Lexington: "A Nation of Jailbirds"

[grumbler]

2) Sentences in the US have been continually shortened with much of the power being taken out of the Judges hands i.e. mandatory sentence guidelines.

I hope that you meant (correctly) the precise opposite.

Sentencing guidelines and uninformed hysteria like "three strikes and you are out" laws have made headlines with such cases as the D.C. man who tried to trade a broken handgun he had found in a dumpster for some drugs, and was then sent to prison for life because "using a handgun in the commission of a crime" made this his third felony (all non-violent) and thus required the judge to sent him up for life.  Despite the absurdity of the results of applying the law as written, the judge had zero discretion.

[Martinus]

Is this different in other Western Countries?

Do convicted felons (and that is what we are talking about) have trouble getting jobs in Belgium or France or Japan or Canada?

Good question.

I dunno, BB is the guy to ask for a definitive answer - but I do know that Canada seems to lack many of the types of tests and checks that appear routine in the US.

In Canada it would be inconceivable that a person, once released from prision, would be denied their right to vote. Indeed, in Canada it was recently declared that prisioners actually serving time in prison have the right to vote under our Constitution:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060112/elxn_prisoners_vote_060111/20060113?s_name=election2006&no_ads

In Poland, people during the term of their sentence usually cannot vote, and it is possible to get an additional sentence (up to 10 years) following release during which they have no right to vote, however this is all counted as part of the conviction/criminal penalty.

As for ex-convicts getting jobs, in Poland, it is illegal to ask prospective employees about their past criminal record (and likewise, it is illegal to "process" personal data about criminal records about people against their will - "processing" includes collecting the data, storing them etc.) unless the job they are applying cannot be performed by people with a conviction record (this is regulated by law, and such jobs involve certain "public trust" jobs, such as legal professions,  most law enforcement jobs and jobs involving an access to firearms or controlled substances for example). The criminal records are not public, so one cannot obtain such information either, unless legally authorised to do so (there is now talk about making pedophile records public).

I don't know for sure what the situation in the rest of the EU is, however considering that most of these rules are based on EU directives and regulations, I suspect it's similar (with a possible exception of the UK, since they have a right to opt out on social/employee rights).

[Valmy]

As for ex-convicts getting jobs, in Poland, it is illegal to ask prospective employees about their past criminal record

Woah.  Now that is a dramatic difference.

[Warspite]

True, but, to be fair, he assumed that "Lexington" was an exercise in journalism.  Now that he knows better, I am sure he understands that there is no reason to be upset by the "violations of the standards of journalism" which the article engages in.

He reads into it, of course, exactly what was intended to be read into it.  That you didn't get it doesn't make him unique in his ability to get it; I would argue that it is likelier that you are unique in your inability to get it.

Quite.

[Warspite]

As for ex-convicts getting jobs, in Poland, it is illegal to ask prospective employees about their past criminal record

Woah.  Now that is a dramatic difference.

I am not sure but in the UK, ex-cons only have to give information about their criminal past up to a point, I think beyond a certain time period you no longer have to declare a conviction or CCJ.

[Strix]

2) Sentences in the US have been continually shortened with much of the power being taken out of the Judges hands i.e. mandatory sentence guidelines.

I hope that you meant (correctly) the precise opposite.

Sentencing guidelines and uninformed hysteria like "three strikes and you are out" laws have made headlines with such cases as the D.C. man who tried to trade a broken handgun he had found in a dumpster for some drugs, and was then sent to prison for life because "using a handgun in the commission of a crime" made this his third felony (all non-violent) and thus required the judge to sent him up for life.  Despite the absurdity of the results of applying the law as written, the judge had zero discretion.

I can only speak for NC and NY because they are the systems I have worked in.

In NC, they went to Structured Sentencing. This change meant that criminals would serve 85% of their sentences and than would be given Post Release Supervision once that 85% was reached regardless of their behavior. It also provided Judges with strict sentencing guidelines. It reduced overall sentences lengths but required a longer minimum stay. So, basically reduced the max but increased the minimum.

Previously, NC had run under a 1/3, 1/4, and 1/5 laws which meant you served 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 of your sentence before being eligible for parole. So, a person could get 10 years but only have to serve 2 years before getting out under the 1/5 law. Whereas, now they get 10 years and they serve 8.5 before getting out.

So, I guess we could both be right. Sentences are shorter time-wise but longer actual incarceration-wise. If that makes sense.

In NY, they are in the process of gutting the Rockfellar Drug Laws. Currently, if you are serving a term for various class A and B felonies for drug crimes than you are eligible for mandatory termination of sentence after 2-3 years (2 for class B and 3 for class A) on parole without any interruptions i.e. parole getting revoked. Last year I had three individuals be granted their MTS who were serving life sentences.

Currently NY is working on further changing the Rockfellar Drug Laws so that Judges can place offenders in Alternatives to Incarceration without the OK of the local DA. It's not going over well, as you can imagine, hehehehe.

So, like I said. I can speak for NY and NC. And they aren't making longer sentences but rather shortening them and/or looking for alternatives to incarceration.

EDIT: Hmmm, I didn't explain well why it reduced overall sentence length in NC. So, I will quickly before heading to work.

Before sentencing guidelines a Judge knew he/she was faced with the 1/3,1/4, or 1/5 law. So, they sentenced people accordingly so that the minimum they served would fit the Judges idea of justice i.e. if he wanted someone to serve 10 years under the 1/5 law than he had to sentence them to 50 years so that the criminal wouldn't get out before 10 years had past. The problem was that people can screw up on prison or a parole commissioner could not like them and end up doing most of the 50 years for a crime only worth 10 years.

This is why they switched to Structured Sentencing (well, one of the more noble reasons anyways). Now, a Judge knew how long a criminal would serve, and strict guidelines could be placed on the Judges to prevent any abuse.

[Berkut]

I remember someone running the numbers on this and comming up with the figure that some 20% of the prision population was incarcerated for drug crimes - which, while huge, still doesn't add up on its own as an explaination for the massive increase.

Don't have those figures to hand, though.

Maybe in combo with other factors like sentencing guidelines for other crimes ... it just seems that the huge increase defies easy explaination.

meh, not really.

Like I said, it is a combination of the War on Drugs and the stiff sentencing guidelines. And how many of the people in jail for non-drug crimes are in jail for crimes related to drugs, like shooting the homey who was trying to move in on your corner?

[Berkut]

2) Sentences in the US have been continually shortened with much of the power being taken out of the Judges hands i.e. mandatory sentence guidelines.

I hope that you meant (correctly) the precise opposite.

Sentencing guidelines and uninformed hysteria like "three strikes and you are out" laws have made headlines with such cases as the D.C. man who tried to trade a broken handgun he had found in a dumpster for some drugs, and was then sent to prison for life because "using a handgun in the commission of a crime" made this his third felony (all non-violent) and thus required the judge to sent him up for life.  Despite the absurdity of the results of applying the law as written, the judge had zero discretion.

Indeed. Why we decided that judges should quit all that judging bullshit and just rubber stamp legislative dictates is rather beyond me.

I would even argue that it is a violation of the spirit of the Constitution and the delegation of powers.

[vinraith]

As for ex-convicts getting jobs, in Poland, it is illegal to ask prospective employees about their past criminal record

Woah.  Now that is a dramatic difference.

Insane is what that is.

[Malthus]

I remember someone running the numbers on this and comming up with the figure that some 20% of the prision population was incarcerated for drug crimes - which, while huge, still doesn't add up on its own as an explaination for the massive increase.

Don't have those figures to hand, though.

Maybe in combo with other factors like sentencing guidelines for other crimes ... it just seems that the huge increase defies easy explaination.

meh, not really.

Like I said, it is a combination of the War on Drugs and the stiff sentencing guidelines. And how many of the people in jail for non-drug crimes are in jail for crimes related to drugs, like shooting the homey who was trying to move in on your corner?

But that doesn't make all that much sense in and of itself - after all, here in Canada the courts may be softer on drugs than in the US, but we certainly still sentence people for shooting homies. Yet there is something like a sixfold higher rate of incarceration south of the border.

[Ed Anger]

My HR sense is tingling.

[Barrister]

Is this different in other Western Countries?

Do convicted felons (and that is what we are talking about) have trouble getting jobs in Belgium or France or Japan or Canada?

Good question.

I dunno, BB is the guy to ask for a definitive answer - but I do know that Canada seems to lack many of the types of tests and checks that appear routine in the US.

It depends on the type of work.

Clearly a criminal record can be devestating to get into certain kinds of work - policing, lawyers , Chartered Accountants.  But most work does not even seem to require a criminal records check, and I am always surprised when some thug with a record going on 3 or 4 pages says (with honesty) "you can't send me to jail - I have to go to work tomorrow!".

[Berkut]

I remember someone running the numbers on this and comming up with the figure that some 20% of the prision population was incarcerated for drug crimes - which, while huge, still doesn't add up on its own as an explaination for the massive increase.

Don't have those figures to hand, though.

Maybe in combo with other factors like sentencing guidelines for other crimes ... it just seems that the huge increase defies easy explaination.

meh, not really.

Like I said, it is a combination of the War on Drugs and the stiff sentencing guidelines. And how many of the people in jail for non-drug crimes are in jail for crimes related to drugs, like shooting the homey who was trying to move in on your corner?

But that doesn't make all that much sense in and of itself - after all, here in Canada the courts may be softer on drugs than in the US, but we certainly still sentence people for shooting homies. Yet there is something like a sixfold higher rate of incarceration south of the border.

You don't have the drug culture that can be so lucrative though. No real reason to shoot your homey moving in on your corner, if there isn't a giant pile of cash to be made on that corner.

I find it odd that we are talking about incarceration rates completely irrespective of crime rates - we will link in mental health, but kind of skip over the 800lb gorilla of the much higher crime rate itself, especially in urban areas in the US.

I think that is at least as interesting a discussion. What is the incarceration rate for similar demographics in the US and other Western nations, such that they exist?

What is the equivalent crime rate in a European city that compares to Detroit, MI? Is there such a thing to begin with?

[Barrister]

And before anyone just goes and writes these numbers off on just "the war on drugs":

The first stat I could find states that 20% of prisoners in the US are there for a drug offence.  http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm

You might think that's high, but remember the US incarceration rate is several times higher than other places.  So even if you cut the US prison population by 20% the US prison population would still be extremely high.

Also consider that all other western democracies have laws against drugs as well.

[Berkut]

Is this different in other Western Countries?

Do convicted felons (and that is what we are talking about) have trouble getting jobs in Belgium or France or Japan or Canada?

Good question.

I dunno, BB is the guy to ask for a definitive answer - but I do know that Canada seems to lack many of the types of tests and checks that appear routine in the US.

It depends on the type of work.

Clearly a criminal record can be devestating to get into certain kinds of work - policing, lawyers , Chartered Accountants.  But most work does not even seem to require a criminal records check, and I am always surprised when some thug with a record going on 3 or 4 pages says (with honesty) "you can't send me to jail - I have to go to work tomorrow!".

The question is not what is required, it is what is allowed.

There is no law saying someone cannot work at my job with a felony record. Well, actually MY particular job there probably is because of some unusual circumstances, but more in general, there is no way a company like the one I work for is going to consider a resume from someone who has a felony. Why would they? Plenty of non-felons out there.

honestly, I cannot say that I find a problem with this. There should be consequences for committing felonies, and they should extend beyond the criminal punishment meted out by the courts. We live in societies, and if you cannot follow the rules set by society, then there is a often very heavy social price to pay.