Quote:
Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive
It is a good question.
Don't know so much about here, but in a lot of places it comes down to available space. Can't sentence someone to prison if every prison in the state is already overcrowded.
There should be answers beyond that though. Home confinement with a non-removable ankle ring that reports where the offender is at all times. Maybe heftier retribution sentences in lieu of confinement. But the ONE thing that would help the most is the one thing that gets very little mention. I don't know the exact number but a whole lot, maybe half, of people sentenced to confinement are there for drug-related offenses, and a number of others are there because they turn to criminal behavior to support a drug habit. I have no problem with sentencing the drug lords, kingpins, suppliers, etc. to hefty sentences, but for probably most of the others, if we treat drug issues as a medical condition rather than a legal issue, we'd be going a long way toward opening up prison space for those who really deserve it.
|
As you pointed out, it is a very complicated, interrelated, issue, and most people want ONE SIMPLE answer. Have adult children in St. Louis. Interesting and tragic situation there right now. Young female teen, in town with her parents, volleyball team, and coach from her high school in Tennessee (big tournament) just lost BOTH of her legs as a result of an individual with a horrendous criminal record and, like so many cases now, should never have been free to harm anymore people. But that brings us back to the point of their chief circuit attorney, Kim Gardner, may finally be removed from office. But.... this is the same story over and over in nearly every big city. If and when some of these people are finally removed for incompetency, will it really make a difference ? Or. do our larger cities have so many complex and interrelated problems they are "insolvable" ? It would be a start, but, would her removal (or resignation) change things ?