What'll You Have-Health Care or Lots of Prisons

Reading this I can't help but feel that the US must be the world's stupidest country.

Ha
Have to agree with you, sigh...
 
The article says,

Mr. Wilkerson is serving a life sentence in California — for stealing a $2.50 pair of socks. As The Economist noted recently, he already had two offenses on his record (both for abetting robbery at age 19), and so the “three strikes” law resulted in a life sentence.

This is unjust, of course. But considering that California spends almost $49,000 annually per prison inmate, it’s also an extraordinary waste of money.

In Louisiana, we don't even have the money to keep some our worst criminals locked up. We also don't have money for health care. But laissez les bons temps rouler...
 
Also note: part of that $49,000 spent per inmate includes free government health care. Prisoners: another segment of the population that receives government healthcare paid for by the rest of us.
 
From here, I don't see that I know enough to understand why a petty theft misdemeanor was prosecuted as a felony. Assuming that the prosecutor had a reason and that the defense (who knew about the 3 strikes issue) wasn't able to convince them otherwise, then it's hard to second guess without any more facts.

OTOH, knowing he has TWO prior convictions, this guy still decided to steal something, even if it was only socks. There likely is more story about him as well.
 
From here, I don't see that I know enough to understand why a petty theft misdemeanor was prosecuted as a felony. Assuming that the prosecutor had a reason and that the defense (who knew about the 3 strikes issue) wasn't able to convince them otherwise, then it's hard to second guess without any more facts.
Under California law, even petty theft can be a felony if the perp had a prior conviction for an offense involving some form of theft. But in reality, this particular scenario is a poster child for why the "three strikes" law needs to be amended.
 
I still want to say I'm not so sure. Having been the victim of several crimes for which the perpetrator was never caught, I'm sure there are many cases where someone with 3 convictions has actually committed more crimes, perhaps many more. It doesn't seem unreasonable to have a limit - anyone who cannot keep to some basic rules of society (do not steal, do not assault other people, do not rape or kill people) and demonstrates that by being caught and convicted multiple times - can be segregated from society by life imprisonment.

I'm not suggesting in this case there are other crimes. I have too little information to know what really happened. As it's being spun (life in prison for stealing a $3 item) it seems ridiculous. But the basic concept that people who repeatedly inflict criminal behavior on others should not be allowed to continue to do so, seems like a good idea to me.
 
I think a dollar spent on prisons is a good deal. Nobody commits just one crime. They're only doing time for the ones they got caught for. And if they're in prison they're not stealing from the rest of us.

I'm quite certain there is more to the story than a $3 pair of socks. It sounds like a plea deal to me.
 
I wonder how health care in prison compares with being on the streets and no health insurance. If you have a serious health problem might it be worth turning into a petty criminal to get some prison time and get your condition treated.

PS - I'm not really serious :whistle:
 
Three strikes is ridiculous. Sentencing a human being to life imprisonment for some stupid crime like stealing a car might be appropriate under some circumstances, but certainly not in all circumstances. I really like the way 3 strikes takes human capriciousness out of the loop, but a human's life fate is too big a decision to make mechanically, based on a subset of the facts. There needs to be a human being involved, who can weigh factors other than how many strike buckets are filled. Call it a death panel or whatever you want, there needs to be good judgement involved.
 
there needs to be good judgment involved.

Some discretion allowed makes sense. Too much discretion allowed moves us away from the rule of law into the capricious whim of whoever happens to be in power at the time. Are you suggesting replacing three strikes with an inverse parole panel, who gets to decide who stays in jail for life? I can imagine how such a process might avoid setting overly harsh sentences for minor crimes, but I can also imagine crazy plea bargains to hide or downgrade crimes, as well as huge backlash against the panel if people they didn't incarcerate commit additional crimes.

Do you have a concrete proposal for replacing three strikes?
 
Are you suggesting replacing three strikes with an inverse parole panel, who gets to decide who stays in jail for life?
Do you have a concrete proposal for replacing three strikes?

My concrete proposal is the three strikes is repealed, and that judges and juries continue sentencing people as their conscience and the law allows.

I'm about as strong a "rule of law" advocate as they come, but I recognize that the law is not a bright line, and I prefer to err on the side of letting people go free rather than locking them up at taxpayer's expense, when it's not clear.

One thing I did with my Early Retirement is to spend some time at the courthouse watching whatever court cases I could find, to get a sense of how justice works in this country.

The overall conclusion I found was that it's already a pretty arbitrary system; the disposition of most criminal cases doesn't involve jury trials. By far the most common means these cases get settled is plea bargains between a public defender and a DA, neither of which has spent more than a few minutes examining the details of the case. It is very clear to me that justice has very little to do with outcomes; once you are arrested basically you end up either going to jail or getting out on a random technicality based on chance. Out of many dozens of cases I observed, only once did I see someone who actually convinced a judge of their innocence. It seems very common that people get locked up for years based on just a few minutes review by the justice system, which just doesn't seem right to me. I believe it's always better to err on the side of freedom than justice.
 
I kind of like the Texas comedian "Ron Whites" view on the criminal justice system. We have the death penalty and WE use it. :LOL:
We need more States with that express lane he talks about, if you know what I mean?
That would really save our tax dollars.
I'm mostly joking folks but I really enjoy listening to Ron White, a super funny guy.
Steve
PS. I have given some thought to visiting the Court house and observing cases when I retire.
I've always been big on doing my jury duty.
 
I think a dollar spent on prisons is a good deal. Nobody commits just one crime. They're only doing time for the ones they got caught for. And if they're in prison they're not stealing from the rest of us.
I'm quite certain there is more to the story than a $3 pair of socks. It sounds like a plea deal to me.
Well said. :cool:
From the other side of the fence, pun intended, there are 3 prisons within several or more ;) miles of here. 1 is max security for the criminally insane, and 2 are medium security. Full to the brim.
I know some folks who have taken jobs there and commute: some as guards, some as food service, some as office staff, some medical staff, etc.
What little they can say about their place of w*rk and the inmates :nonono: makes me feel very good that I am on this side of that fence.
Everybody's innocent, right? :rolleyes:
 
I think a dollar spent on prisons is a good deal. Nobody commits just one crime. They're only doing time for the ones they got caught for. And if they're in prison they're not stealing from the rest of us.

I'm quite certain there is more to the story than a $3 pair of socks. It sounds like a plea deal to me.

Nah its better to just get up in arms and say how stupid this country is. More shocking and alarming :)
 
Three strikes is ridiculous. .... There needs to be a human being involved, who can weigh factors other than how many strike buckets are filled.

There is a human involved - the human that decided that they would commit (at least) three crimes in a jurisdiction with a three strikes law.

I never like to think of the government, judge, jury, or society as "sentencing" anyone. The criminals sentenced themselves by committing the crime.

-ERD50
 
The costs (to victims) of leaving career criminals on the street are about four times as much as locking them up.

Locking these people up is a bargain to society in a single case, and incarcerating these people also provides a disincentive to others who might want to follow in their footsteps. Link.

But we did find a study by Professor Mark Cohen at Vanderbilt University that breaks down the lifetime costs imposed by a career criminal. In a 1998 article, he looked at a target population of chronic juvenile offenders who are assumed to continue a life of crime as an adult. The assumptions used in this study include that a typical adult crime career is six years and the criminal spends nearly eight years in prison. Using 1997 dollars, he concluded that the total external costs of a life of crime range from $ 1. 5 to $ 1. 8 million (Cohen, “The Monetary Value of Saving a High-Risk Youth,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1998).
Using 1997 dollars, Cohen estimated:
1. $ 165,000 in victim costs per year of a criminal's career (about 35% attributable to tangible costs such as lost wages and medical bills and 65% attributable to the value of lost quality of life to victims);
2. the average career criminal annually adds $ 40,000 to the cost of the criminal justice system (including investigation, defense, incarceration, parole, and probation); and
3. the prisoner is not a productive member of society while incarcerated and, based on an average of eight years in prison, the total foregone earnings for a career criminal is $ 60,000 or $ 52,000 in present value terms.
Cohen concluded that juvenile delinquency between age 14 and 17 imposes $ 83,000 to $ 335,000 while an adult career criminal adds $ 1. 4 million. He concluded that the total external costs of a life of crime range from $ 1. 5 to $ 1. 8 million. Of this amount, about 25% is tangible victim costs, 50% lost quality of life, 20% criminal justice costs, and 5% offender productivity losses (Cohen, “The Monetary Value of Saving a High-Risk Youth,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1998).
Now, better still would be preventing these people from getting into trouble in the first place. But, once they've gone down that path (and demonstrated their intent to stay on that path by committing three felonies), it's time for society to take appropriate defensive action. "Three strikes" is relatively new--a reaction to the failure of a system with too much judicial discretion.
 
There needs to be a human being involved, who can weigh factors other than how many strike buckets are filled. Call it a death panel or whatever you want, there needs to be good judgement involved.

Yes, we need humans involved to collect bribes and payola, bring discrimination or reverse discrimination into the process, void any possibility of consistency and allow emotion to rule the day. :)
 
And we humans write three strikes laws that can't tell the difference between rape and stealing a few rolls of toilet paper.

Given that we incarcerate more people than just about anywhere in the world, and our incarceration rate keeps going up, I think that we have a problem. http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_newfigures.pdf

Here's my favorite quote from the publication at the link:

Despite falling crime rates since 1991, the rate of incarceration in prison has increased by more than 50% since that time.
Talk about ignoring cause and effect. Is it at least possible that the increased incarceration rate has been the cause of the falling crime rate?

Does anyone think the crime rate would be lower if more criminals were on the street?

Regarding incarceration rates in other countries: I'm not sure how it applies to the US. I think many of us have visited some of the crime-ridden countries with those low incarceration rates--that's not where the US needs to be. OTOH, some low-crime countries have low incarceration rates--it would be great if the US were in this position, but there are a lot of other societal factors at work here.
Saudi Arabia has low crime rates and low incarceration rates--but I wouldn't want their criminal justice system.
 
Yes, I agree that the article tells us nothing about cause and effect. My concern is the very high numbers of people jailed and put in prison in the US. Seems like solutions other than three strikes might be a better idea. Plus the effect of the drug war and drug problems on the whole issue of incarceration is problematic. And even more troubling is the way disproportionate number of black males in prison as compared with other groups.
 
Last edited:
There will always be those who favor strict laws and harsh punishments, and those who favor a less controlled society and a less punative approach to sentencing. Just as there are those who favor strict child rearing, and those who are more leniant.

It's baked into the structure of individual personalities. To me it is obvious that whatever we are doing now in criminal justice isn't any more effective than our attempts to make the rest of the world behave as we would like them too. And if they don't, here comes a drone to kill Mr. and Mrs. Misbehaving Foreigner and their childtren. Now maybe they will agree that we are a great and wise nation!

And here at home, The War On Drugs is really working well!

When a country is going broke and demonizing a huge segment of it's people with its current program, if it does not look for other ways it's leaders and citizens are deluded.

Of course we knew that didn't we?

Ha
 
Politicians pass laws like mandatory sentencing for habitual offenders (3-strike), hate crime laws, etc., usually in reaction to public outrage over some horrendous crime. California's law was passed at least partly as a result of the Polly Klaas murder. They do it not out of any great sense of justice, but because a vocal constituent group demands it and they are bowing to the pressure.

Some of the resulting laws are good, make sense and work. Others are poorly written and not well thought out. In either case, what Tom Wolfe called "the Chow" occasionally gets chewed up and we find some glaring examples of what was not supposed to happen.

What is not written about are the criminals who should be in prison, forever.

And at least some of what is written about is completely skewed toward a certain viewpoint. My favorite example of an anti-habitual offender law case is that of Kevin Weber, who is famously known as the man who got 26 years to life for "stealing four cookies." In most stories that is all you know about poor Kevin. The web is full of stories of the great injustice done in his case and varied ways to point out how stupid and inhumane a society has to be to do such a thing for a petty offense. "He was just a poor homeless guy looking for something to eat!"

What is not well publicized in the case of Kevin Weber is the complete story. He had two prior burglary convictions, the first resulting from multiple burglaries, and the second involved burglarizing a cop's apartment and pulling a gun on the resident.

And the cookie theft? Well, Kevin broke through the roof of a restaurant and attempted to open the safe, when that failed and he tripped the alarm system, he left and was caught with four cookies that he happened to have grabbed off the counter while he was inside the store.

When his case came up before the court of appeals the court unanimously voted against Kevin and the opinion said he was a prime example of the kind of habitual criminal that the law was intended to deal with.

What is the truth about Curtis Wilkerson? Who knows. We have an often quoted story from the Economist, which was picked up by the NYT which is even more often quoted, but no further details other than "imprisoned for life for stealing socks!" Sounds a lot like "imprisoned for life for stealing cookies!"

I don't think we've got the whole story here.
 
Back
Top Bottom