Gary-
You may have a point. However, I have to say that the blame game isn't really fixing the problem. There are, literally, dozens of reasons that we are facing our current incarceration problem, and those mistakes can easily be laid at the doors of both parties. Work-release programs, community sentencing, increased counseling, an end to three-strikes-and-you're-out policies, better education in the inner cities, and - yes - the return of the "military or prison" choice would all improve this problem.

I'm sure that, given a minute or two, you could probably come up with quite a few more promising solutions. I'm equally sure that "blaming Bill Clinton" wouldn't be one of them.

Tracy-
Actually, I've had some pretty close contact with the criminal justice system. Your attitude that "criminals will be criminals," while a delightful demonstration that Calvinism is still alive and kicking, isn't likely to improve our current situation. Community sentencing doesn't always work, but neither does prison. The bottom line is that your vision of "hard time" will concentrate criminality behind bars, but it won't rehabilitate and it won't improve the problem.

Gary-
I grew up as a "Navy brat" and, while I didn't end up going into the service, I have a great deal of respect for the military. I was disappointed by Clinton's decision to close bases. Similarly, I was disgusted by Bush's underfunding of support services for military personnel. Both of these Presidents seem to view the military as a fine thing to have in a pinch, but not really something that needs to be funded. I think we're worse off because of that perspective.

The Wisconsin situation that you describe is exactly the kind of nonsense that has gotten us in this situation. I'm sure that your Governor's actions have made him look like quite the law and order guy, but at what cost?

I agree with you about making people pay for their crimes. Then again, having done some community service in my youth, I can honestly say that prison isn't the only way for society to enact punishment!

Tracy-
As I pointed out in the original post, I believe in incarcerating violent criminals. However, putting petty thieves, drug offenders, and inside traders behind bars seems like a waste of time and resources. Or are you worried about roving gangs of Martha Stewarts wandering through your neighborhood? Do you actually think that stoners represent a clear and present threat to the American way of life?

Yes, by all means, punish the murderers and rapists--but keep in mind that not all crimes are the same and a one size fits all approach to corrections isn't likely to make the world a better place.

Well, Tracy, there are tons of stories and statistics out there that illustrate the incarceration of people who have merely been involved in low levels of marijuana possession and/or distribution. However, as many of the sites that feature these stories are sponsored by pro-legalization groups, I'm going to hold off on referencing them.

On the other hand, the Office of National Drug Policy has issued a paper titled "Who's Really in Prison for Marijuana?" According to this report, "only 1.6% of the state inmate population were held for offenses involving only marijuana, and ... .07 percent ... were incarcerated with marijuana possession as the only charge."

Keeping in mind that (1) this report was issued by the Office of Drug Policy, who have a vested interest in maintaining that America's drug policy is reasonable, (2) that the data they cite are a few years old, and that (3) America's drug policy has gotten stricter over the last few years, we can assume that these numbers are VERY conservative. However, even if they aren't, then 1.6% of the people currently behind bars equals over 37,000 prisoners. That is a huge number of people to feed, clothe, and shelter. And, in case I haven't made this clear, NONE of these people are in prison for a violent crime.

While we're on the topic, 1.6% of our ($49 billion) yearly corrections expenditure is $784 million. Could you come up with a better use for that money? I'm pretty sure that I could.

Okay, Tracy, if you want to stick to possession alone, then you might notice that the report said that ".07% were incarcerated with possession as the only charge." Well, if we stick to those numbers alone, and don't take anything else into consideration, then that's still over 1600 people in prison on possession ALONE. That is, again, not taking into account the increased arrests since these data were compiled, nor is it accounting for the fact that the ODP would probably be inclined to soft-pedal the numbers.

Another resource is the "One Million Nonviolent Prisoners" report by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. It states that "77% of the growth in intake to America's state and federal prisons between 1978 and 1996 was accounted for by nonviolent offenders. According to data collected by the United States Justice Department, from 1978 to 1996, the number of violent offenders entering our nation's prisons doubled (from 43,733 to 98,672 inmates); the number of nonviolent offenders tripled (from 83,721 to 261,796 inmates) and the number of drug offenders increased seven-fold (from 14,241 to 114,071 inmates). Justice Department surveys show that 52.7% of state prison inmates, 73.7% of jail inmates, and 87.6% of federal inmates were imprisoned for offenses which involved neither harm, nor the threat of harm, to a victim. Based on this data, we estimate that by the end of 1998, there were 440,088 nonviolent jail inmates, 639,280 nonviolent state prison inmates, and 106,090 nonviolent federal prisoners locked up in America, for a total 1,185,458 nonviolent prisoners."

Clearly, this data is fairly old. However, given the continuing increase of incercerated persons over the last decade, there is no reason to assume that the number of nonviolent prisoners has decreased.

Okay, so there you are; even if we look at statistics on marijuana possession compiled by the most conservative analysts, we're still talking about over 1600 people who are in prison for nothing more than having some marijuana in their pockets. If we look at the broader problem of incarceration for nonviolent crimes, we're talking about over a million prisoners.

Not having access to a legal library, I can't give you their names or case numbers. However, I think that these numbers are pretty eloquent.

So, Tracy, now that I've provided you with the information that you require, you're dragging in prior convictions and offering a broad-based philosophical justification of incarceration for non-violent crimes.

WHO'S changing the argument?

You can deny this endlessly, and it's quite apparent that you intend to. The fact of the matter, however, is that sentencing guidelines and three-strikes-and-you're-out type policies have taken much of the decision-making out of the hands of judges. It seems to me that we're faced with two possibilities:

1. For a variety of reasons, America has an overcrowded prison system. The problem lies with America's judicial system and, possibly, with our education and social services. In seeking to reduce our prison population, we should seek to improve the system that encourages desperation then channels desperate men (and women) behind bars.

2. Americans are just plain bad. An incredibly large percentage of us are criminals at heart, which explains why so many of us have to be in jail. As you put it, "criminals will be criminals," which means that, even those criminals who aren't committing crimes need to be imprisoned lest they be tempted into further criminality.

Incidentally, this argument assumes that we are -- perhaps genetically -- inferior to Germany, which imprisons one eighth as many people (as a percentage of population, not as a total number). After all, if criminals are born, not made, and they don't have quite as many criminals, then they must be better than us, right?

Incidentally, even if you lighten this perspective and admit that criminals ARE made, then you still have the same problem. For some reason, Germany is making far fewer criminals than America. Why is that?

Tracy, I tend to support perspective 1; you, seem to support perspective 2. As someone who's dedicated a great deal of his life to education, I am offended at the assertion that people cannot be educated or improved. If our prison system isn't educating or improving, then it is failing. And if people are pouring into jail, then that, clearly, is the case.

Tracy-
I don't think there's any way that we're going to agree on this. I've known people who shoplifted to feed their families, sold marijuana to finance their educations, and committed violent crimes for which they later repented. My experiences have tended to make me a little more understanding about the contexts in which crimes occur and the contexts in which rehabilitation is possible. Moreover, having been involved in both our education system and our social system, I know that, in many cases, they are inadequate for the needs of our population.

While my experiences have led me to certain conclusions, your experiences have clearly led you in the opposite direction. It is pretty clear that there is abosolutely nothing that I can say and there is absolutely no data that I can provide which will convince you that your perspective is short-sighted. The same, clearly, is true of me. And there, I think, is where it ends.