Sentencing reform: I'm going to present a false dilemma
I'm going to present this knowing it's a false dilemma, with all of us agreeing we all know it's a false dilemma, because I still think it's a good mental experiment.
In 1992, the prison population was 883,000, or 0.3% of the population.
Today, the prison population is 2,300,000, or 0.7% of the population.
In 1992, the violent crime rate was 757 per 100,000
Today, the violent crime rate is 367 per 100,000
(Note that incarceration is slightly more than twice what it was in 1992, and violent crime is slightly less than half of what it was in 1992. I think that's to some extent a coincidence, but it's worth pointing out.)
Recognizing that actually reducing incarceration would not necessarily bring violence back up to 1990s levels, would you support a hypothetical trade in which we returned to both 1992 levels of violent crime and 1992 levels of incarceration? (Never mind the "how" -- something about society changes and we wind up back with 1992 incarceration levels and 1992 crime rates. Would you consider that a good trade-off?)
| 1 vote, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
| Yes | |
0 (0%) |
|
| No | |
1 (100%) |
|
| 0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
= new reply since forum marked as read
I had guys on my case load who had perpetrated some really horrifying crimes that they couldn't even remember because they were blacked out when they committed them. When sober, they were funny, interesting, talented, creative, sometimes really smart ... Basically, pretty normal people.
Alcohol can be such a poison, particularly when the user has had a difficult or traumatic childhood, another common denominator among most of the inmates I knew. In the vast majority of cases I dealt with, the victimizer had also been a victim.
Temperamentally, I couldn't continue working in corrections for the long haul because I was just too empathetic. Being put in the position of simultaneously being designated a counselor and a corrections officer was untenable for me. I wanted people to trust me enough to open up in our one-on-ones, but as a CO I was expected to report much of what they told me. I just couldn't do that. Room shakedowns weren't my thing; I wanted to leave the "busting" to the more going-ho officers. 
. It was definitely a learning experience, though.
A couple weeks after I quit, I received a card in the mail signed by probably 25 or 30 of the inmates I had counseled saying how much they missed talking to me and how I had helped. I was touched, and I've kept it all these years.
I'll drink every now and then but it isn't something I ever prefer to do that and it was the not remembering what I was doing while I blacked out several years ago that led me to pretty much completely stop. I was afraid that I could get into a car or something kill me or someone else and sitting in prison over something I didn't remember doing.
I appreciate your posts in this thread, I've known of examples where some take advantage of the power whether that be a PO or an employer of their ability to revoke them but even without that the parole rules are very stingy. You may like this though I imagine you already know all this stuff
Why It Might Be Time To Rethink The Rules Of Parole
“I don’t think everyone coming out of prison needs to be supervised,” said Brian Fischer, former commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. In this hypothetical scenario, “the likelihood of recidivism is zero,” he said. “Why do we need to restrict him?”
Parole conditions vary widely from state to state and case to case. As states attempt to reduce their prison populations, and as the number of parolees grows — now up to more than 851,000 people nationally — advocates are increasingly concerned that parole rules can be too restrictive for the average parolee, making it too easy to end up behind bars again for technical violations.1 As states contend with the high cost of incarceration and use parole to cut costs, advocates are calling for consistency in how it’s deployed.
Some restrictions seem practical (“complying with all laws”), while others seem nearly impossible to follow (“abandon evil associates and ways”). Other times, they run counter to mainstream culture; states including Kansas, Kentucky and Hawaii prevent parolees from drinking alcohol and going into bars.2 Also, enforcement of these rules varies from parole agent to parole agent.
“Most of us could not live under the rules of parole because there are too many of them,” Fischer said.
Certain behaviors that break a law, and therefore also violate parole terms, are fairly common in the general public. In 2013, 19.8 million adults were current marijuana users, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Almost half of drivers say they keep up with faster, often speeding traffic. About 660,000 people used a cellphone while driving in 2011, which potentially breaks the law in at least 44 states. Not only do these actions violate parole, they delay the reentry process, especially if a parolee found in violation is sent to a treatment facility or county jail, which costs taxpayers money.3
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-it-might-be-time-to-rethink-the-rules-of-parole/
but when you put it that way it does give one pause. But I think the trade off isn't so much between crime and prison as prison and parks, schools, mental health counseling and other state-operated programs and getting those back I think would be worth the trade.
Interesting question! 
Extrapolate a conclusion from a known falsehood?
"Good mental experiment?"
If you say so.
