« "Why is use of the death penalty going down?" | Main | Potent punishments for ponzi players after Madoff mess »

December 20, 2009

Notable prediction that prison population may decline in 2009

This AP article speculates, perhaps accurately, that the total US prison population may decline in 2009 for the first time in decades.  Here are the details from the article:

The United States may soon see its prison population drop for the first time in almost four decades, a milestone in a nation that locks up more people than any other.

The inmate population has risen steadily since the early 1970s as states adopted get-tough policies that sent more people to prison and kept them there longer. But tight budgets now have states rethinking these policies and the costs that come with them....

The U.S. prison population dropped steadily during most of the 1960s, and there were a few small dips in 1970 and 1972. But it has risen every year since, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics....

In the past, prison populations have been lower when drafts were enacted, including during World War II and the wars in Korea and Vietnam. "People who go to war are young men, and young men are the most likely to get arrested or prosecuted," said James Austin, president of the JFA Institute, a research organization that advises states on prison issues. The ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan haven't involved in a draft.

Instead, the economic crisis forced states to reconsider who they put behind bars and how long they kept them there, said Kim English, research director for the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice.

In Texas, parole rates were once among the lowest in the nation, with as few as 15 percent of inmates being granted release as recently as five years ago. Now, the parole rate is more than 30 percent after Texas began identifying low-risk candidates for parole.

In Mississippi, a truth-in-sentencing law required drug offenders to serve 85 percent of their sentences. That's been reduced to less than 25 percent.

California's budget problems are expected to result in the release of 37,000 inmates in the next two years. The state also is under a federal court order to shed 40,000 inmates because its prisons are so overcrowded that they are no longer constitutional, Austin said.

States also are looking at ways to keep people from ever entering prison. A nationwide system of drug courts takes first-time felony offenders caught with less than a gram of illegal drugs and sets up a monitoring team to help with case management and therapy....

The reforms in many state prisons and courts come even as crime rates continue to drop nationwide. "It's economically driven, but the science is there to support it," Austin said. "They are saving money, but not doing it in a way that jeopardizes public safety." One exception to the trend is Florida, which has enacted a law requiring all convicts to serve a high percentage of their sentences. The law is straining the state's prison resources. "They know that they are stuck in a time bomb they can't get out of," Austin said.

December 20, 2009 at 12:37 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Notable prediction that prison population may decline in 2009:


Innocence is a pretext by abolitionist hypocrites.


Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Dec 20, 2009 4:15:55 PM

Notable prediction for 2010.

Crime rates will increase, mostly in minority areas, and very little where lawyers and judges live and send their kids to school. In the lawyer areas, the death penalty is at the scene. No armed robber or other threat to safety makes it out alive, and everyone knows that.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Dec 20, 2009 8:48:35 PM

S.C. that's because lawyers and judges and their families are the aristocracy of the American people. Accept that. By the way, how many times have you failed the California bar?

Posted by: anon | Dec 20, 2009 9:56:50 PM

I am not a lawyer, nor did I ever qualify, nor take that exam. I am a law savvy party. There are 500,000 too many lawyers. We do not need another, especially one with my character. It would be irresponsible to serve any client without full disclosure of the agenda, getting the legal system to suck less.

I thought about what you suggest, to get standing to sue them, only. Their exam has a strong, enduring racial disparity in its pass rate. The exam has no reliability statistics, certainly no validity statistics. It violates a settled case, non certed and allowed to stand by the Supreme Court. From a little interaction with them about their violation of federal law not related to race, I can report, they are tough thugs. People asked me not to attack them because they would hurt others than me. I moved on. Think Mafia, but without sentimentality or feeling for family or friends.

The lawyer knows the law and no facts. The party knows the facts, but little law. The utility and power of the person who knows the facts of an enterprise and a little law has yet to be delineated. I can report that matters are 100 times worse in the law, than anyone in the public realizes. It is 10 times worse than the lawyer realizes, since he is kept in denial by his steady income. But every self-stated goal of every law subject is in failure. It is using methods and concepts from 1250 AD, which should be criminalized.

I would like to start a school that gives a rigorous legal education to parties, and focuses on the counterattack, on the deterrence of this evil, incompetent, and treasonous hierarchy. Because the system is rigged airtight, direct actions would also be in the training. There is full intellectual, moral, and patriotic justification for just ass kicking these vermin.

I also strongly believe that if the public is oppressed, the ordinary lawyer is doubly oppressed, and the street judge is triply oppressed. So, they would thank me later. I know that. Their income would be double. Their productivity would increase because the rule of law is an essential utility product, like electricity and water. And, the esteem of the public would be 10 times greater. The latter is not just nice, but a tool to promote and further the rule of law.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Dec 20, 2009 10:25:00 PM

"By the way, how many times have you failed the California bar?"

He's a psychiatrist from Pennsylvania. His online persona is just an act.

Posted by: JC | Dec 20, 2009 11:55:16 PM

Any of you boys like your hierarchy? It is competent and generates lots of worthless, hyperproceduralist lawyer make work. If that is the aim of the law, it is doing very well. The lawyer knows nothing about any subject outside the law, yet makes 99% of the policy decisions of government. In the case of crime, it allows 23 million Index felonies a year. When the sentencing guidelines dropped all crime by 40%, a tremendous lawyer achievement (forced by public outrage), they were made discretionary.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Dec 21, 2009 9:06:20 AM

But the problem is that he filed a pro se appeal and lost.
I don't know why one would do this.

Posted by: S.cotus | Dec 21, 2009 10:53:59 AM

Question. Is is legal malpractice to sue a person who has been granted legal immunity in a readily available, and clearly written statute? We are not talking about a weak case, a potential case, a dubious case. We are talking about an unlawful claim. Should the attorney filing a claim have read the law governing the subject of his claim and come across this immunity provision? Is that not part of the standard of professional practice, to have read the governing statute?

I certainly did not appeal a verdict pro se, no more than I would perform surgery on myself. That appeal cost me $5K. It was worth every penny in ending a long series of prior successful cases. It also proved the system is rigged airtight in favor of lawyer malfeasance. One has to prove malice before holding a lawyer accountable to the adverse third party. Short of a videotaped admission of an improper motive, that is impossible. The massive amount of lawyer malpractice committed against defendants, in law suit abuse continues unabated, just not against me anymore. Best investment of $5K anyone can ever make.

S.cotus, I did not know you then. I think you have a great attitude, and would have prevailed on my behalf.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Dec 21, 2009 5:21:20 PM

Physician (?) heal thyself?

Posted by: anon | Dec 22, 2009 7:59:01 AM

Anon: You are in denial about the obsoleteness and incompetence of the law. It needs help. You are in denial about your own level of oppression by the hierarchy of its criminal cult enterprise. You failed to notice the cult indoctrination you underwent because it was so good. You believe minds can be read. The future of rare accidents can be foreseen. Twelve strangers can detect the truth after excluding any with knowledge. How? By using their gut feelings. They are really detecting likability, and nothing like the truth. Your Western Civ 101 course was erased from your memory. That is why you do not know the central word of jurisprudence, the word, reasonable, refers to Jesus, in an unlawful technical meaning in our secular nation. You refuse to acknowledge how little value and rule of law the public receives for its $trillion in law budget. That makes the profession a rent seeking enterprise, and not a profit seeking enterprise. Rent seeking is a synonym for armed robbery. You close your ears and eyes to the failure of every self-stated goal of every law subject, each of which is very important to the public safety, welfare, and economic success. You go along with the cover up of a major factor in 9/11, lawyer hyperproceduralism, preventing the killing of our war enemy, and treating the 1993 WTC attack as a crime, holding bogus but expensive trials, and imprisoning soldiers in a war.

The public hates you. Judges hate you. You hate yourself. All, justifiably. I may be the sole person that loves you.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Dec 22, 2009 9:40:14 AM

Physician (?) HEAL thyself!!!!!!!

Posted by: anon | Dec 22, 2009 6:43:54 PM

Back to the article, I don't recall Texas' parole rates ever being at 15% anytime in recent memory. There has been an increase, but it's much more modest - from about 27% several years ago to 30-31% today. But when you've got 160,000 prisoners and release 75,000 per year, that 4% bump is been enough to make a big difference b/c our prison system is right at capacity.

Also, Texas' rising parole rate isn't really a money-driven decision, at least not directly. Instead, the parole board for years had refused to release DWI and drug offenders who'd not received treatment while incarcerated. In 2007 and 2009 the Texas Lege invested significantly in treatment programs in and out of prison (to avoid even more expensive new prison building), and now that those resources are available the parole board has been releasing those sorts of petty offenders at higher rates.

Posted by: Gritsforbreakfast | Dec 23, 2009 8:12:07 AM

Will precentages of inmates sentences be reduced for those in SC prisons? I have a friend in the SCDC and that is the information they are getting. Said it was for all incoming and current inmates. That this law will go ineffect on Jan 1, 2010. Please advise because I cannot find anything out on the internet. Thank you...

Posted by: Morris Davis | Dec 25, 2009 7:24:47 PM

I have problem with all that you said

Posted by: order propecia | Apr 22, 2010 6:52:08 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB