Webb urges congressional review of incarceration
Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., wants a "top-to-bottom review" by Congress of the nation's criminal-justice system with an eye toward reducing the growing prison population.
With the support of the White House and some Senate Republicans, Webb is proposing a blue-ribbon commission spend 1½ years looking at law-and-order issues.
Webb's office says the panel should take a sweeping look at the way the nation controls crime, metes out punishment and returns felons to society.
A background document says of the commission: "Its task will be to propose concrete, wide-ranging reforms to responsibly reduce the overall incarceration rate; improve federal and local responses to international and domestic gang violence; restructure our approach to drug policy; improve the treatment of mental illness; improve prison administration, and establish a system for reintegrating ex-offenders."
Webb has been speaking out on the prison issue for over a year, warning of the economic and social consequences of housing a growing population of criminals.
The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, holding nearly 2.4 million people behind bars. An additional 5 million are on probation or parole.
According to Webb's office, President Barack Obama supports the investigation; so, too, does Sen. Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican, former Judiciary Committee chairman and ex-federal prosecutor, who is facing a tough re-election campaign.
Other supporters include the current Judiciary panel head, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., and the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois.
In Webb's home state, prison population has been growing steadily since 1995, when Virginia dumped parole for fixed sentences -- an initiative of the Republican former governor Webb narrowly defeated in 2006: George Allen.
Webb's proposal will get a big public-relations boost this weekend. He's written a cover story on his idea for Parade magazine, which is carried in the Sunday editions of the Richmond Times-Dispatch and many other American newspapers.
Reader Reactions
Legalize pot is first step - higher tax revenue and you aren’t paying for someone to clog the courts or pay for their incarceration - for something no more harmful than alcohol.
Once someone has done their sentence, they shouldn’t be blackballed by society and unable to get a job (or at least certain jobs) - restore voting rights after 2 yrs max.
Crimes are crimes, doing the time should still be mandatory - but most crimes shouldn’t haunt people the rest of their lives and keep them for being productive members of society.
Sheesh, all the man did was ask the commission to review the system over 1 and 1/2 years. There is no proposal to release all criminals to the streets. . . yet. Let’s simmer down and see what the Commission discovers and what Webb recommends before we start brawling in cyber-space.
Congress can afford to pass two TARPS of over $700 billion each with few strings attached, but housing the prison population will break the budget. I guess since this is the season of the ‘bailout’ we’ll just go whole hog. Maybe if government concentrated on its basic functions of providing for public order and safety there would be plenty of money to take care of the criminals, but since we don’t we’ll let them out to prey on the public.
“If you disapprove of them you should vote against them, or better yet, RUN against them.“
I did vote against all incumbents in recent federal, state and local elections and I intend to do so again. But the likelihood of my running against them is remote…for lack of a special interest “sponsor.”
How much does it cost us as a nation to have the highest jailed population in the world?
Howmuch does it cost to let crimminals out of jail who are know to be repeat offenders?
you will need to count living costs such as food, housing, etc. that we pay as taxpayers.
Also count higher insurance costs, time for those affected by these crinninals, cost to replace lost/damaged items and loss of productivity and doctor/hospital costs.
We also need to factor in lost tax revenues and spending that these otherwise free individuals would contribute to the economy.
Do you mean the ones who actually pay taxes on thier crimminal endevours?
I hope conservatives realize that we need to make money as a nation.
So it all comes down to making money does it?
We can’t just cut taxes and *still* spend like drunken sailors on the military, jails, and faith based initiatives.
What does this have to do with crimminals in prison?
It’s also very easy for the knee-jerkers to make a snap judgement about incarcerated individuals.
Would the reaction be that they have broken the law so they need to pay for their crimes?
What if a person were incarcerated for a non-violent crime?
You mean placed in jail because of what they did to others?
What about a non-violent drug conviction?
It violated the law and required a prison term. Change the law.
What if someone were wrongfully convicted or received insufficient legal defense?
How often does that happen and their are ways for their lawyers to appeal there convictions
Yes, very easy for anyone to pass judgment if they don’t think in even a passing manner on this issue.
Your right it is very easy to have pity on those in jail. But not on their victims and the fact that society has deemed their actions as contrary to the good order and well being of all the other citizens who obey the laws. What do you propose to do with those that act outside the norms of our society and violate the rules estrablished by the same society?
Care to think or just spout off at the mouth?
TravisBickle: Congress passed it’s last biennial review last November - we re-elected most of them. The power of review is ours. If you disapprove of them you should vote against them, or better yet, RUN against them.
Motley, I think you’ve got almost the right idea in terms of incarcerating only violent criminals. I think your reasons are a little off, though. The Constitutional purpose of the government, and consequently of the Justice department at any level, is to “form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”. To do this, those people who are a proven threat to others should be separated from society until they are no longer a threat. This should be done to protect the innocent. It is NOT about the money. Inmates should live no better than deployed soldiers.
Non-violent criminals (i.e. those whose crimes threaten nobody else’s well-bering) should be required to ‘make good’ their crimes with something like triple restitution - returning to their victims and to the government equal amounts each exceeding the valuation of their property crime by 50% (a punitive measure).
Maybe Virginia should look at getting rid of it’s dual system of incarceration and supervision. Maybe it should be one or the other, either probation supervision or incarceration. If someone does not comply with supervision, then they should be incarcerated for their full sentence. Take the second chance away from them. Make it a once change item.
I typically support Webb’s stance on most issues. I think this is a valid issue to pursue.
How much does it cost us as a nation to have the highest jailed population in the world? you will need to count living costs such as food, housing, etc. that we pay as taxpayers. We also need to factor in lost tax revenues and spending that these otherwise free individuals would contribute to the economy.
I hope conservatives realize that we need to make money as a nation. We can’t just cut taxes and *still* spend like drunken sailors on the military, jails, and faith based initiatives. Those 8 years are over.
It’s also very easy for the knee-jerkers to make a snap judgement about incarcerated individuals. What if a person were incarcerated for a non-violent crime? What about a non-violent drug conviction? What if someone were wrongfully convicted or received insufficient legal defense? Yes, very easy for anyone to pass judgment if they don’t think in even a passing manner on this issue.
Care to think or just spout off at the mouth?
If he’s going that far? Then I think we should see about throwing away the key on violent repeat offenders.
If you commit armed robbery, serve your time, and do it again? Life.
You’ve shown your inability to function in society.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement