Released prisoners are dangerous, comments about

Had a quick look over your site and I found it very disappointing that you choose to misinform people about justice issues.

Criminology is a science not a guessing game. I'd suggest you take the time to learn the facts. For example, you can't compare ex prisoner offending rates (who are under correctional supervision) to the 'average person' (who has generally little chance of being caught).

If you want to keep prisoners locked up for more time, then they will still be released sometime; so are you not just delaying the inevitable?

Also, there is absolutely no relationship whatsoever between the the type OR length of punishment and crime rates and the number of people in prison. Until you realise this, the argument is futile. If 6 years doesn't deter a rapist, 10 won't either. People do not think they are going to get caught so why would they consider the penalty??

All the evidence now points to properly targeted rehabilitation efforts reducing recidivism by up to 50%. The more prisons you build, the more prisoners you will have.

Response:

Since you are a criminologist, I'll examine your statements carefully. Criminologists are specialists in crime statistics. They spend years in college majoring in criminology. They are the ones that we the public should be able to turn to for answers on how to reduce violent crime. But many criminologists generally work as professors in universities in the Social Science divisions. Close to 100 percent of professors in Social Science divisions vote for democratic candidates, or whatever you call the liberal candidates in Australia. Their bias is for the underdog, which includes criminals in prison. They believe in rehabilitation rather than punishment. They have sympathy for the criminals rather than for the general public. So I'm not surprised that you challenge the statistics showing that released prisoners commit 54 times as much violent crime as the general population. I'll answer each of your comments individually.

YOUR COMMENT THAT THE COMPARISON IS NOT PERFECT

This Web Page compares the violent crime rate of average citizens to the crime rate of parolees during the first year of their release, and finds that parolees commit 54 times more violent crime than average citizens.

You are right in saying that it's not a perfect comparison because parolees are more apt to be caught than average citizens, which would appear to make their crime rate look higher.

But this would be more than offset by the fact that the crimes committed by the released criminals are included in the crimes reported for the average citizen. The study that the recidivism figures are based on, represents more than half of all the inmates released in the United States in 1983. It is obvious that if all the criminals were removed from the crime rate for the general public, then the public's crime rate would be zero. Likewise, if the crimes committed by the 50 percent of the criminals represented by this study, were removed from the figures of the general public, then the general public's crime rate would be substantially less than was reported. By having a much lower crime rate for the average citizen, that would make the comparison with the released prisoners much greater than 54 times.

This would more than offset the tendency in the other direction that you mentioned. So, it's fair to say that the comparison is valid and would be even higher than 54 times, if it were possible to remove the released inmate's crimes from the figures of the general public.

The fact that during 1983, when the public committed 539 violent crimes (per 100,000 population), and the released inmates in this study committed 29,081 violent crimes, shows how unfair it is to the public, to release criminals into society before their sentence is completed.

__________________________________________________

YOUR COMMENT THAT MY RECOMMENDATIONS JUST DELAY THE INEVITABLE

You say we're just delaying the inevitable when we keep inmates locked up for their full term, because they're going to get out eventually. It's true that they are all going to get out sometime. But one of the best predictors of recidivism is the age of the inmate at the time of release. Table 8 of the BJS 2002 study shows:

Age at Percent reconvicted
release within three years

17 or younger      56%
18-24                  52
25-29                  50
30-34                  49
35-39                  46
40-44                  38
45 or older          30

Above from: Table 8
Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994
BJS (June, 2002)
http://www.members.aol.com/dpen98/recidivism_study_bjs_1994.pdf
Or
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf

This shows that the longer they're kept in prison, the less likely they are to commit new crimes when they get out.

Younger offenders are more likely than older offenders to commit new crimes. This finding is consistent with other research that has found that older offenders are less likely to recidivate with some suggesting that offenders tend to mature out of crime' as they age.

So society gets two benefits of keeping criminal in prison for their full sentence. One, they can't commit new crimes while they're in prison. Two, when they do get out, they commit fewer crimes because they are older.

____________________________________________

YOUR COMMENT THAT LONGER SENTENCES ARE NOT A DETERRENT

You say that longer sentences are not a greater deterrent than shorter sentences.

Deterrence is not the only purpose of incarceration. Punishment is another purpose, and a longer sentence is greater punishment than a shorter sentence.

Also, in a major BJS study that analyzed the recidivism rates of three-forths of the released prisoners in 1994, they found that the inmates that had been incarcerated for five years or more, had a lower rate of recidivism when they got out, than those that had been in prison for less than five years. Here is what they found:

Table 13. Rate of rearrest of 162,218

State prisoners released in 1994, by time served in prison

Time served % rearrested within
in prison 3 years

6 months or less               65%
7-12 months                     68
13-18                               64
19-24                               65
25-30                               68
31-36                               63
37-60                               63
61 months or more            54

Above from: Table 13
Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994
BJS (June, 2002)
http://www.members.aol.com/dpen98/recidivism_study_bjs_1994.pdf
or
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf

Also, your belief that longer sentences are not a greater deterrent than shorter sentences, seems to go against common sense. I won't dig up statistics for this, but it's strange that you don't believe that more serious crimes should receive harsher sentences. Common sense says that a life sentence would deter more crime than a week in the county jail. Isn't there a term for this -- something like "proportional sentencing?"

_______________________________________________________________

YOUR COMMENT THAT REHABILITATION IS PREFERABLE TO INCARCERATION

You say that rehabilitation efforts can reduce recidivism by up to 50 percent.

Almost all good studies of rehabilitation programs for the last 100 years have shown that the recidivism rates of those going through rehabilitation programs are no better than those for the inmates that haven't been through rehabilitation programs.

If you know of ANY studies of rehabilitation programs that resulted in a significant reduction in the recidivism rate compared to the other inmates, then I would like to know about it. My requirements for the studies are: 1. The studies should be the original studies, not a review by someone else. 2. The documentation should show the methodology, results, analysis of the data, and conclusion. 3. Hopefully the studies would be available on the Web so everyone can judge for themselves if the studies appear to be objective and scientific.

I've provided many references to scientific studies that can be viewed on the Web. Until you or someone refers me to scientific studies that prove otherwise, I'll believe the evidence that shows that rehabilitation efforts do NOT work.

Subj: Parole
Date: 4/3/01 12:31:06 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: Mikeypoo43
To: Dpen98

Stopping parole is not the answer, my heart goes out to you for it sounds like whom ever you be, your very angry. And I'm not to suggest your anger is without cause. Dont you think that the government sanctions of the department of alcohol, tabacco and firearms are partly to blame here. You say there should not be parole boards, yet you dont speak so much about the eliments which put a human being in prison to begin with. But with your discription of where the problem lies, it sounds very narrow and the world is larger than that.

I'm a victim of child abuse and at 44 years old I am still in treatment for my condition. Some people are emotionally unstable and cant make rational decisions and it is not always there fault. As adults it is easy to say, well he or she put there own self there. I disagree. Thanks for reading.

Subj: Parole
Date: 7/24/00 6:16:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: Geomenger
To: Dpen98

I'm in total agreement that parole boards should be eliminated and sentences served as given because of a parole system that allows criminals to be released only to commit crimes again. The so called "three strikes and you're in forever" should be upheld. Instead, all we have is rhetoric from you politician and legislators.

My daughter was murdered on June 13, 2000 by a convicted murder that served 25 years, was paroled 8 months ago, did not report to his parole officer, had no monitoring device, had a pistol in his possession, used and sold drugs and had a phone bill full of 900 numbers. Just the type of person you'd love having live next door to you.

The Parole boards are mindless people who have no accountability for putting thousands of criminals back on the streets to pray on society. That's why I support the death penalty. If this murderer had been put to death for killing a person 25 years ago rather than spending 25 years behind bars with hardened criminals only to be released, my daughter would still be alive today. Until murderers are kept behind bars for life with no chance for parole, I will support the death penalty.

Subj: What color is the sky in your world, I know it's not blue!
Date: 6/11/00
From: Amazonbilbo@aol.com
To: dpen98@aol.com

Are violent crimes committed by parolees, yes, unfortunately they are. Are these acts committed by previously violent individuals, yes, However some very real and important information of which you should be aware is that over 60% of all prisoners in this country at this point in time are NONVIOLENT offenders, many wrongly convicted by perjured testimony, or informants paid by the justice system pointing an accusing finger with no physical evidence whatsoever. To blindly support a complete ban on parole due to the fact some parolees do commit violent acts upon release is equivalent to using two or three pounds of plastic explosives to kill mice or roaches. Those nonviolent offenders who have been excessively sentenced (due to various, state and federal, sentencing commissions) deserve the right to return to society and resume their lives, care for their children (rather than the kids relying on welfare as when the parent is incarcerated), work and pay taxes rather than being a drain on the overburdened taxpayers of this country. People do make mistakes, learn from them, and go on to be productive members of society. However, now the criminal justice system does not permit anyone who has made a mistake a second chance. They blindly sentence anyone accused of things which should not even be crimes to terms in correctional facilities that stagger the reasonable mind.

Furthermore, what about those who are wrongly convicted, and this occurs with far more regularity than the public, and probably you, care to admit. Look at the example of the Supreme Court decision that sealed the fate of a Texas prisoner, execution for a crime he did not commit. As Justice Renquist stated in his opinion: "Actual innocence shall not be bar to the upholding of an otherwise proper conviction." Can any reasonable human being explain to me how, if evidence is presented (post-conviction) that unequivocally establishes actual and factual innocence, how is a conviction "otherwise proper"?

I extend to you my deepest sympathies if your life has been damaged by an act of violent crime, this should not happen to anyone I agree. Unfortunately, our lives do not come with guarantees, and to harbor so much hatred and vengeance against those who are not capable of reasonable or rational actions, violent criminals, I fear that you will destroy not only yourself, but also the families of those prisoners who are convicted of Nonviolent crimes. The sad thing is that politicians (such as Va.'s former Governor George Allen) prey upon the public's misguided fears. The crime rate has been declining steadily since 1993, but the politicians want you to know they are "tough on crime" and it can be hard to be "tough" on something that is becoming less of a reality. Check the facts!

I am a recently released prisoner who was incarcerated for 5 years for a first time nonviolent drug charge. I had never had anything more serious than a speeding ticket, and I was 40 years old at the time of my conviction. Punishment, yes I deserved that, but 5 years was ludicrous. For 4 1/2 years I drained the public coffers, wasted all of my talents that over the past 30 years have contributed to making our society a better place. I have volunteered more times than I can possibly remember for causes a varied as environmental issues to GI benefits for Viet Nam Veterans, I also support myself by working in the automotive service industry and earn a good living. I pay taxes on this living as a responsible citizen should, but now I no longer have the right to vote for those who will decide how those tax dollars are spent.

While I was in prison my only child, my daughter was killed by a drunk driver on a lonely Oregon country road. Because her funeral was out of my state I was not permitted to say good-bye to my little girl. The man who took my daughter's life received 3 months in a local jail and one year of probation. Were I like you, I would have let my bitterness consume me, and I most likely would have never been released from prison. How would that served the memory of my daughter? How does keeping the man responsible in prison for the rest of his life reverse the results of his careless act? What about the fact I was in prison for 5 years for a Nonviolent act, and he spent 90 days in a local jail (which translates to 45 days by the way) for killing my daughter? Where is the justice in this situation, where is the equity, right, they are no where to be seen.

I can dwell on this and allow what occurred to destroy my mind and my life, or I can move on and make my daughter proud of what I will accomplish over the remainder of my life which I have dedicated to her. So much for the personal aspect of this missive. The point is that a closed minded, bitter and vengeful attitude such as yours does, in the long run, more damage to far more lives than the violent crime you state you so earnestly wish to eliminate. Food for thought, please enjoy a rewarding feast.

Received 6/5/00
Why are they going back to what put them in prison, to begin with?
Could it be because the criminals are only being housed and not rehabilitated?
Is it also because they are being punished for their offense but are not receiving any kind of counseling?