Full Version: US Prison population hits new high
Guardian Article, 1 March 2008
The prison system in the USA is locking more people up than ever before, which is (naturally) costing more than ever before. Despite tight budgets, states and the Federal government show little inclination to jail fewer criminals, and public opinion would seem to support such policies.
However, the stark dilemma faced by California over prison funding indicates that the current mindset over penal policy in the USA is not sustainable without a sizeable increase in spending, meaning slashed programs elsewhere or increased taxation.
What is driving the increasing prison population in the USA? Is there a crime epidemic, a public mood of retribution, or something else?
What policies need to be instituted to resolve the problem? Could alternatives to custodial sentences be better used? Should some illegal activities be legalised?[/b]
QUOTE
The number of prisoners in federal and local jails grew to 2.3 million, out of the country's adult population of 229.8 million, which gives a ratio of one in 99 adults behind bars.
<snip>
Thirteen states now spend more than $1bn (£503m) each on what they call corrections.
<snip>
California remains the biggest spender, with total costs rising to $9bn.
The outpouring has forced the state's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to slash other public services including schools with cuts that education leaders have warned could decimate the state's school system.
<snip>
Thirteen states now spend more than $1bn (£503m) each on what they call corrections.
<snip>
California remains the biggest spender, with total costs rising to $9bn.
The outpouring has forced the state's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to slash other public services including schools with cuts that education leaders have warned could decimate the state's school system.
The prison system in the USA is locking more people up than ever before, which is (naturally) costing more than ever before. Despite tight budgets, states and the Federal government show little inclination to jail fewer criminals, and public opinion would seem to support such policies.
However, the stark dilemma faced by California over prison funding indicates that the current mindset over penal policy in the USA is not sustainable without a sizeable increase in spending, meaning slashed programs elsewhere or increased taxation.
What is driving the increasing prison population in the USA? Is there a crime epidemic, a public mood of retribution, or something else?
What policies need to be instituted to resolve the problem? Could alternatives to custodial sentences be better used? Should some illegal activities be legalised?[/b]
Insane laws are the real reason Julian- simple drug possession and small time dealers make the bulk of our prison population, and it is seriously stupid. I mean, we have passed Russia and China in prison population by percentage of the population? Man, that should make us really rethink how free a society we truly are! 
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/prison.htm
The U.S. nonviolent prisoner population is larger than the combined populations of Wyoming and Alaska.
Source: John Irwin, Ph. D., Vincent Schiraldi, and Jason Ziedenberg, America's One Million Nonviolent Prisoners (Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 1999), pg. 4.
We could pretty much empty over half the prisons in the US, just by getting rid of non-violent, non-property, no direct victim prisoners.
In Alaska- it is just as insane. We are literally letting violent offenders go so we can house more non-violent, non-theft related drug offenders.
Given a pot dealer and a pedophile on the streets- which would you rather have in the community?
It is the religious right that drives 110% of this issue, and it has no basis in logic or reality whatsoever. Simply decriminalizing drugs would empty our prisons, leaving many more resources to deal with REAL bad guys.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/prison.htm
The U.S. nonviolent prisoner population is larger than the combined populations of Wyoming and Alaska.
Source: John Irwin, Ph. D., Vincent Schiraldi, and Jason Ziedenberg, America's One Million Nonviolent Prisoners (Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 1999), pg. 4.
We could pretty much empty over half the prisons in the US, just by getting rid of non-violent, non-property, no direct victim prisoners.
In Alaska- it is just as insane. We are literally letting violent offenders go so we can house more non-violent, non-theft related drug offenders.
Given a pot dealer and a pedophile on the streets- which would you rather have in the community?
It is the religious right that drives 110% of this issue, and it has no basis in logic or reality whatsoever. Simply decriminalizing drugs would empty our prisons, leaving many more resources to deal with REAL bad guys.
What is driving the increasing prison population in the USA? Is there a crime epidemic, a public mood of retribution, or something else?
A "public mood of retribution" sounds harsh, but I guess there's some truth to it. The public supports long sentences, especially for repeat offenders. California's Three Strikes law was passed by a public referendum. While there are some horror stories about people whose third strike was something trivial, I think it's generally a good thing to lock away career criminals for a long time.
I think there's a good case to be made that the reason crime rates have been falling is that we're locking away the most dangerous repeat offenders for longer periods.
What policies need to be instituted to resolve the problem? Could alternatives to custodial sentences be better used? Should some illegal activities be legalised?
I think drug laws should be liberalized. That doesn't mean legalizing everything, but it does mean diverting non-violent drug offenders into treatment, rather than prison. California has been doing that for a few years, too (another ballot initiative).
This sounds nice, and I hear libertarians make this argument all the time. Our prisons are full of "non-violent non-property no direct victim prisoners." But they aren't. Most prisoners in California are there for violent crimes. (See page 9 here.) The statistics are similar nationally. About half of prisoners are in for violent crimes, 20% for property crimes, and 20% for drug crimes.
Here's an article that's a bit dated (1996), but it gives an idea of who's represented in the "drug offender" category:
So releasing all the non-violent drug offenders would at best cut our prison population by 20%. And a lot of prisoners categorized as "drug offenders" would likely commit not-so-victimless crimes upon release.
A "public mood of retribution" sounds harsh, but I guess there's some truth to it. The public supports long sentences, especially for repeat offenders. California's Three Strikes law was passed by a public referendum. While there are some horror stories about people whose third strike was something trivial, I think it's generally a good thing to lock away career criminals for a long time.
I think there's a good case to be made that the reason crime rates have been falling is that we're locking away the most dangerous repeat offenders for longer periods.
What policies need to be instituted to resolve the problem? Could alternatives to custodial sentences be better used? Should some illegal activities be legalised?
I think drug laws should be liberalized. That doesn't mean legalizing everything, but it does mean diverting non-violent drug offenders into treatment, rather than prison. California has been doing that for a few years, too (another ballot initiative).
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Mar 1 2008, 09:27 AM) 
Insane laws are the real reason Julian- simple drug possession and small time dealers make the bulk of our prison population, and it is seriously stupid. I mean, we have passed Russia and China in prison population by percentage of the population? Man, that should make us really rethink how free a society we truly are!
We could pretty much empty over half the prisons in the US, just by getting rid of non-violent, non-property, no direct victim prisoners.
It is the religious right that drives 110% of this issue, and it has no basis in logic or reality whatsoever. Simply decriminalizing drugs would empty our prisons, leaving many more resources to deal with REAL bad guys.
We could pretty much empty over half the prisons in the US, just by getting rid of non-violent, non-property, no direct victim prisoners.
It is the religious right that drives 110% of this issue, and it has no basis in logic or reality whatsoever. Simply decriminalizing drugs would empty our prisons, leaving many more resources to deal with REAL bad guys.
This sounds nice, and I hear libertarians make this argument all the time. Our prisons are full of "non-violent non-property no direct victim prisoners." But they aren't. Most prisoners in California are there for violent crimes. (See page 9 here.) The statistics are similar nationally. About half of prisoners are in for violent crimes, 20% for property crimes, and 20% for drug crimes.
Here's an article that's a bit dated (1996), but it gives an idea of who's represented in the "drug offender" category:
QUOTE(John DiIulio @ Brookings)
What about mere drug offenders behind bars? While federal convictions for drug-related crimes skyrocketed between 1980 and 1993, at the state level, the number of persons incarcerated for violent crimes grew at 1.3 times the growth in imprisoned drug offenders. Moreover, as a recent study funded in part by the National Institute of Justice correctly observes, "the label 'drug offender' is a misnomer." As the study notes, the term implies "a degree of specialization not supported [by a body of research] on individual offending patterns," which shows plainly that drug offenders "commonly commit other types of crime, most notably robbery, burglary, and violent offenses."
For example, in a forthcoming Wisconsin Policy Research Institute (WPRI) study of the complete adult and juvenile criminal histories of prisoners from Milwaukee, WPRI analyst George Mitchell and I find that 91 percent of these urban criminals had one or more convictions for a violent crime. First-time drug offenders were less than 2 percent of the population. The imprisoned drug offenders had multiple arrests, bouts on probation, and adult and juvenile crimes, including auto theft, burglary, robbery, retail theft, domestic violence, sexual assault, drunk driving, jumping bail and, of course, drug dealing too.
For example, in a forthcoming Wisconsin Policy Research Institute (WPRI) study of the complete adult and juvenile criminal histories of prisoners from Milwaukee, WPRI analyst George Mitchell and I find that 91 percent of these urban criminals had one or more convictions for a violent crime. First-time drug offenders were less than 2 percent of the population. The imprisoned drug offenders had multiple arrests, bouts on probation, and adult and juvenile crimes, including auto theft, burglary, robbery, retail theft, domestic violence, sexual assault, drunk driving, jumping bail and, of course, drug dealing too.
So releasing all the non-violent drug offenders would at best cut our prison population by 20%. And a lot of prisoners categorized as "drug offenders" would likely commit not-so-victimless crimes upon release.
Okay- lets say your right- only 20%
OMG- how many billions of dollars is that- right there?
A 20% reduction, right there, right off the pop.
But bully for Cali- they got something right- Alaska needs to take a cue on this one- we just jailed a couple coke dealers for 20 years for distribution. Never had a violent complaint, of any kind, or theft, in thier life.
However, a lady that killed a kid in front of two other kids got 6 years, and will be out later this year.
As the deputy chief of police told me, "the system is broken"- we really don't have the resources to go after all the violent criminals, because of the gazzillions of other, non-threatening crimes- gambling houses, prostitution rings etc.
I mean, to get rid of all the vice squads around the nation- my gawd what a savings of resources that would be in and of itself- it could be reduced to code and standards enforcement, with a much smaller budget.
OMG- how many billions of dollars is that- right there?
A 20% reduction, right there, right off the pop.
But bully for Cali- they got something right- Alaska needs to take a cue on this one- we just jailed a couple coke dealers for 20 years for distribution. Never had a violent complaint, of any kind, or theft, in thier life.
However, a lady that killed a kid in front of two other kids got 6 years, and will be out later this year.
As the deputy chief of police told me, "the system is broken"- we really don't have the resources to go after all the violent criminals, because of the gazzillions of other, non-threatening crimes- gambling houses, prostitution rings etc.
I mean, to get rid of all the vice squads around the nation- my gawd what a savings of resources that would be in and of itself- it could be reduced to code and standards enforcement, with a much smaller budget.
Hey, I agree with your policy prescriptions. Legalize gambling and prostitution, and liberalize drug laws. I'm just saying that isn't going to "empty over half the prisons." You've still got 50% of prisoners in for violent crimes, and 20% in for property crimes. And the 20% that are "drug offenders" this time around have mostly been in the system before for violent or property crimes.
I forgot to mention another driver of the prison population: changes in policy related to involuntary commitment for mental illness.
It's a story often told, though the details have gotten mangled in the retelling. The usual version heard today is that heartless conservatives like Ronald Reagan (when he was governor of California) cut the funding for insane asylums, turning thousands of mentally ill people out into the streets. That's not quite how it happened. In fact, there was a popular, "progressive" movement that used politics and the courts to make it difficult to institutionalize people for mental health reasons. The whole notion of mental illness was challenged -- think One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, or Michel Foucault's A History of Madness. It was only after institutionalization had been delegitimized, and the asylums emptied, that the budgets were cut.
But that's probably a whole different historical debate. For the purposes of this debate, I'd note that the people who commit mass-shootings were usually identified beforehand as mentally ill. At other times, in other cultures, they would have been locked up to prevent them harming themselves or others. Because that's become nearly impossible to do, we can only imprison them after they've snapped and committed a violent crime.
I forgot to mention another driver of the prison population: changes in policy related to involuntary commitment for mental illness.
It's a story often told, though the details have gotten mangled in the retelling. The usual version heard today is that heartless conservatives like Ronald Reagan (when he was governor of California) cut the funding for insane asylums, turning thousands of mentally ill people out into the streets. That's not quite how it happened. In fact, there was a popular, "progressive" movement that used politics and the courts to make it difficult to institutionalize people for mental health reasons. The whole notion of mental illness was challenged -- think One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, or Michel Foucault's A History of Madness. It was only after institutionalization had been delegitimized, and the asylums emptied, that the budgets were cut.
But that's probably a whole different historical debate. For the purposes of this debate, I'd note that the people who commit mass-shootings were usually identified beforehand as mentally ill. At other times, in other cultures, they would have been locked up to prevent them harming themselves or others. Because that's become nearly impossible to do, we can only imprison them after they've snapped and committed a violent crime.
Nearly 80% of Alaskan prisoners are non-violent non-property offenders (such as fraud and theft- which I think long jail sentences are completely appropriate.
Also- I have found some misleading numbers in my own state, on some proprietary sites. Hmm, I see in some of our own stats we will consider a "violent offender" as someone that gets a "resisting arrest" or "assaulting a police officer" during the initial raids on drugs- in at least two cases I can attest to personally- the person truly thought he was being robbed. The cops had a "no knock" entry- so the drug dealers got a violent tag on thier file- I wonder how these stats are being skewed now- on both sides- to be fair.
BUT, on my own access to intra-web stats, two of the biggies are drugs, sex abuse of a minor. I am cool with locking up and throwing away the key on a pedophile, personally.
Also- I have absolutely 0 problem with locking up anyone that is "mentally ill" for a longer time for the same crime that a non-mentally ill person if the crime is one of violence and/or rape (understanding that rape is a violent crime, I just wanted to make sure I get mentally ill sex offenders in this bracket) -
I see far too many sociopaths get away with thier crimes due to thier "mental illness".
Taken to one extreme- all repeat offenders are mentally ill- after all, why continue a life of crime otherwise?
But straight drug crimes? C'mon, this is a no-brainer. Enforce 'white slavery" laws instead of illegalizing prostitution. Allow regulation for quality.
, Gambling, similar to Las Vegas- if there is one thing we have seen with the movement to legalize gambling across the US< is that there is a finite amount of gamblers to compete for between casinoes, because, wow, a bunch of them went kaput because of simply not enough customers. Same critical mass will be found with all the "sin" crimes. Only so many dudes and duddettes are going for the pay-for-play-per-day route with thier cash.
Only so many druggies will be out there, an equilibrium will be found. People don't suddenly decide to become an addict because something is legal- and addict becomes an addict IN SPITE of the legality of the substance- that is a very, very secondary concern.
Heck Jobius- I don't believe it is only 20% in most of the country- but just for argument- heck, I will let you have that one- still an obvious way to save money, have more freedom for everyone, and stop being the gestapo of the world. I mean, darn, China is more free than the USof A? Wow, when did that happen?
Also- I have found some misleading numbers in my own state, on some proprietary sites. Hmm, I see in some of our own stats we will consider a "violent offender" as someone that gets a "resisting arrest" or "assaulting a police officer" during the initial raids on drugs- in at least two cases I can attest to personally- the person truly thought he was being robbed. The cops had a "no knock" entry- so the drug dealers got a violent tag on thier file- I wonder how these stats are being skewed now- on both sides- to be fair.
BUT, on my own access to intra-web stats, two of the biggies are drugs, sex abuse of a minor. I am cool with locking up and throwing away the key on a pedophile, personally.
Also- I have absolutely 0 problem with locking up anyone that is "mentally ill" for a longer time for the same crime that a non-mentally ill person if the crime is one of violence and/or rape (understanding that rape is a violent crime, I just wanted to make sure I get mentally ill sex offenders in this bracket) -
I see far too many sociopaths get away with thier crimes due to thier "mental illness".
Taken to one extreme- all repeat offenders are mentally ill- after all, why continue a life of crime otherwise?
But straight drug crimes? C'mon, this is a no-brainer. Enforce 'white slavery" laws instead of illegalizing prostitution. Allow regulation for quality.
, Gambling, similar to Las Vegas- if there is one thing we have seen with the movement to legalize gambling across the US< is that there is a finite amount of gamblers to compete for between casinoes, because, wow, a bunch of them went kaput because of simply not enough customers. Same critical mass will be found with all the "sin" crimes. Only so many dudes and duddettes are going for the pay-for-play-per-day route with thier cash. Only so many druggies will be out there, an equilibrium will be found. People don't suddenly decide to become an addict because something is legal- and addict becomes an addict IN SPITE of the legality of the substance- that is a very, very secondary concern.
Heck Jobius- I don't believe it is only 20% in most of the country- but just for argument- heck, I will let you have that one- still an obvious way to save money, have more freedom for everyone, and stop being the gestapo of the world. I mean, darn, China is more free than the USof A? Wow, when did that happen?
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Mar 1 2008, 04:01 PM)
Nearly 80% of Alaskan prisoners are non-violent non-property offenders (such as fraud and theft- which I think long jail sentences are completely appropriate.
. . .
Heck Jobius- I don't believe it is only 20% in most of the country- but just for argument- heck, I will let you have that one- still an obvious way to save money, have more freedom for everyone, and stop being the gestapo of the world. I mean, darn, China is more free than the USof A? Wow, when did that happen?
. . .
Heck Jobius- I don't believe it is only 20% in most of the country- but just for argument- heck, I will let you have that one- still an obvious way to save money, have more freedom for everyone, and stop being the gestapo of the world. I mean, darn, China is more free than the USof A? Wow, when did that happen?
I'd be very surprised if "[n]early 80% of Alaskan prisoners are non-violent non-property offenders." I've often heard claims like that from libertarians, but I've never seen any data to back it up. I gave links to Federal and California statistics that say 80% aren't non-violent drug offenders. Can you give a source for your figure?
I have a data base I am not allowed to show publically because of proprietary concerns, and I am sorry for this Jobius- but darn, I wish we could fund a study here now- to be honest, drug abuse, especially among natives, is super high, and 39% of our prison population is native- and they are a small minority of the population, whites make up 31%.
I simply went down the list of convictions for the last five years- something I have access to. I looked at all the criminals with "multiples"- and was only on "felonies" (which, I have realized, also skews the data
) that way I can look at all crimes, farily quickly that get a more than one year sentance (otherwise, I would skew it heavily towards drunk driving as the main reason for incaration in Alaska, due to the mandatory 3 days in jail law, which has alternative means of housing, including work camps and such, which actually relieves over crowding)
but anyway- of a good sample of 5000 inmates, a good portion that had "violent offender" status - had no serious charges of violent behavior, but the "real" charge, the one that carried the big sentance, was the "intent to distribute" charge- in my un-scientific data sampling - I find that a "violent offender" can be defined as anyone that is even CHARGED with a 'resisting arrest" or "assaulting a police officer" - without a felony or even a conviction at all.
So, to be honest Jobius- I have a bit of a problem with your data, meaning, I wonder how they are defining a person as a "violent criminal" - my question is, is it a "tack on " charge, the primary charge or even a bogus charge, with no conviction?
Let us be clear- look how many people that have simply urinated in public have ended up on sex offender lists!
Do you agree that the sex offender lists have had thier credibility harmed by the fact that they lump all sex crimes into one category of reporting?
I simply went down the list of convictions for the last five years- something I have access to. I looked at all the criminals with "multiples"- and was only on "felonies" (which, I have realized, also skews the data
) that way I can look at all crimes, farily quickly that get a more than one year sentance (otherwise, I would skew it heavily towards drunk driving as the main reason for incaration in Alaska, due to the mandatory 3 days in jail law, which has alternative means of housing, including work camps and such, which actually relieves over crowding) but anyway- of a good sample of 5000 inmates, a good portion that had "violent offender" status - had no serious charges of violent behavior, but the "real" charge, the one that carried the big sentance, was the "intent to distribute" charge- in my un-scientific data sampling
- I find that a "violent offender" can be defined as anyone that is even CHARGED with a 'resisting arrest" or "assaulting a police officer" - without a felony or even a conviction at all. So, to be honest Jobius- I have a bit of a problem with your data, meaning, I wonder how they are defining a person as a "violent criminal" - my question is, is it a "tack on " charge, the primary charge or even a bogus charge, with no conviction?
Let us be clear- look how many people that have simply urinated in public have ended up on sex offender lists!
Do you agree that the sex offender lists have had thier credibility harmed by the fact that they lump all sex crimes into one category of reporting?
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Mar 1 2008, 04:41 PM)
I have a data base I am not allowed to show publically because of proprietary concerns, and I am sorry for this Jobius- but darn, I wish we could fund a study here now- to be honest, drug abuse, especially among natives, is super high, and 39% of our prison population is native- and they are a small minority of the population, whites make up 31%.
I simply went down the list of convictions for the last five years- something I have access to. I looked at all the criminals with "multiples"- and was only on "felonies" (which, I have realized, also skews the data ) that way I can look at all crimes, farily quickly that get a more than one year sentance (otherwise, I would skew it heavily towards drunk driving as the main reason for incaration in Alaska, due to the mandatory 3 days in jail law, which has alternative means of housing, including work camps and such, which actually relieves over crowding)
but anyway- of a good sample of 5000 inmates, a good portion that had "violent offender" status - had no serious charges of violent behavior, but the "real" charge, the one that carried the big sentance, was the "intent to distribute" charge- in my un-scientific data sampling - I find that a "violent offender" can be defined as anyone that is even CHARGED with a 'resisting arrest" or "assaulting a police officer" - without a felony or even a conviction at all.
So, to be honest Jobius- I have a bit of a problem with your data, meaning, I wonder how they are defining a person as a "violent criminal" - my question is, is it a "tack on " charge, the primary charge or even a bogus charge, with no conviction?
I simply went down the list of convictions for the last five years- something I have access to. I looked at all the criminals with "multiples"- and was only on "felonies" (which, I have realized, also skews the data
) that way I can look at all crimes, farily quickly that get a more than one year sentance (otherwise, I would skew it heavily towards drunk driving as the main reason for incaration in Alaska, due to the mandatory 3 days in jail law, which has alternative means of housing, including work camps and such, which actually relieves over crowding) but anyway- of a good sample of 5000 inmates, a good portion that had "violent offender" status - had no serious charges of violent behavior, but the "real" charge, the one that carried the big sentance, was the "intent to distribute" charge- in my un-scientific data sampling
- I find that a "violent offender" can be defined as anyone that is even CHARGED with a 'resisting arrest" or "assaulting a police officer" - without a felony or even a conviction at all. So, to be honest Jobius- I have a bit of a problem with your data, meaning, I wonder how they are defining a person as a "violent criminal" - my question is, is it a "tack on " charge, the primary charge or even a bogus charge, with no conviction?
I don't know. I've only seen summarized data, and I'm not sure what criteria they're using. But it seems to me that there's enough violent crime (murder, rape, assault, etc.) to account for half of the prison population. I'll see what I can find for more details, or methodology on how they classify "violent crime."
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Mar 1 2008, 04:41 PM)
Let us be clear- look how many people that have simply urinated in public have ended up on sex offender lists!
Do you agree that the sex offender lists have had thier credibility harmed by the fact that they lump all sex crimes into one category of reporting?
Do you agree that the sex offender lists have had thier credibility harmed by the fact that they lump all sex crimes into one category of reporting?
Yes.
I have to tell you Jobius- I have found many prison stats in my own state very misleading, and sometimes really twisted, depending on what the people collecting the data want- even when it is my "own people" doing it- say, to bump up staffing or the like.
The most maddening is the lack of stats of all types of crimes commited by females, conviction rates etc- in pretty much every case in America, ever, the woman blames a man for her criminal behavior- and it most often works- and the woman is free to go out and manipulate another situation where she gets away with it again, and again, and again.
Like I pointed out- we had a very public civil trial in which two former foster kids sued the state because of the trauma they endured at the hands of an abusive foster mom- who was also abusing her husband, horribly. She was never charged at all for her torture of her husband, and recieved only six years for the beating death of the child in front of the other two children. meanwhile, I can point to two cases in the last two months where men have been sentenced for simple distribution, with no priors, for 20 years, and one man got 70 for kidnapping and beating his wife- but she has no lasting physical injuries.
Oh Gawd, could I go on and on about predators with a "mental illness" tag that commit violent crimes over and over, with no consequences whatsoever- I know of one that blew away an infant in a crib with a high powered weapon.
Yea, our system is broken, bummer about all that.
Still, I will stipulate to 20% even- who cares? Still too much money and resources wasted here!
The most maddening is the lack of stats of all types of crimes commited by females, conviction rates etc- in pretty much every case in America, ever, the woman blames a man for her criminal behavior- and it most often works- and the woman is free to go out and manipulate another situation where she gets away with it again, and again, and again.
Like I pointed out- we had a very public civil trial in which two former foster kids sued the state because of the trauma they endured at the hands of an abusive foster mom- who was also abusing her husband, horribly. She was never charged at all for her torture of her husband, and recieved only six years for the beating death of the child in front of the other two children. meanwhile, I can point to two cases in the last two months where men have been sentenced for simple distribution, with no priors, for 20 years, and one man got 70 for kidnapping and beating his wife- but she has no lasting physical injuries.
Oh Gawd, could I go on and on about predators with a "mental illness" tag that commit violent crimes over and over, with no consequences whatsoever- I know of one that blew away an infant in a crib with a high powered weapon.
Yea, our system is broken, bummer about all that.
Still, I will stipulate to 20% even- who cares? Still too much money and resources wasted here!
CruisingRam:
Well, yes, initially, I would suppose.
It's not the drug dealers that commit the crimes. They start and support the people who get hooked and commit crimes in order to get the fix.
And I know it may not have been you, CR, but someone brought up the gambling thing.
I suggest before you advocate legalizing gambling that you recognize that this also is an addictive thing that leads to crime for the addict who simply must "hit it big this time". The DOJ has released an interesting report if you care to check out some sobering statistics.
Legalizing gambling, I so far concluded, would only create a new breed of criminals who would do actual illegal activities to engage in gambling, and naturally, claim they can't be prosecuted because it's a disability and a sickness instead of a crime.
I think at this point, the USA needs less desperate people instead of creating more. Show me a successful gambler, and I'll show you a really experienced cheater.
Or an owner of a casino.
CruisingRam
What?! Church attendance has been on the decline, and the respect for God in any form of popular media today is almost non-existent. But how do you blame the war on drugs on the religious right?
Do we at least get credit for ending the prohibition because we use wine in our religious services?
Okay, here's my response, because I agree, 1 out of 100 Americans in jail is too much.
How would you like to take that 20%, CR and bump it up to 33%?
I have a simple solution. Deport all the illegal aliens that have been convicted of crimes and are serving time in our various department of corrections, and send them back to Mexico.
I find it interesting that you noted California has the highest rate.
SOURCE here.
Wow, maybe we could add 20% to 33% and really have a system that works.
In Phoenix, we have Sheriff Joe's Tent City. That works for me too.
QUOTE
Okay- lets say your right- only 20%
OMG- how many billions of dollars is that- right there?
A 20% reduction, right there, right off the pop.
OMG- how many billions of dollars is that- right there?
A 20% reduction, right there, right off the pop.
Well, yes, initially, I would suppose.
It's not the drug dealers that commit the crimes. They start and support the people who get hooked and commit crimes in order to get the fix.
And I know it may not have been you, CR, but someone brought up the gambling thing.
QUOTE
Gambling, similar to Las Vegas- if there is one thing we have seen with the movement to legalize gambling across the US< is that there is a finite amount of gamblers to compete for between casinoes
I suggest before you advocate legalizing gambling that you recognize that this also is an addictive thing that leads to crime for the addict who simply must "hit it big this time". The DOJ has released an interesting report if you care to check out some sobering statistics.
Legalizing gambling, I so far concluded, would only create a new breed of criminals who would do actual illegal activities to engage in gambling, and naturally, claim they can't be prosecuted because it's a disability and a sickness instead of a crime.
I think at this point, the USA needs less desperate people instead of creating more. Show me a successful gambler, and I'll show you a really experienced cheater.
Or an owner of a casino. CruisingRam
QUOTE
It is the religious right that drives 110% of this issue, and it has no basis in logic or reality whatsoever. Simply decriminalizing drugs would empty our prisons, leaving many more resources to deal with REAL bad guys.
What?! Church attendance has been on the decline, and the respect for God in any form of popular media today is almost non-existent. But how do you blame the war on drugs on the religious right?
Do we at least get credit for ending the prohibition because we use wine in our religious services?
Okay, here's my response, because I agree, 1 out of 100 Americans in jail is too much.
How would you like to take that 20%, CR and bump it up to 33%?
I have a simple solution. Deport all the illegal aliens that have been convicted of crimes and are serving time in our various department of corrections, and send them back to Mexico.
I find it interesting that you noted California has the highest rate.
QUOTE
In California, if 3.5 million illegal aliens moved back to Mexico, it would leave an extra $10.2 billion to spend on overloaded school systems, bankrupt hospitals and overrun prisons.
SOURCE here.
QUOTE
We would lose 500,000 illegal criminal alien inmates at a cost of more than $1.6 billion annually. That includes 15,000 MS-13 gang members who distribute $130 billion in drugs annually would vacate our country.
Wow, maybe we could add 20% to 33% and really have a system that works.
In Phoenix, we have Sheriff Joe's Tent City. That works for me too.
I brought up gambling dude- addictive behavior is going to be present in a % of the population, regardless of legality or illegality. Gambling is illegal in Alaska (with some charity-exceptions), yet, we still have about the same % of population of hard core gamblers as any other state, including those that do allow gambling now-
AZ- you do recognize that there has been a major movement across the US to legalize gambling? The reason so many went bankrupt is they overbuilt- there were too many casinoes- the runaway society of gambling didn't happen. If simply legalizing a thing made the problem worse- we wouldn't have had a single failed gambling casino- instead, critical mass was reached, and they failed. Same with drug use. There is literally no barrier for me if I want to obtain illegal drugs, I could walk out of my job tonight, go to any one of several places, and for a price, get any drug I want- there is no real restriction of supply. It isn't that they are illegal that stops me from doing this- it is that I am just not an addictive personality- I don't have the active gene neccesary most likely for this to happen. Tried a variety of drugs, like most Americans, and then put them down, 'cause it wasn't the experiance I really wanted. The "gateway drugs" didn't have the door open for me, apparently
Common sense tells you that a drug war is far more costly than a treatment program, and hell, if you really want to get rid of drug users- give them high quality drugs of choice in any quantity they want- the hard users will die fairly quickly- and you have a diminished demand pretty quickly, as the hard drug user population collapses in on itself.
The most important thing we have learned from legalized gambling- it is far easy to root out the criminal element- the real bad guys, when you remove the incentive for the black market.
If someone is stealing to deal with thier gambling habit- we have far more resources to go after that person, and jail them, because we are no longer needed large sums of our resources to go after the "kingpins" - because they are operating a "clean house" regulated, taxed and in plain site.
AZ- you do recognize that there has been a major movement across the US to legalize gambling? The reason so many went bankrupt is they overbuilt- there were too many casinoes- the runaway society of gambling didn't happen. If simply legalizing a thing made the problem worse- we wouldn't have had a single failed gambling casino- instead, critical mass was reached, and they failed. Same with drug use. There is literally no barrier for me if I want to obtain illegal drugs, I could walk out of my job tonight, go to any one of several places, and for a price, get any drug I want- there is no real restriction of supply. It isn't that they are illegal that stops me from doing this- it is that I am just not an addictive personality- I don't have the active gene neccesary most likely for this to happen. Tried a variety of drugs, like most Americans, and then put them down, 'cause it wasn't the experiance I really wanted. The "gateway drugs" didn't have the door open for me, apparently
Common sense tells you that a drug war is far more costly than a treatment program, and hell, if you really want to get rid of drug users- give them high quality drugs of choice in any quantity they want- the hard users will die fairly quickly- and you have a diminished demand pretty quickly, as the hard drug user population collapses in on itself.
The most important thing we have learned from legalized gambling- it is far easy to root out the criminal element- the real bad guys, when you remove the incentive for the black market.
If someone is stealing to deal with thier gambling habit- we have far more resources to go after that person, and jail them, because we are no longer needed large sums of our resources to go after the "kingpins" - because they are operating a "clean house" regulated, taxed and in plain site.
QUOTE
What is driving the increasing prison population in the USA? Is there a crime epidemic, a public mood of retribution, or something else?
Illegal immigration is one factor. No other country in the world allows it to happen to the extent we do. We put up with gangs and we have a huge drug market that feeds criminals with billions every year.
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/MediaNews_FactResea...eDrugMarket.htm
Also the “three strikes laws” have increased populations. These laws were enacted after public outrage over criminals being released again and again.
QUOTE
What policies need to be instituted to resolve the problem? Could alternatives to custodial sentences be better used? Should some illegal activities be legalised?[/b]
I agree that the jailing of people for minor drug violations may be part of the problem and needs to be looked at. Legalizing marijuana would cut the population significantly.
QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 2 2008, 07:43 AM)
QUOTE
What is driving the increasing prison population in the USA? Is there a crime epidemic, a public mood of retribution, or something else?
Illegal immigration is one factor. No other country in the world allows it to happen to the extent we do. We put up with gangs and we have a huge drug market that feeds criminals with billions every year.
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/MediaNews_FactResea...eDrugMarket.htm
Also the “three strikes laws” have increased populations. These laws were enacted after public outrage over criminals being released again and again.
QUOTE
What policies need to be instituted to resolve the problem? Could alternatives to custodial sentences be better used? Should some illegal activities be legalised?[/b]
I agree that the jailing of people for minor drug violations may be part of the problem and needs to be looked at. Legalizing marijuana would cut the population significantly.
That is not true ted. Europe has a far worse immigration, legal and illegal, than we can't even come close to having. Even Russia has a worse illegal immigration problem than we have. They have millions of illegal Chinese, and refugees from all the former border states of Russia.
The three strikes law is a great idea-I have no problem permanently jailing or killing recidivist criminals. Anyone that has 3 felonies, of any type, is a caeer criminal and should be killed, not jailed. By the time they have had 3 felonies, they have a rap sheet as long as your arm. They are precisely the exact people that need to be never allowed access to the public again.
What is driving the increasing prison population in the USA? Is there a crime epidemic, a public mood of retribution, or something else?[/b]
The report itself clearly documents that policy decisions are the reason why prison costs have skyrocketed.
-Stiffer sentencing provisions, especially relating to parole and other minor offenses
-Aging prison population and the medical care costs to take care of them-the rate rises 10% a year
-Filling prison jobs, paying for overtime, and the fact that prisons are 24/7 "moneyholes" for spending.
Interesting that nowhere is illegal immigration mentioned.
What policies need to be instituted to resolve the problem? Could alternatives to custodial sentences be better used? Should some illegal activities be legalised?[/b]
Also spelled out by the report
-Diversionary sentencing to "half-way" houses and other places
-Changing of sentencing provisions
The report itself clearly documents that policy decisions are the reason why prison costs have skyrocketed.
-Stiffer sentencing provisions, especially relating to parole and other minor offenses
-Aging prison population and the medical care costs to take care of them-the rate rises 10% a year
-Filling prison jobs, paying for overtime, and the fact that prisons are 24/7 "moneyholes" for spending.
Interesting that nowhere is illegal immigration mentioned.
What policies need to be instituted to resolve the problem? Could alternatives to custodial sentences be better used? Should some illegal activities be legalised?[/b]
Also spelled out by the report
-Diversionary sentencing to "half-way" houses and other places
-Changing of sentencing provisions
Good points all Nebraska- however, some of them are a bit more simplistic than the complexity allows. I agree with locking up the violent and mentally ill types. I agree with very, very stiff sentences for violent or property crimes, especially those that involve fraud in excess of 100k dollars. I believe in a "three strikes and your dead" law as well. With no chance of appeal either- in our system, by the time you get three felonies OF ANY TYPE- you are a career criminal, that has gotten away with a whole pile of crimes, most of which were probably in need of a felony instead of the reduced sentance
what I do think the real reform is neccesary though, is a carefully thought out debate on what SHOULD BE ILLEGAL- and take a good, hard look at victimless crime, and show how much this is costing us.
Gawd- I just went through all this in a high level meeting of LEO and Muni representitive types a week ago, and you have AGs and Police Chiefs saying ' the system is broken, and we are helpless to do anything about it"- how scary is that?
Sometime, for giggles, go look at a police blotter for a month, and try to follow up how many of those felony violent offenders are even prosecuted- I have done a fair amount of research, comparing Anchorage to comparable cities.
I would like to thank a comment by Aquilla that was essentially "wow, that is all the convictions you guys get, man, you need to reform your departments" or some such- because I did some research that compared arrests to convictions for violent crimes- actualy- I focused on only one crime- assault and battery, felony level. So I am talking about really violent behvior here, the level of which means someone had the living tar beat out of them. In one year, in Anchorge, we had over 2300 felony arrests ( it was actually over 3300, but I threw out anything that even looked like anything but a slam dunk) and we had 33 felony convictions resulting in jailtime.
I thought this was horrific- until the DA let me on his computer to compare it to other cities of the same size- where they had far more arrests, and far less convictions.
And the reason for this? As the DA told me "you think we have 2300 lawyers in our department? Each felony conviction takes a few weeks worth of work, for one lawyer, and two or three aids. We have six in our department. We just skim off anything that isn't a slam dunk that gets them jail time, we plea-bargain down another hundred or so to misdemeanor's with no jail time, and try to get the REALLY bad guys before a politician decides we need to get tough on crime, especialy- oh, after hours gambling- which takes 1/3 of our force, and two lawyers or more off violent crime cases.
I just don't think most people realize how thin public safety types are strained.
BTW- some of our esteemed lawmakers now made it a requirement on routine traffic stops to verify US citizenship, and verify if they are "illegal" or not- funny, because we have the lowest illegal immigration numbers in the nation.
Yet, because of the national issue, we have to expend resources on THAT non-problem now.
BTW- here is food for thought- take drunk driving a real public safety threat, agreed? Cops have to ignore all but the most egregious examples- why? It takes a cop 8 hours to in-proccess one drunk driver, anywhere in the nation. Our cops have a 12 hour shift- if they run out and bust a drunk driver right away- which is super easy to do, you know, cause they are drunk and driving and all - that immediately takes one cop off the street for violent crimes. Not saying I wouldn't like to see EVERY drunk driver get his just desserts, but it isn't possible to do that and take on violent crime.
what I do think the real reform is neccesary though, is a carefully thought out debate on what SHOULD BE ILLEGAL- and take a good, hard look at victimless crime, and show how much this is costing us.
Gawd- I just went through all this in a high level meeting of LEO and Muni representitive types a week ago, and you have AGs and Police Chiefs saying ' the system is broken, and we are helpless to do anything about it"- how scary is that?
Sometime, for giggles, go look at a police blotter for a month, and try to follow up how many of those felony violent offenders are even prosecuted- I have done a fair amount of research, comparing Anchorage to comparable cities.
I would like to thank a comment by Aquilla that was essentially "wow, that is all the convictions you guys get, man, you need to reform your departments" or some such- because I did some research that compared arrests to convictions for violent crimes- actualy- I focused on only one crime- assault and battery, felony level. So I am talking about really violent behvior here, the level of which means someone had the living tar beat out of them. In one year, in Anchorge, we had over 2300 felony arrests ( it was actually over 3300, but I threw out anything that even looked like anything but a slam dunk) and we had 33 felony convictions resulting in jailtime.
I thought this was horrific- until the DA let me on his computer to compare it to other cities of the same size- where they had far more arrests, and far less convictions.
And the reason for this? As the DA told me "you think we have 2300 lawyers in our department? Each felony conviction takes a few weeks worth of work, for one lawyer, and two or three aids. We have six in our department. We just skim off anything that isn't a slam dunk that gets them jail time, we plea-bargain down another hundred or so to misdemeanor's with no jail time, and try to get the REALLY bad guys before a politician decides we need to get tough on crime, especialy- oh, after hours gambling- which takes 1/3 of our force, and two lawyers or more off violent crime cases.
I just don't think most people realize how thin public safety types are strained.
BTW- some of our esteemed lawmakers now made it a requirement on routine traffic stops to verify US citizenship, and verify if they are "illegal" or not- funny, because we have the lowest illegal immigration numbers in the nation.
Yet, because of the national issue, we have to expend resources on THAT non-problem now.
BTW- here is food for thought- take drunk driving a real public safety threat, agreed? Cops have to ignore all but the most egregious examples- why? It takes a cop 8 hours to in-proccess one drunk driver, anywhere in the nation. Our cops have a 12 hour shift- if they run out and bust a drunk driver right away- which is super easy to do, you know, cause they are drunk and driving and all
- that immediately takes one cop off the street for violent crimes. Not saying I wouldn't like to see EVERY drunk driver get his just desserts, but it isn't possible to do that and take on violent crime.
QUOTE(Julian @ Mar 1 2008, 09:37 AM)
What is driving the increasing prison population in the USA? Is there a crime epidemic, a public mood of retribution, or something else?
What policies need to be instituted to resolve the problem? Could alternatives to custodial sentences be better used? Should some illegal activities be legalised?[/b]
What policies need to be instituted to resolve the problem? Could alternatives to custodial sentences be better used? Should some illegal activities be legalised?[/b]
1.) The failing war on drugs. I refuse to make it a proper noun.
1.5) Simply a failing policy on one issue.
2.) Better practices in dealing with those who use illegal substances instead of mucking up the real legal system.
2.33) Yes. I'm a huge fan of rehab since it works in non-celebrities nine times out of ten.
2.66) Perhaps not legalized, but certainly decriminalized.
Nebraska said:
I'm not surprised. Our very own John McCain refuses to acknowledge a problem that has plagued our state for years. Yet 1 out of 3 in our prisons is illegal, and shouldn't be taking up what appears to be very needed space, and nobody wants to talk about it.
CruisingRam said:
Not in Maricopa County. It's one after the other, and a trip to Tent City.
It's policies like this that make me love Sheriff Joe.
VDemos said:
I take it you don't watch "Intervention" much - and these are families who care - and the user more often than not does relapse. I don't know where this success rate you speak of is, but I hope you are right.
CruisingRam said:
I'm 100% with you.
And this whole "a minor's record gets sealed when they turn 18" nonsense has to go too. No starting over just because you can vote now.
CruisingRam said:
Well, there's a couple of factors that go into that too.
Indian reservations got the go-ahead to build casinos in California after a ballot initiative less than a decade ago. It was a way for the white man to "give a little" back to the Indians. But let's not even argue that. Most of those casinos have not only done well, they've added malls and outlet stores and restaurants to the point that they're incredibly successful.
Then the State of California got into the game by allowing you to gamble at a convenience store for a little as a dollar. Why? California's explanation for justifying gambling was that the money earned would go help kids and schools. HA. Take a look at the results. California's school system is completely failed, yet millions of dollars were supposedly used to help and the states coffers have done wonderfully. Look at the people who buy a dream for $1.00. Sure there is a working class percentage, but the overwhelming percentage of gamblers are one step in the gutter. Poor people. Wishing for a shot at the million. These are people who should be investing in stocks - in their futures.
I don't know how Arizona got into the game, but we have casinos going up at all the Indian Reservations here to compete with the state lotto system.
CruisingRam said:
I have an extremely addictive personality. Which is why I stopped at cigarettes. Never even inhaled pot, and that's for real.
That said, you can't expect kids to know or even consider what kind of personality they have. Meth use is huge in Arizona because we're a local gateway. Now, I could join you in hoping that they'll 8-ball themselves straight into a coffin without huring anyone else, but as we know, this isn't the case - nor should it be a real expectation of the norm. And you don't need an addictive personality to get hit up on meth.
But I think if you're a drug dealer, it's probable that you've sold to kids. Like you said, there's no restriction of supply, and since supply is high, most anyone who wants to make some money don't mind what age the customer is. And if it's a felony to sell cigarettes to a minor (as it is here), then yeah, why should pot get the pass?
You can thank the anti-smokers for my attitude towards pot smokers. At 35, I have to show my freakin' drivers license. To a 19 year old.
My point is that even you state that it's not because it's illegal that stops you. It doesn't seem to be stopping anyone. Is that the reason we repeal laws? But if you ever wanted to see a government control people, just give them their Huxley allowed Soma tablets and watch the alert thinking, improvement-minded, invention and capitalist vision go out the window, and be replaced by a bunch of half-shut eyed want-nothings who arrest their own mental development for the sake of feeling good.
I just don't see the benefit of encouraging any more what-would-have-been intelligent people turning into a bunch of baked-out slurred-speeched tokers because our prisons are 1/3 full of illegal aliens and people claim we're running out of jail space. Granted, it's really their choice. But a society shouldn't encouarge it or look the other way either. And I don't want a group of kids in a park getting high where little kids are. What am I going to do? Call the police? "Harsh their mellow"?
On that note, if we run out of space, let's stop building new facilities and start putting 6 to a room. They can figure out among themselves who gets the two available mattresses.
QUOTE
Interesting that nowhere is illegal immigration mentioned.
I'm not surprised. Our very own John McCain refuses to acknowledge a problem that has plagued our state for years. Yet 1 out of 3 in our prisons is illegal, and shouldn't be taking up what appears to be very needed space, and nobody wants to talk about it.
CruisingRam said:
QUOTE
Cops have to ignore all but the most egregious examples- why? It takes a cop 8 hours to in-proccess one drunk driver, anywhere in the nation.
Not in Maricopa County. It's one after the other, and a trip to Tent City.
It's policies like this that make me love Sheriff Joe.
VDemos said:
QUOTE
2.33) Yes. I'm a huge fan of rehab since it works in non-celebrities nine times out of ten.
I take it you don't watch "Intervention" much - and these are families who care - and the user more often than not does relapse. I don't know where this success rate you speak of is, but I hope you are right.
CruisingRam said:
QUOTE
The three strikes law is a great idea-I have no problem permanently jailing or killing recidivist criminals. Anyone that has 3 felonies, of any type, is a caeer criminal and should be killed, not jailed.
I'm 100% with you.
And this whole "a minor's record gets sealed when they turn 18" nonsense has to go too. No starting over just because you can vote now.
CruisingRam said:
QUOTE
AZ- you do recognize that there has been a major movement across the US to legalize gambling? The reason so many went bankrupt is they overbuilt- there were too many casinoes- the runaway society of gambling didn't happen. If simply legalizing a thing made the problem worse- we wouldn't have had a single failed gambling casino- instead, critical mass was reached, and they failed.
Well, there's a couple of factors that go into that too.
Indian reservations got the go-ahead to build casinos in California after a ballot initiative less than a decade ago. It was a way for the white man to "give a little" back to the Indians. But let's not even argue that. Most of those casinos have not only done well, they've added malls and outlet stores and restaurants to the point that they're incredibly successful.
Then the State of California got into the game by allowing you to gamble at a convenience store for a little as a dollar. Why? California's explanation for justifying gambling was that the money earned would go help kids and schools. HA. Take a look at the results. California's school system is completely failed, yet millions of dollars were supposedly used to help and the states coffers have done wonderfully. Look at the people who buy a dream for $1.00. Sure there is a working class percentage, but the overwhelming percentage of gamblers are one step in the gutter. Poor people. Wishing for a shot at the million. These are people who should be investing in stocks - in their futures.
I don't know how Arizona got into the game, but we have casinos going up at all the Indian Reservations here to compete with the state lotto system.
CruisingRam said:
QUOTE
Same with drug use. There is literally no barrier for me if I want to obtain illegal drugs, I could walk out of my job tonight, go to any one of several places, and for a price, get any drug I want- there is no real restriction of supply. It isn't that they are illegal that stops me from doing this- it is that I am just not an addictive personality- I don't have the active gene neccesary most likely for this to happen. Tried a variety of drugs, like most Americans, and then put them down, 'cause it wasn't the experiance I really wanted. The "gateway drugs" didn't have the door open for me, apparently
I have an extremely addictive personality. Which is why I stopped at cigarettes. Never even inhaled pot, and that's for real.
That said, you can't expect kids to know or even consider what kind of personality they have. Meth use is huge in Arizona because we're a local gateway. Now, I could join you in hoping that they'll 8-ball themselves straight into a coffin without huring anyone else, but as we know, this isn't the case - nor should it be a real expectation of the norm. And you don't need an addictive personality to get hit up on meth.
But I think if you're a drug dealer, it's probable that you've sold to kids. Like you said, there's no restriction of supply, and since supply is high, most anyone who wants to make some money don't mind what age the customer is. And if it's a felony to sell cigarettes to a minor (as it is here), then yeah, why should pot get the pass?
You can thank the anti-smokers for my attitude towards pot smokers. At 35, I have to show my freakin' drivers license. To a 19 year old.
My point is that even you state that it's not because it's illegal that stops you. It doesn't seem to be stopping anyone. Is that the reason we repeal laws? But if you ever wanted to see a government control people, just give them their Huxley allowed Soma tablets and watch the alert thinking, improvement-minded, invention and capitalist vision go out the window, and be replaced by a bunch of half-shut eyed want-nothings who arrest their own mental development for the sake of feeling good.
I just don't see the benefit of encouraging any more what-would-have-been intelligent people turning into a bunch of baked-out slurred-speeched tokers because our prisons are 1/3 full of illegal aliens and people claim we're running out of jail space. Granted, it's really their choice. But a society shouldn't encouarge it or look the other way either. And I don't want a group of kids in a park getting high where little kids are. What am I going to do? Call the police? "Harsh their mellow"?
On that note, if we run out of space, let's stop building new facilities and start putting 6 to a room. They can figure out among themselves who gets the two available mattresses.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.