The Right Way to Shrink Prisons

[boutons_deux]

"those guys actually push for more incarcerations and stiffer penalties"

Sure they would, and do. The AZ or NV governor pushed thru imprisonment for illegals. By sheer coincidence, the gov's top advisors were PIC executives/lobbyists. It's literally "paying" off.

[elbamba]

so....this already exists, and it's been taken out of the judges decisions?

You misunderstood me. The state legislature creates and implements laws, in this case guidlines, that determine how much time a convicted criminal will serve in jail. The guidlines take many factors into account, type of crime, violence/non-violent, age (minor/adult), repeat offender, etc...This exists right now in most if not all states. The state might call it something different but in essence, they are sentencing guidlines and are only applied to convicted criminals.

What you might not be familiar with is that most county/district prisons will hold pretrial detainees, sometimes for months, while awaiting trial. The article I posted, one of the suggestions is to reduce the number of pre-trial detainees using ankle bracelets, and other devices to monitor them. My suggestion is to adopt guidlines similar to those used in sentencing convicted criminals, and applying the new guidlines to pretrial detainees.

For example, a twenty year old is accused of robbing a store at gun point. The kid has no previous convictions, did not shoot anyone while allegedly robbing the store, and makes off with $90.00. The robber was wearing a mask and gloves, there is no dna evidence and the victim can not identify the accused. The store was closed so there were no customers, the store clerk was working alone at the time of the robbery. The alleged gun used in the incident was an unloaded paintball gun and did not have fingerprints matching the accused.

Using these facts, does it serve society to set bail at $500,000.00? Does it serve society to have this man sit in jail for three months on the tax payers dime? If and when this young man gets out, he lost his job and now collects unemployment from the state.

Would it not be worth the time to implement guidlines that would have taken this case out of the hands of the judges discretion and forced him to apply a more reasonable bail? (These facts are similar but distinct to case I had a few years ago).

[elbamba]

Wouldn't those guys actually push for more incarcerations and stiffer penalties? It only makes business sense to them.

Absolutely. See the AZ immigration bill and who were the major pushes funding that project. Where do you think the detainees were going to be incarcerated.

The free market won't solve this problem. That was kind of my point in posting those companies. The free market will set the convicts free.

[boutons_deux]

Prison Math: What are the costs and benefits of leading the world in locking up human beings

the U.C.–Santa Barbara economist Jeff Grogger found there are large deterrent effects from increased certainty of punishment and much smaller, generally insignificant effects from increased severity. Such findings call into question the economic rationality of increasingly long prison terms. Who knows how many more millions will be locked up by the time public policy finally catches up with economics?

http://reason.com/archives/2011/06/08/prison-math

=======

Like the MIC (both the medical AND military industrial complexes) and , the PIC is just another way taxpayer wealth is transferred to corporations.

[elbamba]

for starters, just what baseline bum suggested.

I can agree to that.

Which do you think will be easier, get state legislatures to pass laws that legalize drugs or get state legislatures to pass guidlines that will assist judges in determining bail?

[clambake]

if this has been implemented in other states, are you stating that bail is no longer set by the judge in those states?

or

are you saying that a system should be implemented for first time offenders, leaving the judge out of the decision?

do you really want to leave that out of their hands?

[elbamba]

having a "commitee" of people determining the release based on statistics is spooky.

They already have committees that determine how long, if at all, convicted criminals will serve jail time. Why not for people who are innocent until proven guilty? Its not like you have to grant bail to someone who is being charged with murdering a person or rape. A judge will still have the authority to deny bail based upon the crime. Usually severe crimes such as murder are off grid offense.

[clambake]

Which do you think will be easier, get state legislatures to pass laws that legalize drugs or get state legislatures to pass guidlines that will assist judges in determining bail?

of course it would be easier to pass a guideline. thats whats spooky.

[elbamba]

if this has been implemented in other states, are you stating that bail is no longer set by the judge in those states?

or

are you saying that a system should be implemented for first time offenders, leaving the judge out of the decision?

do you really want to leave that out of their hands?

Sentencing guidlines have already been implemented in most, if not all states.

I am talking about guidlines before someone is convicted. There are no guidlines that I am aware of for setting bail in any state. If there is anyone in here who know of states that do please correct my ignorance.

States spend billions of dollars housing pre-trial detainees, many of who are not flight risks or who are facing non-violent charges. I want to implement guidlines for these people.

[ElNono]

Absolutely. See the AZ immigration bill and who were the major pushes funding that project. Where do you think the detainees were going to be incarcerated.

The free market won't solve this problem. That was kind of my point in posting those companies. The free market will set the convicts free.

Figures.

There's no doubt that the situation is out of control. I remember reading a while back the abuses and corruption of bail bond industry, which I'm sure adds another facet to this. Probably another topic for another thread.

[clambake]

They already have committees that determine how long, if at all, convicted criminals will serve jail time. Why not for people who are innocent until proven guilty? Its not like you have to grant bail to someone who is being charged with murdering a person or rape. A judge will still have the authority to deny bail based upon the crime. Usually severe crimes such as murder are off grid offense.

i don't have a problem with bracelets and monitoring, but wouldn't the added cost for adequate monitoring be staggering?

the bottom will fall out when they slip through the cracks. and many will slip through.

[Blake]

The state legislature. Like they do in all states now.

the question was 'who would create the formula?'

I took that to mean who would come up with the initial formula/grid, not necessarily who would ultimately make it law.

[coyotes_geek]

if only there was a huge population of non-violent offenders that could be cut out of the system by reasonable laws.

+1

One would think that letting the stoners out of jail would have a much more dramatic effect on reducing prison populations than tinkering with bail amounts.

[Blake]

you mean those judges that previously set ridiculously high bail?

we're ready to burden a judge with fiscal responsibility in the equation?

and/or possible the judge you referred to earlier.

if state legislature agreed to pass the formula into law, there would be no fiscal (or even moral) responsibility put on the judge.

[elbamba]

or

are you saying that a system should be implemented for first time offenders, leaving the judge out of the decision?

do you really want to leave that out of their hands?

Not first time offenders. The guidlines will be for everyone, even repeat offenders. Lets take drugs for example.

Police have an arrest warrent for your roomate. They come to your house and another roomate lets the cops in. While searching the house, the see you sitting in your room with pot in your hand, you invite them into your room, the walk in and see a shotgun on the floor of your closet, its unloaded, but a shotgun nevertheless. They arrest you, now you are facing a potential felony because you were in possession of drugs and a dangerous firearm. You have never had so much as speeding ticket.

Would you agree that in that setting, you are not a danger to society? Would you also agree that society would not benefit from you sitting in jail for several weeks/months while your case goes through the legal system?

These are the types of situations where guidlines setting low bail would help. If the judge feels like you are a danger, they will still have power to set a higher bail. However, now there will be language that no longer allows a judge to do so in his/her discretion, but rather, the judge must have a compelling reason to raise bail. Society is still safe.

[clambake]

and/or possible the judge you referred to earlier.

if state legislature agreed to pass the formula into law, there would be no fiscal (or even moral) responsibility put on the judge.

thats what i'm getting at. be damned to the victims.

[elbamba]

the question was 'who would create the formula?'

I took that to mean who would come up with the initial formula/grid, not necessarily who would ultimately make it law.

It would be a group of legislators backed by lawyers, judges and special interests. I don't expect it do be done for the greater good, but the article makes a good point in addressing that states might look to limit waste by implementing better pretrial practices that will free money for the real dangers to society.

[Blake]

i don't have a problem with bracelets and monitoring, but wouldn't the added cost for adequate monitoring be staggering?

I am fairly sure almost all monitoring is done through private companies and the monitoring service is billed to the defendant.

It's then on the defendant to provide the probation officer with the results of the monitoring.

[clambake]

Not first time offenders. The guidlines will be for everyone, even repeat offenders. Lets take drugs for example.

Police have an arrest warrent for your roomate. They come to your house and another roomate lets the cops in. While searching the house, the see you sitting in your room with pot in your hand, you invite them into your room, the walk in and see a shotgun on the floor of your closet, its unloaded, but a shotgun nevertheless. They arrest you, now you are facing a potential felony because you were in possession of drugs and a dangerous firearm. You have never had so much as speeding ticket.

Would you agree that in that setting, you are not a danger to society? Would you also agree that society would not benefit from you sitting in jail for several weeks/months while your case goes through the legal system?

These are the types of situations where guidlines setting low bail would help. If the judge feels like you are a danger, they will still have power to set a higher bail. However, now there will be language that no longer allows a judge to do so in his/her discretion, but rather, the judge must have a compelling reason to raise bail. Society is still safe.

sure, i can agree with this one scenario, but, what are we talking about here, maybe 8 people?

[Blake]

thats what i'm getting at. be damned to the victims.

what victims are you referring to?

If you have a case of a repeat offender of a violent crime, chances are, the grid would make it very very difficult for him/her to make bail.....if at all.

[elbamba]

if state legislature agreed to pass the formula into law, there would be no fiscal (or even moral) responsibility put on the judge.

We don't seem to have too much of a problem with state legislator setting guidlines to deterimine who long a convicted criminal will serve jail time. Its really not that different.

The prosecutor will still ask the court to deny bail where the prosecutor feels it is necessary. This will limit the stupid prosecutors who operate like zombies and want bail set at high rates or denied for most cases. This will also allow a judge to move outside the guidlines if he has a compelling reason to do so.

[clambake]

I am fairly sure almost all monitoring is done through private companies and the monitoring service is billed to the defendant.

It's then on the defendant to provide the probation officer with the results of the monitoring.

i didn't know that. how do they make sure the defendant pays or can pay?

is that required before release? payment?

[Blake]

We don't seem to have too much of a problem with state legislator setting guidlines to deterimine who long a convicted criminal will serve jail time. Its really not that different.

The prosecutor will still ask the court to deny bail where the prosecutor feels it is necessary. This will limit the stupid prosecutors who operate like zombies and want bail set at high rates or denied for most cases. This will also allow a judge to move outside the guidlines if he has a compelling reason to do so.

Agree, I don't see much of a difference either.

It's why I like the idea.

[Blake]

i didn't know that. how do they make sure the defendant pays or can pay?

is that required before release? payment?

currently, if they don't pay, they can be found to be in violation of parole.

To jail they go.

[elbamba]

sure, i can agree with this one scenario, but, what are we talking about here, maybe 8 people?

I don't have the time but I can lay out millions of examples that you would agree with.

This is why you need the guidlines that can take into account violent vs. non-violent crimes (i.e. Trespass vs. Rape), repeat offenders, age, and many other factos.