SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: E who wrote (3917)1/30/2001 1:36:03 AM
From: epicure  Respond to of 82486
 
I believe they are called "gaited communities". But they don't look all that safe to me.

I think I'd rather just solve the problems. Even is it costs money. Or involves government.



To: E who wrote (3917)1/30/2001 4:15:01 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
Hi E,
I wanted to address a post that you made a day or two ago...I am on a slow link so I don't want to hunt it down. Anyway, it was on abortion and how removing government funding for it doesn't affect the "haves" it only affects the "have nots".

I am very pro-choice (in a broad definition of the term, but also where abortion is concerned)...However, I respect that some people may be anti-abortion. As long as they don't restrict individuals from making their own choice, I consider it their business. However, when we have government funding of abortion, we have effectively forced those individuals to provide real support for abortion through real dollars. I believe that if I expect the anti-abortion people to respect other's right to make a personal choice, we cannot force them to support something that they find abhorrent.

I am a strong believer that situational ethics should be avoided. This means that, just because something benefits me or supports my position, doesn't mean that it is right. the pro-choice issue is very important to me, I find that far too many people stop applying it (pro-choice) when it stops benefitting them directly. Again, I use the pro-choice term to mean far more than just the right to have an abortion. It can also mean the right to choose not to support others having an abortion.

OK, I am rambling...time to go to bed...



To: E who wrote (3917)1/30/2001 9:58:39 AM
From: Daniel Schuh  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
We need a LOT of Bastilles

We've been hard at work at that problem, E. Quick stats:

GAO found that: (1) the total U.S. prison population grew from about
329,800 inmates in 1980 to about 1.1 million inmates in 1995, which is
an increase of about 242 percent; (2) during this period, the federal
inmate population grew about 311 percent, and the inmate populations
under the jurisdiction of state prisons grew about 237 percent; (3) the
corresponding average annual growth rates were 9.9 percent of federal
populations and 8.4 percent for state populations; (4) in June 1996, the
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) projected that the federal prison population
could reach about 125,000 inmates by 2000, an increase of 25 percent
over the 1995 level; (5) in July 1995, the National Council on Crime and
Delinquency (NCCD) projected that the total federal and state prison
population under sentencing policies in effect in 1994 could reach 1.4
million inmates by 2000, representing an increase of about 24 percent
over the 1995 level; (6) in recent years, inmate population growth can
be traced in large part to major legislative initiatives that are
intended to get tough on crime, particularly on drug offenders;

[love that war on (some) drugs] (7) U.S.
prison annual operating costs grew from about $3.1 billion in fiscal
year (FY) 1980 to about $17.7 billion in current dollars in FY 1994; (8)
BOP projected that its capital costs for new federal prisons scheduled
to begin operations during fiscal years 1996 to 2006 could total about
$4 billion; (9) BOP, NCCD, California, and Texas each use a form of
microsimulation modeling to forecast prison inmate populations; and (10)
according to BOP, its projections of federal prison inmate populations
for 1991 to 1995 were within 1.4 percent, on average, of the actual
populations.
(http://www.fas.org/irp/gao/ggd97015.htm)

A projection up to current times:

A recent study by the Justice Policy Institute predicts that on February 15, 2000, America's prison
population will hit two million. This number may sound astonishingly high - but put it into context and it
becomes astronomical. In 1970, the prison population was just 200,000. This number rose to 315,974
in 1980 and 739,980 in 1990. The Justice Policy Institute's findings indicate that by the end of the year,
we will have increased the prison population by 61% more than we did during the 80's.
abanet.org

Oops, looks like we had no problem meeting that projection, with W's able assistance.

Cooling a two-decade trend[!], the U.S. prison population
rose in 1999 at its lowest annual rate since
1979, according to a study released
Wednesday by the Justice Department.

The national prison population grew by 3.4
percent last year, reaching 2,026,596 people
behind bars and slowing from the average
growth rate of 6.5 percent between 1990 and 1999. . . .

Texas was operating the largest prison system at the end of 1999, the study
found, with 163,190 people behind bars. It was followed closely by California,
with 163,067 inmates, and the federal prison system, with 135,246.

Louisiana and Texas had the highest incarceration rates. Minnesota and Maine
had the lowest.

Nine states more than doubled their prison populations between 1990 and 1999,
led by Texas, which had a 173% rise. Idaho was second with a 147 percent rise,
followed by West Virginia, up 126 percent.
cnn.com

I'd guess W's solution to his previous solution would be to increase the injection rate, or something.

Cheers, Dan, blackly.