Jump to content


Prison population/non violent drug offenders


Recommended Posts

 

 

 

 

 

You're not presenting a straw man. The straw man is that anyone thinks not locking up nonviolent drug offenders will solve all the problems. It won't. Certainly no informed person I'm aware of on the left thinks that. Until you solve poverty, the problem of crime remains. It's also impossible to divorce the issue of the failed drug war from violent crime and incarceration. They're interconnected. The drug trade is violent precisely because it is an illegal black market where there is no legal recourse for anyone involved.

 

That being said, 20% of our prison population is comprised of nonviolent "offenders." That's not an insignificant percent or an insignificant amount of people. It's a moral abomination and a stain on a country that lauds itself as a "beacon of freedom."

 

As to the bolded part. This is a quote from the article.

 

Only 20 percent of prisoners in the United States are serving time for drug offenses. The number of prisoners that politicians are willing to consider "low-level, nonviolent" drug offenders is far smaller.

 

The non-violent offenders are less than 20%.

 

As to the RED hi lighted part.

 

LINK

 

Now, most of the top 5 (at least) talks about drug crimes and how there needs to not be mandatory sentencing for these crimes. Not much of what I read talked about violent crimes. So, I'm assuming he is talking about non-violent crimes. This is Eric Holder's top 10 list of how to reduce the over populated prisons.

 

Now, this article seems to contradict the one I posted above. It would be interesting to know what the actual truth is.

 

You mentioned poverty related to crime. I'm not necessarily questioning you. However, one political side would try to have everyone believe that poverty in America is horrible and getting worse every day. To that, I found this article very interesting and it's from a pretty left leaning site.

 

LINK

 

So, poverty is getting worse and violent crime is getting better.

 

Another part of this that leaves me scratching my head. If violent crime is going down, and non-violent offenders aren't the majority of the prison population, then why do we have an explosion in prison population?

 

Let me throw out a theory that I have no data to prove.

 

Back in the 80s and 90s, there was a big movement in the government to become tougher on crime. It was talked about during the Reagan years, Bush 1 years and Clinton took it even a step farther and put legislation through to increase the police force by 100,000 cops to try to reign in violent crime.

 

Well...it appears to me it has worked. So....is the violent crime rate going down because we are locking up a large portion of the right people who would be out committing more violent crimes? I know that goes against most popular political speak today. But, is it true? So, if we reduce sentences and let more people out of prison to reduce prison populations, are we going to see a rise in crime rate again? If so, what is going to be the solution then?

 

 

Sorry, this discussion is changing in scope faster than I can figure out what the point is. I'll try and hit the refresh button here with my main thoughts.

 

1. If the total number of nonviolent drug offenders behind bars was 1%, it would still be a moral abomination. It would still be true that by not arresting those people, it would cost less not just for the state, but for society as a whole (try to get a job with a conviction on your record). Letting them out after you've already sent them to prison is anther story. It seems very few people who go through the penal experience come out any less apt to commit crime. In fact the opposite may be true.

 

2. Poverty is one of, but certainly not the only, reason people turn to crime. We've had a few epidemics of white collar crime, including one in the years leading up to the Great Recession. These tend to not get much media attention. But generally speaking, if you have a comfortable salary and a home, a car, money to spend on leisure activities, and a reasonable expectation that your future financial situation is secure, you have less reason to get involved with crime at all. On the other hand, if you can't get work either because you can't afford advanced education/training, there are no decent-paying career opportunities anywhere nearby (e.g. inner cities), or you're already a convict (for whatever reason), your incentive to make money through criminal activity increases.

 

3. Which means your likelihood of being involved in violent crime increases. If we weren't so busy pretending that the "War on Drugs"––which isn't a war, because like Ellis Carver in The Wire quips, "Wars end"––was somehow essential to our national survival, and we regulated the drug trade like we do any other business, the incentives and rationale for violent behavior in the drug trade practically disappears. I haven't heard too many stories about marijuana dispensary owners doing drive by shootings on other marijuana dispensary owners.

 

4. Context is important, and I think that's what your post was going for. Yeah, the United States is not Honduras. I don't know the stats off the top of my head because this is pretty far afield from my area, but I would imagine between gang violence and domestic violence, you'd have a pretty big chunk of the numbers.

 

1) I agree. But, that doesn't seem to be the attitude of Holder in the link I posted. He seems to think releasing non-violent drug offenders or greatly reducing there sentences is a main (if not THE main) way to reduce prison over population. To me, if we want to fix the over population of prisons, talking about non-violent drug crimes is mostly pointless.

 

3) But, like I said, we are lead to believe that poverty is growing and getting worse and worse and worse in our country but yet our violent crime rate is going down. Which, leads me to believe that, yes, it is a factor but a small factor. Community, family, leadership/moral examples (or lack there of) is a much bigger issue. AND, once someone commits a violent crime, having the police force to lock them up and keep them off the street is a much more productive effort to reducing violent crime than focusing on non-violent drug crimes.

Link to comment

I didn't read the article, but having worked in the corrections field you certainly see a large number of drug offenders in corrections. Some deserve to be there, some don't due to their addiction problems. Even when the corrections industry tries to rehab prisoners by putting them through drug treatment a large part still reoffend at some point for a number of reasons. People that are incarcerated do learn how to be better/worse criminals from others within the population. Some you can't get through treatment. Unfortunately they either up their levels of crime, die from overdosing/extended drug use, or get killed out in population in other crimes.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

I didn't read the article, but having worked in the corrections field you certainly see a large number of drug offenders in corrections. Some deserve to be there, some don't due to their addiction problems. Even when the corrections industry tries to rehab prisoners by putting them through drug treatment a large part still reoffend at some point for a number of reasons. People that are incarcerated do learn how to be better/worse criminals from others within the population. Some you can't get through treatment. Unfortunately they either up their levels of crime, die from overdosing/extended drug use, or get killed out in population in other crimes.

 

Great post. Thanks.

Link to comment

 

 

 

 

 

 

You're not presenting a straw man. The straw man is that anyone thinks not locking up nonviolent drug offenders will solve all the problems. It won't. Certainly no informed person I'm aware of on the left thinks that. Until you solve poverty, the problem of crime remains. It's also impossible to divorce the issue of the failed drug war from violent crime and incarceration. They're interconnected. The drug trade is violent precisely because it is an illegal black market where there is no legal recourse for anyone involved.

 

That being said, 20% of our prison population is comprised of nonviolent "offenders." That's not an insignificant percent or an insignificant amount of people. It's a moral abomination and a stain on a country that lauds itself as a "beacon of freedom."

 

As to the bolded part. This is a quote from the article.

 

Only 20 percent of prisoners in the United States are serving time for drug offenses. The number of prisoners that politicians are willing to consider "low-level, nonviolent" drug offenders is far smaller.

 

The non-violent offenders are less than 20%.

 

As to the RED hi lighted part.

 

LINK

 

Now, most of the top 5 (at least) talks about drug crimes and how there needs to not be mandatory sentencing for these crimes. Not much of what I read talked about violent crimes. So, I'm assuming he is talking about non-violent crimes. This is Eric Holder's top 10 list of how to reduce the over populated prisons.

 

Now, this article seems to contradict the one I posted above. It would be interesting to know what the actual truth is.

 

You mentioned poverty related to crime. I'm not necessarily questioning you. However, one political side would try to have everyone believe that poverty in America is horrible and getting worse every day. To that, I found this article very interesting and it's from a pretty left leaning site.

 

LINK

 

So, poverty is getting worse and violent crime is getting better.

 

Another part of this that leaves me scratching my head. If violent crime is going down, and non-violent offenders aren't the majority of the prison population, then why do we have an explosion in prison population?

 

Let me throw out a theory that I have no data to prove.

 

Back in the 80s and 90s, there was a big movement in the government to become tougher on crime. It was talked about during the Reagan years, Bush 1 years and Clinton took it even a step farther and put legislation through to increase the police force by 100,000 cops to try to reign in violent crime.

 

Well...it appears to me it has worked. So....is the violent crime rate going down because we are locking up a large portion of the right people who would be out committing more violent crimes? I know that goes against most popular political speak today. But, is it true? So, if we reduce sentences and let more people out of prison to reduce prison populations, are we going to see a rise in crime rate again? If so, what is going to be the solution then?

 

 

Sorry, this discussion is changing in scope faster than I can figure out what the point is. I'll try and hit the refresh button here with my main thoughts.

 

1. If the total number of nonviolent drug offenders behind bars was 1%, it would still be a moral abomination. It would still be true that by not arresting those people, it would cost less not just for the state, but for society as a whole (try to get a job with a conviction on your record). Letting them out after you've already sent them to prison is anther story. It seems very few people who go through the penal experience come out any less apt to commit crime. In fact the opposite may be true.

 

2. Poverty is one of, but certainly not the only, reason people turn to crime. We've had a few epidemics of white collar crime, including one in the years leading up to the Great Recession. These tend to not get much media attention. But generally speaking, if you have a comfortable salary and a home, a car, money to spend on leisure activities, and a reasonable expectation that your future financial situation is secure, you have less reason to get involved with crime at all. On the other hand, if you can't get work either because you can't afford advanced education/training, there are no decent-paying career opportunities anywhere nearby (e.g. inner cities), or you're already a convict (for whatever reason), your incentive to make money through criminal activity increases.

 

3. Which means your likelihood of being involved in violent crime increases. If we weren't so busy pretending that the "War on Drugs"––which isn't a war, because like Ellis Carver in The Wire quips, "Wars end"––was somehow essential to our national survival, and we regulated the drug trade like we do any other business, the incentives and rationale for violent behavior in the drug trade practically disappears. I haven't heard too many stories about marijuana dispensary owners doing drive by shootings on other marijuana dispensary owners.

 

4. Context is important, and I think that's what your post was going for. Yeah, the United States is not Honduras. I don't know the stats off the top of my head because this is pretty far afield from my area, but I would imagine between gang violence and domestic violence, you'd have a pretty big chunk of the numbers.

 

1) I agree. But, that doesn't seem to be the attitude of Holder in the link I posted. He seems to think releasing non-violent drug offenders or greatly reducing there sentences is a main (if not THE main) way to reduce prison over population. To me, if we want to fix the over population of prisons, talking about non-violent drug crimes is mostly pointless.

 

3) But, like I said, we are lead to believe that poverty is growing and getting worse and worse and worse in our country but yet our violent crime rate is going down. Which, leads me to believe that, yes, it is a factor but a small factor. Community, family, leadership/moral examples (or lack there of) is a much bigger issue. AND, once someone commits a violent crime, having the police force to lock them up and keep them off the street is a much more productive effort to reducing violent crime than focusing on non-violent drug crimes.

 

 

I think we're pretty much on the same page but mostly pointless is not the same thing as plain old-fashioned pointless. Think about this for a second: the last three presidents of the United States all used narcotics of some kind. I think Obama's exact words were––but don't quote me––"I smoked marijuana and did a little blow" (because anyone who has "I did a little blow" sort of roll of their tongue really means just a little). That's all well and good because they got away with it. If they'd been caught, they never would have been president. Probably never even would have run for public office.

 

If the 20% figure is correct––that roughly a fifth of all offenders are in prison because they used or are addicted to narcotics––that's still a tremendous piece of the pie. Cut a pizza five ways and see if it doesn't look sizable. Then there's the strain on police departments to police the use of these readily available drugs. All that effort and the hundreds of billions spent to push against an exhausting tide.

 

So it may not be "THE main way," but it is one of the main ways. Community. I agree with you there 100%. I'd start by taking a look at mental health.

 

I'd also look at guns.

Link to comment

A lot of that 20% were violent crimes where drugs were involved.

 

Are you saying we shouldn't put them in prison either?

 

No I'm not saying that . . . and I'm sort of confused how you would have gotten that from anything I said. My point was only ever about nonviolent drug offenders. I went back to the OP article to find it. According to Vox, "America's 'nonviolent drug offenders' account for a paltry 12 percent of America's prisoners." That's the confusion. I thought it was 20%. Vox argues it's 12%.

 

Fortunately for my argument it could be 1%, or 5%, or .034%. I'll take the 12%. My position is arresting anyone––even a single person––for a nonviolent drug offense is wrong. I also don't agree with the writer's choice of words. If you suddenly find yourself one day with a 12% reduction in the prison population with the stroke of a pen, that's a tremendous reduction with very little work.

 

Which brings me to my final point. Unless we're willing as a country to take a hard look at our drug policies from top to bottom, we're probably not going to see any kind of miraculous drop in the crime rate. If you keep the black market open, it's going to remain as violent as it is today. You're going to have all of the problems that we already associate with it. Which is why my position has consistently been we need to address the War on Drugs and everything that goes with it.

Link to comment

 

A lot of that 20% were violent crimes where drugs were involved.

 

Are you saying we shouldn't put them in prison either?

 

1) No I'm not saying that . . . and I'm sort of confused how you would have gotten that from anything I said. My point was only ever about nonviolent drug offenders. I went back to the OP article to find it. According to Vox, "America's 'nonviolent drug offenders' account for a paltry 12 percent of America's prisoners." That's the confusion. I thought it was 20%. Vox argues it's 12%.

 

2) Fortunately for my argument it could be 1%, or 5%, or .034%. I'll take the 12%. My position is arresting anyone––even a single person––for a nonviolent drug offense is wrong. I also don't agree with the writer's choice of words. If you suddenly find yourself one day with a 12% reduction in the prison population with the stroke of a pen, that's a tremendous reduction with very little work.

 

3) Which brings me to my final point. Unless we're willing as a country to take a hard look at our drug policies from top to bottom, we're probably not going to see any kind of miraculous drop in the crime rate. If you keep the black market open, it's going to remain as violent as it is today. You're going to have all of the problems that we already associate with it. Which is why my position has consistently been we need to address the War on Drugs and everything that goes with it.

 

I numbered your paragraphs to make it easier to respond.

 

1) I'm saying that due to the confusion you mentioned later in this paragraph. You were implying that 20% of the prisoners shouldn't be in prison due to drug crimes. From these numbers, 8% of the prisoners are violent criminals and so I wanted clarification as to if you wanted them released too.

 

2) I completely agree that someone just having a couple ounces of pot on them and getting arrested and put in prison shouldn't happen. We agree that these people should not be in prison. However, I have a question. What percentage of these 12% prisoners are in prison because they are trying to deal drugs like crack, cocaine or heroine to kids? I would think that technically would be a non-violent crime. Nobody was getting beat up, shot or raped. Just simply selling crack to kids. Should those people be not arrested and those laws making that illegal be taken off the books?

 

3) Well, we already have seen a pretty dang good drop in violent crime rate since the late 80s-early 90s.

 

We have already seen a 12% drop in violent crime since 2009.

 

FBI

 

13violentcrimeoffensefigure.gif

 

Time Magazine

 

Violent crime in the U.S. fell 4.4 percent last year to the lowest level in decades, the FBI announced Monday.

In 2013, there were 1.16 million violent crimes, the lowest amount since the 1978’s 1.09 million violent crimes, Reuters reports.

All types of violent crimes experienced decline last year, with rape dropping 6.3 percent, murder and non-negligent manslaughter dropping 4.4 percent and robbery dropping 2.8 percent.

The rate of violent crime is 367.9 crimes for every 100,000 people, which marked a 5.1 percent decline since 2012. The rate has fallen each year since at least 1994.

Possible reasons for the decline include the country’s high incarceration rate, an aging population and an increased use of security cameras and cell phone videos capturing incidents.

 

300px-Violent_crime_rates_by_gender_1973
This graph shows something around a 50% drop in violent crime rates. I would consider that to be significant.
Link to comment

1) I'm saying that due to the confusion you mentioned later in this paragraph. You were implying that 20% of the prisoners shouldn't be in prison due to drug crimes. From these numbers, 8% of the prisoners are violent criminals and so I wanted clarification as to if you wanted them released too.

 

2) I completely agree that someone just having a couple ounces of pot on them and getting arrested and put in prison shouldn't happen. We agree that these people should not be in prison. However, I have a question. What percentage of these 12% prisoners are in prison because they are trying to deal drugs like crack, cocaine or heroine to kids? I would think that technically would be a non-violent crime. Nobody was getting beat up, shot or raped. Just simply selling crack to kids. Should those people be not arrested and those laws making that illegal be taken off the books?

1) I think there are some misrepresentations regarding these 20-12-8% projections.

2) How can you put a number on that? Do you know how many are in there for mere possession? Obviously, it is going to be a case-by-case scenario. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to remedy the situation, and of course no one believes it will solve all of the problems.

Link to comment

 

1) I'm saying that due to the confusion you mentioned later in this paragraph. You were implying that 20% of the prisoners shouldn't be in prison due to drug crimes. From these numbers, 8% of the prisoners are violent criminals and so I wanted clarification as to if you wanted them released too.

 

2) I completely agree that someone just having a couple ounces of pot on them and getting arrested and put in prison shouldn't happen. We agree that these people should not be in prison. However, I have a question. What percentage of these 12% prisoners are in prison because they are trying to deal drugs like crack, cocaine or heroine to kids? I would think that technically would be a non-violent crime. Nobody was getting beat up, shot or raped. Just simply selling crack to kids. Should those people be not arrested and those laws making that illegal be taken off the books?

1) I think there are some misrepresentations regarding these 20-12-8% projections.

2) How can you put a number on that? Do you know how many are in there for mere possession? Obviously, it is going to be a case-by-case scenario. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to remedy the situation, and of course no one believes it will solve all of the problems.

 

1) How so?

 

2) I have said repeatedly that I am all for not putting in prison people who simply have position of pot...etc. My point here is to what threshold is Huskerx claiming drug crimes should be taken off the books? Should crack be legal? Should the guy trying to sell cocaine to an 11 year old be prosecuted and put in prison?

 

I have to assume that drug dealers of all types of illegal drugs are part of the 20%.

 

And, if you read the 10 points from the article about Holder, it's pretty clear to me that he believes decriminalizing drugs is THE main way to reduce prison populations. My questioning is at what point does it actually become a crime that should be prosecuted? Huskerx just says "War on drugs". Well, that's a pretty dang big umbrella to put up. AND, the violent crime rate has come down a heck of a lot even though we still have the war on crime.

 

I tend to believe that's because in many cases (not all obviously) we are locking up the right people.

Link to comment

 

 

A lot of that 20% were violent crimes where drugs were involved.

 

Are you saying we shouldn't put them in prison either?

 

1) No I'm not saying that . . . and I'm sort of confused how you would have gotten that from anything I said. My point was only ever about nonviolent drug offenders. I went back to the OP article to find it. According to Vox, "America's 'nonviolent drug offenders' account for a paltry 12 percent of America's prisoners." That's the confusion. I thought it was 20%. Vox argues it's 12%.

 

2) Fortunately for my argument it could be 1%, or 5%, or .034%. I'll take the 12%. My position is arresting anyone––even a single person––for a nonviolent drug offense is wrong. I also don't agree with the writer's choice of words. If you suddenly find yourself one day with a 12% reduction in the prison population with the stroke of a pen, that's a tremendous reduction with very little work.

 

3) Which brings me to my final point. Unless we're willing as a country to take a hard look at our drug policies from top to bottom, we're probably not going to see any kind of miraculous drop in the crime rate. If you keep the black market open, it's going to remain as violent as it is today. You're going to have all of the problems that we already associate with it. Which is why my position has consistently been we need to address the War on Drugs and everything that goes with it.

 

I numbered your paragraphs to make it easier to respond.

 

1) I'm saying that due to the confusion you mentioned later in this paragraph. You were implying that 20% of the prisoners shouldn't be in prison due to drug crimes. From these numbers, 8% of the prisoners are violent criminals and so I wanted clarification as to if you wanted them released too.

 

2) I completely agree that someone just having a couple ounces of pot on them and getting arrested and put in prison shouldn't happen. We agree that these people should not be in prison. However, I have a question. What percentage of these 12% prisoners are in prison because they are trying to deal drugs like crack, cocaine or heroine to kids? I would think that technically would be a non-violent crime. Nobody was getting beat up, shot or raped. Just simply selling crack to kids. Should those people be not arrested and those laws making that illegal be taken off the books?

 

3) Well, we already have seen a pretty dang good drop in violent crime rate since the late 80s-early 90s.

 

We have already seen a 12% drop in violent crime since 2009.

 

1) Yep. We got it cleared up. I simply disagree with Vox's coloring of this number as "paltry" or not worth considering. We are the United States of America, and we have 12% of our prisoners serving sentences for essentially nothing more than exercising their liberty. That's a disgrace. And it needs to stop.

 

2) If you regulate the drug market, you can more effectively police the people who would sell heroin to a kid. I think bringing in the "save the children" approach is a bit of a red herring. Not a big one, but a little one. Nobody on the left (or the right) advocates selling drugs to kids. We favor heavily regulated and taxed markets, and depending on the drug (selling a shake bag of green ≠ a gram of heroin), there should be severe penalties for selling it to a minor. How much worse it is than, say, the penalty for selling alcohol should depend on the drug and a lot of other factors. The main point is that it is a solvable problem, and any solution is likely better than what we're doing now, which is an expensive, disastrous failure (talking about drugs only).

 

3) Bill Clinton actually made that point. I heard it a few months ago. Apparently there was a serious violent crime wave in the 80s/90s which led to a lot of changes in how we dealt with it. Some were good and effective. By Clinton's own admission, the policy towards drugs and nonviolent offenses were ineffective and need changing.

 

Finally, it's true we have seen a drop in violent crime. The problem is we still have one of the highest rates per capita in the world. Again, I'd look at our gun laws, and the way the black market for drugs functions in the real world (i.e. by force). We're doing better. We have a ways to go. I'm fairly optimistic about our prospects. We seem to have a broad consensus about reforming our criminal justice system.

 

Homicide-Rates-for-Developed-Countries-O

Link to comment

OK....we all agree that non-violent drug offenders shouldn't be locked up. I'm still questioning if all those 12% are actually just "people exercising their liberty". Like I said somewhere. If I get arrested for selling cocaine to a 12 year old and nobody pulled out guns and started shooting that could be classified as a non-violent crime. But, without that information the discussion on the exact percentages are meaningless so let's move on.

 

As to #2. Are you saying that you favor all drugs being legal to purchase as an adult no matter what that drug is? In your description, that may cut down on some violent crimes. But, I have my doubts if it has a major cut back on crimes committed by drug users. If someone is addicted to crack and they are out of money, they are going to do whatever it takes to get either the money or the crack and many times that means turning to crime. An addiction is an addiction no matter if it is legal or not.

 

Yes, we have a long ways to go to bring our violent crime rate down. However, I still am interested in the relationship the "tough on crime" legislation that was put in place in the early 90s and the drop in violent crime. It seems to me there has to be a relationship.

 

Now, with all of the incidents like Ferguson, police are being painted to be these horrible monsters that don't care about who they are shooting and killing. That is farthest from the truth. Mistakes are made and those mistakes need to be corrected and better management can correct those.

 

However, my fear is that these incidents are going to lead to basically the police in this country being disarmed and their forces cut. My thoughts is that this will increase the crime rate again.

 

We are locking a lot of people up. However, a vast majority of those deserve to be and should be locked up.

Link to comment

As to #2. Are you saying that you favor all drugs being legal to purchase as an adult no matter what that drug is? In your description, that may cut down on some violent crimes. But, I have my doubts if it has a major cut back on crimes committed by drug users. If someone is addicted to crack and they are out of money, they are going to do whatever it takes to get either the money or the crack and many times that means turning to crime. An addiction is an addiction no matter if it is legal or not.

 

Yes. The reason I favor this approach is because of the decline in overall usage rates in Portugal when they tried decriminalization. It's not perfect. Drugs are still very dangerous. But the case studies we have indicate that locking people up is not only ineffective and expensive, but harmful to society overall.

 

Canada also offers one model of what we could do in response to your perfectly reasonable concern about addicts and violence. However, I don't think we can rationalize locking up nonviolent offenders on the basis that someone somewhere who does drugs might also commit an act of violence. If we followed that rationale for everything, we might as well ban food, because all bank robbers, rapists, and serial killers eat.

 

Yes, we have a long ways to go to bring our violent crime rate down. However, I still am interested in the relationship the "tough on crime" legislation that was put in place in the early 90s and the drop in violent crime. It seems to me there has to be a relationship.

I don't dispute that.

Now, with all of the incidents like Ferguson, police are being painted to be these horrible monsters that don't care about who they are shooting and killing. That is farthest from the truth. Mistakes are made and those mistakes need to be corrected and better management can correct those.

However, my fear is that these incidents are going to lead to basically the police in this country being disarmed and their forces cut. My thoughts is that this will increase the crime rate again.

We are locking a lot of people up. However, a vast majority of those deserve to be and should be locked up.

 

If you want to open the conversation all the way, as far as it can, we also have to think about things like: what do we hope to accomplish by locking people up? Do we want them to have a high likelihood or a low likelihood of returning to prison once released? What should their prospects be when they're released? How do we keep the recidivism rates down? There's a lot to it.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...