Talk:Incarceration in the United States

Population Stats

Just wondering... if the us population is 300 million and the prison population is 7 million, then why does it say that 1 in 100 adults are in prison?? shouldng it say 1 in 43 people?? or 1 IN 27 ADULTS? (adults make up 63% of the population, out of 300 million people of which 7 million are incarcerated) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.85.1 (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Finish reading the sentence --- 7.2 million people are incarcerated, on probation, or on parole. Probationers and parolees are not incarcerated. The statistic of 2.2 million incarcerated is about 1% of the adult population, which is high, but certainly not 1 in 27. Schoop (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ground Level Nuke

This article drips with a particular POV - it needs to be discarded and written by someone else. While I more or less agree with this particular POV, it has no place here. The statistics and counts and international comparisons are scary enough, they can and should be presented in a neutral manner. People can come to thier own conclusions.

Your POV drips in another way.

The viewpoint of this article is actually quite "conservative" as is the media in general. How can a corporate media driven by profit be otherwise? Why should we make these facts seem less "scary"? Why condone the atrocities of our own government? It may not be politically correct to criticize the government, but where has being P.C. gotten us? Let's wake up and start rocking the boat. Otherwise you may be the next victim of the "justice" system.

The facts demonstrate that the reality is actually much worse than you think!

"The U.S. now locks up its citizens at a rate 5-8 times that of the industrialized nations to which we are most similar, Canada and Western Europe," said Marc Mauer, Assistant Director of The Sentencing Project, a non-profit criminal justice research and advocacy group.

"While Canada imprisons 116 people out of every 100,000 in the country, the U.S. locks up 702 people per 100,000."

While I concur that being politically correct is not entirely important, especially as it is a POV itself, I must say that finding reliable info about this subject that isn't biased has been hard. Statistics can be very misleading. Such as my personal fav, '5 out of 3 Americans can't do fractions.' How does one determine what is biased and what isn't on the internet? No solution for SF yet. Tell me on Talk:Sagittarius Flame if you have any ideas how to better research this topic w/o getting all stuck in a library. 21:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Sagittarius Flame

Television in ADX

The section about supermax prisons says that television privileges in the ADX prison are "virtually non-existent", but then further down it describes each cell as containing a "13-inch black and white television". What are those televisions for if television privileges are so rare? --209.108.217.226 18:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Those televisions are used for the same purpose they serve in the general population. They are the opiate of the masses.

I spent five years working in the ADX. The article concerning the ADX is wrong on several issues. All cells have televisions. The inmates get only local stations and an institutional channel. All cells have windows. You can not see the sky from the windows, only dead space. All cells have showers in them. Recreation is done in groups of 5 to 10 based on population. The unit yards are big enough to have two full basketball courts and a hand ball court. The rec. yard that the article mentions does exist. It is used for inmates who for what ever reason cannot have recreation with their fellow inmates. The cells are not sound proof. It has been my experience that inmates at the ADX are there for a reason.

Shorter Sentences in the U.S.

This section seems POV, or at least poorly written. E.g.:

"This overcrowding problem was caused by the War On Drugs of the 1980s."

No NPOV source is cited for this. From the information in this article, only coincidence can be inferred; causality is not shown. If someone has sources to support this claim, please reference them. Otherwise, this section should be removed or edited. ---blahpers 02:29, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

From what I know, the above quote is partially correct: the War on Drugs is ONE of the causes of overcrowding."

I also have to question the wisdom of including this sentence in the opening paragraph:

Some observers have gone so far as to accuse the United States of deliberately developing the legal system and the prison industry as a means of social control beyond that normally associated with criminal justice.

While it's phrased in a relatively NPOV manner, it is a very bold assertion and I'm not sure it should be one of the very first things a reader sees. Funnyhat 21:49, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

there are inaccuracies...

there are many inaccuracies and over-generalizations in this article, such as all of the info in the Maximum Security section, to begin with.

and

"Now, whenever a new prisoner is incarcerated, a criminal must be released to satisfy the fire code requirement. Consequently, prisoners of all kinds are let out of prison early."

this implies a stable prison population, implies that prisoners are not kept 8 to a 6-man cell, implies that prisons are not doubling capacity by simply adding a second bed to one-man cells, implies new prisons are not being built, when in fact,

the population is constantly growing, prisoners are NOT let out without regard to what crime they were convicted of, prison overcrowding is rampant, with inmates housed in overcapacity situations, put into prison gymnasiums and on rooftops, prisons with one man cells are doubling capacity by adding beds, and prison construction is at an all-time high and increasing yearly.

What are the sources for the data? Just that one book referenced in the article?Pedant 02:10, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

This entry should be rewritten and reresearched

I agree with the posting above. Prison population in the U.S. has consistently risen in recent history [1]. Prisoners are often double-bunked, contrary to what the current entry says [2].

Here is an article that would corroborate the assertion that the War on Drugs is responsible for the increase in prison population in the U.S. [3].

eappleton 08:43, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Non-violent offenses

All this stuff about large percentages of inmates being for non-violent offenses needs to be worked on - Statistics lie and everyone knows it. It's extremely common for violent criminals to be convicted of "non-violent" drug crimes because often those are the easiest crimes to prove. Often, victims and witnesses are violent crimes are afraid to come forward, or are threatened and intimidated by defendants and their friends. Drug cases are much easier to prove because they usually involve undercover police officers who are much less likely to be threatened or intimidated. Tufflaw 01:46, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

This sounds fairly possible. However, a basic tenet of countries with a rule of law is that you consider crimes that people have been convicted of — not crimes that they may or may not have committed. David.Monniaux 06:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

This still needs to be grounded in reality. The vast majority of dispositions are via plea bargain, and especially in cases involving drug dealers, the violent crimes are dismissed in satisfaction of the guilty plea to a "non-violent" drug crime, thus skewing the statistics. Tufflaw 15:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. You may then want to explain this phenomenon under the statistics section. I also suggest you edit plea bargain and signal this as a possible side effect of plea bargains. David.Monniaux 17:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

A very biased article

I don not know enough about the prison system to question the accuracy of this article, though some of its assertions seem ludicrous. But this article has been written in a very biased manner, something which is clear throughout.

Hah! I would like to see how it is possible to create an article which doesn't appear biased, as the truth of the US prison system is that it is truly appalling for an otherwise civilised country! zoney ♣ talk 08:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed on that point. It's sometimes said that a country's prisons reflect the type of society one lives in, and the state of prison in the US is not good. Now, if you compare it to the prisons in hell hole countries ours are like country clubs by comparison, but you don't say that a thing is any good simply because everyone else is worse. Could we do better as a country, and maybe do something about the way prisons corrupt everyone - including the corrections officials - involved with them? Yes. Have we even tried? No, basically all anyone sees prisons as are a revenue facility and by making things as bad as possible, it encourages redicivism, which keeps everyone in their high paying and cushy jobs. The last people who want prison reform is anyone who makes money off prison systems as they are now. Paul Robinson 21:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Nothing says that this isn't true (that they really were violent) but if the statistics are there it can be considered as fact. If not for that, what would you put on Wikipedia?

Commentary matches current sociological thought

My reading of this article is that most of it is in line with current criminological and sociological thought. I belive is article is in need of better citations, but as a whole, those who disagree with the facts presented should specify which individual facts they have a problem with, and we can deal with the issues individually.

It doesn't matter whether the article matches current sociological thought - you're basically saying that, because people THINK it's true, therefore it IS true. But when inaccurate statistics are used to skew towards a particular POV, then you run into trouble. People have heard the mantra "prisons are filled with non-violent offenders" so often that they just assume it's true, without anything to back it up. The statistics are notoriously inaccurate, as I mentioned above, because often violent criminals are eventually convicted for "non-violent" drug offenses, making it seem as if they are non-violent, when they are anything but. Not to mention the whole "drug offense" being non-violent is ridiculous as well. Anyone who lived in New York City, or any inner city in America, in the 80's will scoff at the notion that drug dealing is a "non-violent" offense. Tufflaw 15:17, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I will stay out of the POV/NPOV debate, but I will say this is a very short article. It can't be left for months tagged as POV without anyone offering any changes. I would encourage people to be bold and edit the page as they see fit. Robneild 08:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Warped by bias

This article is warped by its manifest bias. An article purported about "prisons in the US" would be reasonable expected to focus on the prisons themselves: the various security levels, notable facilities, historical development, conditions for prisoners, impact on popular culture, etc. To have the article kick off with a discussion of the incarceration rate is absurd, and clearly motivated by the author's opinion that the rate is too high. This rant belongs in a discussion of the criminal justice system, not an aticle about prisons.

Sorry I don't have time to edit this article myself, but the bias accusation is valid, and the POV tag should be removed only when the article is NPOV, not because a timer has expired. Jeffr 14:08, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to make an effort very soon to work on this, it really does need a complete overhaul. I agree with your assessment about the topics that should be included. Tufflaw 05:10, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Jay Drew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.132.248.64 (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Nations not reporting statistics that may exceed US incarceration rate

According to [4], there is no information for 17 countries. This alone is enough to count as a "few" countries. Furthermore, only a handful, if *any*, are likely to have a higher incarceration rate than the US.

The initial sentence as stands, as Tufflaw reverts to, is quite simply misleading and inaccurate. The qualifier is barely justified (as indeed it may be the case that none of the 17 countries have higher incarceration rate). Certainly adding "few" is quite important if the qualifier is there at all.

zoney ♣ talk 30 June 2005 23:29 (UTC)

Regardless of the need to include the word 'few', the countries that do not report incarceration statistics are hardly a random sampling of the world's countries --- those that didn't report numbers tend to be the worst-run governments on Earth. The bare assertion that "only a handful" have a higher incarceration rate than the U.S. is dubious, to say the least. jdb ❋ (talk) 30 June 2005 23:45 (UTC)

"Furthermore, only a handful, if *any*, are likely to have a higher incarceration rate than the US." Not sure how you justify this assertion with no facts to back it up. This report also includes a pretty strong disclaimer at the end with respect to how the figures are collected, specifically that "people held in custody are usually omitted from national totals if they are not under the authority of the prison administration." This would omit millions of people in local jails in countries whose bookkeeping methods aren't as efficient as the U.S. In essence, because the U.S. is so good at keeping track of its prisoners, it looks like it has the highest number. This study is clearly flawed and can't serve as the basis for anything. Tufflaw July 2, 2005 04:56 (UTC)

The opening sentence makes it clear that it is the "reported" incarceration rate is what the US has the record for. The source given is based on the reported rates. The disclaimer in the opening paragraph as stands only mentions countries with no reported rates. There are only a few such countries (an important point).

And my comment about "only a handful, if *any*" is merely due to my considering it highly unlikely that anywhere could have a higher % of their population incarcerated. (Hello? Have you looked at how absurdly high the rate is, how many prisoners the US has?) I'll readily admit that this is not verifiable - as such, I haven't added that to the main text!

zoney ♣ talk 6 July 2005 23:20 (UTC)

It should be noted (and will be, when I get around to re-writing this mess of an article), that there are countries (more than just "a few") who only seem to have lower prison rates due to the abundance of corporal punishment doled out (ie: Singapore's public floggings). These should be considered when accusing the U.S. of having the highest incarceration rate. Tufflaw July 7, 2005 00:33 (UTC)

Right - but the opening sentence is specifically referring to the *reported incarceration rate*, for which the US has the highest. The existing disclaimer specifically refers to countries *not releasing incarceration rates*, and suggests some of those could have higher incarceration rates. Only a *few* countries don't release incarceration rates. My comments above are likely valid too - that even of these, it's likely only a *handful* have higher incarceration rates (aside from other issues of dealing with criminals) because that of the US is *huge*!

zoney ♣ talk 23:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we may safely assume that countries not reporting statistics, or reporting underestimated statistics, are authoritarian regimes, or are poor, disorganized etc. and do not have the means to support appropriate statistic gathering. Thus, we may accurately state that the US is the developed country with the highest incarceration rate. David.Monniaux 06:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Structure of U.S. Prison System

Could someone add some information about the structure of the US Prison system, the differences between Federal, State and County prisons and how they relate to their respective justice systems? --BadSeed 20:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

BadSeed, per your request, I've begun a section on this; however, it may take a few days to complete. Any input you have regarding what you would like to see would be appreciated.

PS: If anybody can send me information on the local jail systems of other states, it would be greatly appreciated as my personal experience and knowledge is limited only to Ohio's jail/prison system.

Stowsux 04:37 8 September 2005 (UTC) (11:35 7 September 2005 (EDT))

Figures

Removed "(the U.S. prison pop) is around 22% of the total world prison population" for all of the reasons noted in talk. Without accurate data for various countries the assertion is specious. Prison lists nine million incarcerated worldwide--North Korea alone would almost certainly take this up 5-10%. Make a guesstimate from [5]. Marskell 11:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Is that to suggest that 2-4% of the North Korean population is in prison (the necessary number to bring the world prison population up 5-10%)? That's a large percentage even for the worst forms of Stalinism or Maoism at their worst.

According to Sue Lloyd-Roberts' BBC report, it's estimated at 5-10%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.11.50 (talk) 05:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Deleting this

What an unsalvageable mess. I would support deleting this just so we can be cleansed; maybe, then, we can start fresh.

Lotsofissues 19:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur! --Coolcaesar 06:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Rework the mess

We should just rework this entire mess, and delete unnecessary things as needed.

Mulder416 3:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of sections?

As an onlooker, just removing huge chunks does not seem to be the answer since it just makes it harder to understand. I shall revert, but someone may remove my edits should they see fit - but I ask you all strongly consider rewriting (on a test page?) BEFORE you remove stuff, no matter how small the replacement may be, something I feel is needed in its place. By all means strip the article, just don't destroy what slight knowledge is currently in place. Ian¹³_ID:540053 20:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Then again, half this article seems irrelevent and useless. I'll have a look through, and try and deflate it a little. Ian¹³_ID:540053 20:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

Dispite knowing nothing about the subject, I have cleaned up the article alittle, generally to make it NPOV and make sence. I have also added footnote references whereever possible to show statistic sources. Should be a good base for some expansion now :) Enjoy and good luck! Ian¹³_ID:540053 10:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Population

I see in the article "As of 2003, the incarceration rate in the United States was 482 per 100,000 residents" but looking at the U.S. Department of Justice PDFs that seems to exclude various groups like juveniles? Is this usual? It goes on to say the total rate is 701 per 100,000 in 2002. Robneild 23:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Umm....

See Talk:Bubba. - 70.109.72.185 23:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This Article Is In Bad need Of Repair

This article needs to be totally overhauled, and brought into compliance with NPOV. Being in the law enforcement field, I can tell you that there is no possible way to arrive at many of the statistics that are mentioned. I vote to just remove this article all together, or NUKE it and start from scratch. Johnppd24 15:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article is a mess and it has been tagged as such for a very long time. However as most of the numbers are sourced and from government documents I wonder which ones you are objecting to. Rmhermen 15:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Edits

So far, I've moved a few things from the beginning to alleviate some of the worst symptoms. An intro sentence has been added to the Comparison w/ other countries section and I moved a paragraph from the beginning that fit in better with the criticism than with the beginning of this article. I did this because the beginning of this article used to sound a lot more POV than acceptable. A total overhaul was a bit impractical. Let's work with what we have and chop out the bad fat of this article. 21:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Sagittarius Flame see Talk:Sagittarius Flame to comment directly.

Well, I've done a bit more grammatical work and axed a few less-than-NPOV statements and questionable ones as well. Please cite sources if you revert anything you've done to my edits and/or see Talk:Sagitttarius Flame to comment directly on any edits I've done. 21:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Sagittarius Flame

Closed Society

The prison system in the United States and everyone that interacts with it is part of a closed society from which it is practically impossible, perhaps completely impossible, to obtain neutral data. For instance, the news media report facts that are usually not factual but politically motivated interpretations of random information. The court system reports information that is colored by its motivation to reduce workload. The police report information that has been adjusted to improve their working conditions, increase pay, and reduce their exposure to lawsuits. In many states, the county sheriffs department runs county prisons and they report their own point-of-view. The state prison systems are usually run by political appointees and their staff report information from their perspective. The federal government, with its prisons, reports only what they feel the people “need to know.” Other information is kept secret. With all those points-of-view about the prison systems, it is unlikely that there is a neutral point of view unless the article degenerates to a road map of where prisons are, rather than what they are.

With this in mind, I think that fixing the article simply requires better sourcing. For instance, when one reports that some prison uses psychotropic drugs to control its population, the information needs to be sited, at last as “According to the California Department of Metal Health, in their May, 2005 article on prison population…” Even if the California Department of Mental Health is wrong, and publishing blatant falsehoods, the article remains correct because the article is not required to determine truth, only to properly reference information. You certainly know that there is often a large gap between information and truth. If you want the truth, you will never be able to publish an article about prisons for the reasons cited in my first paragraph. Moreover, whatever you may have heard about prisons --- it is much worse than anybody would dare report. The correctional industry attracts workers who are deviates from the normal kind of person. These persons have their own point-of-view, which so filters (corrupts) information that normal people really do not know how to interpret it! --LymanSchool 16:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is different from reporting on any other government agency or program. Ford MF 17:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are reporting about some other government agency, chances are pretty good that the information was provided by a person or a group of humans who, although they might tend to cover up problems, are still sane and generally think like other humans. This is not necessarily so when reporting about prisons! The people who are in the "correctional business" are a different breed, entirely. Their perceptions are often often quite unlike persons who work in the trades, for instance. You will never learn what goes on behind the bars unless you live there. Then, nobody will believe you if you try to say, the result being that nothing can be verified. That's the point. Writing about prisons is very different than writing about playing checkers so you have to leave a little slack or else nothing gets written at all. --LymanSchool 01:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that this entire talkpage section screams POV violation, you still haven't made a case for why CO's are some kind of magic breed that only people who work and live in prisons understand. Similar (and similarly flawed) "closed world" arguments could be made about police officers, prostitutes, mafiosi, drug addicts, Las Vegas showgirls, Hasidic Jews, &c., &c. Yet somehow good articles manage to get written about them. Ford MF 02:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

How naïve are you? When reporting about workers in prisons in the United States, you are talking about persons whose way of life involves abusing other human beings. This abuse, although usually physical, is often sexual and emotional as well. A whole industry has grown up around persons who get their rocks off by abusing others. This industry is called the “corrections” industry. The industry attracts perverts for employees. Of course, it is likely that you will claim a POV argument, but perverts are perverts regardless of the perspective. If you do not understand this, then the whole idea of communication is moot. Perverts are not going to provide documentation about their perversion because, the last time I checked, they could get into trouble for so indulging. This means that you are not going to have available any information that could truly show the state of US prisons today. You will have information provided by “correctional” institution officials, filtered for content, and information provided by former prisoners, perhaps expanded. What are you going to believe? You cannot believe any of it. You can only REPORT it, which was my original premise. Look at NSA. You have the same problem. You have an article about what the organization is supposed to do, plus some buildings. Then there is some stuff about what they got CAUGHT doing. From this, you can only infer things. You can never get inside. You report only what has been fed to you. The problem is even worse when it comes to prisons. Because of the closed nature of the corrections industry, they do not provide the public with any information. From the perspective of prison administration, the public does not have a right to know anything. They report to the courts, telling them only what they want the courts to know (overcrowding, etc.) and to the governor’s office requesting additional funding. Everything else is secret.

The US Juvenile corrections industry is a microcosm of the US Prison system. Persons who work in juvenile correctional institutions in Massachusetts are not allowed to divulge any of the “therapies” used to manage or control the juveniles. This means that you hear nothing of the rape and torture until somebody dies at a “boot camp.” Even then, you hear only that the unnamed juvenile (they can't divulge his name) was trying to kill a “counselor” so he had to be “put down.” How much is true? Probably nothing is true. The facts, from a spider on the wall, would probably be that the “Master” (not a counselor), was hitting the juvenile in the stomach for not standing up straight. The result being that the prisoner collapsed from internal bleeding. --LymanSchool 15:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.educationnews.org/Commentaries/Americas_Throw-Away_Children.htm

http://www.marshalltribune.com/story/1169074.html

http://www.freebookclubs.com/article/book-children-families-troubled-abominable-9-06.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_D._Devlin

http://www.blogofdeath.com/archives/001357.html

http://www.mcalesternews.com/features/local_story_328111307.html

For your enlightenment---LymanSchool 15:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Major edit on November 29

I tried to rewrite a lot to be grammatically correct and more politically correct. I tried to get rid of the weasel words as well. Of course, it can always be reverted, but I think this goes a long ways towards fixing it up. Cheers --LymanSchool 21:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears useless. Most all the weasel words have been put back in since this edit. Editors need to learn that this is an encyclopedia article, not an Editorial! Things like this; "California, ostensibly to prevent violence, ..." cannot exist in an encyclopedia article. Something is done to prevent violence (according to some cited reference) or it is not. There are many other editorial comments that have been added, in particular unreferenced quotes like "Prison-industrial-complex!" If some noted source said this, then the source needs to be quoted. One cannot just guess that this is current world opinion (even if it is)! --LymanSchool 21:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Vague Definition

In the section entitled 'Comparison With Other Countries' the article states "the U.S. rate is three to eight times that of the Western European nations". What constitutes 'Western Europe'? The Czech Republic for example? It is further west than Finland. The countries of Europe have massively different incarceration rates and in my opinion it makes no sense to talk about a GEOGRAPHICAL area like Europe when comparing cultural/social issues. It is like comparing incarceration rates between the northern and southern hemispheres. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

These statistics are completely wrong

Whoever wrote the statistics part completely misread the USDOJ site. The numbers are for 2005 and the 1.4 million figure applies only to incarcerated women. It's written in plain English there, so I'm not sure how anybody got their signals crossed, but the size of the US prison population is a pretty hot topic so people might want to not completely mess up the statistics. Anybody who wants to correct it can feel free to; the USDOJ site that those numbers were taken from is here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm. This is why Wikipedia isn't respected--it isn't even copied properly from primary sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.108.65.16 (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

I must be missing something, because the first two highlights on BJS page you referenced don't jive. With a total of 2,245,189 prisoners, the US population would have to be in excess of 450,000,000 to account for only 497 per 100,000 residents. Dividing total # of prisoners by total population gives more like 750 prisoners per 100,000 residents. Does the 2.2M include, and the 497 per 100,000 exclude, inmates not convicted, i.e., those being held over for trial or arraignment? The difference is roughly 750,000, which seems ridiculously high, even considering how backlogged the courts are. Someone please enlighten me.

Illegal immigrants.

They make up 27% of the prison population in the United States. I'm adding this to the article. --Rotten 23:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the total is a combination of both documented and undocumented immigrants.

Smedpull (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Conditions - paragraph add

I've reverted edit by 72.69.77.177 - big NPOV issues with the paragraph they have added plus no citation. Will-h 15:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

25% of world prison population

The only source I can find for the 22% is the world socialist website, with no backup whatsoever. Further, the citation is to an MSN article which DOES NOT say the same thing. I removed the statistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.111.246 (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

politics in prison

Are there any corelations between the prison populations and the politics of the locality? For example, are right wing states likely to have more prisoners? Are there any studies relating to this subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.134.113 (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Dead links

Footnotes 7 and 8 are dead links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.117.151.10 (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The links for the footnotes numbered 7 and 8 at the time of your comment work for me. I updated the details on both of them. One of the titles was slightly different. Footnotes are now numbered differently. I added an additional reference link. Can you give the actual URLs of the dead links? --Timeshifter (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge-to tag deleted

I have done so because:

1. The editor who placed the tags did not respond to my request for input; and
   
2. I don't believe that a merger is warranted (this article is long enough as it is).
   --NBahn (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason listed for the {{Totally-disputed|date=July 2008}} tag

"According to DoJ incarceration rate in the US is 509 prisoners per 100,000 ppl http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm". This comes to about one-half of one percent (0.5% or 0.005) while there is an uncited line in the introduction that comes to about one percent (1% or 0.01). So what should be done about this?
--NBahn (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

why is united states so fucking blind about prisons seames to me your fucking clueless why not fit crime with punshmite ive been in the system and have been a member of society you have failed the system because your clueless about life in general you or anyone has any clue about how life is after prison yes some prisoners have no bussines beeing on the but some do dont pas judgment on every person`

Jailing Drug Addicts & Easy Access to Guns vs Treating Drug Addicts and Little or No Access to Guns

Europe treats drug addicts rather than incarcerating them. They view it as a medical problem rather than a criminal problem. Holland's decades of experience shows that treatment of drug abuse is vastly cheaper than our alternative. We also have the highest rate of gun-related homicides of all industrialized nations. These two distinctions could account for a large difference in the prison populations between the U.S. and Europe. See "How They Do It Better" in U.S. News & World Report 3/18/07. Nevada10 (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There have been no links between access to guns and total crime rate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.96.94.170 (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Juvenile Incarceration

The high figure of juvenile incarceration may seem troublesome to an outsider or layperson. However, it should be noted that a significant majority of these juvenile offenders are not "Bobby down the street who goes to middle school with your kid." Many of them are hard core gang members who commit murder, armed robbery, and rape. These 13 to 17 year old males are terrorizing their neighborhoods with violent crimes. Psychologically and emotionally they are already damaged goods for they come from homes that are either dysfunctional or mom and dad (if he is around) spend all their time working to make ends meet. Consequently, there is no supervision at home and very little time for nurture. This breeds generations of damaged human beings. By the time they have been popped for their first robbery or murder there is no turning back (for most of them). What is the state to do? Let them be to kill and destroy additional lives and families? Or incarcerate in order to protect society at large?

Articles who spin these incarceration figures into a story of "boo-hoo-ing" for all these poor prisoners seem to forget that somewhere along the path there was a victim - who in the worst case scenario is no longer living whose family shall forever live with that loss or a woman who will never recover emotionally from a brutal sexual violation. Where is the compassion for those Americans? Where are the bleeding hearts for the oftentimes poor, hard working, voiceless, minority Americans who leave in constant fear of these predators? Toosbuy (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Missing citation reference

Reference #45, ^ Holman and Zeiderberg, 2001, p. 8, implies that there is a complete citation earlier in the list of references. I couldn't find one .....

There are several other examples of this particular reference past # 45.

Best,

Rosmoran (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

arrest is an indicator for incarceration, and is neglected in this article

The facts and figures for incarceration usually omit temporary incarceration in the form of arrests, so the information only shows how many are incarcerated NOW, and not how many HAVE BEEN at some point. Since 1 in 3 men age 18 to 29 have been arrested, which would be an unbelievable figure if it weren't so well documented, I think it's very important to devote a substantial portion of this article to that "indicator" of the universality of incarceration. It's as, or more common than things like baldness, freckles, blue eyes, etc.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120018806/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

"being arrested is a relatively common experience for young adults: nearly one-quarter of the entire cohort and one-third of the males in the cohort were arrested at least once."

Note that the 1 in 3 figure is conservative. It excludes juvenile arrests and arrestes after age 30 and above. It also doesn't appear to include "detainments" for interrogation, immigration, etc, which can be indistinguishable from a long prison sentence in many cases.

Qwasty (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Split off Youth Incarceration to separate page?

Reading the current version of the article, the section on youth incarceration occupies between a third and a half of the entire article, and cuts the Table of Contents in two, distracting from the more general description of the system. Perhaps it should be split off into a separate article, with a synopsis and a Main Article link leading to it? Failing that, the subheadings should be downgraded; we don't really need ToC entries for 9.4.1 and 9.4.1.1-9.4.1.5. It won't shorten the article, but at least the ToC won't be cluttered with unnecessary links. ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I've split off Youth incarceration to it's own page, Youth incarceration in the United States. Further details are below in the NPOV discussion. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

NOPOV

Hey, this article appears to be only anti-incarceration. Reasons for incarceration are not discussed. As it stands it probably needs the NOPOV tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.44.77 (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm reverting I.P.68.105.44.77's edit. California's Three Strikes Law IS infamous to poor minorities.
--NBahn (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the anonymous editor raises a very valid point and there was no reason to remove his/her NPOV tag. I have now reinserted the tag. Please do not remove it until the issue raised above is addressed. Thanks.--SouthernNights (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing it again since this is typical, POV-motivated drive-by tagging. 78.34.216.79 (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the article is on the whole fairly neutral. There are two points a significant break from NPOV. One is the criticism section, which is segmented off and well sourced (i.e. it's not just a random editor's POV). The other is the section on Youth Incarceration, which as I've noted earlier on the talk page, should really be its own article. Yes, other parts of the article sometimes dwell on the record high incarceration rates, but if it's true and important information, it doesn't break NPOV; removing the information would remove half the reason for the article. Another section of the text clearly notes the potential factual error involved in the record high incarceration rate (namely, that China may incarcerate more people without reporting it), but it doesn't change the fact that, in comparison to the usual assortment of Western countries we compare ourselves against (Canada, Western Europe), the U.S. incarceration rate is far and away the highest. Even with Youth Incarceration here, I consider the overall tone to be neutral, but separating it into its own article would clearly remove any lingering bias. -ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 13:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

One additional note: I'd be wary of attempting to explain all the reasons for the high level of incarceration. While it could be done encyclopaedically, it runs the risk of this article becoming a "battleground" in the drug war. If we do introduce more detailed causes, it should be solely by linking to other Wikipedia articles; let the linked articles discuss the issues. -ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 13:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is not fairly neutral. While the first few sections are fine, the later sections are almost all anti-incarceration, specifically the sectionsShadowRangerRIT mentioned. I agree it would help the POV issues if the Youth Incarceration section was spun into its own article (although that article would be immediately labeled POV unless changes were made).

Below are the major issues which must be addressed for the article to present a neutral point of view:

• Under the section Youth Incarceration, the entire section is anti-incarceration. There's nothing wrong with the referenced information in the article, but a balance must be given. Give information on why there are many advocates for this level of Youth Incarceration in the US (if there weren't advocates for it, it wouldn't be happening). Also, citations must be given for items in this section, like under the subsection "The movement to end youth incarceration." The movement is claimed to be a "widespread collection" but without a cite, that is a very POV statement. Likewise a lot of the uncited wording under the subsection "Examples of opposition movement struggles to end youth incarceration" strikes me as POV. If this section was spun into its own article, it would go a long way toward balancing out the POV issues on the current page.
• Balance out the Criticism section of the article. It's fine to give the anti-inc. side of the argument, but to avoid POV issues both sides must be given. Doesn't have to be in this section, but it should be somewhere in the article.
• The Prison conditions section would benefit from giving more references for information. For example, the statement "Many prisons in the United States are overcrowded." lacks a citation. Merely giving an example of California's prisons as overcrowded doesn't prove "most" prisons in the US are crowded. I'm not debating the fact, but sourcing should be given. Also, the section would benefit from a sourced overview of the country's prisons, instead of only giving individual examples of problems.

Anyway, please do not remove the NPOV tag until these issues are addressed. I'll also see if I can dig up some information to address these issues. --SouthernNights (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, as I reviewed the article again, I realized even more that ShadowRangerRIT was onto something with his/her point about the Youth Incarceration section. That section takes up nearly half the article and reads like pure propaganda. Yes, it's sourced, but it lacks any opposing viewpoint and causes the entire article to be way off balance. The easiest way to address this article's POV issue is to place that section in its own article. The other issues I raised with the article should still be addressed, but they aren't enough on their own to tag the entire article as POV.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can split off the Youth Incarceration section to its own article this weekend, though it will immediately be in violation of the NPOV policy. My problem is that the argument for youth incarceration is fairly simple: "Certain crimes are awful, therefore we should punish anyone who commits them, regardless of age." Tough on crime politicians then make it easier to prosecute teenagers to boost their profile as an anti-crime crusader. I might be able to stretch that out to two paragraphs, but it will still be outweighed by the sheer volume of anti-youth incarceration arguments (which run to 12 paragraphs in the existing section without even addressing the evidence that the brain's judgment centers have not fully developed until the 20s, potentially mitigating certain acts due to incompletely developed self control). Even if you believe the original argument outweighs the numerous counterarguments, the volume of text will be weighted in the anti- direction. Oh well. Without it, would you agree the remaining POV issues are relatively minor or at least tolerable? Additional sources for some claims would be desirable, but that's not a NPOV violation so much as a lack of references violation. -ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Ignore the last couple sentences of my last post. I hadn't seen your reply from 14:27 when I wrote it. -ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I was far too busy with work this weekend to do the article spinoff. I'll try and get to it eventually, but if anyone else has the time and inclination, please do so. -ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I finally got around to spinning it off into a new article, Youth incarceration in the United States. I've trimmed the section down to a brief summary here, with a main article link for those interested. Both the POV and Weasel words tags were removed here. Both of them were part of the new page on creation; by itself, the POV issues are more glaring. The new page is mostly unmodified from the source here, with the following exceptions:

1. References were cleaned up; no bare urls remain, a few repeated, paginated references were rewritten to use the Harvard citation style rather than duplicating the cite tags over and over (and badly; names, publication year, etc. were frequently incorrect). I verified most of the references which had urls, added urls for a number that lacked them, and otherwise tried to make it a well sourced article.

2. I removed a subsection heading that served no purpose

3. In a few cases where the reference and the text disagreed, I fixed up the text.

Otherwise, it's a duplicate of the information that was here, flaws and all. I invite any interested editors to visit it and work on fixing the issues. At least the original article is now, IMO, mostly free of strong POV bias, as well as being a manageable length.--ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Good job on the split. This definitely fixes the NPOV problems. Thanks for doing it.--SouthernNights (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism on a Criticism section

We cannot have a "criticism" section by itself. The criticism in the article needs to be worked in throughout the article. Having a "criticism" section is bad writing. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This a highly personal approach of how an article should be written (so POV). A criticism section is common in lots of 'social' articles like here and here. Just to sum up counter-approaches and possible viewpoints. Entering information in the entire article can make each section open for debate and discussion. Which starts unnecessary POV debats allover. Now at least it's clear that it's criticism. I agree that putting information throughout the entire article where possible is better, but not necessary for it's neutrality. This is not a NPOV question, but an editorial question. So a POV tag is 'a bridge to far'. Therefore I remove the tag: neutrality disputed. Try another one. --Eezie (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(Entry section - 2nd paragraph) needs accurate information... currently is sensational...

Entry section 2nd Paragraph is extremely biased (sensational statement). It doesn't demonstrate the complexity of offenders (inmates or prisoners) that are housed in Supermax Security prisons in contrast to minimum security. This paragraph needs specific and accurate data.

In the United States, prisons are operated at various levels of security, ranging from minimum-security prisons that mainly house non-violent offenders to Supermax facilities that house well-known criminals and terrorists such as Terry Nichols, Theodore Kaczynski, Eric Rudolph, Zacarias Moussaoui, and Richard Reid. --

...plus the following section should be removed, or be written in the context of a new section dedicated exclusively to popular historical delinquents that have been idealized or whom have become sensational subjects of examination.

...well-known criminals and terrorists such as Terry Nichols, Theodore Kaczynski, Eric Rudolph, Zacarias Moussaoui, and Richard Reid. --

18.150.7.94 (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to ask permission. Be bold and do it yourself. If people disagree, they can edit or revert your changes, but if they're high quality changes, they should be fine. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Table?

I was just wondering about the table inserted as a GIF image. Why? This data could easily be entered as a Wiki table and would be more readable.

--Mcorazao (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe the user who entered the image did not know the wiki-markup codes necessary to do what you suggest — I certainly don't.<br. />--NBahn (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I Undid This Edit

I did so because of a combination of two reasons:

1. The nationality of a journalist is not per se a reason to label said journalist "unreliable"; and
2. An anonymous editor making uncited claims just doesn't have very much in the way of credibility.
   

—NBahn (talk)

Being anonymous doesn't really worsen credibility; history is what counts. An IP with a history of vandalism is suspect, just like an editor with the same history would be (though I recognize that the number of vandalizing IPs far outweighs the number of vandalizing editors, if only because vandalism only accounts get indefinite blocks). There's no need to jump straight to assuming bad faith on an IP with no history of malicious activity. In fact, looking at the history of this particular IP's edits shows that he/she has been a constructive contributor.

On the edit in question, here is how I see it:

1. If the article was in fact written by a Cuban national for a Cuban paper, then yes, there are issues of bias, due to government pressure to portray the United States in a bad light. That would lead me to question whether it was a reliable source.
2. However, on checking the link, while the site is Cuban, it appears that the article was first published in a New York based Spanish language newspaper, El Diario La Prensa. So if the writer was a staff writer there, living in New York, the issue of Cuban governmental influence doesn't come up. She may have her own personal biases, being from an ethnic group that is disproportionately imprisoned within the United States, but simply being Latina doesn't invalidate you as a source. I get the impression she writes for El Diario regularly, which likely means she lives in the U.S., so the Cuba angle seems inaccurate.

As such, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it seems reasonable to treat the source as reliable. I understand why the IP editor thought the source might be unreliable, given the state of journalism in Cuba, but I believe they made a mistake in assuming that, because the article was mirrored on a Cuban website, it must have originated in Cuba. It was a good faith edit, just a mistaken one. The original IP editor is welcome to provide additional evidence that would affect the perceived reliability of the source, but in the meantime I think it should stay. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 21:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting follow-up: The author of the article in question, Vicky Pelaez, was just arrested and indicted for participating in a Russian espionage network (see section "The defendants"). I'm amazed I still recognized the name six months later, but it rang a bell as soon as I read it. If the charges are proven, I think a reporter acting as a Russian spy would probably be considered too biased to use as a reliable source. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 14:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Race

Why do none of the charts and graphs show the distribution of prisoners by race, e.g. http://www.hrw.org/legacy/backgrounder/usa/incarceration/ ? 99.27.201.226 (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe there was formerly a section dedicated to that matter. Somebody must have gone and deleted the whole section on race, class, and minorities without going through the appropriate channels such as opening it up for debate on the Talk Page. 76.15.31.146 (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

History and Development

I'm surprised to see there is no section on the history of incarceration in the United States. Why is this?

I think it would be beneficial to have a section that details the historical/sociological evolution of the U.S. prison system. It's not unprecedented: Foucault wrote broadly about the birth and development of the prison, and Oxford put out a book called The Oxford History of the Prison: The Practice of Punishment in Western Society. These books include some details on the American system, though they are largely based on the European cases. It would make sense to have a section on history, including details such as the first prison/jail in the U.S./colonies, the way prisons evolved and grew through U.S. history (including structures and security, management, type of inmates, mission of the institution - punishment, reformation, correction, rehabilitation, detention, etc. - and major events in U.S. prison history such as the creation of the Federal Bureau of Prisons or any prison-related legislation.

While this material has the potential to make the article too long overall, I cannot currently find a wikipedia article that has such information on the U.S. system. These are details that should not be overlooked. 76.15.31.146 (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

New local figures

New to this article. Didn't want to just throw it in there but the new figure for county and local jail pop as of June 2009 is 767,000, bureau of Justice statistics as quoted in USA Today 4 June 2010. Student7 (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts

Why is this page focused on blacks vs. whites, hispanics, etc. And under the 'Race' subtitle, you only focused on the black population in prisons, but no other race. I think you need to rethink a more proactive way to do this page over rather than singling out specific race groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.227.156.201 (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

hello

I do watch probably too much tv. but i cannot say that irrespectfuly too myself as i work full time .. but what i do see is incredible in all walks of life..

Can i just say one thing that i

have suggestion with....!!!! people can cahange.. as we all know!! and there are people who cannot!!but i think if people can relate to music then maybe we and you will have something in prisons... maybe have channnels of music that can distract people from their problems, im not sure but i do watch... and i do think a lot, music is a release.. maybe im behind the times!! maybe you have tried this and maybe i have not seen enough!! just a suggestion.. music to the individual i think important as long as it is calming or dancing in a nice way may assist in their ability to communicate in another language, music can translate in many ways ... i think prisons would benefit from having more music!!!! Just a thoughtful human hope all prisoners have a hope!! And i hope all prison guards are safe!!

hello

I do watch probably too much tv. but i cannot say that irrespectfuly too myself as i work full time .. but what i do see is incredible in all walks of life..

Can i just say one thing that i

have suggestion with....!!!! people can cahange.. as we all know!! and there are people who cannot!!but i think if people can relate to music then maybe you will have something in prisons... maybe have channnels of music that can distract people, im not sure but i do watch... and i do think a lot, music is a release.. maybe im behind the times!! maybe you have tried this and maybe i have not seen enough!! just a suggestion.. music to the individual as long as it is calming or dancing in a nice way may assist in their ability to communicate in another language, music can translate in many ways ... i think prisons would benefit from having more music!!!! Just a thoughtful human hope all prisoners have a hope!! And i hope all prison guards are safe!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.69.50 (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed Pictures

Seem like on high-resolution screens the pictures was messed up. I tried to re-arrange them, and I hope I did not lose any information. When moving pictures around try to change size of the web browser window to make sure it still looks good on different screen sizes. Great article, great pictures! I was trying to add the "Incarcerated Americans" chart to Alvin Greene article "Political Positions" block also, but it keep getting removed by folks over there. If anybody can support me to help keep "Incarcerated Americans" chart there, then we can make Alvin Green's statement that "Punishment should fit crime" better illustrated. There are a lot of traffic now onto the Alvin Greene article because of the elections (about 2K people daily). Innab (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Violent crime chart should be removed

The chart is from here:

• http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/cv2.cfm

I believe violent crime also dropped in Canada, and it does not have the same large increase in the rate of incarceration.

The chart is original research for this article. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)