Inmates Go Free to Help States Reduce Deficits By

The New York Times ^ | Dec. 18, 2002 | FOX BUTTERFIELD

[Kerberos]

For Discussion

[w1andsodidwe]

Please don't let Gov. Gay Davis see this.

[Kerberos]

Ping

[toddst]

Several things wrong here. One, the Governor should not have the power to do just release prisoners. We need to change the law in Kentucky so the next one can't.

Two, why are these scum just being turned out, as opposed to placed on parole or under home-confinement (electronic monitoring?) Our local prosecutor said this is a "get out of jail free card." Many prosecutors are very angry over this and they should be.

Three, this is a scare tactic designed to cause citizens to more receptive to tax increases the Governor wants and will propose. We have viable Republicans running for Governor next year and what this Democrat Governor is doing demonstrates the very serious need for a change.

[Phantom Lord]

There are many, many nonviolent offenders who should not be in prison for their crimes. But rather heavily fined, put on probation and serve community service. If we would stop putting people in jail who shouldnt be there and are no threat to their neighbors or fellow citizens then we would have plenty of room to lock away, and KEEP locked away those criminals that are dangerous to society.

[chachacha]

They all learned this from "Saddam Insane"

[GailA]

"A percentage of them are going to recommit a crime, and some of them are going to be worse than the crimes they are in for," Mr. Patton acknowledged in announcing the emergency releases. But, he added, "I have to do what I have to do to live within the revenue that we have." Up to 45% will go out and commit MORE crimes. Early released inmates in the 1991 study (latest available) committed over 6,000 MURDERS BJS PAROLE STATS

[Phantom Lord]

Three, this is a scare tactic designed to cause citizens to more receptive to tax increases the Governor wants and will propose.

I had this to say yesterday regarding politicians methods to soften up the people for tax increases...

Run your memory banks and think of all the times that your state and other states have found themselves with a looming "budget shortfall". The people say NO to tax increases at the outset. The politicians then draw up a plan to reduce spending to avoid having to raise taxes. What services do they say will "need" to be cut to avoid a tax increase? Every time it is fire, police, education, and healthcare. This then gets enough people worried that these services will be cut and they don't want that to happen. The people then relent and accept that taxes must be increased to "save" these services.

From this thread

[dennisw]

DON'T BE FOOLED! This is a scam to scare/terrorize citizens so they approve higher taxes and outlandish state budgets that never fire one darn worker nor cutback any darn program. It's a dog and pony show.

[trebb]

And we wonder why there are so many idiots that don't think we should be tough on the terrorists - when it's OK to let felons out to save money, even though the fool admits that many of them will commit new crimes "some even worse than what they are currently serving time for", it shows how sick our society is becoming.

"Sorry we let this scum out and he killed your little girls Mrs. Johnson, but you gotta understand, we were looking for ways to save money."

I have a cost-cutting idea - Stop treating the inmates so damn well - a cell and 2 meals a day and no special conveniences and only emergency medical would be a start - make prison a place to be avoided and it will add to the deterrence effect.

[Kerberos]

Thanks for the link.

[MrLeRoy]

those let out today included men convicted of burglary, theft, arson and drug possession

<SesameStreet>Which of these is not like the others?
Which of these doesn't belong?</SesameStreet>

[bassmaner]

There are many, many nonviolent offenders who should not be in prison for their crimes.

Absolutely.

Release all possession-only prisoners of the WOD immediately, and the overcrowding problem is solved.

[bassmaner]

Which of these is not like the others? Which of these doesn't belong?

Let's hear the Holy Drug Warrior crowd's take on this Sesame Street question.

[MrLeRoy]

I wouldn't be surprised if those clowns claim that drug possession stands out as the WORST of those crimes.

[banjo joe]

doggone right. But you'll notice the money is always there for the new courhouse, the new courthouse parking deck, the new school board headquarters, office remodelling, new vehicles (check out the guy from bureau of measurements driving the 2003 Expedition), the purchase of public "art" ...

[Protagoras]

If the state only incarcerated those who are judged to be a danger to others, there would be plenty of room to keep the bad guys locked up. And if people who are locked up were sentenced to HARD time, but shorter, it would be more effective and less costly, IMO.

I would also suggest a shift in emphasis to recompense to victims instead of "paying a debt to society". No one should be allowed to get away with crime by just serving time. Serving time should be in addition to having to make recompense.

[babygene]

"Release all possession-only prisoners of the WOD immediately, and the overcrowding problem is solved."

I don't know if all the overcrowding problem is solved, but look at the numbers:

Keeping the aprox. 1 million drug possession - only prisoners in jail, costs the 80 million tax payers in this country $500 each per year. (that's at $40K per slimeo)

It's too expensive... And it acomplishes what?

[Kerberos]

"this is a scare tactic designed to cause citizens to more receptive to tax increases the Governor wants and will propose"

And that would not surprise me as it seems I have seen this tactic employed before. But then again the whole crime issue seems to, more often than note,be employed as a scare tactic.

Over the years I have noticed that politicians tend to run on the crime issue when one of two conditions are present.

1. They don't really have and issue to run on.
2. They want to avoid the real issues of the day.

It's a pretty safe tactic to run a campaign on in that you can proclaim "if you elect me I'm ,reeeeeally going to do something about crime," and it's a pretty safe bet that there's not too many town hall meetings you would go to where people would say, "I don't know, more crime is something I would like to see in our community."

I've also noticed that in some instances after being elected they actually do pass some law or measure that is targeted as being tough on crime but in the end it doesn't seem to have much of an appreciable effect. More often than not, it appears that when we do have a noticeable decrease in crime it is more due to demographic changes than anything else.

And although the governor of Kentucky in this instance is a Democrat there are other statements present throughout the article that would suggest that Republicans favor this approach as well. Most notable is the following.

” Mr. Turner, noting that most of the states making fundamental changes are controlled by Republicans”

[w1andsodidwe]

Or was it Castro?