Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on July 28, 2015, 11:06:43 AM
-
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/barack-obama-financial-aid-college-federal-state-prisoners-pell-grant-120680.html
I am not opposed to this, if there is a demonstrable return on investment on keeping people from coming back to prison, and becoming productive tax-paying members of society. Lord knows it gives me palpitations every time I look at the State budget to see how much we are spending on our prison/justice system each year.
-
From experience - there are two problems with Pell grants for incarcerated persons
1 - nobody is offering a meaningful degree/certificate program (with one exception: beautician/barber). That makes the education a glorified GED that is supposed to convince the Parole Board that you really are trying to rehabilitate yourself (except for the most part there is no longer parole so no Parole Board).
2 - even if you had a degree/certificate in the most critically needed and smallest pool of qualified candidates field, there is going to be that criminal conviction hanging over your head. Felons don't get good jobs because employers don't trust felons - and without parole supervision the best selling point to employers (there's a method to at least try to keep him honest) is no longer available.
However, the biggest problem with reintroducing Pell grants for the incarcerated is the belief in that liberal pap that if they just had a decent education and a chance they would not need to commit crimes. That completely and utterly ignores the basic truth which is criminals do not think like square people and never will.
As for all those convicted of low-level drug crimes? How many used car salesmen do you really want? (Seriously, it is a perfect fit and the scam/fleece factor is often enough to keep them from going back to committing all those illegal crimes.)
stay safe.
-
However, the biggest problem with reintroducing Pell grants for the incarcerated is the belief in that liberal pap that if they just had a decent education and a chance they would not need to commit crimes. That completely and utterly ignores the basic truth which is criminals do not think like square people and never will.
THAT.
-
nothing but a scam, and a bone thrown to marginal 'education' providers. Free money is never free. Giving convicts a free education has always been a waste of public funds.
-
Federal Bureau of Prisons still offers classroom + OJT for several different electronics activities. Mostly parts/cable assembly work. As soon as a federal inmate gets out they are locked out of any job in those areas because they are reserved (mostly by law) for the handicapped.
Va Dept of Corrections used to teach masonry - mostly because it was one of the few fields with a high percentage of former inmates. Problem was they taught using wet sand as opposed to actual mortar - because if the students made stuff with mortar they would have to be given tools to kinetically disassemble the stuff, and the appropriate tools were considered escape tools. (Not that almost every style of trowel is a lethal pointy weapon.) Yes, the tools were supposed to be checked out and checked in and nobody leaves the area until every single tool is accounted for. Except that would cause staff to go into overtime if anything had to be searched for.
stay safe.
-
I don't want to work with former members of the criminal class. I worked hard and lived my life right so I would not have to associate with them...
-
With so many people in this country underemployed/unemployed, I give zero *expletive deleted*s about the rehabilitation prospects of criminals.
Keep them in prison until they're no longer dangerous. If they're still dangerous, they stay. Seems pretty simple.
-
Keep them in prison until they're no longer dangerous. If they're still dangerous, they stay. Seems pretty simple.
Also seems pretty expensive to me. Now, I'm fairly agnostic on the change in this thread, but I'm reminded of the statistic that Norway concentrates heavily on reform, and manages to make it so only 20% of the criminals it releases come back, while in the USA our convicts average 3 times as long in prison and come back for a subsequent tour at something like 60% of the time.
So let's say the US cost per prison-year is $X, and Norway's is $Y.
Take an example prisoner that would be sentenced to A in Norway.
Norway's cost: A*$Y*1.24(for recidivism)
USA's cost: A * 3 $X *1.96 (5.88)
In short: Unless Norway spends 5X as much per prisoner per year, they have a substantially cheaper system than we do, and I'm not even including extra police and court costs for the prisoners coming back.
If that means we gotta train them - get them to get their GED, provide some *realistic* occupational training, etc... So be it. I'm NOT for cutting our noses off to spite our face by saying 'They don't DESERVE IT! So we're going to spend $30k/year and suffer 3X the murder rate* in order to properly punish them!'
That being said, I don't think criminals deserve better treatment than non-criminals, so some sort of loan system would be good, or perhaps make them pay for training, but at the same time pay them a *realistic* wage while in prison. Or run a 'credit' system where they earn their training by putting hours into helping maintain the prison. Lots of options.
Same sort of deal with the unemployed - have some work camps where they can help with various tasks in exchange for earning, among other things, credits for training and such.
*Remember, 'most' murderers are already felons.
-
Also seems pretty expensive to me. Now, I'm fairly agnostic on the change in this thread, but I'm reminded of the statistic that Norway concentrates heavily on reform, and manages to make it so only 20% of the criminals it releases come back, while in the USA our convicts average 3 times as long in prison and come back for a subsequent tour at something like 60% of the time.
So let's say the US cost per prison-year is $X, and Norway's is $Y.
Take an example prisoner that would be sentenced to A in Norway.
Norway's cost: A*$Y*1.44(for recidivism)
USA's cost: A * 3 $X *2.56
In short: Unless Norway spends 5X as much per prisoner per year, they have a substantially cheaper system than we do, and I'm not even including extra police and court costs for the prisoners coming back.
If that means we gotta train them - get them to get their GED, provide some *realistic* occupational training, etc... So be it. I'm NOT for cutting our noses off to spite our face by saying 'They don't DESERVE IT! So we're going to spend $30k/year and suffer 3X the murder rate* in order to properly punish them!
That being said, I don't think criminals deserve better treatment than non-criminals, so some sort of loan system would be good, or perhaps make them pay for training, but at the same time pay them a *realistic* wage while in prison. Or run a 'credit' system where they earn their training by putting hours into helping maintain the prison. Lots of options.
Same sort of deal with the unemployed - have some work camps where they can help with various tasks in exchange for earning, among other things, credits for training and such.
*Remember, 'most' murderers are already felons.
Decent point
-
Decent point
Until you run up against this:
I don't want to work with former members of the criminal class. I worked hard and lived my life right so I would not have to associate with them...
You can train the everloving into them. You can beat/push/press/stretch/draw and quarter remorse and rehabilitation into/out of them but once they hit the streets they are saddled with a stigma that most folks will not tolerate. Targeted Jobs Tax Credits + training wages + exemption from mandatory provision of health benefits + exemption from union membership + just about anything you could throw at an employer to convince them that this potential employee comes with enough financial incentives to make the hire all died a terrible death (much like the Wicked Witch when Dorothy threw water on her) because of the stigma of being an ex-felon/ex-inmate. 24 months holding the title of Institutional Parole Office with the assigned duty of making release plans for inmates within 6 months of release* and if they were not going to work for family the only ones with any real expectation of getting a job were those with a beautician/barber license. About 1/3 of those with commercial food service certification could get hired, but after (mumble-hmm) years of experience along with the credential got hired - at entry-level positions.
It's not right, it's not proper, and it's not helping anybody,but it has and probably will continue to be the way things are.
stay safe.
* - when I fist got that position I actually thought I would be supervising the daylights out of folks who were still incarcerated since it was advertised as "Parole Officer" with nothing in the job description being different from all the other POs. Darn those "Additional Duties As Assigned"!
-
Until you run up against this:
You can train the everloving into them. You can beat/push/press/stretch/draw and quarter remorse and rehabilitation into/out of them but once they hit the streets they are saddled with a stigma that most folks will not tolerate.
Fixing this is going to be a long hard road - but that 60% return rate is a HUGE reason for them being black-balled. Norway's released felons have a much easier time of it, 1/3rd of the worry.
Hell, I remember a case where the only job an exonerated sex offender(cleared by DNA evidence and more) who had been in prison for 20+ years was a pity job as a janitor in the state capital building given to him by the governor.
Sometimes I read about our unemployment, our crumbling infrastructure, all sorts of neglect, and see a couple problems that could be solved - some sort of 'universal' employment program. Not at great wages, no, but somebody making $20k/year working for the government isn't actually making all that much more money than they currently get to sit on welfare, but they're at least doing something useful - and that extra money creates more demand for goods and services, which in turn leads to more people employed to satisfy said demands for goods & services. I tend to term it as the 'velocity' of money - money moves very fast in the hands of poor people, and relatively slowly in the hands of rich.
-
Where are you going to get the magic unicorn farts needed to make your universal employment happen?
Thanks to all sorts of social engineering we have several generations of folks from both the bottom and middle of the economic barrel who feel that working for just about the same as they could get in welfare benefits is not worth the effort. (Those from the top of the barrel are counting on Mummsy to convince Pater to give them a managerial position straight out of day care college.
Threats of "no work/no welfare" have been made following just about every change of POTUS, and all with the same lack of fortitude to actually carry them out. Heck, folks, what do you think County Farms are made for? And speaking of which, when welfare went from a local entity to being a federal program was just about the time this mindset of "why work for what I get in benefits?" took firm root. It started under Wilson, grew under Hoobert Heever, and took it's final form under FDR, so don't go blaming it all on Mr. March of Dimes*.
stay safe.
* - the one issue he tackled that did not involve "the federal government" as the answer.
-
Also seems pretty expensive to me. Now, I'm fairly agnostic on the change in this thread, but I'm reminded of the statistic that Norway concentrates heavily on reform, and manages to make it so only 20% of the criminals it releases come back, while in the USA our convicts average 3 times as long in prison and come back for a subsequent tour at something like 60% of the time.
So let's say the US cost per prison-year is $X, and Norway's is $Y.
Take an example prisoner that would be sentenced to A in Norway.
Norway's cost: A*$Y*1.24(for recidivism)
USA's cost: A * 3 $X *1.96 (5.88)
In short: Unless Norway spends 5X as much per prisoner per year, they have a substantially cheaper system than we do, and I'm not even including extra police and court costs for the prisoners coming back.
If that means we gotta train them - get them to get their GED, provide some *realistic* occupational training, etc... So be it. I'm NOT for cutting our noses off to spite our face by saying 'They don't DESERVE IT! So we're going to spend $30k/year and suffer 3X the murder rate* in order to properly punish them!'
That being said, I don't think criminals deserve better treatment than non-criminals, so some sort of loan system would be good, or perhaps make them pay for training, but at the same time pay them a *realistic* wage while in prison. Or run a 'credit' system where they earn their training by putting hours into helping maintain the prison. Lots of options.
Same sort of deal with the unemployed - have some work camps where they can help with various tasks in exchange for earning, among other things, credits for training and such.
*Remember, 'most' murderers are already felons.
As pointed out in other threads before, what Norway does doesn't apply to the US, Norway is full of Norwegians.
-
Also seems pretty expensive to me. Now, I'm fairly agnostic on the change in this thread, but I'm reminded of the statistic that Norway concentrates heavily on reform, and manages to make it so only 20% of the criminals it releases come back, while in the USA our convicts average 3 times as long in prison and come back for a subsequent tour at something like 60% of the time.
So let's say the US cost per prison-year is $X, and Norway's is $Y.
Take an example prisoner that would be sentenced to A in Norway.
Norway's cost: A*$Y*1.24(for recidivism)
USA's cost: A * 3 $X *1.96 (5.88)
In short: Unless Norway spends 5X as much per prisoner per year, they have a substantially cheaper system than we do, and I'm not even including extra police and court costs for the prisoners coming back.
If that means we gotta train them - get them to get their GED, provide some *realistic* occupational training, etc... So be it. I'm NOT for cutting our noses off to spite our face by saying 'They don't DESERVE IT! So we're going to spend $30k/year and suffer 3X the murder rate* in order to properly punish them!'
That being said, I don't think criminals deserve better treatment than non-criminals, so some sort of loan system would be good, or perhaps make them pay for training, but at the same time pay them a *realistic* wage while in prison. Or run a 'credit' system where they earn their training by putting hours into helping maintain the prison. Lots of options.
Same sort of deal with the unemployed - have some work camps where they can help with various tasks in exchange for earning, among other things, credits for training and such.
*Remember, 'most' murderers are already felons.
There's also the problem that Norway is a MUCH smaller country, with much greater social cohesion, and is populated by 94.4% Norwegians. (Other Europeans make up 3.6% of the remaining 5.6%...)
So, I'm betting your program might have a chance to work in Minnesota and Wisconsin.
-
There's also the problem that Norway is a MUCH smaller country, with much greater social cohesion, and is populated by 94.4% Norwegians. (Other Europeans make up 3.6% of the remaining 5.6%...)
So, I'm betting your program might have a chance to work in Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Except that about 50% of the prison population in WI are most notably not of norwegian descent.
-
Also seems pretty expensive to me. Now, I'm fairly agnostic on the change in this thread, but I'm reminded of the statistic that Norway concentrates heavily on reform, and manages to make it so only 20% of the criminals it releases come back, while in the USA our convicts average 3 times as long in prison and come back for a subsequent tour at something like 60% of the time.
So let's say the US cost per prison-year is $X, and Norway's is $Y.
Take an example prisoner that would be sentenced to A in Norway.
Norway's cost: A*$Y*1.24(for recidivism)
USA's cost: A * 3 $X *1.96 (5.88)
In short: Unless Norway spends 5X as much per prisoner per year, they have a substantially cheaper system than we do, and I'm not even including extra police and court costs for the prisoners coming back.
If that means we gotta train them - get them to get their GED, provide some *realistic* occupational training, etc... So be it. I'm NOT for cutting our noses off to spite our face by saying 'They don't DESERVE IT! So we're going to spend $30k/year and suffer 3X the murder rate* in order to properly punish them!'
That being said, I don't think criminals deserve better treatment than non-criminals, so some sort of loan system would be good, or perhaps make them pay for training, but at the same time pay them a *realistic* wage while in prison. Or run a 'credit' system where they earn their training by putting hours into helping maintain the prison. Lots of options.
Same sort of deal with the unemployed - have some work camps where they can help with various tasks in exchange for earning, among other things, credits for training and such.
*Remember, 'most' murderers are already felons.
As pointed out in other threads before, what Norway does doesn't apply to the US, Norway is full of Norwegians.
Ayup.
Also, let us get something straight here:
Spending serious cash keeping common-law criminals (violent sorts, thieves, etc.) in prison is much cheaper for the taxpayer than letting them roam about committing crimes.
How many automobile smash & grabs (stereo, something left out in view) does it cost to fix (out of pocket or insurance) before the total value of damage done equals the amount spent to keep the criminal in prison? Hell, I just had my bumper whacked at low speed and it cost $1600+. (Busted window + stereo ripped out of the dash + locked glove box busted open + value of other stolen goods + whatever) sounds like it will cost a pretty penny to fix. Fencing those goods would require a rather large number to pay one's way.
How much does it cost when someone is murdered? Just off the top of my head:
1. NPV of all their earnings until natural death.
2. Cost of burial.
3. Life insurance payout.
4. Cleanup if murder was messy.
5. Less educated kids if victim was father supporting children through college.
6. Time & money spent on lawyers & such WRT inheritance.
7. Perhaps loss of the victim's home due to loss of income.
8. Hospital costs if the victim makes it long enough to expire in the hospital.
9. Increased likelihood of children turning out bad or having poorer outcomes due to the loss of two-parent family structure.
Relative to crime, prison is a mike-foxtrotting bargain.
-
FTR, I have worked at grunt manual laborer jobs with felons, violent & otherwise. Murderers, drug dealers, rapists, A&B, etc. I also have managed them as a foreman on work crews.
Let me clue in folk who have not had the aforementioned privilege:
1. Ex cons are generally not very smart.
2. Ex-cons are generally lazier than average.
3. Ex-cons have a different moral schema than solid citizens.
4. Ex-cons will take advantage of any sympathy shown them.
5. Ex-cons will take advantage of solid citizens' basic decency and morality.
6. Ex-cons will take advantage of any trust shown them.
Not to put too fine a point on it, ex-cons are mostly turds. They are almost 100% motivated by a super short-sighted pleasure principle (seek pleasure, avoid pain). To motivate them, they must fear you (and your ability to inflict pain) more than the task.
For my own part, I am not a big fan of prisons. I would move to a more Signaporean system of corporal punishment. Infliction of pain via rattan switch is even cheaper than prison. And the knout mostly kept Britain's sailors in line. (See the pleasure principle.)
And prisons would be more tent/shanty encampments in the middle of the desert than grand rock piles.
-
How many automobile smash & grabs (stereo, something left out in view) does it cost to fix (out of pocket or insurance) before the total value of damage done equals the amount spent to keep the criminal in prison? Hell, I just had my bumper whacked at low speed and it cost $1600+. (Busted window + stereo ripped out of the dash + locked glove box busted open + value of other stolen goods + whatever) sounds like it will cost a pretty penny to fix. Fencing those goods would require a rather large number to pay one's way.
In Milwaukee, they just steal the entire car. Liberal leadership (sic) in the city decided that police cannot chase suspects fleeing in vehicles. Vehicular thefts, drug dealing from vehicles, and major accidents caused by fleeing suspects is WAY up. (I would add, it is once again not the Norwegian portion of Milwaukee's population engaging in these acts).
Liberals put together great ideas that sound great on paper, but they never look past the next step to see the consequences their policies bring.
-
Well, an ex-felon could probably get a job as a sheepherder in MT/WY for $750/month plus "room" and board ;)
Not much skoolin' rekwired for that tho :laugh:
-
vis a vis costs? someone with a 300 dollar a day dope habit steals or otherwise hustles 2-3 grand a day. and they are quite clever. that cost is born by all of us. i just talked with a waitress who was scamming tgif fridays outa 500 a day everyday using coupons and discounts. she did it for almost 3 years before she got caught and then all they coukld prove right then was 60 bucks on one check she paid that back and moved on to next place
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
its not impossible to get hired as a felon. the tjtc works and once you get a few years under your belt straight it gets easier. smart guys get in someplace and work themselves up. often the guys moaning about how hard it is have other glaring defects that cause em trouble
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
vis a vis costs? someone with a 300 dollar a day dope habit steals or otherwise hustles 2-3 grand a day. and they are quite clever. that cost is born by all of us. i just talked with a waitress who was scamming tgif fridays outa 500 a day everyday using coupons and discounts. she did it for almost 3 years before she got caught and then all they coukld prove right then was 60 bucks on one check she paid that back and moved on to next place
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
TANSTAAFL. Action provokes reaction. The financial cost is insignificant when we abandon moral hazard in favor of a purely utilitarian calculation. Incarceration is expensive because we make it so, through regulation, litigation, etc. Recidivism happens because we allow it via the revolving door/political justice & penal systems and lack of societal will to stigmatize the behavior. I don't have any answers, but a degree in rocket surgery is not required to see we are whistling past the graveyard on this and many other issues, kicking the can into future generations' path.-Sayeth the metaphor mixmaster. (Stumbles down the hall for more caffeine.)
-
its not impossible to get hired as a felon. the tjtc works and once you get a few years under your belt straight it gets easier. smart guys get in someplace and work themselves up. often the guys moaning about how hard it is have other glaring defects that cause em trouble
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
You need to be more specific about what jobs in what fields, and where a felon with years of experience inside starts on the outside. I had guys* who ran a 3,000 per seating mess hall (that's 9,000 meals a day) for the past 10 years (running, as in manager, not counting the time it took them to work up to that slot) get offered line cook positions if they made a really good impression. Otherwise they were taken on as potwhollopers.
Now, low- and mid-level drug dealers? I could get them positions as car salesmen without breaking a sweat.
stay safe.
* - No, not all felons. The two I describe above had a total of 25 years experience each, and when paroled still had 75 years left on their sentences. That ought to give you an idea of the sort of crime they would be spending their life paying for both inside and outside prison.
-
A lot depends on your crime. And sadly that really plays out to mean what reduced charge you plead guilty to. Like the guy I worked with. His "aggravated assault "was a murder
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Thanks to all sorts of social engineering we have several generations of folks from both the bottom and middle of the economic barrel who feel that working for just about the same as they could get in welfare benefits is not worth the effort.
They'll start working when they get hungry enough because the welfare benefits keep getting stingier...
As pointed out in other threads before, what Norway does doesn't apply to the US, Norway is full of Norwegians.
True, but the few times we've tried the reform thing it's worked darn near as well.
Also, let us get something straight here:
Spending serious cash keeping common-law criminals (violent sorts, thieves, etc.) in prison is much cheaper for the taxpayer than letting them roam about committing crimes.
Acknowledged. But that's not what I'm talking about. Any program that is to progress beyond 'pilot program' to test outcomes and produce a trained core in case it merits expansion has to show the reduced recidivism rate. That means that the program they undergo has to reduce the chances they'll cause crime again.
I'll repeat: The US System, as seen in many states(a few have pushed reforms, and said states see no higher crime rates and MUCH lower prison populations), tends to make criminals worse, not better. THAT is what I want to fix.
Relative to crime, prison is a mike-foxtrotting bargain.
Like I said earlier, I actually agree. It's just that it can be made cheaper yet. If we imprison a guy for 9 years for stealing a car, then he steals another within a month of getting out, getting another 9 years for it, while Norway imprisons him for 3 and he doesn't go stealing another car when he gets out, it's a better success than our result.
If the options were 3 years for a 60% recidivism rate or 9 years for 60%, I'd be much closer to agreeing with you. But they manage 20%. And US prisons that go heavy on reform, especially with after-prison support, manage to get close, sometimes even beat it. Such programs should be expanded. It's too expensive to do otherwise.
-
They'll start working when they get hungry enough because the welfare benefits keep getting stingier...]/quote]
Historically that has not happened. IIRC it's probably unconstitutional to deny benefits to someone who has not committed welfare fraud - see drug users.
****************************************
True, but the few times we've tried the reform thing it's worked darn near as well.
Do you have a citation for that? See esp your comment below.
*****************************************
Acknowledged. But that's not what I'm talking about. Any program that is to progress beyond 'pilot program' to test outcomes and produce a trained core in case it merits expansion has to show the reduced recidivism rate. That means that the program they undergo has to reduce the chances they'll cause crime again.
How long does one need to try habilitation (they were never right in order to go wrong in order to need rehabilitation) in order to say it does in fact work? There have been a few decade(s)-long attempts, but public pressure regarding the lack of large-scale success has pushed the pendulum back in the other direction. After 35+ years of proven success NYS's use of the therapeutic community model for some drug offenders has continued to remain a model program for the simple reason that the vast majority of inmates cannot/will not make the psychological/behavioral changes necessary to actively participate in the program. England, where the notion started in their psychiatric hospitals, found that about 85%-90% of the patients, even with symptomology controlled by medication, could not/would not follow the behavioral schema of the program. It works best, both for druggies and mental patients, with those who "fell into" their condition from a sound middle-class background and continued to maintain those middle-class mores while incarcerated/inpatient.
*******************************************************
I'll repeat: The US System, as seen in many states(a few have pushed reforms, and said states see no higher crime rates and MUCH lower prison populations), tends to make criminals worse, not better. THAT is what I want to fix.
Again, do you have a citation for overall success?
**************************************************
Like I said earlier, I actually agree. It's just that it can be made cheaper yet. If we imprison a guy for 9 years for stealing a car, then he steals another within a month of getting out, getting another 9 years for it, while Norway imprisons him for 3 and he doesn't go stealing another car when he gets out, it's a better success than our result.
If the options were 3 years for a 60% recidivism rate or 9 years for 60%, I'd be much closer to agreeing with you. But they manage 20%. And US prisons that go heavy on reform, especially with after-prison support, manage to get close, sometimes even beat it. Such programs should be expanded. It's too expensive to do otherwise.
********************************************************
Like many others, you assume the fallacy that the only crime that individual is going to commit is the theft of one car. There is a concept known as "theft days". It's the number of days per time period that a person is engaged in any criminal activity. Back 15 or so years ago the national average was 295 crime days per year. Look up the number of cars stolen before the average car thief gets caught. You have to account for all of those as well as the one they were caught and convicted of, plus all the other criminal behavior they engage in.
Incarceration as a means of incapacitation works not only to prevent repetition of the crime the individual was convicted of, but of all criminal activity. It may not be the cheapest answer, and it certainly is not the only answer. It has been shown to be the most effective answer.
As long as you keep harping on the Norwegians and how they do things and how successful their ways are you are going to have to include how to change the social construct of the USA so that it more closely resembles that of Norway. You cannot just wave your magic wand and turn the whole country into Lake Woebegon.
stay safe.
-
The British answer used to be Australia.
Maybe we need to fund NASA to get that moon colony going .... =|
-
Vas, could you fix the quote close? It's messing up your post.
Anyways:
Historically that has not happened. IIRC it's probably unconstitutional to deny benefits to someone who has not committed welfare fraud - see drug users.
It's not denying them when you're making the entire system more stingy/frugal with it's benefits.
Like many others, you assume the fallacy that the only crime that individual is going to commit is the theft of one car. There is a concept known as "theft days". It's the number of days per time period that a person is engaged in any criminal activity. Back 15 or so years ago the national average was 295 crime days per year. Look up the number of cars stolen before the average car thief gets caught. You have to account for all of those as well as the one they were caught and convicted of, plus all the other criminal behaviour they engage in.
Actually, you only assumed that I fell for that fallacy. I don't. I'm certainly not assuming 100% catch rates. I'm fully aware that an active criminal on the loose is much more expensive than one that's locked up, even if they only commit relatively 'petty' crimes.
Like I said earlier, I have no problems with putting an active criminal into prison/jail. The difference is that I believe that we can do a heck of a lot more to prevent creating new criminals, hardening the ones we have, as well as rehabilitating them.
And I will use the word 'rehabilitate' because they're like a dog that's learned to *expletive deleted*it in the house - they were habilitated wrong, so we gotta go in and fix the initial training.
It has been shown to be the most effective answer.
Not really. Or perhaps it'd be better to say that we should keep seeking better answers.
I've seen examples of all sorts of successful reform programs. Perhaps the answer isn't a 'one size fits all' solution, but a series of them, tailored to what's wrong with the individual.
Oh, and dirty little secret about the Norwegians and their limited sentences: If you're determined to still be a threat after your sentence is up, it's straight into a psych facility for 'further treatment'. It's a life sentence in all but name. You need not even have been found guilty of a crime 'worthy' of life in prison in the USA. A group of people simply have to sign off that they have valid reason to believe you're a threat to others requiring continued restriction of freedom.
Finding rehab success studies will require some work I can't do at the moment, sorry. I don't have links handy.