Talk:Incarceration in the United States

Charts don't seem to agree

One chart shows incarceration at 750 or so per 100,000 population. This seems okay. Another shows 5,000 per 100,000 of blacks (5%). This seems okay. Hispanics at 2,000 per 100,000 of Hispanics. This seems high, but okay. But the ethnicity chart appears to show white incarceration at nearly 900 or so per 100,000. Somebody has to be under 750 in order for the charts to "average out." Not everyone can be incarcerated over the average value. Some group must be incarcerated less! Student7 (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

One incarceration rate is for males and females combined. The other is for males only. Females are incarcerated at a much lower rate than males.

See the more detailed data here:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._incarceration_rate_by_race_2.gif
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Incarceration_rates_worldwide.gif

Feel free to clarify the article and captions. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity

The usual rates are shown: so many whites in the general population, so many blacks, with many higher percentages of the latter in jail. What we are not seeing, and I am pretty sure there are credible statistics, is out of how many accused people, white and black, wind up in jail. If the accused white people were getting a walk, while blacks (only) served time, this would clearly demonstrate a judicial bias against blacks. I have the feeling that this is not true, though. Student7 (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any links to studies and stats for this? --Timeshifter (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Just picked the top one off the usual google list. It looked about what I had thought. People try to scream, but the main thing is that black run cities have the same experience as white run ones. Blacks are accused more often, proportionately, and therefore wind up in jail more. They are (surprisingly) not convicted more often, but difference is slight.

BTW, most people who are in jail, have either plea-bargained their way in, and/or had the judge/prosecutor overlook a bunch of other stuff that may (or may not) be part of the official record. So from a moral pov, they generally should be there. It's not arbitrary. And for most, not a first offense either. Student7 (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the page you cite says the opposite of what you conclude in my mind. It says blacks are unjustly arrested far more often. See Table 4 on that page. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Page 271-3."..no one has produced any evidence to suggest that the arrest rates of African-Americans in black controlled Detroit or Atlanta are any different from what they are in San Diego.." etc. (white controlled cities). "66% of accused blacks were prosecuted" vs "69% of whites". "75% of blacks and 78% of whites were convicted." "accused blacks more than accused whites were more likely to be acquitted or have charges dropped" (apparently differs from the previous statement by analyzing different charges in Table 4). Table 4 relates to dismissals, and blacks beat whites hands down for dismissals, except for "traffic offenses" and "other felonies". On one hand, that is a bit strange. On the other, a bit strange that whites are more frequently prosecuted for most of the others.

If you are reading this differently, please pick out a piece of data and let's discuss it. I can't discuss traffic offenses or "other". I agree. Blacks are worse off. But that's not most nor the worst of the offenses. Student7 (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent). It is a complex subject. There are already articles on the topic. See:

• Racial inequality in the American criminal justice system
• Race and crime
• Race and crime in the United States

There is only room for a summary of opinions here, and any summary is bound to be incomplete, wrong, or lacking in some way. Wikipedia usually just links to the other articles in this case. Everything other than statistics can go to those articles where the topics can be covered in a much more complete and nuanced way that follows WP:NPOV guidelines. All significant viewpoints can be represented and referenced.

Here is the info you added, Student7:

Various studies have shown that, in recent decades, there has not been disparity in black vs white crime statistics in black-run vs white-controlled cities, say Atlanta vs San Diego. In the largest counties, the rates of conviction for accused blacks was slightly less than the conviction rates for whites, for example. Stephan Thernstrom (2011-03-29). "America in black and white: one nation indivisible". p. 273. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I moved the info to the ethnicity section. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Two of the other articles seemed unbiased. Racial inequality in the American criminal justice system is a bit WP:POV in its title. If it can't be "proven," the article goes away. A bit whiny and pov-ish. Oh, well. Student7 (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The titles of articles can be changed. I removed the info from this article. It can be added to those other articles. That article title could be changed to something like Race and the American criminal justice system. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

1.The title of the "Racial inequality..." should be changed.

2.So far, all information has been erased which shows that a) crime rates are proportionately higher for blacks, b) cities run by blacks have the same black crime rate as white run cities, c) whites are usually convicted at slightly higher rates than blacks.

3.Nothing is acceptable that doesn't complain that blacks are incarcerated at higher rates than whites. This is true. They commit crimes at higher rates than whites. Nothing is shown here that demonstrates otherwise.

4.If blacks commit crimes at higher rates than whites (provable), and all cities have the same problem, whether black or white run, and even when whites are convicted more often than blacks, blacks still wind up in prison at a higher rate than whites. Why is that?

5.If you remove enough reality, it does seem like prejudice, I will admit. But reality has to be persistently removed else it intrudes this significant, unalterable fact of high black crimes rates = high incarceration rates for blacks. Student7 (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this article should try to sort that out. I agree with your edits in removing the POV from this article. See diff. I wasn't the one who added that POV originally. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I moved the section out from under the "Recidivism" heading as it doesn't seem to address that issue at all, and added a comparative table which includes women.

I agree with the fact that one should distinguish the statistical facts from any explanation of those facts. But I don't think blacks "commit crimes at higher rates than whites" works if it attempts to explain a 6.7:1 difference. I came across a good quote that "for whites drugs are a disease and for blacks it is a criminal act" which may or may not explain some of it - I don't yet know. But what I do know is that the high rates are a result of policies - probably unintended it's true, but nonetheless deliberate. Chris55 (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Having had a brief look at FBI data I think it's possible to confirm that the black/white ratio is disproportionate. For example the rates of arrests for blacks are about twice that for whites. I can't find any race breakdown of conviction rates, but for 'known' murders the rate they have is 4.8:1 (of course most of their victims are black males too). Not entirely satisfactory as the figures only cover 43% of homicides - and how do they know? (also the FBI don't include hispanics.) So the prison rate on these figures show between 40% and 220% more blacks in prison than are expected by the crime figures. Chris55 (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

We can't sort this out here, but poverty explains some of the crime rate. That is, crime rates are higher for poor whites as they are for poor blacks. A higher percentage of blacks are poor.

This also ties into ghetto-ization. Black men who rise out of the ghetto are the ones who didn't hang out on the "street corner" (or wherever), and therefore didn't get into trouble.

Many black men have no adult male to emulate, except poor models. They are often fatherless. White males without fathers have similar problems, but more blacks than whites are essentially fatherless.

The main point though, is these figures hold up for Atlanta, DC, and other black-run cities where they have black police and black judges. It is not a racial thing. Editors should really take a hard look at statistics and not slant the wording so it reads like it is someone's bigotry somewhere. There is no "someone" that is conspiring to put black males in jail. They are committing the crime and therefore doing the time. Repeat crime means that they will wind up in jail and not just probated like many perps get for the first offense. Student7 (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity, part 2

The tag has been erased which stated that nothing was there to document that blacks are accused of crimes at a much higher rate than whites (are convicted less, which was a surprise) but still wind up in jail at higher rates. And this occurs in black-run cities in the same proportion as white-run ones. If there is a statement that documents this, I missed it. Can the editor provide me a ptr to that information? or the text itself?Student7 (talk) 12:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We already agreed that there is only room in this article for stats concerning ethnicity. That is why I removed the tag. We also discussed that the "see also" links cover the various reasons for the stats, and for sorting out all the issues in adequate detail.

See also: Race and crime in the United States and Racial inequality in the American criminal justice system

Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum. Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Please use the other article talk pages to discuss how to improve those articles. Your points belong in their talk pages. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. If there is a forum was not started by me. It is here already in the promotion of the fact that blacks are incarcerated at a higher rate than whites. This is true. There is a reason for that. It is, however, omitted from here. Student7 (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion became a forum once we agreed that the reasons should be sorted out in the other "see also" articles due to the complexity of the subject. It is not censorship or blame. I just pointed out the WP:FORUM guidelines to save time, avoid unnecessary problems, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comparison to Incarceration rates for other countries

Comparing the rates for this country to those of others is fairly irrelevant. Most countries have relatively homogeneous populations, by comparison, and an often commonly accepted, or understood, manner of behavior. They have different laws, some of which are pre-emptive for crime, considered a violation of "rights" in the US.

There needs to be an npov reason for selecting those particular nations for comparison. Because they speak English, is probably not valid, and therefore WP:OR no matter who did it. There needs to be a penitential reason for their selection. Student7 (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think they were picked fairly randomly by others. I updated them. People reading an encyclopedia want this type of comparative stats. The "see also" link goes to a more complete list of countries.

See also: List of countries by incarceration rate

But it is alright by me if the paragraph of stats for other nations is removed. The chart is enough, and people can go to List of countries by incarceration rate for more info. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with including them in the body of the text? The npov reason is that they are comparably developed OECD countries. The issue isn't heterogeneity of population, or "commonly accepted manners of behavior," for goodness sake, it's that it's US policy to incarcerate people more, irrespective of crime rates. Sorry if reality has a pov. Meesher (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Changing material relating to women prisoners

To Whom it May Concern:

I am a student in at Amherst College and I am currently taking a class called "Women History in America: 1865 to the Present". Our final project is to choose a wikipedia article and bolster the information provided. In order to be respectful of the other editors of this page, I want to explain the changes that I intend to make in case there are any concerns.

Historically, research and knowledge of the criminal justice system has been based upon a male paradigm, which inevitably fails to address the specific needs of female inmates. I believe it is crucial to explore the ways in which women’s experiences both coincide with and differ from those of their male counterparts, especially since the growth rate of female incarceration is rapidly increasing. First of all, I propose to add a section on substance abuse and the lack of treatment available for inmates to break free of their addictions. Inadequate health care serves as another main concern. Prison's lack qualified medical personnel and resources to meet the physical and mental health needs of inmates and more specifically, women's specific needs related to reproduction, mental health, and feminine care are particularly grave and remain unaddressed. Moreover, the female experience in regard to pregnancy and childbirth conflicts with a prison system originally designed for men. I also believe it is important to have a section on sexual abuse- a significant threat for female inmates. There are alarming rates of sexual aggression in prisons; however, even the Prison Rape Elimination Act signed into law in 2003, is focused mainly on sexual misconduct in male prisons rather than also in female correctional facilities.

While the previous issues I have raised focus specifically on experience in prison, I will also include two sections on what happens after prison by examining barriers to entry and effects on family structures. As they reenter their communities, former inmates confront sparse job opportunities, limited options for affordable housing, and the challenge of reestablishing relationships. Thus, the transition from prison to home is difficult and rates of recidivism remain high. In terms of effects on family structures, I would like to look at the way single parents remain especially vulnerable to the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, which seems to expedite the process of terminating parental rights. In addition, incarcerated parents confront major difficulties with maintaining contact with their children. Obstacles that inhibit contact between mothers and their children include geographical distance, lack of transportation, lack of privacy, inability to cover travel expenses and the inappropriate environments of correctional facilities. It is also a huge issue when single mothers are incarcerated because they are much more likely to lose their children to the State.

Each of my changes will be corroborated with facts and citations in order to ensure my information is credible and reliable. I believe that the changes I intend to make are extremely important in order to strengthen this article and make it more holistic and detailed.

Thank you very much. I look forward to hearing your feedback. Sincerely, Dancing Dolphin — Preceding unsigned comment added by DancingDolphin3 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

A problem here may be overloading the article with accurate information. That would be WP:UNDUE since most prisoners aren't women. Too much of a good thing, as it were. So volume needs to be somewhat proportionate to what is there.

A possibility is to come up with a separate article, summarized here (or more material here) and linked from here. This would be a bit challenging for a new editor IMO.

Another way, to avoid the pain, is to develop the article, or changes to this one, in a sandbox, and ask for comments here, giving us a pointer to the sandbox. Unfortunately, you will not get many comments.

The "single parent", while largely pertaining to women, also pertains to some men, so that could be included separately, maybe.

Substance abuse is a very major problem IMO. But this clearly impacts males as much, if not more, than women. Also sexual aggression/rape is a significant problem for both sexes. Definitely for the general article. I think limiting yourself to women inmates is going to cripple your ability to contribute and may cause confusion. I realize why you feel you must do this, but women inmates don't "own" all those problems. Just some.

Good luck. Student7 (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, ignore my remarks. All of this has already been hashed out. So much for trailing my watchlist by two days!  :)

There's a new article called Incarceration of women which is all about that :) WhisperToMe (talk) 06:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

DancingDolphin3, I am very much support your research and think that your edits have very valuable information. But the current article is already exceeds Wiki standards for the page length, so it would be more appropriate to have a separate Incarceration of women article, with a short reference from the current article. Thanks for your work! Innab (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Too many subsections

I don't have a solution (sorry), but we have way more subsections than we should have for readability. Some should be included together somehow. I will think about it and hope you will too! Student7 (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. Please see WP:NOTPAPER. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

State and territorial listing

We don't really want to see 50 plus states and territories penal groups listed by name. These will need to be summarized in some terse fashion. Student7 (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No they don't. They can be moved to a separate page when or if it becomes a problem. That is covered by WP:NOTPAPER. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Too bad we only have a couple of editors active. This is the trouble with mature articles. The experienced editors get bored and wander off.

This violates WP:NOTLINKFARM, and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The section starts off well. We need to discuss the various breakdown in authority/venue. But degenerating into a list is not helpful and detracts (subtracts) from the article. If you really think that all penitential systems need to be linked someplace why not start a list and "see also" from here?

Right now, this is the only section here that is marginally informative. Lists usually aren't. They are just lists, which is why they are discouraged by policy. Student7 (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTLINKFARM and WP:NOTDIRECTORY do not apply to internal links. Feel free to start another page and move the stuff there. I do not have a problem with that. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I did that. There was already a "state" list. I moved the territories there. Now the article is misnamed! List of United States state correction agencies.

It could be renamed. Or the material could be (as you suggested) moved to its own article. I would suggest renaming the article since the list is short. Having said that, renaming won't be easy! People who are not from the US would need to understand it. Student7 (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Privatization

I see a lot of editing of that section yesterday. I don't keep up with it, and it looks like it is becoming propaganda-filled. I suggest jettisoning all of that section except for stats of private versus public prisons. The rest can go to the talk page for the "see also" article that is linked:

Main article: Private prison § Private prisons in the United States

I don't intend to edit that section of this article. Much of this article is not being watched much if at all. The "see also" articles are better watched through their watchlists that are specific to those articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I find the quality in this section is terrible with very few citations. Needs editing or at least severe cuts. Khono (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Demographics

That the general population of the prisons are less educated has been touched upon in various sentences, but no real statistics. They are probably available somewhere.

A second demographic that may be missing is "poverty," or poverty-background, a bit harder to construct. Student7 (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Another demographic that could be covered is religious background.Eav (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Fallacy in main imagine chart

This image needs to show the increase in general population level of the United States alongside the prison population in a single image to give a more accurate view and show how much the percentage of those incarcaretated has gone up. At the moment there is no real context. - 90.219.249.36 (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, more accurately, against the usual group of 20-39 year olds who commit most of the crimes. Student7 (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Parole equals incarceration?

A phrase reads "According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 7,225,800 people at yearend 2009 were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole". It seems to me that there is a heck of a lot of difference being in jail or prison and being on probation or parole. I can appreciate that these statistics ought to be somewhere. Just not in an article on incarceration which hardly has the relative freedom that parole or probation have. Lumping them altogether is non-WP:TOPIC. Student7 (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It is usually mentioned in discussion of incarceration rates. Note that people on probation and parole may be placed into incarceration without any court proceedings. TFD (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It is relevant information. Basic statistics for the total correctional population are frequently discussed in articles about incarceration in the news media and scholarly articles. It is hard to discuss incarceration without discussing people on probation or parole who end up incarcerated, and the reasons for it. The numbers for those people are relevant to put the incarceration rate in perspective. Articles frequently compare the total correctional population numbers and rates to the incarceration numbers and rates. Also, the news media, politicians, and scholarly publications discuss the total costs of the corrections system, as broken down by incarcerated, on probation, on parole, etc.. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is a fallacy of some sort. Package-deal fallacy maybe? We can include parole figures which are not really incarceration and probation figures, which are not on WP:TOPIC either, because others wrongly do this to push a particular WP:SOAPBOX WP:POV which is that American incarceration is "too high."

I think there is other logical fallacies involved which include people who will "probably" be incarcerated (thereby meeting the terms of the WP:TOPIC) because they have violated their parole or terms of probation. Interesting, but should really be a separate article. Or rename this one: Incarceration, Parole and Probation in the United States. They are three different experiences. They may be related, but they are not the same. Implying that they are is falsifying data to make a point. Student7 (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

May be we should re-phrase this sentence to something like: "According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 2,292,133 were incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails at year end 2009 — about 1% of adults in the U.S. resident population. Additionally 4,933,667 people at yearend 2009 were on probation or on parole. In total 7,223,800 people were under under correctional supervision (probation, parole, jail, or prison) in 2009 — about 3.1% of adults in the U.S. resident population." ? It is true information, would be nice to keep it, but it may need some re-phrasing. Innab (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Something like that is clearer and better avoids the problems discussed by Student7. Also, Incarceration, Parole and Probation in the United States does not exist. Even if that article did exist, the basic numbers would be relevant here too. A link to the new article expands further on it all. It is how Wikipedia does it. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The breakdown is helpful and honest.

Another way is to rename this "Judicial restraint in the United States." This allows for other forms of restraint. Student7 (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Adults. Apples and oranges

It may not be a fallacy but what we used to call apples and oranges. This sentence could be clarified "According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 7,225,800 people at yearend 2009 were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole — about 3.1% of adults in the U.S. resident population.[7][4] 2,292,133 were incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails at year end 2009.[1][3][7][4]" to show if the 2.3 million are all adults or not and then it would go better with the first sentence in the paragraph. That's a classic problem with statistics and with price comparisons (my field of expertise for a&o sitations). 4.249.63.53 (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I added "adults" to the 2 sentences. Reference is http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/corr2.cfm

I also added the number of juveniles in detention.

More reference info: Correctional Population Trends Chart. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. "Estimates include adults under correctional supervision. In 2009, jail counts were revised to include adult jail inmates only." See also: Correctional Populations in the United States, 2009 (NCJ 231681) where the component correctional population numbers have been adjusted to account for some offenders with multiple correctional statuses.

Correctional Populations in the United States, 2009. NCJ 231681. By Lauren Glaze. December 21, 2010. United States Bureau of Justice Statistics. See page 2 of the PDF file for the percent of adults under correctional supervision. See appendix table 2 for the incarceration totals, breakdown, and rates. Its numbers are the custody numbers that avoid the duplication of jurisdiction numbers and multiple correctional statuses. For an explanation see the text box on page one. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, parole is not incarceration. Probably no fun, but probably preferable to prison. The article should not track parolees IMO. As this study indicates, it makes discussion that much more difficult besides being off WP:TOPIC. Another option is to rename the article to include parolees. Student7 (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Putting something in context is not offtopic. This article is not about parolees. It mentions parole briefly to put the correctional population of incarcerated inmates in context. There is an article on parole for more info. This has already been discussed.

Please see previous discussion higher up: #Parole equals incarceration?. Please stop trying to to softpedal the negative things about the U.S. incarceration system. Wikipedia puts out the facts and statistics, and lets people make up their own minds. The statistics don't lie, and that seems to bother you. Your pro-American bias is your right, but not when it effects WP:NPOV. This is an international encyclopedia, and people want all significant viewpoints. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

See also

There were redundant listings for "see also." The intent of this subsection is to refer the reader to articles neglected, because they didn't fit into the article. For example, in "Persecution of Hindus", a "See also" subsection might link to "Persecution of Buddhists." There was no reason to include the latter in the article. But the intent was not to be a summary of all the links in the article. In fairness, some of these links have been in the "see also" subsection historically and recently placed into links. Anyway, they are gone now. Student7 (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I watch about 1700 articles and have edited thousands more. At this point in time, this article has more "see alsos" imbedded in the text than any other article I have seen. I find it a bit distracting. A {{main|}} would be fine, but a "see also" seems a bit off the point, IMO. I suggest removing them and putting them back into the "See also" subsection where they cannot be made "mains" or otherwise worked into the text. Student7 (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Overlapping figures

A quote says (in part): "... "Some states exclude certain items when reporting corrections expenditures. Twenty-one states wholly or partially excluded juvenile delinquency counseling from their corrections figures .... Seventeen states wholly or partially excluded spending on drug abuse rehabilitation centers.."

Of course this is what we want for this article. The reverse should be reported for this article. "This includes non-incarcertion figures" for the majority (29) of the states! I realize it may be hard to help, but including non-incarceration figures is non-WP:TOPIC. On the other hand, we would probably want to count juvenile institutions and criminally insane for this article. Can't cherry pick the announcement. Really need a better quote. I rather shows that this source is biased, IMO. Student7 (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Both the specific incarceration costs and the total corrections cost are important to put things in context. More incarceration-only cost info would be helpful. Please put it in if you find it. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:25, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The UK has the highest incarceration rate on the planet

Yet, the article reads:

By comparison the incarceration rate in England and Wales[clarification needed] in February 2011 was 154 people imprisoned per 100,000 residents

There is a time to mince ones words, and that statement is absolute horses**t. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.194.102 (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for what you are saying? Please leave links. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, some people with delicate ears might be offended when you spell out BS, HS, etc.. It might be considered bordering on a violation of WP:CIVILITY. You did not personally insult anybody, so there is no problem there. And there is nothing in the Wikipedia guidelines against strongly expressing an opinion about the accuracy of some content in an article. I have never heard though of any part of the UK having an incarceration rate close to that of the USA. Do you have any sources for that? --Timeshifter (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Two things, hopefully the first easily addressable: the link supporting this information appears to have moved. It appears the link needs to be updated.

We really need a good reason to use the UK to compare US rates against, unless it happened to be the highest (which seems doubtful). There appears to be no good reason to compare the relatively homogenous UK to the very heterogeneous US. Student7 (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I updated the link. We should be using sources that compare U.S. incarceration rates to other countries, rather than putting in stats for other countries that have not been compared to the U.S. A good source will explain why the comparison is being made and factors explaining the difference. TFD (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Correspondence

Unclear sentence

"Since most DOCs already post inmate information on their websites, critics claim this is a moot point. " I am unable to figure out what "this" refers to in the sentence above from the Correspondence section. Could someone who understands what is meant please improve the phrasing? Girlgeek z (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree. No one responded to my request for clarification. Doesn't seem important in the context it was in, so deleted it. Student7 (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Disputed POV

But historically, the current US incarceration rate is still slightly lower than the record-high Soviet Union's levels before World War II when the USSR's population reached 168 million, and 1.2 to 1.5 million people were in the Gulag system's prison camps and colonies (i.e. about 800 people imprisoned per 100,000 residents, according to numbers from Anne Applebaum and Steven Rosefielde).

The numbers go back and forth and this is clearly a distortion, as many sources say the opposite. Clearly, someone is pushing a singular POV here and citing sources that promote their own POV. Viriditas (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

To include this interesting comparison, we should have a source that is actually about U.S. incarceration rates, that explains the significance of the camparison. I will remove it.

Chart difference between "number of prisoners in custody" and the "number under jurisdiction" as percent of population

Sorry to remove the new chart, but this is the same chart as we already have below, based on same report (i.e. "Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics 2003"). But in the new chart the header is misleading, because this is not all incarcerated Americans, but only the portion under state and federal jurisdiction. This does not include local jails, transit, out to court etc. See explanation of the difference between "number of prisoners in custody" and the "number under jurisdiction" in "Correctional Population in the United States, 2010. See pg.2 - http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus10.pdf :

BJS’s official measure of the prison population is the count of prisoners under the jurisdiction or legal authority of state and federal adult correctional officials (1,605,127 in 2010) (appendix table 1). These prisoners may be held in prison or jail facilities located outside of the state or federal prison system. The prison population reported in table 1 is the number held in custody or physically housed in state (1,311,136 in 2010) and federal (206,968 in 2010) adult correctional facilities, regardless of which entity has legal authority over the prisoners (appendix table 2). This includes state and federal prisoners held in privately operated facilities. The difference between the number of prisoners in custody and the number under jurisdiction is the number of state and federal prisoners held in the custody of local jails, inmates out to court, and those in transit.

Innab (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Edited quote

A quote now appears: "In the past two decades, the money that states spend on prisons has risen at six times the rate of spending on higher education. In 2011, California spent $9.6 billion on prisons, versus $5.7 billion on higher education..... The state spends $8,667 per student per year. It spends about $50,000 per inmate per year. Why is this happening? Prisons are a big business. Most are privately run. They have powerful lobbyists and they have bought most state politicians. Meanwhile, we are bankrupting out states and creating a vast underclass of prisoners who will never be equipped for productive lives. [98]"

I edited out with .... the supposed fact that California "only" (usually a key phase before a pov statement) one university and build a lot more prisons. It is not imperative that we use pov phrases from otherwise quotable references.

But I am not sure that even the remainder should be used. It certainly shouldn't be in a box. It may be counting capital expenditures on prisons versus operating expenses on higher education, which makes no sense. BTW, it is not apparent that making the comparisons between prisons and education is npov anyway. It's like saying that we spend more on abortion each year than we do on alleviating Lou Gehrig's disease. That might be true, but it is irrelevant to the argument. It is plainly political and virtually useless in an encyclopedia.

Also, it makes some of the rest of the article incoherent since it talks about overcrowding in prisons. We try to pretend that the article is written by one person, or at least several editors following a general theme. We can hardly pretend to complain about "overbuilding" prisons in one paragraph then complain about "overcrowding" in another without some connecting words that seem to connect the two. Either "prisons aren't really overcrowded yet some people have complained..." or "Prisons are overcrowed yet some people have complained that we are building too many.." Something.Student7 (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the Fareed Zakaria's comment is very relevant. It does talk about prison cost, he is a famous journalist and considered an expert in CNN on the political issues. Wiki articles have plenty citations in them, as long as it will sourced and facts are correct. Innab (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

502/100K

Is from a DoJ publication. Calling its use "vandalsim" in any way is far off the mark. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Should this article refer to everyone who is in contact with the justice system, whether incarcerated or not?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing per an AN request. Consensus is that the main focus should be on incarceration but that related concepts should be covered as context.  Sandstein  19:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Succinctly - should this article continue to include everyone remotely under judicial control in the US or should it stick with "incarcerated" individuals? Collect (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Only include people serving a custodial sentence (i.e., jail or prison) Wikipedia's article on incarceration defines it as follows: "Incarceration is the detention of a person in prison, typically as punishment for a crime (custodial sentence)." 71.251.38.196 (talk) 04:16, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Incarceration is the topic. Correctional population is the context. Article should focus almost totally on incarceration as it does, but putting the numbers in context is normal in Wikipedia articles. So, for example; mentioning the number of people on probation and parole is fine. I am not seeing what the problem is. The article almost exclusively discusses incarceration. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

  In that case, should not the article title be "United States correctional population"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

No. See previous reply for the reason why. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Include Information on numbers of individuals who are conditionally released from imprisonment awaiting trial, are under house arrest or have been paroled is relevant, and mentioned in literature about imprisonment in the US and other countries. Incidentally, WP:RfC says that statements of issues should be neutral. TFD (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Include, but not in the lede. A section about the total U.S. correctional system, referring to one or more other articles using Template:Main, which gives the numbers for probation and parole and various other data of top importance mined from those articles (WP:Summary style, is absolutely appropriate to provide much-needed context. Wnt (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - A general consideration, a priori, from someone ignorant of any details of the US penitential system and record keeping practices. Irrespective of scope (the subject of this RfC), it's fundamental that the reporting should make it really clear to readers what each set of figures is referring to. Potential for artificial variations due to differences in record keeping practices over time should be highlighted. Not always the easiest thing to do, I know, but transparent reporting is a key factor in this sort of article. As regards scope, the title clearly indicates that the main focus should be on incarceration, and therefore incarcerated individuals and their numbers. Obviously, those numbers are measured as a proportion of the overall population (the main context): ie, the so-called incarceration rate, which actually refers to the prevalence of incarceration (an indication of social burden) rather than, say, annual incidence of new incarcerations (a different form of information, more related to the ongoing risk of experiencing imprisonment de novo). And there are a whole load of other considerations.... But I think the main focus is clearly that. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the incarceration rate versus prevalence as a meaningful issue. Every night that a prison puts someone back in a cell, that's a decision that society makes afresh. Sometimes a state decides to cut costs by cutting the rear end of the sentence, and that decreases the incarceration rate in any meaningful sense of the term, even though it doesn't affect the number of new people going in jail for the first time. Speaking of which, how do you define the first time - first time in their lives, first time in their sentence for all counts in one trial, for a given count in a trial, for each probation or parole violation? Does someone who spends some time in jail, posts bail, gets sent to jail again, is released on appeal, loses and gets sentenced, finishes but violates parole and gets sent back again count as an incidence of one, two, three, or four? The only meaningful definition of incarceration rate is the one all the sources use, which counts it day by day, hour by hour, just like the poor bastards in the cells. Wnt (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Then presumably you don't want to bother mentioning figures at all! That's simple then... Out with all the numbers and in with some of your editorial rhetoric. Sorry, is this a comment about a serious encyclopedia, or what? —MistyMorn (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

If that's what you interpreted me as saying, I must not have been clear enough. My recent edits at United States incarceration rate were not about removing facts and figures! But there's no need to make a distinction about incidence versus prevalence that the sources don't make - they present the data the way they do because that's the way that makes the most sense. Wnt (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad that this was a misunderstanding. I seem to have misjudged your tone as being an outspoken criticism of my attempts to make useful contributions to the discussion. Btw, the prevalence/incidence quibble stems from the observation that Wikipedia currently doesn't seem to have any dedicated explanation as to what an incarceration rate is actually supposed to measure. That seems to be taken for granted - an omission, imo. Cheers, —MistyMorn (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Timeshifter's comment above: Incarceration is the topic. Correctional population is the context. Innab (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to lose statistics, but neither can I be enthused about including people on parole, out on bail; that sort of thing. If separate figures aren't easily available, what're you gonna do?

And to answer one question, assuming (again) that there are statistics, figures are a snapshot: there are x people in jail as of a certain date. But I agree, talking about volume or crime statistics. How many of these are the same person? We have to take statistics as they are gathered. I can't imagine the justice system separating them out. Student7 (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2008 chart

See diff. This 2008 table has U.S. territories, Indian territories, and juvenile inmates. And a good reference. Unfortunately, I have not found the info in one place later than 2008.

Feel free to combine various tables into one wikitext table for a later year. Good luck though. It is an amazing amount of work to find it all, create the wikitable, and add the references to the article.

But please do not delete tables just because they aren't perfect. If you want them to be better, then create them. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I am removing this page from my watchlist. Instead, I am going to keep adding charts and graphs to the Commons. That way people can use whatever charts they want for this page and others. This page needs editors that have more time than me to edit it. And Wikipedia needs a much better content dispute resolution process. See User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

this should be removed

"However, black majority cities have similar crime statistics for blacks as do cities where majority of population is white. For example, white majority San Diego has a slightly lower crime rate for blacks than does Atlanta, a city which has black majority in population and city government"

this is not factual and the source is a book written by someone, not something showing actual statistics.

the top 5 most violent and crime filled American cities, from Memphis to Detroit to Flint, are all black majority.

stop white washing reality for the sake of political correctness, for Gods sake's.

--Savakk (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)