate addicts? Eliminate prescription opiods entirely? I think the alternative, make them OTC available and let the junkies simply die. No more Narcan, no more hospital admittances for OD'ing individuals? Harsh, but if you cut off the demanders - suppliers will burn themselves up fighting for smaller pieces of the pie. Eventually making it easier to focus on stemming the few remaining suppliers.

---

Who is incarcerating people for a dime bag? I can't even get a narcotics detective to take my call if I'm not talking pounds.

And I'll let you in on a secret. The resources donated to drug enforcement ARE focused on violent crime. We know there's dope dealing everywhere. A decent narcotics detective could make busts literally anywhere in the county, some bigger some smaller, but literally everywhere. But they aren't evenly distributed. They are targeted in the areas where shootings, etc. erupt over the drug trade

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RevolverRob

Who said we were?

The argument isn't that rapists and murderers are being released to make room for people busted with dime bags. It's that we're arresting and incarcerating more people with dime bags than we are violent offenders.

Maybe if we reallocated some resources from drugs and instead focused on violent crimes things could change?

Just a thought.

Then we have the issue of the drug war being a primary contributor to violence. I can't help but think there are alternative solutions overall. The question is - what social changes are necessary to eliminate addicts? Eliminate prescription opiods entirely? I think the alternative, make them OTC available and let the junkies simply die. No more Narcan, no more hospital admittances for OD'ing individuals? Harsh, but if you cut off the demanders - suppliers will burn themselves up fighting for smaller pieces of the pie. Eventually making it easier to focus on stemming the few remaining suppliers.

---

I think you would quite enjoy this book: https://smile.amazon.com/Locked-Caus...dp/0465096913/

It really gave me some serious food for thought.

Has anyone pointed out that police spend much of their time answering calls pertaining to mentally ill persons and that many jail and other corrections resources are spent on these folks? And because we can no longer keep these folks secured in institutions, they occupy valuable time and use up funds that might be spent on fighting crime. My opinion is that the numbers of noncompliant citizens is increasing. Not all are criminals but many will fit that category.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 11B10

Only 5 at once?

---

That’s all you can get with the J-frame lifestyle. Try to keep up on the threads, man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Hearne

I'd recommend "Ghettoside" to better understand the real criminal justice system. Murder is a very hard charge to get a conviction on. Selling drugs is a much easier charge to convict on. When the police have to target someone for drug distribution, who do you think they favor - that's right, murderers they can't make cases on.

---

That really is a good read. i picked it up a couple of years ago after someone here recommended it. Maybe even you.

Great topic Tim.

It is interesting reading the law enforcement perspective on this. Its also a bit frightening.

My observation on this whole subject is that it seems like criminal mindset, criminal psychology, if you will, has devolved into something morbid: The competition to be 'badder' than the other bad guy creates a race to a place where we are. Street cred requires that you make the headlines for progressively worse crimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's

Who is incarcerating people for a dime bag? I can't even get a narcotics detective to take my call if I'm not talking pounds.

---

My county is. I just had a client who got sent to TDC for 5 years for possession of 1.05 g of meth. Because of prior pen trips he was eligible for a 25-99 enhancement. The shithead prosecutor took a dislike to him and refused to waive a jury trial, preventing us from going open to the court and essentially forcing us to accept his offer.

The client wasn’t going to win any good citizen awards but sending him to prison for 5 years for a personal use amount of meth is stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TR675

My county is. I just had a client who got sent to TDC for 5 years for possession of 1.05 g of meth. Because of prior pen trips he was eligible for a 25-99 enhancement. The shithead prosecutor took a dislike to him and refused to waive a jury trial, preventing us from going open to the court and essentially forcing us to accept his offer.

The client wasn’t going to win any good citizen awards but sending him to prison for 5 years for a personal use amount of meth is stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

A gram isn’t necessarily a user amount. Plenty of addicts buy sub-gram quantities, because that’s what they can afford. When we work street-level cases, we buy gram quantities from dealers all the time. Class B felony. I could easily charge and get a conviction of possession for resale with 1.05 grams of meth. Of course, the person would get probation, but whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TR675

My county is. I just had a client who got sent to TDC for 5 years for possession of 1.05 g of meth. Because of prior pen trips he was eligible for a 25-99 enhancement. The shithead prosecutor took a dislike to him and refused to waive a jury trial, preventing us from going open to the court and essentially forcing us to accept his offer.

The client wasn’t going to win any good citizen awards but sending him to prison for 5 years for a personal use amount of meth is stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Maybe it's regional, but I've never heard "dime bag" applied to meth locally. Marijuana is the only thing I've heard it applied to.

I don’t know that it’s used that frequently here. I don’t ever hear my clients say it, but I don’t hang out with them either. I’ve always thought of it being used colloquially as a personal use amount of whatever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TR675

My county is. I just had a client who got sent to TDC for 5 years for possession of 1.05 g of meth. Because of prior pen trips he was eligible for a 25-99 enhancement. The shithead prosecutor took a dislike to him and refused to waive a jury trial, preventing us from going open to the court and essentially forcing us to accept his offer.

The client wasn’t going to win any good citizen awards but sending him to prison for 5 years for a personal use amount of meth is stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

That begs the question; how is he supporting his habit? Legally or illegally?

Sent from my SAMSUNG using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TR675

My county is. I just had a client who got sent to TDC for 5 years for possession of 1.05 g of meth. Because of prior pen trips he was eligible for a 25-99 enhancement. The shithead prosecutor took a dislike to him and refused to waive a jury trial, preventing us from going open to the court and essentially forcing us to accept his offer.

The client wasn’t going to win any good citizen awards but sending him to prison for 5 years for a personal use amount of meth is stupid.

---

I agree, 10 yrs would be better.

We should abandon the idea that prison is for rehab or punishment, but is rather for the well-being of society: we should lock criminals up for long stretches so our society can operate normally without worrying about random meth/heroin users stealing, shoplifting, burglarizing, raping, murdering, etc. If someone who isn't "going to win any good citizen awards" keeps ending up in handcuffs, its time to move on. Just lock them up for any minor offense you happen to catch him on and don't let him out until he's too old and feeble to be a threat to anyone. I have yet to catch someone in possession of stolen property that didn't also have a meth or heroin problem, and every time I take a burg report where some nice old lady's family heirloom jewelry was stolen from her bedroom during a burg that occurred while she was at church I lose a little more of what meager sympathy I have for addicts. That loss accelerates when the poor old lady is crying because that jewelry was the only tie she had left to family members that had passed away.

As far as the prosecutor taking a "dislike" to your client: good. We need more of that. I don't even know your client and I don't like him either. The prosecutor recognizes the suspect for the dirtbag he is. That prosecutor, his family, or the families of any good people shouldn't have to worry about becoming victims of crime because some douchebag addict has poor impulse control.

Five years wasn't enough and never will be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exiledviking

That begs the question; how is he supporting his habit? Legally or illegally?

Sent from my SAMSUNG using Tapatalk

---

He's probably getting his life back together after prison...just holding it for a friend...you know.

I guess I just have zero fucks left to give for low level users/dealers.

We had two, caught in the act burglars get sentenced to nine months in the COUNTY jail because it was more actual time to serve than they would have served had they been given a sentence that would have sent them to state prison.

For those unaware, at least in this state, misdemeanor crimes are those punishable by up to 12 months confinement with those sentences being served in the county jail whereas felonies are those crimes punishable by more than 12 months in prison with those sentences being served in a state prison.

We are seeing serious offenses in which the guidelines call for 60% of the actual sentence; so, a 10-year sentence is really only a 6-year sentence.

People don't go to PRISON for simple possession of drugs. They may go to jail, but not PRISON.

We work drug cases because that's how we catch burglars and thieves and solve other crimes. Drugs are often the common thread. Some dude sitting at home smoking a blunt doesn't even get on our radar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Hearne

One of my guys responded to a call this morning where the "victim" was convicted of murder in 2014. Not manslaughter, but murder. He was out roaming the streets after about four years. I don't think people realize this is how the system actually works.

---

My brother in law murdered his drug dealer when she threatened to out him to the school he was a teacher at.

Broke 9 of her ribs.

Slashed her throat with a knife 7 times.

Pummeled her face into her cranium, no bone structure left supporting her normal anatomical features.

………………

6 years.

There's very obviously a split in the family between those of us who take forgiveness to the extreme, and those of us who believe in some common shred of decency, civility, and honor.

My idea of forgiveness is letting go of hatred. In your case, Gman, you can forgive this man and at the same time view him as an unworthy and sorry individual that you choose never to acknowlege or to associate with. You can forbid mention of his name in your prescence. You should be able to have it both ways: forgiveness and EXCLUSION. Please don't think that I'm preaching to you. Your family has my sympathy.

P.S. He ain't worth killing. That's a joke. ;)

So let me Lazarus this thread to contribute some new information:

https://www2.illinois.gov/idoc/repor...rt%20FINAL.pdf

Linked above is an annual report from the Illinois prison system. Of particular interest to us is the statistics on prison population broken down by category of offense that begins on page 78.

If you look at those numbers you find that 82% of their prison population is serving a sentence on something that has nothing do do with drugs with offenses ranging from homicide to DUI.

Of the people serving time for controlled substance offenses, only 0.9% of the prison population is in there for cannabis based offenses...it's a fair bet they are for something significantly higher than a dime bag. And keep in mind that the stats only show the sentence the person is currently serving with no indication of past convictions or sentences served.

Further, they list another 9,133 people currently on parole for violent offenses.

It is worth remembering that Chicago is in Illinois, and that in 2017 the Chicago PD's homicide clearance rate was 12%. The numbers are no prettier for other categories of violent crime like rape, armed robbery, or aggravated assault.

Then factor in the Bureau of Justice Statistics study in the original post and you will see that of the people currently in Illinois custody for violent crimes, the vast majority will be let out of a cage having served only a few years...where they will then be on the street again in cities with homicide clearance rates that are typically under 50%. Which means they get more chances to commit more violent crimes.

I recently read a very interesting book on this topic. "Locked In: The True Causes of Mass Incarceration and How to Achieve Real Reform" by John Pfaff has a great analysis of the how we got here. He examines the popular narrative fairly extensively and eviscerates that story neatly. The high number of drug offenders in prison is true for the Federal prison system but that only represents a small portion of prisons in the country. For state prisons, the numbers are much lower. (And Federal drug prisoners are morel likely to be high level dealers)

His conclusion is that prosecutorial trends have been the key driver in prison populations. In a nutshell, we brought on a lot of new prosecutors to deal with the rise in violent crime that ended in the 90's. As crime decreased, we kept those same number of prosecutors. This has meant that they have been able to turn their attention to lower level offenses which may have been ignored in the past.

He quotes a different source for the 1% of folks in prison for basic drug possession. Prisons filled with non-violent drug offenders is a popular view but one that does not hold up to any rigorous analysis. To quote the author: "a majority of people in prison have been convicted of violent crimes, and an even greater number have engaged in violent behavior." He also notes that while violent crime has been decreasing, it is still twice what it was in 1960.

Every day I hear on the Atlanta news about murders, home invasions, carjacking, etc. I make a long commute with the hope that my family will be safer. Over the weekend, a well respected 70+ year old gentleman was murdered in a CVS parking lot - armed robbery or carjacking gone bad - in a "safer" area north of Atlanta. The suspected killer is from Atlanta. I believe we have a crime problem that can only be solved by locking up for a long time those that make us less safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ranger

Every day I hear on the Atlanta news about murders, home invasions, carjacking, etc. I make a long commute with the hope that my family will be safer. Over the weekend, a well respected 70+ year old gentleman was murdered in a CVS parking lot - armed robbery or carjacking gone bad - in a "safer" area north of Atlanta. The suspected killer is from Atlanta. I believe we have a crime problem that can only be solved by locking up for a long time those that make us less safe.

---

Damn. I’m sorry to hear that.