I keep hearing all these compassionate Democrats complaining that too many people are behind bars. The solution? Release lots and lots of prisoners.
The leftist Washington Post reports on efforts by the Obama administration to release harmless drug offenders at the federal level:
The Justice Department is set to release about 6,000 inmates early from prison — the largest one-time release of federal prisoners — in an effort to reduce overcrowding and provide relief to drug offenders who received harsh sentences over the past three decades, according to U.S. officials.
The inmates from federal prisons nationwide will be set free by the department’s Bureau of Prisons between Oct. 30 and Nov. 2. About two-thirds of them will go to halfway houses and home confinement before being put on supervised release. About one-third are foreign citizens who will be quickly deported, officials said.
[…][Democrat Attorney General Eric]Holder supported the change, but he proposed more restrictive criteria that would exclude people who had used weapons or had significant criminal histories. But the Sentencing Commission decided to leave the decisions to individual judges.
It always seems to be the Democrats who want to release criminals and confiscate the guns of law-abiding civilians. The Republicans always want to put criminals in jail and let law-abiding civilians defend themselves.
Anyway, let’s see what happened in New York where one of these harmless drug-offenders was allowed to go free, thanks to the rules made by one of the most Democrat-dominated cities in the United States.
The Washington Times reports:
The suspect in the fatal shooting of a New York police officer was only on the street because he was not sent to jail earlier this year for dealing crack as part of a diversion program for drug offenders.
Tyrone Howard, 30, had a lengthy rap sheet featuring 28 arrests since age 13 when he pleaded guilty again in May to selling crack at an East Harlem public-housing complex. He was sentenced to two years in jail but rather than being sent behind bars, he was ordered into an outpatient drug-rehabilitation program for that period.
The diversion program is designed to reduce overcrowding in the city’s jails, and courts in New York and across the country are increasingly turning to rehabilitation and treatment options rather than incarceration for drug offenses.
[…][A] spokesman for the New York state court system said that Howard was an addict and thus should not be in jail for drug offenses.
“Actually, he’s the perfect candidate in many ways” for diversion programs, state court system spokesman David Bookstaver told The Associated Press in an interview.
[…]According to NYPD Chief of Department James O’Neill, Howard was wanted in connection with a gang-related shooting in Manhattan in September but police couldn’t find him for arrest — even though he was on supervised release for two years.Howard didn’t show up for status meetings and would not be home when investigators made repeated efforts to find him there.
An arrest warrant was issued for Howard on Sept. 21.
Howard’s long criminal record included two terms in state prison since 2007 on drug-related charges. He also was arrested in connection with a 2009 shooting, but the AP said the disposition of that case was unclear.
OK so that’s one measly case. Let’s see the aggregate numbers so we can make a real conclusion here.
This is from the radically leftist BBC:
Nearly half of prisoners released from prison go on to commit further offences, government figures indicate.
The percentage re-offending went up for the second year on a row to 49.4% – but is lower than in 2002 when 55% of prisoners committed further crimes.
The statistics show re-offending rates by women went up by four times that for men – by 16.4%, compared with 4.2%.
The National Audit Office recently found reoffending in England and Wales costs the taxpayer up to £10bn a year.
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) assesses re-offending rates by measuring the number of further offences committed by a group of criminals in England and Wales within a year of their release.
Those let out in the first three months of 2008 committed 37,178 offences within a year.
Shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve said the prison system was “dilapidated and overcrowded” and was “failing to turn offenders around”.
He said: “Half of prisoners commit another recordable offence within a year of release.
If you don’t believe the BBC, believe the peer-reviewed academic study:
This study explores the recidivism outcomes of 1,804 serious and violent delinquents sentenced under a blended sentencing statute and released early by juvenile correctional authorities without continuing their blended sentence in adult prisons. Released at an average age of 19, roughly 50% of releases were rearrested for a felony-level offense postrelease. The remaining 50% of all releases did not incur a postrelease arrest or were rearrested for an offense no higher than a misdemeanor. Measures for assaultive institutional misconduct and prior delinquent adjudications were predictive of recidivism in models examining rearrest for any offense and rearrest for a felony only. Substance abusers, gang members, those with a gang-related commitment offense, and homicide-related state commitments were significantly more likely to be rearrested for any offense postrelease. This article ends with a discussion of implications specific to this high risk cohort of released delinquent offenders.
If you really want to do something about the crime rate, then government needs to promote natural marriage and stability during parenting. That’s not what selfish adults want to hear, but it is what works to lower crime rates. Instead of paying women to have fatherless babies outside of marriage, we should pay them to get married and have kids and stay together to raise the kids. That’s what REALLY lowers the crime rates, and empties the prisons. It probably doesn’t help that we are throwing pastors out of the prisons, either.
Look. We all have to decide whether we have more sympathy for convicted criminals, or whether we have more sympathy for law-abiding taxpayers. Democrats are there to serve the criminals: give them goodies and disarm their victims. Republicans are there to serve the law-abiding taxpayers, and let them defend themselves from criminals. Please vote accordingly.