Is prison an effective deterrent to crime?
820012
That's a very good question.  For most of society it is a good deterent, but so are the values of those same people.  The threat of prison will not deter some people from doing anything, that's a sad fact that I've seen thouands of times.  The reality is that prisons are NECESSARY because they keep criminals isolated from society and will at least prevent those who are locked up from committing crime.  Of course there are organized crime bosses who get locked up and still run things from the inside, but that's a whole different situation than your run of the mill burglar, etc.
791118
America's juvenile justice system is responsible for keeping citizens safe and rehabilitating delinquent youth. Meeting these two responsibilities has been the goal of the system since it was first implemented. The dilemma that has faced policymakers and citizens has been deciding which of the two aims should receive the most emphasis, and thus, funding. Should the state build more juvenile penitentiaries and immediately protect its citizens, or should it teach current prisoners life skills that will help them to live in such a way that they will be less likely to recapitulate (reoffend)? Or, in a separate, preventative effort, should the state use its resources to fund parenting, recreational, and mentoring programs that build up youth and enable them to make good decisions early on? In the end, the state must balance effectiveness with urgency. Preventative and rehabilitative measures have been proven time and time again to significantly lower the likelihood of a youth offending (or reoffending). However, the results of prevention and rehabilitation programs do not become apparent until years after they are begun, and few are willing to risk the immediate threat that could befall the community should funding of penitentiaries experience a shortfall while prevention and rehabilitation programs are being established. Citizens do not want to be the guinea pigs through which psychologists measure the effectiveness of their rehabilitative efforts; they want offenders locked up. But most also know a kid, or were a kid, that prevention or rehabilitation measures helped somewhere along the way.The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act called for a "deinstitutionalization" of juvenile delinquents. It required that states holding youth within adult prisons for status offenses remove them within a span of two years (this timeframe was adjusted over time). The act also provided program grants to states, based on their youth populations, and created the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).Through research into which programs have been effective - both at home and abroad - policy makers hope to develop strategies that will drop crime rates in future years. By taking the initiative to build anti-crime programs structured to fit local needs, community leaders have generated a plethora of information on which programs work, where they work, and what it takes to carry them out. Current U.S. policy aims to balance public safety with the effective rehabilitation of youth, and courts seek to individualize recommendations to fit the situations of young offenders.
745322
depends on the prison....minimum security prisons will be easier than a max. security. supermax will be better because the inmates are locked up there for 23 hrs a day, but of course you'll have the more violent offenders there.
639960
In a nutshell:\n\nPros: Helps to eliminate murderers/rapists/pedophiles. Reduces population of multiple time losers in prisons rather than rewarding them with a lifetime of free food and shelter paid for by the taxpayers. Reduces need for taxpayer-funded "rehabilitation programs" where the offender is "rehabilitated", then released to kill/rape again. Improves the gene pool. Serves as a deterrent to future criminals (and yes, it does work in other countries despite what a previous poster said, and there are statistics to back it up).\n\nCons: None except the huge supply of scum who deserve it. Occasionally an "innocent" person is put to death; but historically in the US the number of cases like that is very small, less than 1/10 of 1 percent...and with improved DNA technology this number is fast approaching zero. I put the word "innocent" in quotes because as a rule, if you are in the system, you aren't totally innocent... even if you aren't necessarily guilty of murder. Let's say the guy didn't KILL the kid, he just participated in the torture and rape part. If he's 'mistakenly' put to death don't you think he got what he deserved anyway? \n\nEven though there will always be some idiot out there willing to see if he can "get away with it", capital punishment is the single most effective crime deterrent available, despite what bleeding-heart liberals might think.\nIt is a proven fact that for every rehabilitation success story, which the liberal media glorifies at every turn, there are 1000 failures where the offender repeats the crime. Offering someone life in prison in today's justice system means offering them a life of free food, shelter, medical care, education, and the ever-present chance to escape and do it again. The death penalty insures without a doubt that they'll never do it again. Enough said.
945629
No - it does not work.  Our jails are overcrowded.  We make arrests that don't go anywhere.  We should be more concerned about the security of the USA rather than some guy smoking weed in their house.  \n\nI am Libertarian as well
663775
NO, it's not. It's absurdly expensive as the sentences are so long. There's barely any rehabilitation going on, and for the most part too many ppl are admitted for very long sentences who have not done serious crimes. Once you go through hell that most jails are you won't come out the same! And usually you won't come out a better person either! On top of that recidivism rates are extremely high when compared to other countries, i.e. in Europe. Some state prisons have recidivism rates as high as 20-30%. So no, too many do not become productive members of society again. I think there's a problem how the system works in itself, it might be successful at punishing, but not rehabilitation, in either case it should focus in prevention, and not be just a reactionary system. Some states, I think Florida and California will be soon among them if not yet, are spending more, or at least the same for education as prison systems. Now, doesn't anyone think there's something wrong with that? Right now US is jailing more than 2 million individuals... That's equivalent to a small country! There's clearly problems with the system, as well as the the way that society sees it and how they regard crime itself. EDIT: Now that I read some of the responses that makes what I said before even true, putting someone in jail as long as possible is not going to change anything! It's what he does in that jail that matters, not how long he stays there. So, if you think it's a good idea to fill the jails up with criminals, - fill them up, then build more max security prisons at 10 grand a cell, and fill those up as well, just don't come to me when it's time to pay taxes. And pray that once those criminals get out they don't come to you for anything, cause they'll be pissed. It's something to think about when you see the next politician boasting how he'll be tough on crime just cause it's an easy way to get votes, and felons can't vote, so he got nothing to loose, it's the society that does.
191239
The Criminal Justice System is designed to prevent such crimes by providing stiff penalties for those who commit them. The penalties, among other things act as a deterant for those people who would otherwise commit the crime. Other than that, no steps are taken to prevent the specific crime you are asking about.
635846
If the purpose of our prison system is incarceration, then it is doing a great job.  There are few escapes.\n\nIf the purpose of imprisonment is deterrence, then we're not doing an effective job.  Maybe we should do what the father "Red" on "That 70s Show" said was the Soviet penal system:  "First offense, they send you to Siberia for five years.  Second offense, fifteen years.  THERE ARE NO THIRD OFFENSES".\n\nIf the purpose of our current prison system is to rehabilitate criminals, it's doing exactly the opposite.  They learn better, more sophisticated criminal techniques in jail.\n\nI'm not some "soft on crime" liberal.  However, I believe that we could substitute VERY HARD PUBLIC SERVICE in lieu of jail time.\n\nBack in the Great Depression of the 1930's, unemployed people were offered jobs in the Civilian Conservation Corps or the Public Works Administration.  The projects they worked on are still enjoyed today.  Why not resurrect these types of work programs?  Just put tracking bracelet on their legs to discourage running away.\n\nGiving these people healthy, dignified work will be great rehabilitation.  With most criminals (maybe not some of the child sex offenders or rapists) you can combine punishment with rehabilitation.  We just haven't tried hard enough.
850834
It should be, but it will take a long long time.\nDuring the prohibition of alcohol, organized crime was extremely enhanced.  The only crime that dropped was spousal abuse.\nWhen you're high on pot, for example, you don't really feel like smacking anyone.  But that isn't the point.  The point is that the price will come down, our prisons will practically empty (saving tax dollars).\nOne of the strongest groups OPPOSING legalization is the prison guard union.  Illegal drugs make for more prisoners, which means more prisons and more guard jobs.\nIronically, two of the worst drugs as far as public health, alcohol and tobacco, are legal.\nThis website (started by an ex-police chief) called "Law Enforcement Against Prohibition" might interest you:  http://www.leap.cc/
20829
The Prison system shifted from being for reform to being punitive long ago, thus there has been a decrease in programs (vocation, education) in many prison systems.  \n\nPersonally, I think they should have more programs available.  Especially for non-violent drug/property crimes.
457608
your not out of line, you are entitled to your opinion\n\nbank robbers arent violent, fraudsters arent violent, fraud is on the increase especially with the internet, and recently i got my bank details swiped.\n\nThese people arent violent, but are the scurge of society, and stil need to be imprisoned for some amount of time, AND THEN SHOULD BE TAGGED PERHAPS. or need a slap....\n\nI am sure some non-violent criminals who are serving shorter sentence could be let out earlier with tagging. However Tagging doesn't stop their need for drugs once they're back outside. And crime is how they fund a daily habit. As for drug dealers many just see prison as an occupational hazard.\n \nKeeping people in prison must be costing us as tax payers an awful lot of money\n\nThe prison system would not be as critical as it is now if the law was harsher on criminals. Some sentences are too lenient and to not deter people from re-offending. Also prisons are too easy once you are in there.\n\nAll those in prison are there for a reason - ie they've done something that incurs their loss of liberty. Prison should be hard, real hard. Sentences should be served in full. Many people have been affected by crime and deserve Justice.\n\nI do not think more prison should be built, because more prison will make more prisoners, Prison often serves as a school for criminals, especially first time offenders. Build more prisons, generate more prisoners.\n\nUnless we plan to lock criminals away permanently we need to devise a more long term strategy to prevent re-offending. The government needs to use its brains rather than brawn here.
992054
It's called Safe Place...your probation officer or any state official could tell you more. It's only for a certain type of offenses and to my knowledge it's a program to scare them and let them see what's going to happen in prison if they don't change their ways.
43087
According to the figures on the source site, death penalty states have higher murder rates. So it doesn't seem to be much of a deterrent.
75457
The death penalty is not a deterrent; those who are against the death penalty claim that recent studies in the US do not support the view that capital punishment acts as a deterrent. It is also argued that anyone who would be deterred by the death penalty would already have been deterred by life in prison, and people that are not deterred by that would not be stopped by any punishment. This argument is typically supported by claims that those states that have implemented the death penalty recently have not had a reduction of violent crime. A stronger variant of this argument suggests that criminals who believe they will face the death penalty are more likely to use violence or murder to avoid capture, and that therefore the death penalty might theoretically even increase the rate of violent crime.\n\nAbove from:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty\n\nI agree, especially when the time from conviction to execution takes years.
40527
Nope. Jail is not an effective place to get clean, it's a high stress environment with very little in the way of support or education about recovery and in many facilities, it is easier to get dope than on the street.\nThere is a terrific addictions forum at http://www.prisontalk.com where you can get support, feedback and information from others who are also dealing with these issues.\nGood luck
304215
I haven't checked out the site, because my opinion is firmly developed on this subject.\n\nThose deemed guilty of a crime against society, especially a violent crime, in this day and age, are only punished by lack of freedom.  That is not sufficient penalty, in my opinion.  I believe that convicted criminals should be subject to any and all heavy labor deemed relevant to their 'repayment of society'.  \n\nIf imprisonment is to be a true deterrant to crime, it must be 'beyond horrible'.  That's not to say that we should torture, or abuse criminals, but by golly, developing a farmiliarity to HARD WORK can only help them when they get out of prison.\n\nAnd, as an example, I find it personally objectionable as a taxpayer to be paying for cable t.v. service for inmates.  Or to be providing vegetables and grains for prison consumption.  Veggies and grains should be produced by prisoners in prison farms.  \n\nInmates lifting weights all day, or earning a law degree is simply not O.K., if it's done on the backs of their law abiding fellow citizens.  Just my opinion!
738527
Yes. I've met several polite criminals and know a couple of them personally. Note that not all criminals are the type that would rob you at gunpoint, kill you or rape you. There are less violent criminals too.