Slashdot Mirror

Oh? Then cite 5 comprehensive studies saying so.

Here you go:
1. Lowering recidivism through family communication
2. The family and recidivism
3. Family ties during imprisonment
4. The effect of family visits on inmates
5. Rethinking recidivism: A communication approach

Of course, in China they often times don't end up in jail but just disappear. No one knows - officially - what happens. There are at least 125,000 not officially jailed, but being re-educated. In prisons that are forced labor camps.

Focusing on the private prison industry (8% of total prisoners in the U.S.) is ignoring the bigger problem: prison guard unions support the same measures that increase prison population and they're much, much larger and politically more powerful. According to this article police and prison guard groups were responsible for about half of money raised to oppose legalizing recreational marijuana in California.

You still have the right to an unmonitored attorney vist.

Sure you do. And prosecutors turn over Brady material. Tell me another one.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/2601...
https://www.prisonlegalnews.or...
https://www.apnews.com/846bd29...

Studies have consistently found that prisoners who maintain close contact with their family members while incarcerated have better post-release outcomes and lower recidivism rates. These findings represent a body of research stretching back over 40 years. For example, according to “Explorations in Inmate-Family Relationships,” a 1972 study: “The central finding of this research is the strong and consistent positive relationship that exists between parole success and maintaining strong family ties while in prison. Only 50 percent of the ‘no contact’ inmates completed their first year on parole without being arrested, while 70 percent of those with three visitors were ‘arrest free’ during this period. In addition, the ‘loners’ were six times more likely to wind up back in prison during the first year (12 percent returned compared to 2 percent for those with three or more visitors). For all Base Expectancy levels, we found that those who maintained closer ties performed more satisfactorily on parole.” https://www.prisonlegalnews.or...

Let's examine the real public health crisis. It is a simple matter of fact that jail is bad for your health. In fact, being arrested is bad for your health even if you don't end up going to jail as a consequence. It is also very, very bad for your economic health, as being arrested or sent to jail can cause you to lose your job and your insurance and can lead to the separation and breakup of families, which provide a robust basis for a healthy and productive life. Yet the United States in general, and Utah in particular, seem to lead the world in their persecution -- sorry, I mean "prosecution" of victimless crimes. To quote from Edward Gibbons and "The Tragedy of Victimless Crimes: https://www.prisonlegalnews.or... ,

Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigor of penal law is obliged to give way to the common feelings of mankind – Edward Gibbon from “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”

The governor of Utah needs to get a grip. Purchasing pornography produced by consenting adults (or nowadays, often provided for free by consenting adults on the Internet) is an utterly victimless "crime" as no one is harmed by it. Masturbation is not a crime, and if anything it is probably good for you, if perhaps lonely. The making of ANY pornography without the consent of those portrayed or by violating already existing laws against child abuse or assault is already a crime, but much less so for the person purchasing it or owning it (who may be in no position to verify its provenance). Furthermore, it is already a crime right where it needs to be -- a crime committed by the maker of the pornographic image, a crime committed by a KNOWING redistributor of that image, where it is no more the responsibility of the owner or purchaser to validate an image's provenance than it is for the buyer of a car or cell phone to ascertain whether or not it was ever stolen.

Sending somebody to jail for looking at pornography so that they can -- with an appallingly high probability -- be raped, physically abused, and turned into actual criminals in our unbelievably poorly managed, expensive, and dangerous prison system as a public health issue is beyond any joke. Why don't we just cut off their hands and blind them? That way they could never again damage their health by looking at naked persons and/or causing themselves to have an orgasm while doing so. Oh, wait! That's close to what they already do in some of the most repressive regimes on the planet! Congrats to Utah for wanting to join them.

In the meantime, let's not forget the comparative health risk of possessing a pound of pot and going to jail for five years for the "crime" of possessing a pound of pot, the health risk of marrying someone of your own sex as compared to going to prison for marrying someone of your own sex, removing your bra in public versus going to jail for removing your bra in public, and so on down the line. We actively damage the health of anyone who is arrested, ever, at least statistically, but because there is a burgeoning private prison industry in the US that profits enormously from being paid to keep these dangerous criminals incarcerated and lobbies and quietly bribes accordingly to ensure an adequate supply of criminals to keep them in clover, nobody cares.

Maybe nobody DOES care. But still, dressing up an utterly victimless anti-pornography religious moral crusade as a health issue, that's just wrong. Go on and say it the way it really is, Governor. It isn't about "health", it is about God's Will and the Commandments. It's about an absurd religious mythology, imposed on others with the force of law using "health" as no more than an excuse, carefully avoiding any look at the already enormous public health burden of the millions of Americans who have been arrested and incarcerated and hence rendered virtually unemployable and uninsurable, all for committing crimes that are not, in fact, actual crimes.

rgb

According to many legal experts, the driving force behind this change is an increase in prosecutorial power. Through the use of mandatory minimums and other sentencing enhancements, the power to sentence convicted defendants is passing from judges to prosecutors as legislators continue to pass laws that remove judges’ sentencing discretion but allow prosecutors to decide whether to charge defendants under harsh or more lenient statutes. The effect of these changes has been to increase the risk exposure of defendants going to trial, which creates a greater coercive effect for them to agree to plea bargains.

“Judges have lost discretion, and that discretion has accumulated in the hands of prosecutors, who now have the ultimate ability to shape the outcome,” stated University of Utah law professor Paul Cassell, who was formerly a conservative federal judge and prosecutor. “With mandatory minimums and other sentencing enhancements out there, prosecutors can often dictate the sentence that will be imposed.”

“We now have an incredible concentration of power in the hands of prosecutors,” noted former Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard E. Myers II, an associate professor of law at the University of North Carolina. He added that the scales of justice have been tipped so heavily in the prosecution’s favor that, “in the wrong hands, the criminal justice system can be held hostage.”

According to some experts this has already occurred, resulting in a dramatic reduction in the percentage of cases being tried by a jury. Since 1977 the ratio of federal criminal defendants who opt for a jury trial has decreased from one in four cases (25%) to one in thirty-two (about 3%).

So how many innocent people do you think our existing system will protect under these circumstances? "Your honor, the officers observed the suspect and with the same chin profile as captured in the video of the person we think left the crime scene. Genetic evidence and face recognition software shows that the accused has an identical chin. This objective scientific evidence refutes the biased testimony of the family and co-workers who claimed that the suspect was either at home or work when the crime occurred. If you let them free then you or your children will be the next victim of this horrific predator. The least we can do is give then 20 years to life. If they had any sense of guilt or remorse they would have taken our offer of five years in jail."

Think I am exaggerating? From the article:

One example is that of Orville Wollard of Polk County, Florida, who fired a handgun into the wall of his house to scare his daughter’s boyfriend into leaving. Wollard claimed that he was merely protecting his family from the boyfriend, whom he said was a violent drug dealer who had repeatedly threatened them. He also denied any intent to hurt the boyfriend. Therefore, he refused a plea bargain for five years of probation, and demanded a jury trial.

In 2009, Wollard was convicted of aggravated assault. Because the crime involved the discharge of a firearm he received a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years. In a sentencing hearing statement, Wollard said he felt like he was living in “some banana republic.” The judge sympathized, saying that were if not for the mandatory minimum he would impose a different sentence, but that he was “duty bound” to impose 20 years in prison.

We've already experienced private police forces; they're called mob enforcers.

I recall hearing about the BSA, with federal marshals in tow, raiding private businesses in search of unlicensed software. I don't know how that came out.

And something interesting along the lines of private police and prison forces:

https://www.prisonlegalnews.or...

When the subject came up elsewhere, someone noted that Montana has a law prohibiting private police forces.

(I find it hilarious that this was in Hardin, where you can hire a hitman for five bucks.)