Talk:Incarceration in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Incarceration in the United States:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:


0.7% of adult population?[edit]

The second line of the article currently reads "According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2,266,800 adults were incarcerated in U.S. federal and state prisons, and county jails at year-end 2011 – about 0.7% of adults in the U.S. resident population.". However 2,266,800 is approximately 0.7% of the _total_ US population (314 million). So unless I'm missing something, this line should be edited by removing the word 'adult' or, preferably, by changing the 0.7% number into its correct value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixed:  — TJJFV (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Charts don't seem to agree[edit]

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


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." 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:

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.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (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[edit]

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.
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[edit]

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.
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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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:

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)

This section has NPOV issues, a number of unsourced assertions, plus it's all predicated on one source- a study of privatization based on the tiny data sample of three prisons. Needs revising with better sources. Plausible deniability (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


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[edit]

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. - (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?[edit]

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[edit]

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). (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

U.S. adult correctional population timeline.gif
Good point. I added "adults" to the 2 sentences. Reference is
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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (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)
The UK has become homogenous? When did this happen? --Eamonnca1 TALK 05:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Material is WP:SYNTH. Not appropriate for this article at this level. While a WP:RS may be found, it is still synthesis to compare two different countries in an article about the United States. I have bluer eyes than you. My aunt is older than your aunt. Both of these may be true, but their needs to be some reason why that is important. What is important about your/my having blue(r) eyes? Is the title of the article "Comparing User's eyes with Student7"? If the article is about User, than comparison with me is non-WP:TOPIC and synthesis. A random collection of factoids. If we were (otherwise) identical twins, and the article's title so stated, then it might be germane to the article. Else it belongs (at best) in a higher level article.
Different inputs + Different functions = Different outcomes. That is not encyclopedic, but expected. If we had differing inputs and differing functions and identical outcomes, that would be indeed remarkable! Student7 (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


Unclear sentence[edit]

"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 in Gulag comparisons[edit]

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.
And the source that is actually about the real soviet archival numbers, not the cold war era dissident fantasies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Why don't we consume our own dogfood and use the numbers from the gulag article? Solzhenitsyn's estimates have been shown to be (undeliberatly) out of proportion decades ago. Sperxios (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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 - :

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[edit]

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)


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?[edit]

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)." (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 above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

2008 chart[edit]

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[edit]

"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)

Do you have a WP:RS refuting this? Actually, blacks wishing to live in decent neighborhoods have been increasingly reporting crime instead of "living with it" as they did in the past. Most of the incarcerated (black and white) are repeaters, BTW. The court usually gives first offenders a "break" if the offense does not seem that serious. And most cases are plea-bargained anyway. Student7 (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

why do I need to refute something that is patently incorrect?

the only American city that is not black majority as a whole that is in the top 5 most violent crime filled cities is New Haven.

and all of the New Haven crime occurs in the inner city areas where blacks live. and both have consistent crime figures showing a much, much higher proportion of black people committing crimes vs white people.

or you could take it straight from the horses mouth, black people themselves.

"To join the movement to save young Black men and to educate Black children, call us at 312/842-3527, email us at or visit our website at"

clearly not some racist white people, right ?

so let's say what stats they have

"Blacks account for only 12% of the U.S. population, but 44 % of all prisoners in the United States are Black."

Weird, that contradicts huge portions of this entire article.


on one hand we have the government, government agencies, and black community organizations saying yes, there is a problem with a lot of black people and crime.

and on the other hand we have internet vigilantes like you, ensuring that the truth is only the truth when it doesn't offend anyone.

--Savakk (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Not following you. If "the top 5 most violent and crime filled American cities... are all black majority", how does that disprove that "black majority cities have similar crime statistics for blacks as do cities where majority of population is white" (my emphasis)? TFD (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Not that I'm necessarily disagreeing with you but may I ask why you started bringing up "political correctness" at the mention of removing that? If it's true its true if not it's not. You became very defensive for some reason.FamAD123 (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Updated costs[edit]

The latest data on the costs of incarceration go back to 2007. Surely there is more recent data from the US budgets? I am especially interested in the cost of corrections. PametUGlavu (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


I've noticed that many of the links in the section about race actually just divert to anti-black and hispanic blogs. Now some of those blogs actually provide links for their opinions which he could probably use as sources but others have nothing backing up what is stated. I suggest removing them, I won't do it myself considering the topic, but I think it would be for the best if someone did.FamAD123 (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I found 3 that were named "blogs." If you can identify others, please label. These seemed to be mostly anti-incarceration, i.e. assumed that incarceration was racist. Student7 (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

We'll not sure if it were a blog per se, but I was thinking about a link to From reading the article and browsing the site and comments it seem to imply bias to me. Again though, I won't remove anything do to the controversial nature of the subject. FamAD123 (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

This should be removed[edit]

"Although the category of political crime does not officially exist in the United States owing to constitutional guarantees, a correlation nevertheless exists between the high rate of political protest in the decade preceding the beginning of the sharp rise of incarceration (1972) and the relative political quietude following massive incarceration, even in a time of great social upheaval such as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the Great Recession."

The author is saying that there are no longer protestors for the most part because most protestors were arrested around 1972. No source to back it up, and frankly sounds like nonsense. (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I also feel that this section should be removed. It seems to me that the implications of this section are far beyond the limits of reasonable demonstrations, whether they are or are not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wclark07 (talkcontribs) 04:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the following as I do not think we need to document coincidences here, however suspicious they may be:

"The category of political crime does not officially exist in the United States owing to constitutional guarantees. Nevertheless the high rate of political dissent in the two decades preceding the beginning of the sharp rise in 1980 of both the incarceration rate and the high cost of university education was followed by our present-day political torpor even in a time of great social upheaval such as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the Great Recession in which greater social unrest might be expected. A remarkable coincidence exists between today's political quietude and massive incarceration and suppression of upward mobility through university education." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wclark07 (talkcontribs) 04:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It is unsourced original research and therefore was correctly removed. TFD (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Gulag comparison - again[edit]

Comparing modern American with Stalin's USSR is nonsensical. Stalin simply shot people who were apparently guilty or guilty of possible political plotting. Millions were killed. This isn't done today in America. American convicts are mostly interred and not killed outright. Those killed in the USSR, please note, don't show up in the "incarcerated" rates. Student7 (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

United States incarceration rate[edit]

I think this article should be either merged or rationalized with the article on "United States incarceration rate". At minimum, each should reference the other. Both are plenty long, I think. There is substantial overlap but far from 100 percent. Even considering the overlap, there seems to be enough material for more than one article. United States incarceration rate discusses "causes", absent (at least as a separate section) from the present article; I'll add a link to the other section. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

@User:DavidMCEddy How would it be possible to "rationalize" one article with the other article? Jarble (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Improve cross linkage? Check for conflicts and make it clear in both articles where there are differences? Reduce duplication?
This topic is beyond my expertise, so I can't take the lead. I've written to experts in this field to solicit their help. I have not seen a reply. I will try others. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
This article is less pov-named and should be retained. The wording here is also less pov and less inflammatory. For example, the other article has what is otherwise a perfectly good chart with the unecessary and pov title "United States is world's leading jailer." This is trying to make a point (pov). I don't think it can be rm. The objective way is to present figures and allow readers to draw their own conclusions.
Agree. I haven't had time to do a paragraph-by-paragraph comparison yet, and there might be a bit of bias in both articles, but in a quick read this one feels more encyclopaedic, and it seems like 80% to 95% of the facts are the same and presented in pretty much the same order. 15:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidLeeLambert (talkcontribs)
I (nor are investors nor travelers) are particularly heartened by 3rd world countries, like Venezuela, with low incarceration rates. The point here being, if having high incarceration rates is automatically "bad," then therefore, having low incarceration rates must be (automatically) "good." The latter is demonstrably false. Probably the former, as well.
We may be bringing a bunch of pov editors with the article, who will be pov-pushing. Student7 (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
First a disclaimer: I don't think I have the time to referee a pov contest.
However, inviting pov editors to collaborate could potentially be useful -- both for the content they produce and for the impact that Wikipedia's pov rules and conflict resolution procedures could have on the participants. I've had both Jews and Palestinians tell me, "You don't understand those people: They're crazy." For that I have two comments: First, they're both right, but that doesn't make them any different from the rest of humanity ;-) Second, I've long felt that if we could get Jewish and Palestinian scholars collaborating in writing their common history, it could go a long way toward resolving that conflict. This is not original with me: Some years ago, I read a German-language history of Europe (Illustrated History Of Europe / Das europäische Geschichtsbuch, Frédéric Delouche), which was produced by something like 15 historians from 13 different European countries: The project was explicitly conceived as an effort to build a cohesive, pan-European identity. In virtually any conflict that lasts longer than a few days, each side has misconceptions about the other. Wikipedia can help resolve some of these conflicts by encouraging everyone to cite their sources, write from a neutral point of view, and deal with others with respect. Some people can't do that. They get pushed out of Wikipedia. Everyone else becomes better for the effort, I think. AND their collaboration produces prose that earns the respect of most readers. DavidMCEddy (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
You're being a good editor by WP:AGF. I've been outvoted by editors who were not acting in good faith, a few times, once quite recently. I do agree about editors who are acting in good faith, recognizing a point when they see one and not pov-pushing when they can see that their viewpoint can tolerate moderation. The article is often improved by allowing multiple povs. Student7 (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This seems a mistake[edit]

Private companies which provide services to prisons combine in the American Correctional Association, a 501(c)3 which advocates legislation favorable to the industry.

Charities granted tax exemption under IRC section 501(c)3 are prohibited from political activity — which the language "legislation favorable" suggests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RRassendyll (talkcontribs) 16:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

501(c)3s are allowed to lobby. TFD (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Is "skimping on food" a relevant major issue?[edit]

Simple query -- the title of the article is "Incarceration" -- if we include side material such as skimping on food, we could end up with cable TV channels allowed in specific prisons etc. I suggest that the limits are already broken here, but breaking them further makes no sense. Collect (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't find "skimp" in in the current article. Might this comment refer to something something that has already been deleted, because it was inserted without adequate explanation regarding why it's there and / or without an appropriate citation?
I would think that nutrition (quality and quantity of food) would be an appropriate issue for an article on incarceration: It became a major grievance against the South after the American Civil War, because of the starvation and unsanitary conditions in the Andersonville prisoner of war camp, for example.
The conditions of prison life should be of legitimate concern in an article like this to the extent that they impact recidivism.
Cable TV channels might be relevant, I would think, IF they impacted recidivism or if there were serious questions about the cable TV providers receiving contracts for which the charges are excessive.
I don't know about cable TV, but in some cases, long-distance calls are charged six times the rate on the outside; I don't have citations, but I think in many cases, the charges may be much higher. I regard this as important, because if it makes it harder for inmates to maintain ties with law abiding citizen on the outside, the recidivism rate could be higher as a result. Of course, research would need to be cited to support any such claim. DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
AFAICT, such research falls outside the actual topic of this article :( The section on food includes a source Michigan's new prison food contractor accused of skimping on size and quality of meals to boost profits which is far more about the food contractor than anything else, and not of general value overall. Collect (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Considering the *section* of the article is on *conditions* inside the prison system, and the news articles cited describe the horrid quality of food provided to inmates which has contributed to severe illness and in some cases riots, how could it not be relevant? It's every bit as relevant as "skimping on" medical services, mentioned in the preceding paragraph.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Nope -- it is on a specific company being charged with specific "skimping" and thus is not of general value to the article as stated in the lead. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Care to read it again?
The poor quality of food provided to inmates has become an issue, as over the last decade corrections officials looking to cut costs have been outsourcing food services to private, for profit corporations such as Aramark, A’Viands Food & Services Management, and ABL Management.[79] A prison riot in Kentucky has been blamed on the low quality of food Aramark provided to inmates.[80]
And again, one could say the same thing about the preceding paragraph, which deals largely with one company, Corizon.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
IOW perhaps that paragraph also ought to be elided -- and we should stick to reliable sources making general statements about prisons and not use reports about single companies and single newspaper articles on current events. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
If general studies of prison conditions can be found, then I would support citing such studies -- possibly transferring some of the details including these specific references to a new article on "Prisoner abuse in the United States"; there is a link to that title in the current article, but it redirects to Torture and the United States. The new article could document these cases possibly with greater care along with citing reliable sources making such general statements -- and possibly include links to Torture and the United States and the Andersonville prisoner of war camp for historical reference.
I don't see that happening as both paragraphs highlight serious issues with our prison system; Corizon and Aramark happen to be the leading providers of outsourced medical and food services respectively, both with a plethora of scandals under their belts I might add. As the first article makes clear, this is not just an issue about Aramark; multiple companies are listed, two of which I added to the paragraph -- did you not see that? So your argument that the entire paragraph is about "a specific company" is not accurate.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Conditions under which prisoners are held are relevant to an article about incarceration. TFD (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
In general -- and using sources which relate to the conditions in general - perhaps. But this is a specific company, and the sources do not state that this is a general prison problem. Suppose one prison had a parking shortage for visitors -- ought a general article on incarceration include a source about that single example? Such sources shold be used in articles about the single company, and not presented as though this is the normal state of affairs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
There is an eternal push to cut costs of almost anything. The push to privatize government services exacerbates this problem, especially in with incarcerations, where inmates are extremely limited in their abilities petition effectively for a redress of grievances. This article does NOT talk about just one company: Two different companies are mentioned in two successive paragraphs (Corizon and Aramark). The article on Inmate telephone system describes yet another situation where "long-distance calls are charged six times the rate on the outside." Other comparisons I've seen suggest that "six times" is a gross underestimate of the overcharging. In Santa Clara County, California, a portion of these excessive telephone charges were used to subsidize education and other services that should have been provided by the state, in my judgment. A few weeks ago, I told the Board of Supervisors that these phone charges seemed designed to maximize recidivism. For profit companies may want that, but public policies should be designed to minimize recidivism. This is not an isolated company: It's a systemic problem. DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Sticking to food, I agree that significant proof of reduced calories should be reported. It would be nice to have some quantitative measures. x% of convicts are underweight, or y% of prisons are underfeeding.
Since this is incarceration, generally, I would think that "bulking up", weightlifting, etc. as a perceived threat to other convicts and guards should be reported, as well. Student7 (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Angela Davis as spokesperson[edit]

While Angela Davis was never actually convicted of anything, few people thought her "innocent" either. Surely a spokesperson against people making money off imprisonment, can be found who wasn't once a wanted fugitive from justice herself! Student7 (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Angela Davis is a prominent critic of prisons, having founded Critical Resistance and had a lengthy academic career. She is certainly prominent enough to be mentioned once in this article. TFD (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Privatization (again)[edit]

A paragraph reads
"In neighboring Mississippi, a 2013 Bloomberg report states that assault rates in private facilities were three times higher on average than in their public counterparts. In 2012, the for-profit Walnut Grove Youth Correctional Facility was the most violent prison in the state, and had 27 assaults per 100 offenders.[95] A May 2012 riot in the CCA-run Adams County Correctional Facility, also in Mississippi, left one corrections officer dead and dozens injured. Similar riots have occurred in privatized facilities in Idaho, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Florida and California.[96][97]"

Much of the rest of the section seems to be balanced, but this, standing alone, doesn't mention whether the prisons compared are maximum or minimum security. This tends to be a problem when considered "anecdotally" as scientists say. Cherry picking one prison is probably not npov.

And what about "riots in public facilities?" Are they non-existent? Or non-reported? Are prison levels being compared equally? Current citations seem okay, but material presented sems unbalanced IMO. Student7 (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If there is bias, it is in the source used or the report itself. But Wikipedia neutrality does not mean we correct the bias in secondary sources, in fact quite the opposite. TFD (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
IMO, this tends to prove that the source is, for that purpose at least, not WP:RS. We are not obligated to use biased material, once proven. Student7 (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Reliability has to do with the accuracy of the source, not its bias. Bloomberg News is considered to be a reliable source. TFD (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Incarceration comparable to US if other nation speaks English?[edit]

The following was re-inserted:

"By comparison the incarceration rate in England and Wales in October 2011 was 155 people imprisoned per 100,000 residents;[1] the rate for Norway in May 2010 was 71 inmates per 100,000;[2]. Netherlands in April 2010 was 94 per 100,000;[3]. Australia in June 2010 was 133 per 100,000;[4]. and New Zealand in October 2010 was 203 per 100,000.[5]." (names of citations rm for readability here.

It was replaced with the edit summary " these are english speaking developed countries, similar to US."

Montana is English speaking. So is New York state. Why would that make them comparable in an article about Montana? What does "speaking English" have to do with incarceration? Comparisons may be fine in some higher level article but are most likely not germane in a place-named article except for world ranking. Anyway, people in Norway and Netherlands don't understand English unless you shout at them. Nor the people of Northern Australia, even if you shout at them!

Inserting article-irrelevant material is WP:SYNTH even if found in otherwise WP:RS material. One reason should be that it is non-WP:TOPIC. The topic is the United States. Not England. Wikipedia has no interest (in this article) of making England look better or worse than the United States in incarceration. The judicial systems are different, the demographics are different. Montana and New York, by comparison, are twins! There is no basis here for comparisons with any given country. It is WP:OR. Student7 (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Comparisons of the U.S. to other industrialized nations, particularly English-speaking ones, is fairly typical. Social scientists typically attempt to explain wide variances between the U.S. the most similar countries. If the U.S. incarceration rate is 10X that of the U.K., social scientists look for reasons.
And yes the countries most similar to the U.S., including a shared language, history and common law tradition, are the U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand. TFD (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The population is demonstrably different. If the incarceration of white people in the US is 10x that of the UK, it might be of interest. Even so, we have more people of other European ancestry and culture than does the UK. Not really comparable. But I admit to curiosity myself. But hardly fair to compare a group of fatherless Afro-Americans, raised in poverty, and poor Hispanics in their 1st or 2nd generation, "mixed in" with the rest of the American population to compare with Brits generally.
Demographics_of_the_United_States#Projections tends to promote the concept that America will be "taken over" by Hispanics/Afro-Americans by 20xx. Meaning that youth is becoming predominately Hispanic/black. Which comprised a goodly portion of the young people getting themselves into trouble. Not exactly the UK/Australian/N.Z. model at all. A better comparison might be Nigeria. Lots of English speakers there. Or Mexico. At least for the age group that is more germane to this article. Student7 (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
In 2010, the US had approx (380 (678+91)/2white people per 100,000 in prison compared with England and Wales 155 and Canada's 117 for the entire population. And they also have minorities, although not as large as the U.S., that have far greater rates of imprisonment. A Wikispaces classrooms page shows the comparisons. Although it is not rs, it uses accurate figures.[6]
And while you may think that the average American city looks more like Lagos, than London, Melbourne or Toronto, that is not how social scientists see it. And the U.S, has a higher incarceration rate than Nigeria and in fact every other country on Earth.
TFD (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that we have to use developed countries for the reason that we have very roughly the same standard to judicial conduct. I'm wouldn't be surprised if the incarceration rate for Somalia was low, but living conditions tend to suffer.
Most of our incarcerees have copped a plea. That is, the prosecutor has generally "looked the other way" because of the high standard of "proof" required in the US, and allowed the defendant to plead guilty to a lesser, often, a non-violent crime. Which makes his record look better, and his defenders on the outside complaining that most of the folks in prison are there for "non-violent crimes," which is technically correct. So about 99% (or some high percentage) of defendants have pled guilty. That is, they admitted their guilt. There are very few innocent people in jail despite headlines that appear to say otherwise.
In a truly free country, you're going to have more crime IMO. In France, for example, people are often id-ed - hotel folks record your passport, for example. When some mild effort to "track" people in the US is initiated, the media is all over it. Because, with less crime, they'd have less to report.
The 70s were frightening ones for America because of the perception of criminal behavior being upheld by the courts. It's different today, with law-abiding citizens feeling safe once more walking the streets. The miscreants are often behind bars.
The statistics ask three vital questions: 1) How much crime can you tolerate? Generally, the younger you are, the more safe you feel. 2) How much freedom do you want to allow people? Again, young people tend to answer, "All the freedom we deserve, as written in the Constitution." This is naive IMO. 3) Are you going to place people in jail when they commit a felony? I cannot understand why some people answer "no" to this question.
Hard to make comparisons. This doesn't equate with Denmark because you have different traditions, different judicial system, different training in schools. There's no group in Denmark suggesting that they are "persecuted" by "the man" and that "the system" owes them something. There is no deliberate training in jealousy and envy.
I am surprised at the high rate of incarceration of white people (on paper). But, if true, I'm happy with it. They've mostly pled guilty, like the rest of their fellow prisoners. They are not out on the street as a threat to society. Student7 (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
The continental system of requiring ID does not apply to English-speaking countries, which is one the reasons they are more comparable. And of course they have higher incarceration rates than Europe. It could be that Americans make a trade-off between freedom and security and maybe they have made the right choice. But that does not mean we ignore where they differ from other nations. It might be helpful to provide some analysis about why incarceration rates are higher. It could be U.S. officials are more sensitive to political pressure to get tough on crime, while in other countries citizens have greater faith in the experts to determine sentencing. In most countries for example citizens cannot name prosecutors or judges, let alone say anything about their political views. TFD (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch claims that a majority of those sentenced were for non-violent offenses.[edit]

If you go to the so called report.

Page 4 claims: "Over half (53.4 percent) of prisoners in state prisons with a sentence of a year or longer are serving time for a non-violent offense;" (Endnotes:11)

Endnotes which is on page 18: links to

If you go to page 5 its opposite of what Human rights watch claims.

>On December 31, 2006 (the year in which admissions to state prisons reached their peak), 50% of all sentenced prisoners in custody of state correctional authorities were violent offenders. In 2011 (the most recent year for which state prison offense data are available), **more than 53% (or an estimated 718,000 offenders) of the yearend population was serving a sentence for a violent crime.**

And the sidenotes says on Table 3: 53.5% of crimes in 2011 were for violent crimes

Since 50%+ is the dictiony definition of majority and that the BJS source the HRW used says 53.5% were for violent.

Doesn't it seem that the HRW was wrong in using that "53.4% were for non-violent crime" figure which is the opposite of the BJS source that they themselves linked in the endnote? (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This article says that half of prisoners are there for non-violent offenses, which is correct whichever source is used. TFD (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that 98% of all criminal cases are plea-bargained. Many of those original crimes were violent. The defendant's attorney knows that the prosecutor will be hard pressed to prove a violent act; he also knows that his client is probably guilty of "something", having seen the evidence and that his client cannot get off. Thus the defendant settles for a plea-bargain for a non-violent charge which carries a lesser penalty. Again remember, that for those actually going to jail, it is not their first offense. That got time off for that spent in jail+ probation, the first time. These people are (just barely) non-violent, but in truth, have a violent past.
In the US, "games" are played with the justice system which are not played in Europe. Student7 (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The ethnicity and gender data per 100,000 residents[edit]

It's from the census, and I see this problem in the original data too, which either means I don't know how to read it properly (more likely) or it's just plain wrong. Here:

|- !Ethnicity !Male !Female !Total |- |White non-Hispanic || 678 || 91 ||- |- |Black non-Hispanic || 4,347 || 260 || - |- |Hispanic of any race || 1,775 || 133 || - |- |All inmates || 1,352 || 126 || 732 |} ]]

Just look at the totals - this doesn't make any sense to me. All inmates - 1,352 males, 126 females, so 732 in total? And that includes 4,347 black inmates? What is going on here? Anybody? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right. The problem is the way the data is listed. You have to go to the footnoted table to be able to make any sense of it. The footnoted table (I have problem reading pdf nowdays, BTW. Anyone else?) has material by column. The editor copied these out as though they could "add up" by both column and row. Actually they can't be added up either way! A cohort under 18 is totally omitted from the statistics. This gives each 5 year cohort a weight of zero for their incarceration. (and no, I'm not complaining that they don't jail 10-year olds! It's just how the data is presented).
I will tag the table. It seems important, but someone is going to have to figure out how to re-present it. It wasn't well presented to start with! Attempting to summarize it has led to this mis-representation/confusion. A new edit may have to decide whether to include minorities separately, what do to about age cohorts (may not be able to present all material in one table), what to do about under-18 year olds, which isn't explicitly explained. I think it should be explicit. Student7 (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
It seems clear to me. 678 out of every 100,000 white non-Hispanic men living in the United States are in prison compared with 4,347 out of every 100.000 black non-Hispanic men. Overall 732 people out of every 100,000 people in the United States are in prison. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talkcontribs) 23:41, 2 November 2014
(above comment by User:The Four Deuces not signed). I tried to answer this the other day. In fact the data matched the PDF doc as far as I could see so I started to search for the stats in the site and in other yearly reports. I got nothing and gave up, but I checked only for that particular site which is a dedicated government statistics site. ~ R.T.G 02:29, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate external links[edit]

I moved the following links from the External links section. These may make good sources for the article but they do not comply with policies for external links.

Jojalozzo 01:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I have added a few of the above external links as sources to the body of the article in the appropriate sections. I will add more in the future if appropriate.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Mlstek (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I plan to add two sections to this page: Mental Illness and LGBT People. Sandbox for Mental Illness and LGBT People

Peer review and responses during the educational assignment in Winter 2015[edit]

The following feedback was shared with this writer and incorporated into her editing of the sections she added to this page, which were "LGBT People" and "Mental Illness".

Mental Illness Peer Review 1[edit]

I think you intended to include the information from Raul's sandbox here as well, so I will comment on both sandboxes in Melissa's talk section.

On the whole, this page is strong in regards to content. The section on 'Mental Illness' outlines the modern history of disproportionate incarceration rates of mentally ill persons as well as the development of mental illness/ailments while in prison. At times this distinction becomes unclear. For example, I would rework the last piece of the following sentence, so it more clearly articulates the stated prisoners had (if I'm understanding thse sentence correctly) pre-existing "mental illness" not triggered by their time in prison: "over half of all prisoners in 2005 experienced mental illness as identified by “a recent history or symptoms of a mental health problem...”

It might also be beneficial to add something at the end of this section about the intersections of mental illness with race, gender identity, and sexual orientation. Or even current movements/prison organizing work addressing the rights of the incarcerated mentally ill.

For your section on 'LGBT People,' I would maybe add a couple sentences on the larger landscape of LGBT rights in the U.S. to put into context how this then plays out in the justice system. I might take out sentences like the following, because they don't add content/their sentiments are expressed in subsequent lines: "The reasons behind these disproportionate numbers are multi-faceted and complex."

The section 'Solitary Confinement' on Raul's page is strong but sources need to be fully cited. There are a considerable number of news articles cited for statistics and qualitative measures. Maybe look up where these sources pulled their data and cite those as your references? I would link to the webpage for Injustice at Every Turn's Task Force, so readers can see where you're pulling the report from. For this section, I would also link terms like 'solitary confinement,' 'multiracial,' etc. to their respective Wikipedia pages.

Finally, for the 'Conjugal Visits' section, are you adding this to an existing section? If not, I would add a brief intro paragraph before your list explaining the meaning of Conjugal Visit and how it connects to your list of information.

lenamar11 "Lenamar11 (talk)"

Incarceration in the United States: Peer Review 2[edit]

Hey! So, yeah, first thing I think is putting these two sections together into a cohesive, single article. It seems like, Raul, your page is meant to be included within the section "LGBT people" that is currently on Melissa's page? Honestly the conjugal visit part seems a little confusing to me- how did you choose which countries to discuss and for what purpose? If this feels like important information to include then maybe a brief introduction such as "laws about conjugal visits, and their application to same sex couples, vary widely internationally." Although, honestly, the rest of the article seems to focus on the U.S. so this information seems a little out of place.

I really like the information that you all include about LGBT people in general, and that you discuss organizations that work specifically with LGBT folks who are incarcerated. I believe after the second sentence in the second paragraph (starting "Poverty"), you need to add some citations to back up your assertions that these things are experienced disproportionately. The solitary confinement piece also seems like a good place to merge your two articles. The section on Raul's sandbox needs some close editing and citing- for instance, in some places you capitalize "Transgender" and in other places you don't, and there are some other grammatical mistakes. Also this sentence: this method however only increases the harassment they receive from officers and various other staff members as reported by Injustice at every turn- First, this seems like an assertion/opinion rather than fact (even though I agree with it.) Could you change it to something that reflects it's a viewpoint, such as "Advocates for transgender prisoners argue that this method only increases blah blah blah"? Also, it's confusing, what is Injustice at every turn? Is it an org or the title of a report? And also it seems like there's a really long quote in the middle, and it's a little unclear where it ends. Is there any way that, instead of including that long quote, you could simplify/summarize some of the findings and cite the report? I really like the info that you cite, though. Also, SRLP might be a good resource to check out.

Asouc (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)asouc

Mlstek (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Al Jazeera as a reliable source?[edit]

Al Jazeera is often documented (see their article) as a mouthpiece of Islamic terrorism. They may have great credentials there! But from a group who supports random beheadings of people they disagree with? Criticizing incarceration in America? Cripes. There have to be thousands of better WP:RS than this! What are they saying that can't be found elsewhere? In one article, they were quoting ACLU. Why can't we quote ACLU? Student7 (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This smacks of islamophobia which is why I reverted this frivolous tagging. Almost every news source could be considered biased depending on a person's point of view, but for now Al Jazeera America is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Moreover, according to its Wiki article, "almost all of the channel's program content being originated from the United States."--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Not sure why someone would select Al Jazeera deliberately other than npov. Insufficient coverage by Associated Press? NY Times? Washington Post? Reuters? Harvard?
A theory of using citations for disputable remarks would surely include the usage of (for conservative entries), cites from the WP, NYT, and other liberal sources. This is where I get the bulk of entries for many of my remarks which do not (therefore) get reverted or even disputed. If I were liberal, I would find quotes in the WSJ, Forbes, Business Week, and other conservative journals to support my claim. Which becomes nearly irrefutable.
Using a source whose ultimate owner favors beheading for unbelievers seems specious unless we find them with adverse information on the jihad. The lead for the article Al Jazeera is not terrifically reassuring. That the "American branch" does not broadcast jihadism is hardly surprising. Nor have previous incarnations of other extreme groups, like the German American Bund or the CPUSA publicized their aversion to various groups with the enthusiasm the spawning organization did. Student7 (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
It was criticized by some members of the Bush administration circa 2001-2003, but no serious sources accept those criticisms. In fact their coverage, which was similar to that of the BBC and most foreign news, was better than that of U.S. media. TFD (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Correct. By my estimation, AJA reports on serious issues (such as those pertaining to mass incarceration and its evils) that don't receive much coverage in the US corporate media, which tends to focus on celebrity news and gossip (Justin Bieber), inane political scandals (Anthony Weiner, Hillary's e-mails), courtroom soap operas (Jodi Arias, Casey Anthony), sports news and other bullshit. I have also noticed that John Oliver utilizes a lot of their coverage for stories he presents on Last Week Tonight, which I find to be an excellent program.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Merely having a United States/English subsidiary that does more than translate seems WP:POV to me. Does CNN, CNBC, ABC have Russian, or Chinese, or Cuban subsidiaries that report different news than its owner? I think these channels are transmitted and received the same everywhere. It does not change its content to suit its listeners. Student7 (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I would also wonder at the absence of 'dispute' figures, et al, for different reasons. I inspected the figures given here with some surprise simply because I recalled a headline from the British Independent newspaper in 2004-5 (which I scanned and which scan I have) claiming "7 million doing time as US prisons overflow" and claiming prisons in the US were managing penitentiary overflow by placing inmates in tents in the grounds, etc. I can upload this page from the paper to prove it. Obviously the claim and its attendant figure differ vastly from the 2m or so peak from (what I assume at a glance are) the official figures given here. (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggest merging United States incarceration rate into this article[edit]

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.
No merge on the grounds of a stale proposal with no consensus over almost 3 years. Klbrain (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I put up a merge template at the top of United States incarceration rate. And I suggested there that we talk about it here in order to consolidate discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. If the articles were merged, it wouldn't be long before someone else threw up this tag: I'm also concerned this could result in the purging of sourced content and not just a split. I say leave them as they are.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Please reconsider. It all looks duplicated to me. I could not find any topic in United States incarceration rate that wasn't covered by Incarceration in the United States. I agree that good references should not be deleted. Nothing wrong with having more, rather than less, references. It looks like many articles have already been spun off of Incarceration in the United States. Check the links to them below the section headings. Those articles make a lot more sense being separate articles than United States incarceration rate which doesn't add anything. And we can spin off even more articles as necessary. Articles that make sense being spun off. And the sections here can be shortened now that we have spin-off articles. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems to me that they cover the same topic, but maybe differently. Yes, the article might have to be split later, but it might be split in some other manner, so that one is clearly the "lead article", the other, subordinate. Student7 (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
United States incarceration rate could be redirected to Incarceration in the United States. Or United States incarceration rate could be renamed so that it covers a more specific area needing a spinoff article. Then it would be more obvious that it is a spinoff article, and subordinate to Incarceration in the United States. In either case nothing would be lost. Everything would be in the article history, and available for use anywhere. No info or references would be lost. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
One possibility for a spin-off is: Cost of incarceration in the United States. There are some more references and charts to be found within this article here. See also:
--Timeshifter (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
"Cost of Incarceration" sounds a bit soapbox-y to me. Why should society care about incarcerating someone who (supposedly) commits felonies when loose? "Cost of Execution" falls into the same category. It is high, but that title still seems pov to me. "Cost of failing to treat sick people who can't afford treatment." There's a whole bunch of "cost" articles that can be described, normally deriving from the agenda of a group of people who really do not care how much the government spends, normally. Student7 (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
It's in the news a lot now. From all sides of the political spectrum. I am open to other titles instead: Incarceration budgets. Etc..
Healthcare costs have articles on Wikipedia. See the various articles pulled up by this Google search:
But I don't really care what we rename the article to. Anything to change its focus is fine by me. Or just redirect it.
Lately, it seems, paradoxically to the normal spin, that Republicans care the least about the big costs: Wars, US healthcare per-capita cost compared to the rest of the developed world, US incarceration rate compared to the rest of the world. So lately, it seems it is Republicans "who really do not care how much the government spends". :) --Timeshifter (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Comment. Per Wikipedia:Proposed mergers I left a request for comment on the talk page of one of the related WikiProjects:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities --Timeshifter (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Support. Also note that someone suggested this (but didn't formally propose?) in 2013, see above. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@DavidLeeLambert: I must have missed that one. Most of the time I don't follow this article closely. I pop in to add a chart or two. Lately, I have had some bursts of editing. That will pass. :) --Timeshifter (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. These are wholly separate topics. One is general, the other specific. And it addresses issues of a different nature, problems inherent with the rate, versus the generalist article's goal of generally describing the topic itself, and placing it within a historical context. — Cirt (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support merge. There's very little non-duplicated information in the rate article. The causes, especially, are largely duplicated. While I appreciate the size issue, we aren't talking about copy-pasting one article into the other. The added text here would be a couple paragraphs at most. ~ RobTalk 16:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
I count 4 supports (when I am included) and 2 opposes. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. The 'rate' is a concept which apparently meets GNG all by itself. It should perhaps have a summary section here, with a pointer to the other article using template:main. This article should of course cover other aspects of US incarceration and not focus exclusively on rate. Thundermaker (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Preserving history[edit]

Some edits (just after mine), removed outdated history. That would be ok, say for the lead. Still, in general, WP is also about history. It might need to be preserved in this article or another. I'm not sure if all of it needs to be, as it can get tedious. The graph, might do (but it only does for the population (that is mostly male, in prisions)). Just bringing this up as a general principle. comp.arch (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Comparing to Gulag system[edit]

I'm not entirely sure it is unbiased to compare the American system with a third world system, for two reasons: 1) There's a saying that eventually all arguments degenerate to the point where one or both sides is comparing the other to "Nazis." This being the point of lowest merit. For this article, this might be it.

2) For both Nazis and the Gulag, the worst offenders were out waltzing around killing Jews, gypsies, and whatnot. The USSR had what was later called the "Russian Mafia." It was too useful and distressing to try to thwart them; so they persisted. They were not behind bars nor was anyone with any sense trying to put them there. The justice system was an abomination. In the US 98% of cases are resolved by plea bargaining. What does this say about American justice, besides the fact, that most cases are plea bargained down to "non-violent" so unknowing bystanders wring their hands and hearts over people, who, if the system had the time and money, would be serving a lot longer time for violent crimes.

I've served on felony/misdemeanor juries before. The law bends over backwards to accommodate the perps. As soes the jury. Student7 (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The USSR wasn't a third world country first of all, and the comparisons to the Soviet gulag come directly from the sources (i.e., Adam Gopnik). The Gulag was an inhumane penal system which is why some writers have drawn these comparisons, The Nazi extermination centers at Birkenau, Treblinka et al were something entirely different. I have yet to see any sensible writer compare mass incarceration to the Final Solution.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it is OK to compare the astronomical US incarceration rate to the USSR rate. There are few other countries that have come close to the US rate in the last century. It is also OK to compare the "show trial" nature of the USSR to the kangaroo courts in the USA where prosecutors are very powerful, and public defenders often only have a few minutes with each defendant. There are many articles on this. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I think we should not hide the historical fact that current US incarceration rate is higher then average incarceration rate during the Gulag system. I did not understand why some people think that comparing anything to Nazi or Gulag "degenerate all arguments". I think it actually makes the arguments stronger, if it is the true facts. Also, I did not understand what "Russian Mafia" or US "plea bargaining" has to do with Gulag incarceration rates? We all know that in so-called "plea bargaining" is often no actual choice is given, and so much fear and coercion is used, that even innocent people often plea guilty under the pressure. Here is the good article about it [7]. Anyway, US "plea bargaining" process has nothing to do with Gulag incarceration rates, so I do not think the fact that 98% of cases in US are resolved by plea bargaining is a valid reason to remove the historical comparison of the incarceration rates. The The Gulag Archipelago book says that Gulag also was doing a lot of "plea bargaining", and most of the Gulag prisoners were eventually forced to call themselves "guilty" under the threats and coercion. Innab (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The fact that the U.S. has extremely high incarceration rates is significant. That is independent of whether there are specific circumstances that justify it. TFD (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the US rate is high. Higher than other first world countries. That statistic/correlation does not prove that the perps are behind bars illegally. And, no, prosecutors (with an eye to the jury) usually undermatches the defense IMO. Public example: OJ Simpson murder case. The Dream Team made sport of DNA proof. Also, the judicial system has no choice, since prosecutors get paid way less than defense lawyers.
No mention made of the fact that 98% of all sentences are by agreement (plea bargaining), the perp taking a fall for something less. The judge has to agree. Since his work is overseen by appellate judges, he tries his hardest to see that the defendant gets a good deal. You don't see this sort of game-playing in Europe where frequently the judges are also prosecutors!
American population is different. It behaves differently. There is no proof anywhere using "comparisons" or anything else, that the US shouldn't be incarcerating more people. Most perps walk the first time (parole).
It would be nice if certain American young men would behave better. I don't have a way of making them change. In the meantime, perps are jailed.
Note that the dictatorships imprisoned political dissenters, which were a large portion of their prisoners. When the US tried to imprison Communists during the Cold War, the Supreme Court threw out their conviction. When Nixon and somebody in the Obama administration tried to "get to" their enemies using the IRS, they were quickly and loudly suppressed. The justice system stinks, but it does protect the innocent perps. Also the guilty ones IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Whether or not there are special circumstances to justify high incarceration rates in the U.S., that is independent of whether it is significant. Obviously every way that the U.S. differs from other nations has explanations, even if there is disagreement in what they are, but they are nonetheless significant. The U.S. for example has the largest military in the world, and there are reasons for that, but we do not omit that fact in the relevant articles because there are explanations. TFD (talk) 21:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Student7. What do you mean by "certain American young men"? Are you a fan of #keepitflying? If so, you need to check your biases at the door. Most of what you wrote is incorrect. See: WP:NPOV. That is why we post all significant viewpoints concerning incarceration, and let readers make up their own minds. A significant viewpoint: The Bail Trap. The New York Times. By Nick Pinto. Aug. 13, 2015. The judicial system does not, as you say, "protect the innocent perps". Many people are in jail who are totally innocent. And the defence lawyers who are public defenders are not highly paid. Read the article. The defendants often only get a few minutes with their public defender. All of this explains part of why the US incarceration rate is so high. We use references, not Fox News opinions. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Walk into your favorite court sometime and listen to the defense attorney vet the jury. Or sit through parts of criminal trials from different courtrooms. They are mostly open (probably not domestic nor juvenile). It's not what you see on tv, nor on courtroom "series."
Sitting on a jury gives you even more of an experience. Student7 (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I have been in courts. Read the article. Otherwise you don't know where the action really is. Which is before it reaches the court. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. I've missed your point. The fairness of US courts have nothing to do with imprisonment? Someone mentioned Kangaroo courts, above. Student7 (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Please read: The Bail Trap. The New York Times. By Nick Pinto. Aug. 13, 2015. Unlike other nations hundreds of thousands are in U.S. jails mainly because they can't pay bails. Many are innocent. Most can not afford lawyers. While in jail due to not enough bail money, most accept plea bargains because of the pressure of outside circumstances (losing their job while in jail, losing their apartments and homes, their wives and kids being evicted due to lack of rent, their heat, water, and electricity being cut off). Everything about it is unfair. Did you read the article before asking your question? --Timeshifter (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay. I've read it. It was interesting.
There is one line: "Now most are given bail, and most pay a bail bondsman to afford it.[181]" This seems at odds with "60% can't afford bail...[and therefore stay in jail]." So which is it? Most people can or can not afford bail?
The phrase Gulag, thanks to the book, In the First Circle, suggests a Dante-like system that evaluates prisoners and pushes them down into a worse forced labor camp, or pulls them up for good behavior maybe. Many of the original prisoners were political, and due to Solzhenitsyns book, Americans would tend to think of it in that manner. It seems like a dirty word, like "Nazi", that doesn't really describe the American situation adequately or WP:NPOV.
Maybe there should be a separate section on "bail" or "unable to meet bail?"
My Dad told me to avoid cops, and to say "yes sir" and "no sir" to them. This advice has served me well over the years. I realize that a lot of these poor folks never had dads and know no better that to strut, tease cops, etc. Cops are supposed to make judgement calls and maintain order. They are paid to do this. If I saw a group of police anyplace, I would sure buy my soda somewhere else.
There is a saying that there are no guilty people in jail. The tenor of this article and that particular citation seems to confirm this.
An area I visit has a small rural population. The county court is covered by a reporter who faithfully reports each appearance before a judge. I was hoping to be able to pass a page to you for your perusal, but it is not available without subscription. It is mainly done for laughs, I think. The people appearing are normally white; known by name (or family) to many of the readers. They were mostly drunk or drugged or simply dysfunctional. I agree they deserve pity, not scorn. The system can't change them. If I were given the power, I couldn't change them. I wouldn't know where to start or how. Perps are generally guilty IMO. Listening to them in court either through their statements, the questions used by their lawyers to "vet" the jury (choose a jury that is favorable to them), or questions answered before or after trial, tend to make their guilt glaring clear.
Yes, a reporter can with a little diligence, find a poor family living in a car, a jailed person who "shouldn't" (by his testimony) be in jail, etc. Great headlines but poor criteria on which to make policy or changes IMO. It's a reporters job to "make waves", to get headlines, to get readers (or viewers); all creating an improved climate for more advertisers and higher prices for ads. Reporters are not necessarily npov! Usually they aren't.
The citation suggests that the arraignment process is corrupt (at worst) or simply incompetent. I've only seen one arraignment sequence. The judge was fair, asked all the right questions. Was neither disrespectful to the accused nor the police. Judges generally try to avoid criticism. They don't want to be overruled. (A worst case was the O. J. Simpson murder case where the judge was spooked by the idea that a year or more of court testimony would go down the drain because of a bad decision by the judge. As a partial result, a guilty person walked). Student7 (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
As the article indicated, bail bondsmen don't help with smaller bails. No money in it. The Bail Trap. By Nick Pinto. Aug. 13, 2015. The New York Times: "Of those in jails, 60 percent haven’t been convicted of anything. They’re innocent in the eyes of the law, awaiting resolution in their cases. Some of these inmates are being held because they’re considered dangerous or unlikely to return to court for their hearings. But many of them simply cannot afford to pay the bail that has been set. ... In New York City, where courts use bail far less than in many jurisdictions, roughly 45,000 people are jailed each year simply because they can’t pay their court-assigned bail. And while the city’s courts set bail much lower than the national average, only one in 10 defendants is able to pay it at arraignment. To put a finer point on it: Even when bail is set comparatively low — at $500 or less, as it is in one-third of nonfelony cases — only 15 percent of defendants are able to come up with the money to avoid jail. ... to make bail: post the entire amount yourself up front — what’s called 'money bail' or 'cash bail' — or pay a commercial bail bondsman to do so. For relatively low bail amounts — say, below $2,000, the range in which most New York City bails fall — the second option often doesn’t even exist; bondsmen can’t make enough money from such small bails to make it worth their while. ... The sheer speed of the arraignment process makes it virtually impossible for the court to make informed decisions." --Timeshifter (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


It seems to me that we are jumping from topic to topic here.

Originally, there were "too many Americans" in prison. The entire system was guilty.

This has been narrowed down lately to "It's the police's fault. They are arresting people for no reason." Ferguson, etc.

Now we have "too high bail" as a criterion.

Accompanied by "New York City" statistics. 1. How about moving New York Statistics to a separate article "Incarceration in New York City" with a pointer from this article?

2. How about a separate section or subsection for bail? Unless this is shown to be a mainly NYC problem.

From what I have seen, there are police who "arrest for no reason." There are bad apples in every large group (and some small ones, I presume). But unless a case is made for complete police corruption in the country (already a separate article BTW), I don't think this washes as a general rule. Student7 (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Added a file from Commons[edit]

Felony Sentences in State Courts, study by the United States Department of Justice.

I've added this image from Commons to this article.

Feel free to use it how you like.

I hope it's a helpful source of information.

Thank you,

Cirt (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Incarceration in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

flawed statistic[edit]

The statistic just under the heading Prison Population (1 in 100 of American adults in jail or prison on 1 January 2008) is unhelpful--that's New Years Day, and tends to be a time of high arrests for drunkenness, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VonFerkel (talkcontribs) 01:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The published statistic reflects a long-term trend, not a 1-day blip due to holiday arrests. Our wording could be improved, I think. Changing "On January 1, 2008" to "By the beginning of 2008". Thundermaker (talk) 09:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

13th Amendment Slavery and Indentured Servitude Systematization under Conviction Clause Exception[edit]

Thirteenth Amendment to United States Constitution

Response to previous reversion, Relevant Talk Page Sub-section

This is one positive-sum argument the Wrighter will invest whatever it takes in, as winning this Editorial Decision is a necessary preliminary step to reducing via education, n-action, and n-Action incarceration slaveries and indentured servitudes in the States United, now often termed in a slip singular the United States.

The following is the full of a comment that the Wrighter left on the Talk Page of the first Editor who issued an Editorial Reversion, citing Undue Weight and No Original Research, claims that the Wrighter disputes here to apparent closure. If you need an additional newspaper citation beyond what the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution plainly says, the Wrighter can search Lexis Nexis and point to the massive slave, indentured servant dialectic that has been sidelined by State misdirection similar to the 3/5th of "all Other Persons" Agreement. The Wrighter wonders if Wikipedia would institute, in 01790, an Editorial Policy on the Article precluding the description of "all Other Persons" as Slaves.

Here's an example sample of text from the National Park Service that is flatly wrong. Civil Rights Act

Here is the full quote: "Although the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments outlawed slavery, provided for equal protection under the law, guaranteed citizenship, and protected the right to vote, individual states continued to allow unfair treatment of minorities and passed Jim Crow laws allowing segregation of public facilities."

The 'pertinent' (Director Comey F.B.I. synonym: relevant*) part is simply, "the 13th...amendments [sic] outlawed slavery...".

The 13th Amendment *did not outlaw slavery*. The National Park Service, with all due respect, and only in jest, must be smoking peyote on the reading of the all-important 13th Amendment, falling for 'the Abolition Myth'. The 13th Amendment _restricted_ slavery such that Americans and Visitors can only be enslaved or be held subject to involuntary servitude "as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." The National Park Service, and many other well-meaning Federal Agencies are, with all due respect and said with the greatest care, lieing, or the specific writers are very indiviedually ignorant, or more properly, held ignorant of their untruth.

Slavery remains, and is established under the 13th Amendment as a proper punishment for all those duly convicted of a crime. No Supreme Court Decisions since have outlawed slavery or indentured servitude in whole; only in some part, as elements of slavery, like confinement in non-"least restrictive environments" while neither "a harm to oneself or to others" remain in the States under the Constitution of the States United, the formatting of the States that is most resistant to 'United States as singular, 'The United States' singularity' bleed into a _heavily_ 'definitely articled' centralized federalism drift. The States, United and States United hold their plural identity; 'The United States' does not, and has been turned into a singular from its grammatical plural.

We abolitionists of the States United have a Duty to continue working toward Full Abolition, rather than fly the "Mission Accomplished" Banner prematurely. Other Nations have advanced beyond Us on abolition and on Abolition, and to race past in the Standings once again, that needs to be charged toward a change, on delinquencies and crimes minor, mean, and major.

Here is my prior Talkpage riting to the earlier Reverting Editor, who must have believed that the 13th Amendment was not adequately self-explanatory or that a plain reading of the XIII Amendment attains to undue weight or original research.

This is a simple copy-paste from Talkpage Section Header 61: Encarceration and Enslavement in United States, posted on 18:58, 14 January 2017, with Section Header editing on 16:22, 25 January 2017‎. Please make sure that you read this before issuing another reversion or redaction that erases the use of the cognates for slave or indentured servant _following_ conviction (bond indenturement is not obviously permissible under the 13th Amendment before conviction, as only after conviction can such a penalty of enslaved jail time be administered).


Incarceration and Enslavement in the United States[edit] Encarceration and Enslavement in United States[edited 16:22, 25 January 2017]

M. Griffin, thank you for the review of the edit of Human Incarceration in the United States, entered 09:09, 23 December 2016 and reverted on the same-day Wikitime by 15:35. You asked for an authoritative cited reliable source. "Such an assertion will require a cited reliable source." Will the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution qualify? Here is a direct link to a charge-managed, change-managed copy of the text: The XIII Amendment reads: Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Another way of writing this XIII Amendment would (woods) be: Section 1. Within the United States and within any place subject to the jurisdiction of the States United, as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, slavery or involuntary servitude—either alone or in combination—are expressly herein fully permitted. Section 2. Congress shall have power to n-force this article through the Body by appropriate legislation. If You can find a logical fallacy in the Section 1 or Section 2 alternative write, i submit the reversion to concrete. But if You read the alternative as a valid and true reconfiguration without loss or addition of meaning to the U.S. Constitution's XIII Amendment, i would ask that the edit to (Human) Incarceration in the United States be reinstated, particularly in how this edit's absence enables making light of the mass incarceration, enslavement, and indentured servitude rates in the all 535 Races of the States United Congress. This citation is more reliable, of higher authority, and more deeply trusted (or perhaps, in a more full reading, distrusted) than any § of Law in the United States Code. As to undue weight, there is no weight supporting non-slavery or non-indentured servitude in the United States. This is not a democracy of printed word count: it's an autocratic fragment of incontrovertible, but convertible, text within a Republican-Democracy, approved by the States as per the Constitution of the United States. This is no different than the misdirection of the 3/5 "Compromise", "three-fifths of all other Persons" (in the confused, endangering miasma-contextualization of Article 1.2.3, only legible under the context of the 01772 Somersett v Stewart: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."). "The state of slavery is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law [statute], which preserves its force long after the reasons, occasions, and time itself from whence it was created, is erased from memory. It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law. Whatever inconveniences, therefore, may follow from the decision, I cannot say this case is allowed or approved by the law of England; and therefore the black must be discharged." Just as the Founders would employ evasive langauge to avoid boldly confessing to a crime against humanity in the Three-fifths Compromise, the Civil Law Abolitionists of the Civil War used evasive langauge to reserve Slavery and Indentured Servitude to the Province of the Criminal Law. As a former slave myself, having been imprisoned against my will now multiple times without conviction in the course of study and civil rights actions and subsequent arbitrary custodial detentions and charges, i can attest to the enslavement nature of jail and prison pre-conviction, as enslavement matrices of force are applied in jails that fail to meet free and rehabilitative spec. Free and fair brane illogicity study centers, a.k.a. mental health detainments at grey sites like Madden Brane Illogicity [Madden Mental Health Clinic, Chicago's Southside], need not count as enslavement, but do count as confinements. There's the greatest difference, and if i may, i can attest to the difference, in concert with the prevailing study literature on the corruption and malformation of the penitential penitentiary. My argument is that any discussion of Enslavement and Indentured Servitude in the United States that places undue weight on the word "Incarceration" is against Wikipedia's Editorial Guidelines on Neutral Point-of-View. The commit submitted earlier by this account was meant to correct for that undue, miasmatic languistic weight associated with the XIII Amendment's _oft-collusive misreadings_ in State-financed Education. No State Legislator wants to confess to being a slave master on behalf of the People of the State of Illinois, et. al. as responsible slaveholders. Under conviction, and pre-conviction under the bond and frequently the custodial detention system, We Citizens are slaveholders. We hold 2.3 million slaves, and even more indentured servants, per this "What's the whole pie?" graph of the Prison Policy Institute. The number of privately-fully-held slaves in the United States might be 60,000 at any one timepoint (rumored), with 14,500 - 17,500 imported into private bondage per year, mostly classified as "human trafficking victims". As uniquely horrible as human trafficking is sui generis, numerically, to be cold, given the balance of argument burden i still may carry in the instant case, it is but a rounding error on the general figurative reporting number of publicly-held slaves. It is not a rounding error in-and-of itself, as an end to End in-itself, or in relation to the more careful reporting of Our publicly-held slave holdings, and the full shares that Wei all hold as Citizens in slaveries and indentured servitudes as living, breathing Institutions under Management by the States and the Federation. Quick Sources:


i could use Your help, M. Griffin, learning how to source at edit-time with more reliability, so as balance the work of disenchanting, enchanting, and in this case, dismaying > maying the reader. It is not improbable that with heightened, more transparent understanding of the XIII Amendment, We Human Beings and Citizens should still commit brethren to slavery or involuntary servitude periodically, as very well-monitored, very carefully-monitored teaching cases, even as some better "mass sublational" altarnatives emerge, iff only to keep our finger on the pulse of the old systems of justice. It is tragically true that i failed to add an additional cited reliable source to the footer of the article "(Human) Incarceration in the United States". i agree that this deserves better, more transparent referencing than what i offered in the initial commit, and would be grateful for any additional pointers. If You'd still like more academic sourcing, Wei might examine Foucault's Discipline and Punish, and the advantage and disadvantage of "sight unseen" unpenitential penalizations. Even the most cursory fair overviews of Foucault's work include this drive by the conviction-assessors to conceal the nature and brutality of the punishment application. i don't know why, but Wikipedia is shutting down a timestamped youtube link that is guid.ed like so: /BBJTeNTZtGU?t=4m57s Have you ever been in a jail or prison, M. Griffin? If You haven't, i would recommend voluntarily or, if it could be arranged, involuntarily surrendering before restraining this commit on better CORE branch.ed langauge. It's an eye-opening experience, and You'll walk away as an even more authoritative source on the right balance of langauge in this domain. My belief is that the super-majority of those experiencing what i describe as enslavement, like rape innocenters, do not always recognize what they have suffered as rape, or, in this case, enslavement: it takes time, understanding, and the disciplined use of dedazzling langauge to persuade someone suffering such an experience that they can rightfully classify their experience as rape, or slavery, but for the most transparent cases where there are no misdirecting langauge slogs to traverse, like there are of course with some kinds of least-acquaintance rape (like that with coercive but seemingly minimal step-by-step progressive force), the XIII Amendment, and the Three-fifths "Compromise". It takes time: at the beginning, the "minority" expression which is fundamentally Central, Centrist, Centripetal, and Right is hesitant, uncertain, unsure. There are rapes, and there are punitive, preventable, punishable grades of rape, and without phenomenological help of the Sexual [and Slavery] Experiences Surveys, it is hard for anyone who has lost or suffered loss of their innocence to conclude such a high-pressure, highly-affective, permanently transfigurative classification rightly. You might have trouble identifying former slaves uniformly without a survey instrument like that used in more uniformly identifying rape-as-sensitized in the Sexual Experiences Surveys for and with all literal arms involved. i've been a slave, M. Griffin. Of that, there's no remaining classificational question under Amendment XIII. Until reading XIII carefully, after prison enslavement, i was not alert to the plain meaning, because of the languistic misdirection, but now the plain reading leaps out like a flaming, double-edged sword. i've been a slaver, M. Griffin, and still am. If You live in the United States and are a Citizen, You have been and still are, too. i hope You'll help me reapply the edit without maximal further effort. If there's an appeals process i have to go thru, would You brief me on it? i do not know the right channels to go thru to revert the reversion. i'll be attentive to this until Amendment XIII is implemented as clearly as our rewrite on the feints and flak of the Three-Fifths Compromise.

(signature not on original talkpage, at either timestamp above, coming into adherence with comprehensive sigless policy) --

NOTE: From this point forward, New Entry / New Entries, beyond what exists on the Reverting Editor's Talkpage

On a sidebar to the Unconstitutionality of the present system of Bond as experienced by the Wrighter under a plain reading of the 13th Amendment's prohibition of involuntary servitude:

A plain reading of the 13th Amendment holds the experience of "Bond" in States like Illinois to be abjectly Unconstitutional.

If Citizens take flight, they take flight. See the Crito, by Socrates. Why should the State of Illinois hold a person whose only "crime" remains held to be Innocent Self-defense for 28 days of slavery, when the Socratic so held is ready to return regularly to Court without question of Flight-risk Bond, always and already made irrelevant by Education in Crito, and in ongoing acceptance of the Laws by virtue of visiting and living as a non-Citizen or Citizen within the State? The Wrighter wonders if the State Legislatures require a reading of Crito at some point before entry into the States' Legislatures. Perhaps the State of Ohio, and other States, hold the teaching of the Crito to be an illegal teaching of religion, yet then penalize all within the world of Ohio for not knowing the Crito, or, as in the Righter's case, under the *presumption* that they do not know and live their Crito, absent 'full faith and credit' for the promised presumption of innocence issued in and by State Civics Education.

Mature to Socrates, State Legislatures, as courtesy to the 13th Amendment bond protocalling gadflies, those whom present Better prototypes of what's possible Wei speak of enslavements per year; 11,000,000 annual involuntary commitments into slavery, per the [Prison Policy Initiative|], with last-Wikipedia-Measure-meter contribution by an anonymous This goes deep, into States United recognition of the Right for Innocent Ex-Felons to Vote, a Constitutional Question that would have easily turned the 02000 Election from George W. Bush, the Wrighter's favored candidate (then) to Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., who narrowly lost that Election because Innocents (rehabilitated Ex-Convicts) in the State of Florida were stripped of their Suffrage Permanently, as if Suffrage is an "alienable Right" of the Certified Rehabilitated. The absence of any default process for blanket-recovery of Suffrage the day of release in the State of Florida, and all other States that trend toward such typically State-faction-favoring beliefs in the alienability of Suffrage, is evidence enuf (enough is enuf) of a Deep, Unonstitutional Violation of 'Lifelong Student Suffrage', violating the impulse drive-chain toward learning further about Whole-bodied Justice. Whether read on deontology or consequentialism, the justifications of State Legislatures must yield to the plain reading of the 13th Amendment, or the Crito, or Dewey's Theses in 'Democracy and Education', understood comprehensively.

The Writer pleads ignorance as to the whole of Dewey's Theses, with a severe sense of shame and ambaressment. This is not 'legislator labs' material; there remains a serious gap in the Riter's CORE Education.

Nonetheless, the Wrighter would persist to the point of pointing out to the existing States Legislatures that Innocent Ex-Felons wholly deserve the Inalienable Right to Vote, just as Felons under Conviction, suffering penalty, wholly deserve the Inalienable (arguably, the Wrighter concedes, but once on one major Voting Opportunity per all counts together of conviction, in the worse or worst cases of lasting conviction, to maintain the preciousness of its value, and the crucial import and impact of the 'Felon Voting Margin Rights-leverage') Right to Suffrage. Nothing will lead to faster character reform than Prisoners turning on each other, educating each other from year over year, from generation over generation, for doing something (anything so severe, under a steady, steadily monitored and adjusted sensitization curve, with a 'Majority of Convicts Enjoy All-Event Suffrage' Minimal Calmunity Rights Guarantee), so as to strip the Prisoners' Political Unions of Margin Voting Rights Power, or expand it proudly to a Full Strength Voting Bloc, in Interstate Calmpetition. The more Convicts who can Vote, the more Margin Power that Prisoners carry, the prouder its Citizens shall be, or, hold steady Populists, come to be.

In the article on Perennial Education, a Wikipedia Contributor quotes Robert Maynard Hutchins, the transformational President of The University of Chicago, the administrative primary author of what's known as the Hutchins College, who writes in the same vein:

The business of saying ... that people are not capable of achieving a good education is too strongly reminiscent of the opposition of every extension of democracy. This opposition has always rested on the allegation that the people were incapable of exercising the power they demanded. Always the historic statement has been verified: you cannot expect the slave to show the virtues of the free man unless you first set [her] free. When the slave has been set free, he has, in the passage of time, become indistinguishable from those who have always been free ... There appears to be an innate human tendency to underestimate the capacity of those who do not belong to "[Our]" group. Those who do not share our background cannot have [Our] ability. Foreigners, people who are in a different economic status, and the young seem invariably to be regarded as intellectually backward ...[1]

The plain reading of the 13th Amendment only allows some penalties, specifically enslavement and indentured servitude, *on conviction*. There is no authorization for stripping Convicts of Inalienable Right of Suffrage that We have matured to concede without nary a poll tax, which were still "bar" outs in the days that the 13th Amendment Passage occurred. No such reserves exist any longer, and a history of conviction does not count as a just Bar claim to bar Suffrage any longer.

The 13th Amendment only permits slavery and indentured servitude, which being stripped of suffrage definitionally constitutes, only after and while under penalty of conviction, not at all not before, while held concurrently 'weakly Innocent' ("Presumed Innocent", but somehow not treated Innocent) by the State while being treated as Guilty, raising such severe questions of "To bond, or not to bond. To be, or not to be. To leave a slave, or rescue a slave." struggling questions in Parents, Partners, and Peers minds when faced with responding to an Indentured Servant's Distressed "Bond Payment, please!" Call, for refusal to let the Indentured Servant open their Stored Belongings and pay a static, "community guaranteed rate" fee from their own checkbook for being, in the eyes of the Law, Innocent, but under a 'probable cause' suspicion. Other 'flight risk' reductions, like High and Higher Ethics in Education, are advised and advisable, but require training in Philosophy and Ethics, which some States, like my own home-state, the State of Ohio, strangely outlaw as the Teaching of Religion. Yes, it is Religion: CORE Religion, a Base-layer Religion taught directly and indirectly Civics Class, as well, while teaching Civic Faith, the Faith of Hh Human Being and Citizen CORE. Other financial, social sureties surely exist in these days that do not involve holding someone in slavery because (i.e. on the proximate cause) that you will not allow them access to their checkbook, and will not socially bond them to the Court with an "Agreed-upon" Social Network Innocentesting news blast (already done by the Press [a bit* wrongli], in this Innocentest's Case), in lieu of supportive parents or best friends carrying enuf (enough is enuf) Faith in Our Civil Rights and Trustworthiness to take an extremely inconvenient, expensive Emergency Plane Flight to socially bond out someone who the State is treating as if they area Guilty and Dangerous on Release, without any cause other than the State not permitting Checkbook Access, or reducing the Social Bond Out to something manageable, like a certified remote video conference from a town in North Carolina to Chicago, Illinois, just to be sure the Innocent understands their Crito, understands they must return to the right Agora for Court Apology. Persons non-local should not be subject to arbitrary detention as slaves and servants of the State because their families are located at great distance, defined in Federal Law as more than 50 miles from the record-holding site. See the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 01974, as Amended, which should be a model for treating Innocents whom the State, at that time, may believe require morally-charged education⁺. How many slave and (indentured) servant days are served to the State without Agreement on the basis of a long drive, an expensive flight, or the langauge of and protocol of the bond that violates the Presumption of Innocence, structurally the moment 'release on own cognizance' and 'own f.asset, at community-guaranteed rate issue' begins? Even Innocents accused of homicide should be released, until conviction, from Involuntary Indentured Servitude, unless it can be shown they are an imminent danger to themselves or to others. The only reason the State can, under the 13th Amendment, penalize an Innocent with enslavement or indentured servitude is in concluding Innocentesting for an Innocent | Cooperative Innocentest in a manner that secures conviction 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. As soon as any solid 'reasonable doubt' emerges in Innocentesting, the Innocentesting ends, and the prospect of penalty of slavery or indentured servitude lifts, at least as long as no further Innocenter steps forward attesting to a fresh (or still permitted, by Statute or either Constitution, Anatomic or Positive) need for Innocentesting, under formal review or, in the case of the Anatomic Constitution, sometimes, as Found reasonable by a properly-Constituted Constitutional Court, a less-than-formal re:view.

There are too many unconstitutional, bad laws to cite, all formed under 'the Abolition Myth', underpinned by a false, falsified, inaccurate independent but not interpendent reading of the XIII Amendment in Schools, under the demanding gaze of the State Legislators who do not, despite the evidence to the contrary, want textbooks to teach that Slavery still exists. On market analysis, Legislator politicians, Executive politicians, and Legislative and Executive Politician Appointees in Texas, California managing likeability generally for near-perpetual sinecure incumbencies, when available, determine the vast majority of educational materials delivered to Civics Classrooms. This is not commentary on the Offices, but on the Persons selected to occupy said Offices, at least so long as the Voices of the Slaves and Indentured Servants can be muzzled and silenced from denied Suffrage, and exclusion from the civic education and activism that comes with and anticipates the Rite of the Vote. The Principle, once accepted on Wikipedia, will propagate and percolate slowly (or perhaps quickly, in legal terms) into Calmunity Action.

Whatever the outcome of this New Section, and the determination of the ED policy of the Editors, in light of the Right and Wrong neutral-point-of-view in this prolonged but not duly prolong.ed state of State complicity over 'the Abolition Myth', and all the education charge is denies to those slavers wholly or fractionally enslaving/indenting, and those wholly enslaved/indentured, on the HSTRYical, instant, and long concerns of Justice, the Writer will want (oft-wont) and need to cite this in Court Pleadings. Others will need to consider doing the same, to form a Century Altaring Life and Liberty Movement, toward a crescendo that achieves a day where no one in the States United, anywhere, has been stripped under Our Laws, nor under their Spirit, of Suffrage, nor of the redemptions, atonements, and indiviedual, generally secretive penance that Suffrage can and does bring.

Adam D. Clayman (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Hutchins, Robert Maynard. Great Books: The Foundation of a Liberal Education. Simon & Schuster, New York: 1954.


There seems to be an assumption in the article that selling drugs is not, per se, violent, and therefore okay. i think statistics show a diminishment of longevity if not an early death for most hard drug users. Death could be in a hospital, I suppose, or at home, in bed. Maybe it is "non-violent" but it doesn't seem beneficial either. (I realize that most low level drug dealers are forced into it because of their drug habit).

(BTW. Seems like a bit of a lengthy rant, above. Can't some of that be "hidden"? Student7 (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Selling drugs, especially marijuana, is not a violent crime. And of course purchasing drugs of any sort is certainly not a violent crime. You seem to be splitting hairs in order to justify the assertion that the majority of those incarcerated post 1980 are dangerous and violent felons. They aren't.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Most drug in the U.S. are sold and consumed legally - alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs, even caffeine. And of course they cause far more deaths than illegally sold drugs. One out of 5 deaths in the U.S. are caused by smoking tobacco as opposed to 0 deaths caused by marijuana. TFD (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Incarceration in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)