| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Morlock" |
| Date: |
22 Jul 2003 08:35:52 AM |
| Object: |
Average Gun Related Deaths Per Year |
Japan 39
Australia 65
UK 68
Canada 165
France 255
Germany 381
USA ?
OK, I have the answer, but have a guess for a bit of 'fun'.
.
|
|
| User: "Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: Average Gun Related Deaths Per Year |
22 Jul 2003 12:07:57 PM |
|
|
" Grant©" wrote:
"Morlock" <temPorarily0utoforDer@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:X8bTa.49332$9C6.2719428@wards.force9.net...
Japan 39
Australia 65
UK 68
Canada 165
France 255
Germany 381
USA ?
OK, I have the answer, but have a guess for a bit of 'fun'.
So have you just watched "Bowling for Columbine"
I didn't realise the KKK and NRA were almost the same organisation.
Of course, they arent.
Fatboy created interviews by selective editing.
The majority of what fatboy wants you to believe Charlton Heston said is
nothing more than fatboys hatefull lies.
And I'll never be able to watch Charlton Heston again and enjoy his films
again.
It is unfortunate that you are so gullible that you base your real life
opinions on a piece of hatemongering fiction.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alric Knebel" |
|
| Title: Re: Average Gun Related Deaths Per Year |
22 Jul 2003 10:54:31 AM |
|
|
"Morlock" <temPorarily0utoforDer@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:X8bTa.49332$9C6.2719428@wards.force9.net...
Japan 39
Australia 65
UK 68
Canada 165
France 255
Germany 381
USA ?
OK, I have the answer, but have a guess for a bit of 'fun'.
As liberal as I am, I'm going to have to disagree with the premise of this
argument. First, HOW a person is killed is irrelevant to victim or his
family. Second, you have to look at the populations of those countries for
a fair comparison. It's not fair to take the entire population of the
United States and compare the murders we have hear with the murders in the
U. K. (or elsewhere). The only fair numbers would be a per-population
figure.
Alric
.
|
|
|
| User: " Grant©" |
|
| Title: Re: Average Gun Related Deaths Per Year |
22 Jul 2003 11:03:17 AM |
|
|
"Alric Knebel" <alric_j@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:TWcTa.1522$H73.662@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
"Morlock" <temPorarily0utoforDer@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:X8bTa.49332$9C6.2719428@wards.force9.net...
Japan 39
Australia 65
UK 68
Canada 165
France 255
Germany 381
USA ?
OK, I have the answer, but have a guess for a bit of 'fun'.
As liberal as I am, I'm going to have to disagree with the premise of this
argument. First, HOW a person is killed is irrelevant to victim or his
family. Second, you have to look at the populations of those countries
for
a fair comparison. It's not fair to take the entire population of the
United States and compare the murders we have hear with the murders in the
U. K. (or elsewhere). The only fair numbers would be a per-population
figure.
True but if you look at the per-population figure you will see there is a
massive difference. UK 60 Million US 300 Million.
So you think the US total is around 5 times the UK total do you, a total of
408 in the US this is a shocking figure isn't it !
Now what do you think the real US figure is ?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: Average Gun Related Deaths Per Year |
22 Jul 2003 12:10:11 PM |
|
|
Alric Knebel wrote:
"Morlock" <temPorarily0utoforDer@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:X8bTa.49332$9C6.2719428@wards.force9.net...
Japan 39
Australia 65
UK 68
Canada 165
France 255
Germany 381
USA ?
OK, I have the answer, but have a guess for a bit of 'fun'.
As liberal as I am, I'm going to have to disagree with the premise of this
argument. First, HOW a person is killed is irrelevant to victim or his
family. Second, you have to look at the populations of those countries for
a fair comparison. It's not fair to take the entire population of the
United States and compare the murders we have hear with the murders in the
U. K. (or elsewhere). The only fair numbers would be a per-population
figure.
Its called "per capita" and you are correct.
Also, to get a true perspective, you must not only break down the category of
"gun deaths" in to criminal, accidental and legal, but also compare gun deaths
to, for example, people beaten to death with bare hands.
Alric
.
|
|
|
| User: "Grant Mcl" |
|
| Title: Re: Average Gun Related Deaths Per Year |
22 Jul 2003 12:50:25 PM |
|
|
"Brian" <olinshooter@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3F1D6FF3.A3796328@erols.com...
Alric Knebel wrote:
"Morlock" <temPorarily0utoforDer@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:X8bTa.49332$9C6.2719428@wards.force9.net...
Japan 39
Australia 65
UK 68
Canada 165
France 255
Germany 381
USA ?
OK, I have the answer, but have a guess for a bit of 'fun'.
As liberal as I am, I'm going to have to disagree with the premise of
this
argument. First, HOW a person is killed is irrelevant to victim or his
family. Second, you have to look at the populations of those countries
for
a fair comparison. It's not fair to take the entire population of the
United States and compare the murders we have hear with the murders in
the
U. K. (or elsewhere). The only fair numbers would be a per-population
figure.
Its called "per capita" and you are correct.
Also, to get a true perspective, you must not only break down the category
of
"gun deaths" in to criminal, accidental and legal, but also compare gun
deaths
to, for example, people beaten to death with bare hands.
Absolute rubbish your are an NRA Redneck ***** *****
.
|
|
|
| User: "D. A. Tsenuf" |
|
| Title: Re: Average Gun Related Deaths Per Year |
22 Jul 2003 01:22:48 PM |
|
|
"Grant Mcl" <Grant@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote in message
news:3f1d7958$0$11378$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
"Brian" <olinshooter@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3F1D6FF3.A3796328@erols.com...
Alric Knebel wrote:
"Morlock" <temPorarily0utoforDer@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:X8bTa.49332$9C6.2719428@wards.force9.net...
Japan 39
Australia 65
UK 68
Canada 165
France 255
Germany 381
USA ?
OK, I have the answer, but have a guess for a bit of 'fun'.
As liberal as I am, I'm going to have to disagree with the premise of
this
argument. First, HOW a person is killed is irrelevant to victim or
his
family. Second, you have to look at the populations of those
countries
for
a fair comparison. It's not fair to take the entire population of the
United States and compare the murders we have hear with the murders in
the
U. K. (or elsewhere). The only fair numbers would be a per-population
figure.
Its called "per capita" and you are correct.
Also, to get a true perspective, you must not only break down the
category
of
"gun deaths" in to criminal, accidental and legal, but also compare gun
deaths
to, for example, people beaten to death with bare hands.
Absolute rubbish your are an NRA Redneck ***** *****
Talking about "redneck"...
Why is it that you are displaying TYPICAL "ignorant redneck" behaviour ?
Maybe you should look in your own mirror as a start..
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Briar" |
|
| Title: Re: Average Gun Related Deaths Per Year |
23 Jul 2003 08:47:21 AM |
|
|
"Grant Mcl" <Grant@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote in message
news:3f1d7958$0$11378$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
"Brian" <olinshooter@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3F1D6FF3.A3796328@erols.com...
Alric Knebel wrote:
"Morlock" <temPorarily0utoforDer@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:X8bTa.49332$9C6.2719428@wards.force9.net...
Japan 39
Australia 65
UK 68
Canada 165
France 255
Germany 381
USA ?
OK, I have the answer, but have a guess for a bit of 'fun'.
As liberal as I am, I'm going to have to disagree with the premise of
this
argument. First, HOW a person is killed is irrelevant to victim or his
family. Second, you have to look at the populations of those countries
for
a fair comparison. It's not fair to take the entire population of the
United States and compare the murders we have hear with the murders in
the
U. K. (or elsewhere). The only fair numbers would be a per-population
figure.
Its called "per capita" and you are correct.
Also, to get a true perspective, you must not only break down the category
of
"gun deaths" in to criminal, accidental and legal, but also compare gun
deaths
to, for example, people beaten to death with bare hands.
Absolute rubbish your are an NRA Redneck ***** *****
"For men of understanding do not say that the sword is to blame for murder, nor
wine for drunkenness, nor strength for outrage, nor courage for foolhardiness,
but they lay the blame on those who make an improper use of the gifts which have
been bestowed upon them by God,
and punish them accordingly. " -- St. John Chrysostom
"The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against
arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears
remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." -
Senator Hubert Humphrey
.
|
|
|
| User: " Putterers Nemesis" |
|
| Title: Re: Average Gun Related Deaths Per Year |
23 Jul 2003 08:16:28 PM |
|
|
"Briar" <hawken_rifleNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JlwTa.36471$8g6.554221@news1.news.adelphia.net...
"Grant Mcl" <Grant@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote in message
news:3f1d7958$0$11378$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
"Brian" <olinshooter@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3F1D6FF3.A3796328@erols.com...
Alric Knebel wrote:
"Morlock" <temPorarily0utoforDer@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:X8bTa.49332$9C6.2719428@wards.force9.net...
Japan 39
Australia 65
UK 68
Canada 165
France 255
Germany 381
USA ?
OK, I have the answer, but have a guess for a bit of 'fun'.
As liberal as I am, I'm going to have to disagree with the premise
of
this
argument. First, HOW a person is killed is irrelevant to victim or
his
family. Second, you have to look at the populations of those
countries
for
a fair comparison. It's not fair to take the entire population of
the
United States and compare the murders we have hear with the murders
in
the
U. K. (or elsewhere). The only fair numbers would be a
per-population
figure.
Its called "per capita" and you are correct.
Also, to get a true perspective, you must not only break down the
category
of
"gun deaths" in to criminal, accidental and legal, but also compare
gun
deaths
to, for example, people beaten to death with bare hands.
Absolute rubbish your are an NRA Redneck ***** *****
"For men of understanding do not say that the sword is to blame for
murder, nor
wine for drunkenness, nor strength for outrage, nor courage for
foolhardiness,
but they lay the blame on those who make an improper use of the gifts
which have
been bestowed upon them by God,
and punish them accordingly. " -- St. John Chrysostom
A weak and pathetic argument. Used by paranoid fuckhead Americans.
Destroy the guns and you will reduce deaths caused by guns shot by 95% fact,
and an undeniable one.
The average American has the mentality of a 17 year old european. Upset them
and they get angry, if a gun is at hand they use it because its easy and
quick. A European without easy access to guns either cools of or has a fist
fight. OK shiye for brains.
"The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against
arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now
appears
remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always
possible." -
Senator Hubert Humphrey
Guns are also used for armed inserection.(look that word up)
Americans can have guns Iraqis can't that sounds fair?
American are allowed to defend their homes Iraqis are not that sound fair?
Iraq is an occupied state is it not ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Brady" |
|
| Title: Re: Average Gun Related Deaths Per Year |
23 Jul 2003 09:32:30 PM |
|
|
" Putterer's Nemesis" <Grant@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote in message
news:3f1f3361$0$15031$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
"Briar" <hawken_rifleNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JlwTa.36471$8g6.554221@news1.news.adelphia.net...
"Grant Mcl" <Grant@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote in message
news:3f1d7958$0$11378$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
"Brian" <olinshooter@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3F1D6FF3.A3796328@erols.com...
Alric Knebel wrote:
"Morlock" <temPorarily0utoforDer@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:X8bTa.49332$9C6.2719428@wards.force9.net...
Japan 39
Australia 65
UK 68
Canada 165
France 255
Germany 381
USA ?
OK, I have the answer, but have a guess for a bit of 'fun'.
As liberal as I am, I'm going to have to disagree with the premise
of
this
argument. First, HOW a person is killed is irrelevant to victim
or
his
family. Second, you have to look at the populations of those
countries
for
a fair comparison. It's not fair to take the entire population of
the
United States and compare the murders we have hear with the
murders
in
the
U. K. (or elsewhere). The only fair numbers would be a
per-population
figure.
Its called "per capita" and you are correct.
Also, to get a true perspective, you must not only break down the
category
of
"gun deaths" in to criminal, accidental and legal, but also compare
gun
deaths
to, for example, people beaten to death with bare hands.
Absolute rubbish your are an NRA Redneck ***** *****
"For men of understanding do not say that the sword is to blame for
murder, nor
wine for drunkenness, nor strength for outrage, nor courage for
foolhardiness,
but they lay the blame on those who make an improper use of the gifts
which have
been bestowed upon them by God,
and punish them accordingly. " -- St. John Chrysostom
A weak and pathetic argument. Used by paranoid fuckhead Americans.
Destroy the guns and you will reduce deaths caused by guns shot by 95%
fact,
and an undeniable one.
The average American has the mentality of a 17 year old european. Upset
them
and they get angry, if a gun is at hand they use it because its easy and
quick. A European without easy access to guns either cools of or has a
fist
fight. OK shiye for brains.
"The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee
against
arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now
appears
remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always
possible." -
Senator Hubert Humphrey
Guns are also used for armed inserection.(look that word up)
My dictionary does not have any word spelt like "inserection"
Americans can have guns Iraqis can't that sounds fair?
American are allowed to defend their homes Iraqis are not that sound fair?
Iraq is an occupied state is it not ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Brady" |
|
| Title: Re: Average Gun Related Deaths Per Year |
24 Jul 2003 10:42:16 PM |
|
|
Somebody cannot spell and others are the weak minded?
" Putterer's Nemesis" <get@life@once.commie> wrote in message
news:3f1fc58f$0$18495$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
"John Brady" <j.t.brady@comcast.net> wrote in message
My dictionary does not have any word spelt like "inserection"
Insurrection for the weak minded.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Briar" |
|
| Title: Re: Average Gun Related Deaths Per Year |
23 Jul 2003 08:33:58 PM |
|
|
Don't let facts stop you but.
Gun control" laws don't prevent crime.
So overwhelming is the evidence against this myth that it borders on the absurd
for anti-gun groups to try to perpetuate it.
There are thousands of federal, state and local gun laws. The Gun Control Act of
1968 (Public Law 90-618, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44) alone prohibits persons convicted
of, or under indictment for, crimes punishable by more than a year in prison,
fugitives, illegal drug users, illegal aliens, mental incompetents and certain
other classes of people from purchasing or possessing firearms. It prohibits
mail order sales of firearms, prohibits sales of firearms between non-dealer
residents of other states, prohibits retail sales of handguns to persons under
age 21 and rifles and shotguns to persons under age 18 and prohibits the
importation of firearms "not generally recognized as particularly suitable for
or readily adaptable to sporting purposes." It also established the current
firearms dealer licensing system. Consider the following gun control failures.
(Unless otherwise noted, crime data are from the FBI, Uniform Crime Reports.)
Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun sales took effect in 1977 and by the 1990s the
city's murder rate had tripled. During the years following the ban, most
murders--and all firearm murders--in the city were committed with handguns.1
Chicago imposed handgun registration in 1968, and murders with handguns
continued to rise. Its registration system in place, Chicago imposed a
D.C.-style handgun ban in 1982, and over the next decade the annual number of
handgun-related murders doubled.2
California increased its waiting period on retail and private sales of handguns
from five to 15 days in 1975 (reduced to 10 days in 1996), outlawed "assault
weapons" in 1989 and subjected rifles and shotguns to the waiting period in
1990. Yet since 1975, the state's annual murder rate has averaged 32% higher
than the rate for the rest of the country.
Maryland has imposed a waiting period and a gun purchase limit, banned several
small handguns, restricted "assault weapons," and regulated private transfers of
firearms even between family members and friends, yet for the last decade its
murder rate has averaged 44% higher than the rate for the rest of the country,
and its robbery rate has averaged highest among the states.
The overall murder rate in the jurisdictions that have the most severe
restrictions on firearms purchase and ownership--California, Illinois, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Washington, D.C.--is 8% higher than the
rate for the rest of the country.
New York has had a handgun licensing law since 1911, yet until the New York City
Police Department began a massive crackdown on crime in the mid-1990s, New York
City's violent crime rate was among the highest of U.S. cities.
The federal Gun Control Act of 1968 imposed unprecedented restrictions relating
to firearms nationwide. Yet, compared to the five years before the law, the
national murder rate averaged 50% higher during the five years after the law,
75% higher during the next five years, and 81% higher during the five years
after that.
States where the Brady Act's waiting period was imposed had worse violent crime
trends than other states. Other failures of the federal waiting period law are
noted in the discussion of Fable V.
The record is clear: Gun control primarily impacts upon upstanding citizens, not
criminals. Crime is reduced by holding criminals accountable for their actions.
Increasing incarceration rates -- Between 1980-1994, the 10 states with the
greatest increases in prison population experienced an average decrease of 13%
in violent crime, while the 10 states with the smallest increases in prison
population experienced an average 55% increase in violent crime.3
Put violent criminals behind bars and keep them there -- In 1991, 162,000
criminals placed on probation instead of being imprisoned committed 44,000
violent crimes during their probation. In 1991, criminals released on parole
committed 46,000 violent crimes while under supervision in the community for an
average of 13 months.4 Nineteen percent of persons involved in the felonious
killings of law enforcement officers during the last decade were on probation or
parole at the time of the officers' killings.5
Enforce the law against criminals with guns -- The success of Richmond,
Virginia's Project Exile, strongly supported by NRA, has grabbed the attention
of the Administration, Members of Congress, big city mayors and criminologists.
Project Exile is a federal, state and local effort led by the U.S. Attorney's
Office in Richmond that sentences felons convicted of illegally possessing guns
to a minimum of five years in prison. Following the implementation of Project
Exile, the city's firearm murder rate was cut by nearly 40%.6 Recognizing the
program's success, Congress in 1998 approved $2.3 million to implement Project
Exile in Philadelphia, Pa., and Camden County, N.J. In 2002, the Bush Department
of Justice took the Project Exile concept nationwide, targeting violent felons
with guns under Project Safe Neighborhoods.
And
NCPA Policy Report No. 229
October 1999
Executive Summary
Serious crime in the United States continued to fall in 1998. Whether
measured as a rate (number of crimes per capita) or in absolute terms, every
category of violent crime and burglary decreased from 1997.
The overall rate of serious crime fell to a 25-year low.
The murder rate dropped by 8 percent from 1997 and finally slumped to the rates
of the late 1960s, even falling below the average murder rate during this entire
century.
The rates for rape and aggravated assault fell by 5 percent each, for robbery by
11 percent and for burglary by 7 percent.
The actual number of murders reported in 1998 was the lowest in more than two
decades.
The National Crime Victimization Survey, conducted annually by the Justice
Department since 1973, also found the lowest crime rates since the survey began.
This survey - which measures crimes by asking randomly selected people whether
they have been victims - usually finds a higher rate because fewer than four of
every 10 crimes are reported to the police.
Not by coincidence, the likelihood that a criminal will be punished for a
serious crime and the amount of time a criminal is likely to spend in prison are
higher today than they have been since the 1970s.
What happened in 1998 continued a trend first evidenced in the 1980s, a trend
that accelerated in the '90s: there is less crime in the United States, as
measured by both the crime rate and the actual number of crimes. Following a
fourfold jump in crimes of violence-murder, rape, robbery and serious
assaults-and burglary during the 1960s and 1970s, serious crime reported to the
police stabilized and then fell.
Over the period, wages have gone up and unemployment has gone down, which has
had some impact in reducing crime, but a major reason for the reduction is that
crime has become more costly to the perpetrators. The likelihood of going to
prison for committing any type of major crime has increased substantially. In
1997, the latest year for which prison data are available, the probability of
going to prison for murder rose 13 percent from 1996, for rape 1 percent, for
robbery 7 percent and for aggravated assault 11 percent; the probability of
going to prison for burglary remained the same. This also is the continuation of
a trend. Since 1993:
The murder rate has dropped 34 percent, as the probability of going to prison
for murder has risen 54 percent.
Rape has decreased 17 percent, as the probability of prison has increased 20
percent.
Robbery has decreased 35 percent, as the probability of prison has increased 24
percent.
Aggravated assault has decreased 18 percent, as the probability of prison has
increased 26 percent.
Burglary has decreased 22 percent, as the probability of prison has increased 21
percent.
Moreover, once in prison criminals are staying longer. Compared to the 1980s,
the median prison sentence served by prisoners released in the 1990s has risen
for every category of serious crime except aggravated assault.
The best overall measure of the potential cost to a criminal of committing
crimes is "expected punishment." Roughly speaking, expected punishment is the
number of days in prison a typical criminal can expect to serve per crime, as
determined by the probabilities of being apprehended, prosecuted, convicted and
going to prison, and the median months served for each crime. In 1997 expected
punishment continued to increase, rising 20 percent for aggravated assault, 13
percent each for murder and robbery and negligible amounts for rape and burglary
compared to 1996. Between 1980 and 1997, expected punishment:
for murder nearly tripled from 14 months to 41 months.
for rape tripled to 128 days.
for robbery increased by 70 percent to 59 days.
for serious assault more than doubled to 18 days.
for burglary more than doubled from 4 days to 9 days.
Despite these increases, it's still amazing how low expected punishment is. As
prosecutors point out, it's hard to get to prison.
Evidence shows that potential criminals respond to incentives. Crime decreases
when expected punishment increases, and vice versa. Between 1950 and 1980,
expected punishment declined more or less continuously from an average of seven
weeks for every serious crime committed to only 10 days - an 80 percent drop. In
response, the serious crime rate more than quadrupled during those years. In the
1980s, expected punishment began to increase, accompanied by the leveling off
and then decline in the serious crime rate. Between 1980 and 1997, expected
punishment for serious crimes increased from 10 to 25 prison days, a 150 percent
increase, and serious crime declined.
If we are to succeed in achieving an even lower crime rate, we must continue to
make crime less profitable by further increasing expected punishment. To achieve
that goal there are several options. Expected punishment will increase as we:
increase the proportion of reported crimes cleared by arrest.
increase the proportion of the accused who are prosecuted.
increase the proportion of those prosecuted who are convicted.
increase the fraction of those convicted who are sentenced to prison.
increase the average prison time served.
All these options are expensive in the short run. A higher arrest rate requires
more money for police staffing, equipment and procedures. Higher conviction and
sentencing rates require more resources for prosecution and criminal courts. All
three require more prison space. But a tough approach pays, especially over the
long run. As the odds worsen for criminals, crimes decline and the same numbers
of arrests and convictions begin to reduce the odds favoring criminals.
Although the cost of building and maintaining more prisons is high, the cost of
not doing so appears to be higher. One study found that each additional prisoner
incarcerated reduces the number of crimes by approximately 15 per year, and
yields a social benefit of at least $53,900 annually. Thus, even at $25,000 a
year, the cost of keeping the average criminal in prison is worthwhile.
Introduction: The Recent Decline of Serious Crime
"The serious crime rate in the United States fell to a 25-year low in 1998."
"Crime costs $4,500 per household each year." The overall rate of serious
crime in the United States fell to a 25-year low in 1998. The murder rate - the
number of murders per 100,000 population - dropped 8 percent from 1997 and
finally slumped to the rates of the late 1960s, even falling below the average
murder rate for the entire 20th century. Not only the murder rate, but also the
actual number of murders reported in 1998 was the lowest in more than two
decades. Other violent crimes and burglary also showed a decline in 1998. In
addition, the National Crime Victimization Survey, conducted annually by the
Justice Department since 1973, found the lowest crime rates since the survey
began. 1
What happened in 1998 continued a trend first evidenced in the 1980s, a trend
that accelerated in the '90s: there is less crime in the United States, as
measured by both the crime rate and the actual number of crimes. Following a
fourfold jump in crimes of violence-murder, rape, robbery and serious
assaults-and burglary during the 1960s and 1970s, shown in Figure I, serious
crime reported to the police stabilized and then fell. For example, the burglary
rate is down nearly 40 percent over the last 20 years. 2 In 1997 violent crime
rates fell by 4 percent, led by a decline of 8 percent each in murder and
robbery. 3 Last year violent crime and burglary fell even more than in 1997, by
7 percent, led by an 11 percent decline in robbery and another 8 percent drop in
murder. 4 Burglary was down 7 percent and rape and aggravated assault dropped 5
percent each.
Not by coincidence, the likelihood that a criminal will be punished for a
serious crime and the amount of time a criminal is likely to spend in prison are
higher today than they have been since the 1970s.
Still, despite the falling crime rate, America continues to be burdened by crime
and by the fear that it spawns. A 1998 Gallup Poll shows the public ranks crime
and violence as the most important problem facing the country although that
ranking is eroding with the decline in crime. 5 Closely related problems like
moral and family decline, quality of education and drug abuse follow. A 1997
NBC/Wall Street Journal opinion poll found that 57 percent of the public rank
crime and education as the top policy concerns. The Justice Department estimates
the annual cost of crime to victims at $450 billion (including $424 billion in
violent crime), or an annual cost of $4,500 per household. 6 The fear of crime
is well founded:
In 1998 an estimated 8.1 million Americans were victims of violent crimes. 7
Over a lifetime the average man in our society has an 89 percent probability of
being a victim of an attempted crime of violence and the average woman has a 73
percent probability, although half of the attempts are not completed. 8
A murder is reported to the police every 29 minutes, a forcible rape every five
minutes, a robbery every minute and an aggravated (serious) assault every 31
seconds. 9
A motor vehicle theft is reported to the police every 23 seconds, a burglary
every 13 seconds and a larceny-theft every four seconds. 10
Clearly, there is much more to be done. Why has the crime rate been falling in
recent years? What can we do to make it go lower?
Why the Serious Crime Rate Has Fallen
"The likelihood of going to prison for a crime has increased, as has the
length of time likely to be spent there." Most offenders are not deranged. And
most crimes are not irrational. Instead, criminal acts are freely committed by
people who often compare the expected benefits to the expected costs. 11 The
reason we have so much crime is that, for many people, the benefits outweigh the
costs. 12 But in recent years the likelihood of going to prison for committing
any type of major crime has increased, as has the amount of prison time served.
In 1997 alone (the latest year for which prison data are available), the
probability of going to prison for murder rose 13 percent from 1996, for rape 1
percent, for robbery 7 percent and for aggravated assault 11 percent; the
probability of going to prison for burglary remained the same. In addition,
wages have gone up and unemployment has gone down. In response to these
developments, people are committing fewer crimes. Since 1993: 13
The murder rate has dropped 34 percent, as the probability of going to prison
for murder has risen 54 percent.
Rape has decreased 17 percent, as the probability of prison has increased 20
percent.
Robbery has decreased 35 percent, as the probability of prison has increased 24
percent.
Aggravated assault has decreased 18 percent, as the probability of prison has
increased 26 percent.
Burglary has decreased 22 percent, as the probability of prison has increased 21
percent.
Moreover, once in prison criminals are staying longer. Compared to the 1980s,
the median sentence served by prisoners released in the 1990s has risen for
every category of serious crime except aggravated assault.
The best overall measure of the potential cost to a criminal of committing
crimes is "expected punishment." Roughly speaking, expected punishment is the
number of days in prison a criminal can expect to serve per crime, given the
probabilities of being apprehended, prosecuted, convicted and going to prison,
and the median months served for each crime. In 1997 expected punishment for
murder increased 13.3 percent over 1996, for rape 2.4 percent, for robbery 13.5
percent and for aggravated assault 20 percent; there was no change in expected
punishment for burglary. Between 1980 and 1997, expected punishment:
for murder nearly tripled from 14 months to 41 months.
for rape tripled to 128 days.
for robbery increased by 70 percent to 59 days.
for serious assault more than doubled to 18 days.
for burglary more than doubled from 4 days to 9 days.
Evidence shows that potential criminals respond to incentives. Crime increases
when expected punishment declines, and vice versa. Between 1950 and 1980,
expected punishment for crimes of violence and burglary declined more or less
continuously from an average of seven weeks for every serious crime committed to
only 10 days - an 80 percent drop. In response, the serious crime rate more than
quadrupled during those years. In the 1980s, expected punishment began to
increase, accompanied by the leveling off and then a decline in the serious
crime rate. Between 1980 and 1997, expected punishment for serious crimes more
than doubled, increasing from 10 to 25 prison days. Over the same period, the
crime rate fell nearly 40 percent.
Figures II to VI [II, III, IV, V, VI] show the relationship between each type of
violent crime and burglary and its respective expected punishment since 1950.
While far from perfect, the negative association between the amount of each crim
e and its expected punishment is apparent. 14
Calculating Expected Punishment
"Between 1990 and 1997, expected punishment for serious crimes more than
doubled."
"Between 1980 and 1997, expected punishment for murder tripled from 14 months
to 40 months."
"Expected punishment for rape tripled to 128 days."
"Expected punishment for robbery rose by 70 percent."
"Expected punishment for aggravated assault more than doubled to 18 days."
"Expected punishment for burglary more than doubled between 1980 and 1997."
"There is a 39.9 percent probability of serving prison time for a murder."
"Expected punishment has recovered to 83 percent of what it was in 1960." It
is virtually impossible to prevent people outside of prison from committing
crimes. Since criminals do not knowingly commit crimes in front of the police,
the police rarely catch them in the act. The criminal justice system relies on
punishments imposed afterward. In effect, the system constructs a list of prices
(expected punishments) for various criminal acts, and criminals decide whether
they are willing to pay, just as many of us decide whether to risk parking or
speeding tickets.
Viewed this way, the expected prison sentences are the prices we charge for
various crimes. Thus, the price of murder is three years in prison after we
factor in the odds of getting away with it, the price of burglary is about nine
days and the price of auto theft is two days.
Expected punishment as a measure of the cost of committing a crime also captures
the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in a single number. Expected
punishment is not the same as the length of time criminals stay in prison.
Rather, expected punishment is calculated by multiplying four probabilities - of
being arrested for a crime after it is committed, of being prosecuted if
arrested, of being convicted if prosecuted and of going to prison if convicted -
and then multiplying that product by the median prison time served for an
offense. 15
Example: Expected Punishment for Burglary. Consider the details for burglary. As
shown in Figure VII:
For every 100 burglaries committed, about 50 will be reported to the police.
FBI data show that about 13.8 percent of reported burglaries will be cleared by
arrest, or about 6.9 burglaries out of the 50 reported.
The tracking data on offenders [see Table I] show that about nine out of every
10 arrests for burglary will be prosecuted, or 6.2 out of 6.9.
Two-thirds of the resulting 6.2 prosecutions will result in felony convictions,
or 4.2 felony convictions out of every 100 burglaries. 16
Of these convictions, 1.9 felons will be sent to prison while the remaining 2.3
will receive some combination of probation, fines or jail time.
Thus, this approach shows that the overall probability of doing any prison time
for committing a burglary is only 1.9 percent.
Once in prison, a burglar will stay there for a median time of about 18.5
months. In 1997 an estimated 1.7 of every 100 burglaries reported to the police
resulted in prison time (41,099 court commitments to prison of 2,466,100
reported burglaries), so the median prison term per act of burglary is only 9.4
days (1.7 percent x 18.5 months x 30 days per month). While this may seem like a
short time, it is a sharp increase over the expected punishment of 4.8 days in
1990. 17
On average then, a potential criminal can expect to spend nine days in prison
for an act of burglary. This expectation of prison time per crime is, of course,
heavily influenced by the chances of getting away with it. However, on the
average, a rational, risk-neutral criminal should find burglary profitable so
long as what is stolen is worth more than nine days behind bars. 18
Expected Punishment for Other Crimes. Table I displays the 1997 probabilities of
arrest, the 1990 probabilities of prosecution, and the 1994 probabilities of
conviction and imprisonment for the other FBI index crimes as well. 19
Multiplying these probabilities together results in probabilities of prison time
ranging from 1.4 percent for motor vehicle theft to 39.9 percent for murder.
Table II shows how the clearance (that is, the solving) of serious crimes by
arrest has declined since 1950. In 1950, for example, 94 percent of murders were
cleared by an arrest but only 66 percent of murders in 1997 were (i.e., the
chance of getting away with murder rose from 6 percent to 34 percent). Similar
declines in arrest clearance ratios occurred for the remaining crimes.
Expected punishment for five serious crimes for selected years is shown in Table
III. In 1950 expected punishment for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter was
2.3 years. This had dropped to 1.1 years by 1970, but increased to 3.4 years by
1997. Capital punishment was a more serious concern for murderers in the late
1940s and early 1950s, when over 100 prisoners were executed each year after
relatively short stays on death row. This compares to 39 executions per year in
the 1990s after death row stays averaging nine to 10 years. In 1950 the chance
of a murderer being executed was 1 in 67 murders and in 1997 only 1 in 246
murders, one-quarter of the 1950 risk. Eighteen states executed 68 prisoners in
1998, with Texas in the lead with 20 executions, followed by Virginia with 13
and South Carolina with 7. Executions in 1999 may top 100, the highest total
since 1951.
As can be seen from Table III, expected punishments for the four crimes other
than murder follow the same U-shaped pattern as murder over time, with
punishment falling for the first few decades and then rising in the 1980s and
1990s. In 1997 expected punishment continued to increase, rising 20 percent for
aggravated assault, 13 percent each for murder and robbery and negligible
amounts for rape and burglary compared to 1996.
Table IV shows the probability of prison time and median months served for the
five serious crimes combined. This is perhaps the best overall index of the
effectiveness of the criminal justice system, as well as a measure of the threat
posed by the system to criminals. The probability of prison declined steeply
between 1950 and 1970 and then slowly recovered, yet it is only half that of
1950. Median months served have recovered to more than two years but still fall
short of the 32 months served in 1950. Expected punishment has recovered to 83
percent of what it was in 1960 (25 days versus 30 days).
Expected Punishment and the Crime Rate
"Since 1980 the serious crime rate has dropped by almost 40 percent, as
expected punishment has more than doubled." The serious crime rate exploded
during the 1960s and 1970s, rising from only five per 1,000 population per year
to more than 22, while the expected punishment per crime plunged from 50 prison
days in 1950 to only 10 days in 1970 [see Figure VIII]. In the midst of the
1960s and 1970s crime explosion, the number of commitments by courts for serious
predatory crimes actually fell from 40,000 in 1960 to 37,000 in 1970 as the
number of serious crimes reported to police nearly tripled from 1 million to 2.9
million. As a result, the probability of imprisonment for committing a serious
crime reported to the police nearly collapsed, plunging from 3.6 percent per
crime in 1960 to 1.3 percent in 1970, as shown in Table IV.
Expected punishment per reported serious crime remained low until the early
1980s because prison time fell while the probability of going to prison began to
increase, leaving expected punishment essentially unchanged. Sentences served
were shorter primarily because of court orders and prison capacity constraints
that kept the criminal justice door revolving rapidly. Not until the mid-1980s
did expected punishment begin to rise for predatory crimes. Yet expected
punishment in the 1990s remains below the 30 days of 1960 and the 50 days of
1950.
Between 1985 and 1996, the overall probability of going to prison for all index
crimes, including larceny/theft and motor vehicle theft, increased from 0.8
percent to 1.2 percent. The expected punishment for property crimes increased
about 20 percent, for violent crimes about 30 percent. Yet criminals still can
expect to spend only about two days in prison per property crime. The primary
reason for the low expected punishment rate is that the vast majority of
reported property crimes are not cleared by an arrest and/or do not result in
any prison time served (although the latter fact may be consistent with justice
for most property crimes).
Much of the recent increase in expected punishment results from an increase in
the probability of going to prison, especially the higher odds of being
prosecuted, convicted and sent to prison following an arrest. In the last 10
years, prisoners served longer sentences too. During that period, the median
time for those serving a prison term for a violent index crime increased from 20
months to 25 months while the median time served for property offenders remained
flat at 12 months. 20
How to Reduce Crime Further
"A tough approach pays, especially over the long run." If we are to succeed in
lowering the crime rate to, say, the level of the 1950s, we must create at least
as much deterrence as existed then, especially since our society today has far
more illegitimacy, single parenting and negative family conditions. Robbers, for
example, served expected median prison terms of 140 days in 1950 vs. 59 days in
1997. Getting back to 1950 punishment for robbery would require more than
doubling the expected punishment per robbery. The three ways of doing so are to:
increase the proportion of reported robberies cleared by arrest from 26.3 to
62.4 percent.
increase the proportion of the accused who are prosecuted, convicted and
imprisoned from 34 to 81 percent.
increase the median prison time served by robbers from 31.5 to 74.7 months.
All three are expensive in the short run. 21 A higher arrest rate requires more
money for police staffing, equipment and procedures. Higher conviction and
sentencing rates require more resources for prosecution and criminal courts. All
three require more prison space for robbers. But a tough approach pays,
especially over the long run. As the odds worsen for criminals, crimes decline
and the same numbers of arrests and convictions begin to reduce the odds
favoring criminals.
The Cost of Not Building Prisons
"Even at $25,000 a year, keeping the average criminal in prison is
worthwhile." Although the cost of building and maintaining more prisons is
high, the cost of not doing so appears to be higher. A number of researchers
have found that keeping most prisoners behind bars lowers their cost to society.
22
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) figures from a few years ago showed that it
cost under $16,000 per year to keep a prisoner in state or federal prison.
Hidden and indirect expenses to taxpayers may inflate this figure to $20,000 or
$25,000 per year.
In the late 1970s the Rand Corporation found in prisoner surveys in Texas,
Michigan and California that the median number of nondrug crimes committed by
prisoners the year before they were incarcerated was 15; similar surveys in
Wisconsin in 1990 found 12 nondrug crimes, as did a 1993 New Jersey survey.
Based on Vanderbilt University management professor Mark Cohen's analysis of
jury awards, the average annual social damage prevented by incarcerating a newly
admitted New Jersey criminal is $1.6 million and the median damage prevented is
$70,098.
A study of 12 states that were forced by court orders to reduce levels of
imprisonment found that incarcerating one additional prisoner reduces the number
of crimes by approximately 15 per year, the majority of them property crimes,
and yields a social benefit of at least $53,900 annually. 23
Thus, even at $25,000 a year, keeping the "average" criminal in prison is
worthwhile, since on the streets he would commit an average of 12 or more
nondrug crimes each year. For serious crimes, therefore, imprisonment pays for
itself. 24 The researchers measured benefits only in terms of crime prevention
and ignored retributive, deterrent and rehabilitative benefits. Thus they
underestimated the benefits of prison to society.
Morr release and 40 percent of those were reconvicted. 25
A survey of 11 states showed that 62 percent of all released prisoners were
rearrested within three years, 47 percent were reconvicted and 41 percent were
reincarcerated. 26
A study of 22 states for the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 69 percent
of young adults (ages 17-22) released from prison in 1978 were rearrested within
six years, after committing an average of 13 new crimes. 27
As BJS statistician Patrick Langan pointed out in Science, whatever the causes,
in 1989 there were an estimated 66,000 fewer rapes, 323,000 fewer robberies,
380,000 fewer assaults and 3.3 million fewer burglaries than there would have
been if the crime rate had been at the 1973 level. If only one-half or even
one-fourth of the reductions resulted from increased incarceration, imprisonment
has reduced crime significantly. 28 However, few would deny that "a great deal
of research remains to be done on the social costs and benefits of imprisonment
and other sentencing options." 29
Bringing Down Costs through Privatization
"A number of studies have found savings of 20 percent for private construction
of prisons and 5-15 percent for private management."
"Given the grim predictions of opponents, very little has gone wrong with
privatization."
"Federal and state laws, as well as bureaucratic obstacles, impede more labor
by prisoners."
"Only about 5,000 prisoners (less than 1 percent) work for private companies."
The most promising way to control taxpayers' costs includes privatizing prison
construction and operation. Short of full privatization, government-operated
correctional facilities could be corporatized and operated like private
businesses.
Economic theory implies that if there were better markets to buy, sell and rent
prison cells, the problems of funding and efficiently allocating prison space
would decrease. And there are numerous - unexploited - opportunities to reduce
the net costs of prisons by creating factories behind bars, having prisoners
earn their keep and compensate victims.
Privatizing Prisons. A number of studies have found savings of 20 percent for
private construction costs and 5-15 percent for private management of prison
units. 30 Further, independent observers who monitor, for example, the contracts
of Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), a Nashville, Tenn., company, praise
the quality of the company's operation. 31 George Zoley of Wackenhut Corp. in
Coral Gables, Fla., years ago predicted a gradual building process in which the
private sector establishes a "good track record and proves it can do the job."
32 Within a decade, it has come to pass:
With 70,937 adult prisoners in secure private correctional facilities at
year-end 1997, the market share of private prisons has risen to 4 percent of the
U.S. prison and jail population. 33
Between 1996 and 1997, private facilities under contract in the United States
also rose from 118 to 142, a one-year increase of 20 percent.
Over 7,000 federal prisoners were housed in private correctional facilities at
the end of 1997.
Texas leads the nation in privatization, with 41 private adult correctional
units in operation or under construction.
Major companies in the industry include CCA, with a rated capacity of 50,866 in
facilities under construction and planned expansions in the United States,
Wackenhut Corrections with 22,257 and U.S. Corrections Corporation with 5,259.
Profits, however, remain modest. 34 For example, CCA and Wackenhut report small
profits, but Pricor, Inc., of Murfreesboro, Tenn., an early leader in the
industry, quit adult corrections after suffering a series of losses. Last year,
the stock prices of publicly traded companies like CCA and Wackenhut Corrections
traded at historic highs and other corrections companies were able to
successfully sell initial and secondary stock offerings. 35 More recently, CCA
sold at 23 times 1998 estimated earnings and Wackenhut at 27, more moderate
multiples, suggesting less investor optimism about future earnings, despite
rapidly improving earnings.
There is no insurmountable legal obstacle to total privatization of prison
operation. 36 Unlike government agencies, private firms must know and account
for all their costs, including long-run costs. 37 Governments conceal costs and
markets reveal them (as well as reduce them). If private enterprises can operate
prisons for less than the government with equal or better quality services - and
all indications are that they can - then government should set punishments for
felons and let the private sector supply prisons.
CCA charges Harris County, Texas, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service
only $35.25 per inmate per day to operate a 350-bed minimum-security facility in
Houston, a charge that includes recovery of the cost of building the facility.
38
Operating costs for government-run prisons can be twice that amount, even
without taking construction and land costs into account. 39
What Can Go Wrong with Privatized Prisons. Privatization of jails and prisons
has been perhaps the most controversial topic in corrections during this
century. 40 Given all that could have gone wrong during the 15-year experience
with private prisons on three continents, and the grim predictions of its
opponents, very little has gone wrong. No serious corruption of public officials
by private prison operators has been exposed. No extraordinary number of inmates
have escaped from private facilities. Reports of prisoner abuse or violence have
been extremely rare. In fact, no systematic evidence has shown that private
operators are not doing the job better and cheaper. Academic studies show
superior performance by the private sector, including lower recidivism among
inmates released from private facilities. 41
The only negative report by a noteworthy independent source was from the U.S.
General Accounting Office, which reported "little difference and/or mixed
results in comparing private and public facilities" and "could not conclude
whether privatization saved money." 42 The GAO report was widely publicized by
opponents of privatization. Unfortunately, the authors ignored most of the
evidence, including carefully prepared reports from Australia, Florida,
Louisiana, Texas and the United Kingdom. The authors knew that statutes in most
jurisdictions define contracting with private operators as unlawful unless the
jurisdiction can demonstrate cost savings, but chose to ignore this fact. The
report also trivializes the accreditation process of the American Correctional
Association, a demanding test at which private facilities excel. In a detailed
refutation, Professor Charles Thomas of the University of Florida terms this
last error "sophomoric," while describing the overall report as "inaccurate,"
"misleading" and "ineptly prepared." 43
A third option, yet untested, is to contract out adult facilities to nonprofit
groups, including faith-based prison operators. As Professor Richard Moran of
Holyoke College puts it, "A private, not-for-profit foundation is in the best
position to organize a prison around a set of principles intended to reshape
criminals into honest, productive citizens." 44 No public officials have yet had
to courage or sense to try such a jail supplier, despite the successes nonprofit
and faith-based hospitals, schools and juvenile programs have had.
Employing Prisoners. America's prisons originally were intended to be
self-supporting, and during the 19th century many state prisons ran surpluses
and returned excess funds to their governments. In 1885 three-fourths of prison
inmates were involved in productive labor, the majority working in contract and
leasing systems. Fifty years later only 44 percent worked, and almost 90 percent
of them worked in state rather than private programs. 45 Today, prison inmates
are a huge drain on taxpayers, despite the millions of available hours of
healthy, prime-age labor they represent.
Increasing productive work for prisoners can be facilitated by repeal or
liberalization of some federal and state statutes and clearing away bureaucratic
obstacles. The federal Hawes-Cooper Act of 1929 authorized states to prohibit
the entry of prison-made goods produced in other states. The Walsh-Healy Act of
1936 prohibited convict labor on government contracts exceeding $10,000. The
Sumners-Ashurst Act of 1940 made it a federal offense to transport prison-made
goods across state borders, regardless of state laws. 46
Throughout the nation, a score of exceptions to the federal restrictions on
prison labor have been authorized, provided the inmates are paid a prevailing
wage, labor union officials are consulted, other workers are not adversely
affected and the jobs are in an industry without local unemployment. 47
A survey commissioned by the National Institute of Justice identified more than
70 companies that employ inmates in 16 states in manufacturing, service and
light assembly operations. 48 Prisoners sew leisure wear, make water-bed
mattresses and assemble electronic components. PRIDE, a state-sponsored private
corporation that runs Florida's 46 prison industries - from furniture making to
optical glass grinding - made a $4 million profit in 1987. 49
Such work enables prisoners to earn wages and acquire marketable skills while
learning individual responsibility and the value of productive labor. It also
ensures that they are able to contribute to victim compensation and to their own
and their families' support while they are in prison. A 1991 study by the U.S.
Bureau of Prisons found that only 6.6 percent of federal inmates who had been
employed in prison industries violated their parole or were rearrested within a
year of their release vs. 20 percent for nonemployed prisoners. 50
In 1990 7.6 percent of all state and federal inmates had jobs in correctional
industries; by 1996 this had dropped to 6.6 percent (under 80,000 inmates)
because traditional correctional industries, mostly socialist-run, were not
expanding fast enough to keep pace with inmate population. 51 Gross sales were
$1.6 billion, overwhelmingly to other government agencies, and wages paid to
inmates were $74 million, or less than 5 percent of gross sales. 52
In 1997 the Private Sector Prison Industry Enhancement program had nearly 100
private firms employing 2,400 inmates to manufacture goods ranging from circuit
boards to bird feeders to graduation gowns. 53 Airline reservations,
telemarketing, data processing and map digitizing services employed others. At
the current annual rate, $13 million in gross wages is being paid (approximately
$6,600 per prison-employee year), for a cumulative total of $50 million since
1979. Prisoners have retained 56 percent of their wages and paid out the rest in
room and board (19 percent), taxes (12 percent), victim restitution (6.6
percent) and family support (6.4 percent).
South Carolina and Nevada have become leaders in private sector use of prison
labor, yet nationally only about 5,000 prisoners (far less than 1 percent) work
for private companies because of the additional costs of doing business in
prisons. 54
Fred Braun Jr., president of Workman Fund in Leavenworth, Kan., has been a key
promoter of Private Sector Prison Industries (PSPI). Organized as a nonprofit
foundation, Workman lends venture capital to private enterprises interested in
training and employing prisoners on-site in "real world" work. Workman reported
promising results from an enterprise in which convicts worked alongside
nonconvict labor. Braun also is president of Creative Enterprises, the umbrella
company for two plants, Zephyr Products, Inc. (sheet metal products) and
Heatron, Inc. (electric heating elements), which train and employ
minimum-custody inmates at the Lansing East Unit in Leavenworth. 55 Braun's
original vision was of an industrial park of three or four firms employing 200.
Thirteen years after opening Zephyr, he had added no more businesses, but his
two original plants were employing about 150 prisoners. 56
Bureaucratic inertia slows the transition to private work for prisoners. For
example, the state corrections system in Texas has long been a leader in
state-run prison industries, which probably has hindered the introduction of
private sector opportunities for prison employment and production there.
Among the steps that should be taken to make prisons hum with productive
activity are:
Repeal or liberalize the various state and federal laws that restrict trade in
prison-made goods.
Repeal the laws that compel government agencies to buy prison-made goods and
allow competitive bidding by the agencies.
Create prison-enterprise marketing offices within prison and jail systems.
Allow private prison operators to profit from the gainful employment of convict
labor.
Such reforms would overwhelmingly benefit American taxpayers, consumers, workers
and businesses. 57 Congressmen Bill McCollum (R-Fla.), chairman of the U.S.
House Judiciary's subcommittee on crime, and Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), have
recently introduced new legislation to reform federal prison industries.
Conclusion
"As the odds of imprisonment have increased, the national crime rate has
decreased." The odds of imprisonment for a serious offense increased in the
late 1980s and 1990s as legislators responded to the public's "enough is enough"
attitude. The result has been a decreasing national crime rate. To build on this
trend, we must continue raising the odds of imprisonment, making crime less
attractive for potential criminals. We also must reduce prison costs through
privatization. 58 Finally, we must relax the laws hampering the productive
employment of prisoners.
--
Zeek
"War is the remedy chosen by our enemies,
we shall give them all they want.--- William T. Sherman
" Putterer's Nemesis" <Grant@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote in message
news:3f1f3361$0$15031$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
"Briar" <hawken_rifleNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JlwTa.36471$8g6.554221@news1.news.adelphia.net...
"Grant Mcl" <Grant@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote in message
news:3f1d7958$0$11378$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
"Brian" <olinshooter@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3F1D6FF3.A3796328@erols.com...
Alric Knebel wrote:
"Morlock" <temPorarily0utoforDer@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:X8bTa.49332$9C6.2719428@wards.force9.net...
Japan 39
Australia 65
UK 68
Canada 165
France 255
Germany 381
USA ?
OK, I have the answer, but have a guess for a bit of 'fun'.
As liberal as I am, I'm going to have to disagree with the premise
of
this
argument. First, HOW a person is killed is irrelevant to victim or
his
family. Second, you have to look at the populations of those
countries
for
a fair comparison. It's not fair to take the entire population of
the
United States and compare the murders we have hear with the murders
in
the
U. K. (or elsewhere). The only fair numbers would be a
per-population
figure.
Its called "per capita" and you are correct.
Also, to get a true perspective, you must not only break down the
category
of
"gun deaths" in to criminal, accidental and legal, but also compare
gun
deaths
to, for example, people beaten to death with bare hands.
Absolute rubbish your are an NRA Redneck ***** *****
"For men of understanding do not say that the sword is to blame for
murder, nor
wine for drunkenness, nor strength for outrage, nor courage for
foolhardiness,
but they lay the blame on those who make an improper use of the gifts
which have
been bestowed upon them by God,
and punish them accordingly. " -- St. John Chrysostom
A weak and pathetic argument. Used by paranoid fuckhead Americans.
Destroy the guns and you will reduce deaths caused by guns shot by 95% fact,
and an undeniable one.
The average American has the mentality of a 17 year old european. Upset them
and they get angry, if a gun is at hand they use it because its easy and
quick. A European without easy access to guns either cools of or has a fist
fight. OK shiye for brains.
"The right of the citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against
arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now
appears
remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always
possible." -
Senator Hubert Humphrey
Guns are also used for armed inserection.(look that word up)
Americans can have guns Iraqis can't that sounds fair?
American are allowed to defend their homes Iraqis are not that sound fair?
Iraq is an occupied state is it not ?
.
|
|
|
| User: " Putterers Nemesis" |
|
| Title: Re: Average Gun Related Deaths Per Year |
23 Jul 2003 09:39:22 PM |
|
|
"Briar" <hawken_rifleNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Sorry I refuse to reply to this 48KB post of shite selective C & Ping.
Except to say if gun control increase deaths then its your entire society
that needs controlling.
Michael Moore asked some interesting questions that most Americans couldn't
even comprehend let alone understand.
Perhaps you should think about your education system.
We have very few gun deaths compared to the US we have less guns per capita
as do most country's.
You are a thick senseless people happy to live in a country that has a gun
death rate comparable to an improvised third world country like Somalia.
You also have a road death rate comparable to a third world nation. Despite
having straight and relatively quite roads.
***** back to red neck vile your mutha needs a fucking and think about
the above.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Briar" |
|
| Title: Re: Average Gun Related Deaths Per Year |
23 Jul 2003 10:35:39 PM |
|
|
" Putterer's Nemesis" <get@life@once.commie> wrote in message
news:3f1f46cf$0$11380$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
"Briar" <hawken_rifleNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Sorry I refuse to reply to this 48KB post of shite selective C & Ping.
Except to say if gun control increase deaths then its your entire society
that needs controlling.
Michael Moore asked some interesting questions that most Americans couldn't
even comprehend let alone understand.
Perhaps you should think about your education system.
We have very few gun deaths compared to the US we have less guns per capita
as do most country's.
You are a thick senseless people happy to live in a country that has a gun
death rate comparable to an improvised third world country like Somalia.
You also have a road death rate comparable to a third world nation. Despite
having straight and relatively quite roads.
***** back to red neck vile your mutha needs a fucking and think about
the above.
So you are admitting you are not only an ***** but an ignorant one to boot.
Can't read a simple report that proves you wrong. Well toad the simple fact is
that the crime rate in the UK is rising and the crime rate in the US is falling.
So go riot at a soccer game.
.
|
|
|
| User: " Putterers Nemesis" |
|
| Title: Re: Average Gun Related Deaths Per Year |
24 Jul 2003 06:40:38 AM |
|
|
"Briar" <hawken_rifleNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fuITa.38375$8g6.778217@news1.news.adelphia.net...
" Putterer's Nemesis" <get@life@once.commie> wrote in message
news:3f1f46cf$0$11380$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
"Briar" <hawken_rifleNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Sorry I refuse to reply to this 48KB post of shite selective C & Ping.
Except to say if gun control increase deaths then its your entire
society
that needs controlling.
Michael Moore asked some interesting questions that most Americans
couldn't
even comprehend let alone understand.
Perhaps you should think about your education system.
We have very few gun deaths compared to the US we have less guns per
capita
as do most country's.
You are a thick senseless people happy to live in a country that has a
gun
death rate comparable to an improvised third world country like Somalia.
You also have a road death rate comparable to a third world nation.
Despite
having straight and relatively quite roads.
***** back to red neck vile your mutha needs a fucking and think
about
the above.
So you are admitting you are not only an ***** but an ignorant one to
boot.
Can't read a simple report that proves you wrong. Well toad the simple
fact is
that the crime rate in the UK is rising and the crime rate in the US is
falling.
So go riot at a soccer game.
Clueless fuckwit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Briar" |
|
| Title: Re: Average Gun Related Deaths Per Year |
24 Jul 2003 09:06:38 AM |
|
|
" Putterer's Nemesis" <get@life@once.commie> wrote in message
news:3f1fc5b7$0$18493$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
"Briar" <hawken_rifleNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fuITa.38375$8g6.778217@news1.news.adelphia.net...
" Putterer's Nemesis" <get@life@once.commie> wrote in message
news:3f1f46cf$0$11380$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
"Briar" <hawken_rifleNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Sorry I refuse to reply to this 48KB post of shite selective C & Ping.
Except to say if gun control increase deaths then its your entire
society
that needs controlling.
Michael Moore asked some interesting questions that most Americans
couldn't
even comprehend let alone understand.
Perhaps you should think about your education system.
We have very few gun deaths compared to the US we have less guns per
capita
as do most country's.
You are a thick senseless people happy to live in a country that has a
gun
death rate comparable to an improvised third world country like Somalia.
You also have a road death rate comparable to a third world nation.
Despite
having straight and relatively quite roads.
***** back to red neck vile your mutha needs a fucking and think
about
the above.
So you are admitting you are not only an ***** but an ignorant one to
boot.
Can't read a simple report that proves you wrong. Well toad the simple
fact is
that the crime rate in the UK is rising and the crime rate in the US is
falling.
So go riot at a soccer game.
Clueless fuckwit
At least I know not to run the post I am reponding to together with three other
posts watch how you cut and paste.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "James Hall" |
|
| Title: Re: Average Gun Related Deaths Per Year |
24 Jul 2003 10:04:47 AM |
|
|
" Putterer's Nemesis" ...
...
Perhaps you should think about your education system.
...
They are - more advanced and more metal detectors in every
public school and publically funded day care center.
An intelligent step in the right direction; for the most violent
nation ever to walk this planet.
JHall.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Briar" |
|
| Title: Re: Average Gun Related Deaths Per Year |
24 Jul 2003 10:23:12 AM |
|
|
"James Hall" <jhall@cuic.ca> wrote in message
news:cASTa.857$oa5.53296156@news.nnrp.ca...
" Putterer's Nemesis" ...
...
Perhaps you should think about your education system.
...
They are - more advanced and more metal detectors in every
public school and publically funded day care center.
An intelligent step in the right direction; for the most violent
nation ever to walk this planet.
JHall.
To understand Americans you must remember our ancestors came out of the slums
and prisons of Europe. They risked all they had and went to the wild new world.
There they took a continent wide country from the finest Guerrilla fighters and
light cavalry in the world with the gun and ax. And yes with small pox and the
scalping knife. We get mean in our wars, wining is the only rule.
We took an idea of government that no one thought would work and made it an
example for the rest of the world to follow. We defeated the most powerful
nation of that time to win our freedom and are damn proud of it. We don't touch
our cap and smile at our betters because we don't think anyone on Earth is
better than us. We love to watch Kings and Queens but from a distance.
It took the death of 4 million of our ancestors to end slavery in our country
and prove to ourselves that all men are created equal. We could have built a
world empire, but we let our few colonies go. And our fathers and grandfathers
walked into the cannon smoke twice to save Europe. And then we picked up our
enemies dusted them off and set them on their feet again, but we are like that.
My generation faced the possibility of atomic fire and said "come on make my
day". We propped up the weak nations of the world with aid, and we poured out
our treasure and young men like water to help our friends. And the Red Bear of
Europe broke. And no one thanked us, but we didn't want your thanks.
The United States is like the grizzly bear respected not loved, feared by its
enemies and master of its domain, but always alone.
If in the future you need our help when the earthquake, the tidal wave, plague
or the volcano destroys your cities we will be there with our money, tools,
skills and lives to help you, it is our pleasure don't thank us. If you have
nasty neighbors who want your land we will help you stop them. And yes some of
your daughters will come home with our young men, and your grandchildren will be
as American as the rest of us. And our heritage will be theirs and they will be
arrogant Americans also.
Woe betide you if you attack our friends because we will rise up in our
righteous might and grind you into the dirt. If we are attacked, the grizzly
bear in us will awake and make the wrath of God look like a Sunday School
picnic. Woe and lamentations will echo through the desert your land will
become. Ask our native Americans or better yet ask the people of Dresden,
Hamburg, Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Like the grizzly bear we are terrible in our
anger.
But normally the United States is like the gentle bear that ignores the hounds
that yap at its heels.
Of course we are arrogant, we have made the greatest material civilization the
world has ever seen. To us the word impossible means we will do it next week,
if not sooner. We are the wonder of the ages.
The inscription from the tomb of the Roman dictator Sulla carved 2000 years ago
says it best
"No better friend no worse enemy"
that's us.
Zeek
If they take away my cartridge guns I have muzzle loaders.
If they take away my muzzle loaders I have a crossbow
If they take away my crossbow I have a bow
If they take away my bow I will make a spearIf the take away my spear I will use
a knife
If they take away my knife I will make a club
I am not a subject and I will not be a slave
They can make me fertilizer but I will never disarm.
"Montani semper liberi"
(Mountaineers are always free)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ken Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Average Gun Related Deaths Per Year |
24 Jul 2003 01:34:52 PM |
|
|
"Briar" <hawken_rifleNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ARSTa.38539$8g6.987216@news1.news.adelphia.net...
To understand Americans you must remember our ancestors came out of
the slums and prisons of Europe. They risked all they had blah blah blah
What a load of old rubbish. Apart from a few early adopters, they set off
for Fat Land for wholly economic reasons.
Ken Johnson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: Average Gun Related Deaths Per Year |
24 Jul 2003 03:13:51 PM |
|
|
Ken Johnson wrote:
"Briar" <hawken_rifleNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ARSTa.38539$8g6.987216@news1.news.adelphia.net...
To understand Americans you must remember our ancestors came out of
the slums and prisons of Europe. They risked all they had blah blah blah
What a load of old rubbish. Apart from a few early adopters, they set off
for Fat Land for wholly economic reasons.
Ken Johnson
Cant stand truth, can you?
Of course, the NGs you tried to cross post this to tell us that you dont care
about anything but hate.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: " Putterers Nemesis" |
|
| Title: Re: Average Gun Related Deaths Per Year |
24 Jul 2003 08:07:57 AM |
|
|
Brian wrote:
Putterer's Nemesis wrote:
"Briar" <hawken_rifleNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Sorry I refuse to reply to this 48KB post of shite selective C &
Ping.
In other words, you admit you cant refute what he said.
Statistics and opinion was all you posted. Both of which have no bareing on
fact.
Except to say if gun control increase deaths then its your entire
society that needs controlling.
Michael Moore asked some interesting questions that most Americans
couldn't even comprehend let alone understand.
No, he didnt.
He used heavy, selective editing in that hatchet job in order to
support the agenda he started with.
As you do in your argument in support of Guns.
Fact bullets kill people, they are fired from guns, remove the guns people
stop dying from bullet wounds. Even you can not deny this.
Perhaps you should think about your education system.
Considering your own spelling and grammar, you are quite the
hypocrite to be questioning someone elses education system.
If you had any intelect at all you would be aware that my spelling and
grammer issues have nothing to do with education and every thing to do with
Dyslexia.
We have very few gun deaths compared to the US we have less guns per
capita as do most country's.
You are a thick senseless people happy to live in a country that has
a gun death rate comparable to an improvised third world country
like Somalia.
You also have a road death rate comparable to a third world nation.
Despite having straight and relatively quite roads.
***** back to red neck vile your mutha needs a fucking and think
about the above.
If thats what you really think, then ignore us.
Worry about your own country.
You know, the place that you're ashamed to admit you come from?
The problems with americans is they are insular look a G W Bush didnt have a
passport a complete Zenophobe.
You know nothing of world events. I bet you watch FOX News. The most
distorted news service in the world. You see i watch
FOX,CNN,MSCBN,ABC,CNT,ITN,BBC and a few others so i know what lies you see
and believe, i also have relatives both American and British living in the
US so i know exactly what the American mentality is.
A typical example of American mentality in Europe the public don't want GM
crops. So imports wanted to stop importing from the US, your government saw
this as a trade imbargo. We see it as america dictating to us what we eat.
This comes from a country with more trade barriers than another. Odd isnt it
?.
Poverty in Africa gets worse thanks to America.
.
|
|
|
| User: "D. A. Tsenuf" |
|
| Title: Re: Average Gun Related Deaths Per Year |
24 Jul 2003 10:10:28 AM |
|
|
" Putterer's Nemesis" <get@ | | | | | | | | | |
