This article is mainly how we are reducing sentencing and punishment in the criminal justice system and a big portion of this contributed is by "The Sentencing Project", which is a Project based in Washington D.C. using research to decrease incarceration rates and address racial disparities. They say in the article that the results found that it will take 75 years to half the prison population which is, in my opinion, is way too long and we should focus our study on trying to lower the population quicker. For example, we should try to reduce the prison population by getting the people who are in prison for petty crimes such as possession convictions, For example Marijuana, if you are caught with Marijuana twice you get a sentence minimum to a year, in my opinion that is ridiculous because yes twice is worse than once but for me I don't think it takes more than a year for someone to learn that they did wrong and not to do it again. I don't understand how someone can get away with less prison time for sexual assault but something such as, I know bringing it up again, marijuana possession. I am a strong supporter that some people don't deserve to be locked up for years for a small crime, doesn't mean that I don't think that they should be punished to some extent because yes, in fact, they did do a crime and need to serve a punishment but most of these punishments are too cruel. For example why is Marijuana considered a schedule one offense while drugs that can literally kill you are classified as schedule two drug? Yes Marijuana is an addictive drug but it has no negative effect on people that can kill them such as crack, steroids, opioid, etc. There are plenty stuff we could change that would dramatically change our prison sentencing policy but someone has to take charge for this to be implemented. -z33 711
I agree with you 75 years is a very significant amount of time to reduce the prison population in half. But it is a step in the right direction for attempting to make this country a better place. I agree we need to stop charging people and giving them jail for petty drug crimes, just give them a fine or probation and let them move on with their life. I think it is ridiculous that some people get more time for drugs, then a sex offender or a theft. This country has some serious work to do with the criminal justice system, but we are going in the right direction! I-Like-Cereal711
I think the reduction in prisons is needed. The prison population is overflowing and we have way to many people in jails and prisons. We are sentencing people and putting them in jail for having a little bit of weed, or coke on them. I don't think individuals needed to be locked up in prison for 7 years if they have five grams of weed on them. Over the past years we have seen a steady decline in some states prison population. Mississippi, Rhode Island, and South Carolina have shown other states, that reducing prison and jail populations will not endanger the public. Like I said we have a ton of people in jail for basically harmless crimes, and they just messed up and did something stupid. 23,646 is the total amount of reduction of the prison populations. While this number is not a high and significant amount, it is a step in the right direction. You have to start somewhere. America's jails and prisons populations are on the steady decline, we are not out of the woods yet. The article states that it would take up to 75 years to completely cut the prison population in half. Now we will never get rid of the prison population because there are people out there that need to be locked away forever for the crimes they committed. I dont think a prison sentence should even be considered, if you get caught with drugs. I think that you should just be put probation, and live life on strict rules. If you break probation then you should be put in jail because obviously you didn't learn the first time. We still have a very long way to go to make the countries prison populations look better, but we are on the path. If officials just keep working on the system and getting rid of the flaws. I-Like-Cereal711
I absolutely agree with you that the prison population has gotten out of control. We put people in jail for such a small thing. It did not hurt anyone but yet they are locked up. Like the example you gave people are being put in jail because they had a little bit of weed. That little bit of weed did not hurt anyone or kill anyone, but now that person has to sit in jail. People do not need to be sitting in jail for 7 years because they had 5 grams of weed. I think that they should get a big fine or maybe some jail time but not 7 years. ClarkKent711
I think that reduction in prison is very much needed. Right now we are already spending around 80 billion dollars on prisons a year and 182 billion dollars on mass incarceration. So i do think that it is smart to reduce prisoner in prison. I think that the steps that Connecticut, Michigan, Mississippi, Rhode Island, and South Carolina, are taking the proper steps in the right direction and creating a path for the rest of the states to follow and their progress should be sign to the rest of the united states that it is possible to do this and not endanger the public. If it working then why not continue it in the rest of the states. Because they have already decreased their prison systems by 23,646 fewer people in prison with no adverse effects on public safety. That would also help the billions of dollars a year that we pay for all of then to be in their and we know that that money could go to a more beneficial cause and we could potentially get something out of. Think what could happen to California if they started this, they could possibly put that extra money toward their educational system. I think that 75 years to reduce the country’s prison population by half would be a long time but we need to start somewhere and then that can give our kids a better future because right now that 75 years is just going to go up it we wait and don’t try. If it does become successful then we could use like I said early the money for creating a better educational systems, redoing roads, or other needs that need to be dealt with the states could use the money to fix and also enhance and make systems more efficient for the people. -mmmChicken711
The title of the article does a good job of pulling people into read something interesting rather than misinforming like a basic news report. “Five States Prove that ‘Substantial’ Cuts in Prison Populations Are No Pipe Dream.” No sugar coating only a blunt and true statement. The article targets the fact that only five states have reduced their prison populations by only a small fraction. When the public hears Prison Reduction they assume it is in large mass, but in all reality just as the title says Prison reduction is no Pipe Dream. The biggest statement that stood out to me was the following, “it would take seventy-five years to reduce the country’s prison population by half- and while 42 states have experienced declines from their peak prison populations, twenty of these declines are less than five percent.” Anyway, what all of that is trying to say is: we need to reduce prison populations. The main thing I’m focused on is that if we do what those five states are doing, we can cut spending for prisoners both from the government and us. Food cost, care, etc., are costs the government puts in, plus us putting money in so prisoners can afford things within prison walls. As I-Like-Cereal711 said in his response “We still have a very long way to go to make the country’s prison populations look better, but we are on the path. If officials just keep working on the system and getting rid of the flaws." -tanlion_nala711
I think it is a good thing that the number of women in the law enforcement are rising. Its really proving that the law enforncement agencies are being more equal towards women. I do not think it was fair to women when the law enforcement was male dominant and they didnt really hire women. The article states that “the percent of female sworn officers increased from 1998 to 2008 in 10 of the 13 largest federal law enforcement agencies.” This shows how much the United States are becoming more accepting about women being in law enforcement. With the law enforcement being male dominant its making women work even hard to get into the field. Which maybe one day women numbers can be right up there with the men. The article also stated that “from 1987 to 2007, state police departments also increased the percent of sworn officers who were women, but at a slower rate than the local police departments.” I wonder why it was a slower rate for them to hire women? Do you think it had something to do with it being state and local? I think women should be able to whatever job they want and should not be held back because of the job being male dominant. Just as for men if they wanted to do a women dominated job they should be able to. It should take the same effort and experince to get into a job. For example, if there was a male and a female going for a postion in the law enforcement field, back then it would be more likely for the male to be picked for the job just because he was a male. Now it would be more fair on how they decided who got the job. Therefore I think it is awesome that the women rates are coming and hopefully we become even if not higher than the males. -ny711
This article is mainly how we are reducing sentencing and punishment in the criminal justice system and a big portion of this contributed is by "The Sentencing Project", which is a Project based in Washington D.C. using research to decrease incarceration rates and address racial disparities. They say in the article that the results found that it will take 75 years to half the prison population which is, in my opinion, is way too long and we should focus our study on trying to lower the population quicker. For example, we should try to reduce the prison population by getting the people who are in prison for petty crimes such as possession convictions, For example Marijuana, if you are caught with Marijuana twice you get a sentence minimum to a year, in my opinion that is ridiculous because yes twice is worse than once but for me I don't think it takes more than a year for someone to learn that they did wrong and not to do it again. I don't understand how someone can get away with less prison time for sexual assault but something such as, I know bringing it up again, marijuana possession. I am a strong supporter that some people don't deserve to be locked up for years for a small crime, doesn't mean that I don't think that they should be punished to some extent because yes, in fact, they did do a crime and need to serve a punishment but most of these punishments are too cruel. For example why is Marijuana considered a schedule one offense while drugs that can literally kill you are classified as schedule two drug? Yes Marijuana is an addictive drug but it has no negative effect on people that can kill them such as crack, steroids, opioid, etc. There are plenty stuff we could change that would dramatically change our prison sentencing policy but someone has to take charge for this to be implemented.
ReplyDelete-z33 711
I agree with you 75 years is a very significant amount of time to reduce the prison population in half. But it is a step in the right direction for attempting to make this country a better place. I agree we need to stop charging people and giving them jail for petty drug crimes, just give them a fine or probation and let them move on with their life. I think it is ridiculous that some people get more time for drugs, then a sex offender or a theft. This country has some serious work to do with the criminal justice system, but we are going in the right direction!
DeleteI-Like-Cereal711
I think the reduction in prisons is needed. The prison population is overflowing and we have way to many people in jails and prisons. We are sentencing people and putting them in jail for having a little bit of weed, or coke on them. I don't think individuals needed to be locked up in prison for 7 years if they have five grams of weed on them. Over the past years we have seen a steady decline in some states prison population. Mississippi, Rhode Island, and South Carolina have shown other states, that reducing prison and jail populations will not endanger the public. Like I said we have a ton of people in jail for basically harmless crimes, and they just messed up and did something stupid. 23,646 is the total amount of reduction of the prison populations. While this number is not a high and significant amount, it is a step in the right direction. You have to start somewhere. America's jails and prisons populations are on the steady decline, we are not out of the woods yet. The article states that it would take up to 75 years to completely cut the prison population in half. Now we will never get rid of the prison population because there are people out there that need to be locked away forever for the crimes they committed. I dont think a prison sentence should even be considered, if you get caught with drugs. I think that you should just be put probation, and live life on strict rules. If you break probation then you should be put in jail because obviously you didn't learn the first time. We still have a very long way to go to make the countries prison populations look better, but we are on the path. If officials just keep working on the system and getting rid of the flaws.
ReplyDeleteI-Like-Cereal711
I absolutely agree with you that the prison population has gotten out of control. We put people in jail for such a small thing. It did not hurt anyone but yet they are locked up. Like the example you gave people are being put in jail because they had a little bit of weed. That little bit of weed did not hurt anyone or kill anyone, but now that person has to sit in jail. People do not need to be sitting in jail for 7 years because they had 5 grams of weed. I think that they should get a big fine or maybe some jail time but not 7 years. ClarkKent711
DeleteI think that reduction in prison is very much needed. Right now we are already spending around 80 billion dollars on prisons a year and 182 billion dollars on mass incarceration. So i do think that it is smart to reduce prisoner in prison. I think that the steps that Connecticut, Michigan, Mississippi, Rhode Island, and South Carolina, are taking the proper steps in the right direction and creating a path for the rest of the states to follow and their progress should be sign to the rest of the united states that it is possible to do this and not endanger the public. If it working then why not continue it in the rest of the states. Because they have already decreased their prison systems by 23,646 fewer people in prison with no adverse effects on public safety. That would also help the billions of dollars a year that we pay for all of then to be in their and we know that that money could go to a more beneficial cause and we could potentially get something out of. Think what could happen to California if they started this, they could possibly put that extra money toward their educational system. I think that 75 years to reduce the country’s prison population by half would be a long time but we need to start somewhere and then that can give our kids a better future because right now that 75 years is just going to go up it we wait and don’t try. If it does become successful then we could use like I said early the money for creating a better educational systems, redoing roads, or other needs that need to be dealt with the states could use the money to fix and also enhance and make systems more efficient for the people. -mmmChicken711
ReplyDeleteThe title of the article does a good job of pulling people into read something interesting rather than misinforming like a basic news report. “Five States Prove that ‘Substantial’ Cuts in Prison Populations Are No Pipe Dream.” No sugar coating only a blunt and true statement. The article targets the fact that only five states have reduced their prison populations by only a small fraction. When the public hears Prison Reduction they assume it is in large mass, but in all reality just as the title says Prison reduction is no Pipe Dream. The biggest statement that stood out to me was the following, “it would take seventy-five years to reduce the country’s prison population by half- and while 42 states have experienced declines from their peak prison populations, twenty of these declines are less than five percent.” Anyway, what all of that is trying to say is: we need to reduce prison populations. The main thing I’m focused on is that if we do what those five states are doing, we can cut spending for prisoners both from the government and us. Food cost, care, etc., are costs the government puts in, plus us putting money in so prisoners can afford things within prison walls. As I-Like-Cereal711 said in his response “We still have a very long way to go to make the country’s prison populations look better, but we are on the path. If officials just keep working on the system and getting rid of the flaws."
ReplyDelete-tanlion_nala711
I think it is a good thing that the number of women in the law enforcement are rising. Its really proving that the law enforncement agencies are being more equal towards women. I do not think it was fair to women when the law enforcement was male dominant and they didnt really hire women. The article states that “the percent of female sworn officers increased from 1998 to 2008 in 10 of the 13 largest federal law enforcement agencies.” This shows how much the United States are becoming more accepting about women being in law enforcement. With the law enforcement being male dominant its making women work even hard to get into the field. Which maybe one day women numbers can be right up there with the men. The article also stated that “from 1987 to 2007, state police departments also increased the percent of sworn officers who were women, but at a slower rate than the local police departments.” I wonder why it was a slower rate for them to hire women? Do you think it had something to do with it being state and local? I think women should be able to whatever job they want and should not be held back because of the job being male dominant. Just as for men if they wanted to do a women dominated job they should be able to. It should take the same effort and experince to get into a job. For example, if there was a male and a female going for a postion in the law enforcement field, back then it would be more likely for the male to be picked for the job just because he was a male. Now it would be more fair on how they decided who got the job. Therefore I think it is awesome that the women rates are coming and hopefully we become even if not higher than the males.
ReplyDelete-ny711