It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

1 in 4 US Adults Now Have Criminal Record - Around 65 Million Citizens

page: 8
47
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by retiredTxn
 


You are absolutely right, My bad, but i have heard that the number is on the rise.




posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
There are companies that make huge profits off of this industry. Companies need to make the uniforms, food, tv's, telephone and internet companies. I'm sure most of that is not state run and operated companies, and i'm sure they don't charge bottom dollar for their stuff either sense stuff like the TV's and CD players and Radios have to be made with special clear plastic instead of on the same factory line as the regular tv. Which means a special price tag. If i'm wrong call me out on it.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
One simple answer. HAARP



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
For clarity since the OP is being misinterpreted, 1 in 4 US Adults are not incarcerated. The number of incarcerated adults is about 1 in 32; huge difference.


In 2009, over 7.2 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at yearend — 3.1% of all U.S. adult residents or 1 in every 32 adults. The total correctional population declined (down 0.7% or 48,800 offenders) during 2009, the first decline observed in the population since the Bureau of Justice Statistics began reporting this population in 1980.

At yearend 2009 a total of 4,203,967 adult men and women were on probation and 819,308 were on parole or mandatory conditional release following a prison term.

State and federal prison authorities had jurisdiction over 1,613,740 prisoners at yearend 2009: 1,405,622 under state jurisdiction and 208,118 under federal jurisdiction.

Local jails held 760,400 adults awaiting trial or serving a sentence at midyear 2009.

Bureau of Justice Statistics

The Yahoo News story is based on a report from NELP who are a non-profit civil liberties outfit. They based their numbers on some fuzzy math too. They sampled states criminal records files and counted them, averaged them, reduced them by a made-up number in case multiple citizens have records in multiple states.
They didn't take into account that a criminal record or file is created for each offence, so habitual criminals have multiple records. I'd bet anything that 1 in 4 is actually like 1 in 20+.
Also, the system that keeps track of crimes by-finerprints, doesn't distinguish between those that are alive or dead, and the FBI hs been keeping records of fingerprints since around 1929.

NELP compared their main argument number to page 22 of the report found at this link:
The Attorney General's Report on Criminal History Background Checks
the quote:

Accessibility of records: From among the estimated 71 million criminal records in the U.S.,


edit on 25-3-2011 by primus2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by primus2012
 


sure 1 out of 4 is alot different than 1 out of 32 but is it any better either way?



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by PjZ101
 


Don't you think that's a significant difference? 1 out of 4 would make the US darn near a penal colony...which it clearly isn't.

I know dozens and dozens of people, and none of them (that I am aware of) have a criminal record. I work for a very large company that requires criminal background checks, and they employ 5000+. I was in the Army in the 90's and at that time, no 18+ with a criminal record was allowed to enlist. Random drug screenings kept the dope smokers out too. 1 out of 4 is not possible and is only being used for sensationalism.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Oh just found this little hidden factoid in NELP's report:


Many people who have a criminal record that shows up
on a background check have never been convicted of a
crime; in fact, one-third of felony arrests never lead to
conviction. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Felony
Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2004 (April 2008).


NELP's report - see page 27 number 5



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
I did a little digging and found some more studys done on this subject. I found this page from Rutgers University www.crab.rutgers.edu...

Some of these are pretty old studies by the way.


The Blumstein-Graddy Study (1968-1977)



In 1983, Alfred Blumstein and Elizabeth Graddy examined 1968-1977 arrest statistics from the country's fifty-six largest cities.23 Looking only at felony arrests, Blumstein and Graddy found that one out of every four males living in a large city could expect to be arrested for a felony at some time in his lifetime.24 When broken down by race, however, a nonwhite male was three and a half times more likely to have a felony arrest on his record than was a white male.25 Whereas only 14% of white males would be arrested, 51 % of nonwhite males could anticipate being arrested for a felony at some time during their lifetimes.26



Blumstein and Graddy did not include misdemeanors, which make up the largest share of arrests and bookings, in their calculations. Had they included misdemeanors, the percentage of nonwhite males who could expect to be arrested and at least briefly jailed would have reached Blumstein's original prediction of 90%. As appalling as Blumstein's original numbers seemed, they were confirmed by others over the ensuing two decades.27



The Sentencing Project Survey (1989)



In 1990, the nonprofit Washington, D.C.-based "Sentencing Project" released a survey revealing that on an average day in the United States, one of every four African American men age twenty to twenty-nine was either in prison or jail or on probation or parole.36 The study caused a brief flurry in the media, but evoked little follow-up. The implications were far more ominous than the "1 in 4" headlines suggested. The next logical question went unasked by the press. If one in four young African American males are under correctional supervision on any one day, what percentage have been or will be drawn into the justice system? As it turned out, the Sentencing Project's figures pointed to a criminal justice disaster.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
And heres another more recent report from data obtained in 2008, from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (its pdf) www.cepr.net...


Our estimates suggest that in 2008 there were between 5.4 and 6.1 million ex-prisoners (compared to a prison population of about 1.5 million and a jail population of about 0.8 million in that same year). Our calculations also suggest that in 2008 there were between 12.3 and 13.9 million ex-felons.


Now that is just for ex-felons, this part did not include misdemeanors

Heres another way to look at it.


In 2008, about one in 33 working-age adults was an ex-prisoner and about one in 15 working-age adults was an ex-felon. About one in 17 adult men of working-age was an ex-prisoner and about one in 8 was an ex-felon.


1 in 33 adults were ex-prisoner and 1 in 15 were ex-felons, again, not including misdemeanors. Misdemeanors are a more common charge than felonies by the way.


The rise in the ex-offender population – and the resulting employment and output losses – overwhelmingly reflects changes in the U.S. criminal justice system, not changes in underlying criminal activity. Instead, dramatic increases in sentencing, especially for drug-related offenses, account for the mushrooming of the ex-offender population that we document here.


Edit - Not all felons go to prison. Probation is another possible sentence other than incarceration.
edit on 25-3-2011 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
now if they can only find a way to make the rest of the people in the country criminals they can justify making the whole nation into a prison!
then they can make us all work for free!
and they wouldnt have to spend so much time and money thinking up all those crazy plots to keep us distracted while they do what they want!

lol?...



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by primus2012
 


I doubt the OP will actually read your accurate Statistics.

He should have posted how it is still the Highest incarceration per capita around the world.

www.nationmaster.com...



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by primus2012
 


People have criminal records because they break the law.


A very high number of those laws are unjust.


Trying to argue the written law after the fact is nonsensincal.


What? It's nonsensical to argue against unjust laws? You are very obedient. Would have made a fine slave catcher. Some of us have the ability to think for ourselves and follow our own moral compass.


Trying to drum up excuses like "what about those that needed the pot for medicinal purposes?" is lame. I'll give you 1/100000 of 1% of mary-jane related offences have to do with folks trying to get it for medicinal purposes. The rest are dopers and pushers.


Don't think so baby, you are obviously highly ignorant on the subject. And what exactly is wrong with being a "doper"? Better that than a drunkard or tobacco fiend. And what is wrong with being a "pusher" of safe, illegal drugs? Better that than the liquor store and gas station pushers of the most deadly, damaging and addictive drugs on the planet. Good to see you have picked up on the governments propaganda terminology though. The pharmaceutical and alcohol industries will be proud.


Some advice; stop smoking the stuff


My advice to anyone: Don't obey unjust laws, live free. No one has the authority to dictate how you spend your existence and what medicines or recreational drugs you use. No one owns you unless you let them.

"If the words 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' don't include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp it was written on."

— Terence McKenna


Random drug screenings kept the dope smokers out too.


But it kept the drunks and users of hard drugs in.



edit on 25-3-2011 by Azp420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Azp420
 


Hard drugs don't stay in your system as long as weed. I knew people in the service that do coke, and most of the time the drug tests are hardly random. Only a select few go kicked out, most get demoted and sent to rehab on tax payers dime. Of course we are now in need of warm bodies to throw in the front lines so our standards aren't as strict as they where in the 80's possibly. When i was in the service a few years ago we would know about a week or two ahead of time, word gets out. Cocaine only stays in the system for about 3 days. Just because he didn't know anybody doing drugs in his company or during his military service doesn't mean that people aren't doing it. There are also lots of products that will flush your system.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by henriquefd
I wouldn't put the blame on hiring companies. Come on, if your country has 25% off its population(or is it 25% of its work force?) with a crime record, companies are not to blame.

I don't know labor laws in US, but Brazil has one of the worst, most archaic and unbalanced labor laws in the planet! So, yeah, I would NEVER hire ANYONE with a crime record. That's not me being different. That's the norm around here. A few things that prevents you from getting hired here in BrazilÇ

1) Having a crime record
2) Having sued your ex-employer
3) Changing jobs too often
4) Having too many kids
5) No previous working experience(this one is a killer for the young people. Boy, do they suffer.
6) Being a young woman about to get married or recently married(nobody wants to hire a woman that could get pregnant anytime soon)

That's a few, but depending on the kind of company, you get some especific ones as well.

Maybe part of the statistic is to blame on the COPs TV show? Something that always seemed wrong to me is arresting people for soliciting service from a prostitute, especially when a female cops plays the role of a prostitude. I mean, come on... Do you guys really need MORE people in jail? Better let the guy pay for his prostitute than having the population paying the police to hunt those harmless people and putting them in jail, wasting a LOT of the tax payers money. Another stupid show is the Bait car. Funny to watch, but instead of fabricating a crime, go after crimes really happening. Geez. I get the feeling there is just not enough crime going on in US when cops have to fabricate them to justify their paycheck...


First and formost we blame politicians, secondly we blame the police, thirdly, we blame the courts, 4th, we blame the company/corporations.

22% of people in jail are in jail for non violent drug charges. I.E. Getting caught with a joint. 68% of americans 12 and older currently do or have smoked pot in their life.

Not hiring some one because of that, is quite simply put, stupid. The problem with humans is we deal in absolutes.

All gay people are bad, everyone who does drugs is bad, Allan Greenspan is the ultimate enemy etc etc....

Problem is, in reality, the blame never lies soley on one person. The people who are responsible are the people who can nullify the problem and don't. Every one of them. This includes the employers.

Don't be naive, respect the motto, deny ignorance.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by ldyserenity
Just like telling smokers to quit smoking cigarettes so they can get work; it's simple don't do drugs amd don't wind up in jail. Why is it not ok to discriminate against drug addicts/users/criminals when they sure AS H*** Discriminate against people doing a LEGAL substance?

Are you really surprised? DON'T DO DRUGS! SIMPLE
edit on 24-3-2011 by ldyserenity because: emoticon


Wait...two wrongs do make a right? I did not know that! Thank you, oh wise one. I am going to go out and double my wrongs so I can be as right as rain.



Oh the users descriminate against the people who use legal substances?

What planet are you on.... if you don't care if something is legal or not, you certainly aren't going to "descriminate" against legal stufffff.......

Marijaunna users generally dislike big pharma, but to call it descrimination, that's quite a leap no?

Also, how is quitting cigarettes equate to getting work? This is obviously a "pulled out of my ass" statement too....

WTH is wrong with you bud?

People wind up in jail regardless of using drugs... and you can use drugs all you want and never wind up in jail for using. Just use "responsibly" and you won't be in a position to get caught in the first place....

When I smoked, I never left my house with any on me. If I don't carry it, I can't get caught... it's pretty simple really.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Laokin
 





WTH is wrong with you bud?


Are you talking to me? What precisely is your point? Are you suggesting that I am discriminating against marijuana smokers? Are you just another crimvelvet who skims through threads not bothering to read the posts in their entirety, is that the deal here? Or are you intending to address the poster I addressed, and inadvertently posted a reply to me? Who are you addressing, bud?



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Since you bring up the parole issue, what the hell is that about?

I can tell that you are a really happy person and fun at parties... LOL Hey, relax. I see that this is going to be a rollercoaster. Relax, hero.


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
This whole system for convicted felons seems to be all about disenfranchisement. Prior to 1930 there was no such thing as a parole board, which means that people convicted of a crime did their time and upon release, that was that.

I haven't studied the reasons for implementing the parole system, but I imagine that it might have something to do with the overcrowding of prisons, even as far back as the 1930s.


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Now, government seems to think that once convicted that person is no longer a person but property of the government.

Committing a crime and being held accountable for it usually involves separation from open society. Convicts are not property, but they must be handled in a contained environment. How would you run a prison? Perhaps a kinder, gentler place that good citizens might want to vacation in? Convicts aren't property, but they must be *managed* and some people might see that as dehumanization. It's not. They did something wrong. They are removed from society until society sees fit to release them back into the pond.


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
What is the point of doing time if once that time has been done, the convicted person is still doing time in some other fashion?

A convict does his time. He has a record of being dangerous and/or untrustworthy. He has to try to succeed again, even with those caveats associated with his background. It's unfortunate, but it is a reality he/she has personally taken direct action to create (the committing of the crime). Sure, time is served. But we have a forgive and do not forget society when it comes to these things. Service industry and grunt jobs (cooks, chefs, fast food attendants, store clerks, lawn maintenance, ditch digging, etc.) don't require an unblemished background. However, higher-end jobs (attorney, medical field, police, firefighter, etc.) may require a cleaner background. The point is that, depending on the service provided, customers may not want a convicted felon to take care of them. It's just that people are looking out for themselves and their families. I would not hire a contractor to work in/on my home who has a criminal background. Am I mean? No, I'm looking out for my family.


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
It is really just another justification for the aggregation of power.

I don't think so. The real situation is that people who have a criminal background have a harder time finding jobs. Ask any ex-con. They know they screwed up, and they tell their friends, family and kids, spreading the word to youths not to mess up like they did. City governments and city councils try to create programs to assist such folks, and their hearts bleed for them, but the reality of the situation is that people don't trust people who have a criminal background as much as those who don't. Yeah, you can find an exception, but the general truth is what I have stated.


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
As to your initial question, as an employer, I want to hire the best person for the job, and as a critical thinker much has to be weighed when making a decision. I have worked several jobs in my lifetime, and I have known many people never convicted of a crime that stole from their employers, and created all kinds of grief and hassles, so the fact that a person has a clean criminal record is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a safeguard against any thing than the parole officer issue you brought up.

There are crimes and there are *crimes.* If you are an accounting firm, are you going to hire a person convicted of embezzlement? If so, you're taking a big chance. Maybe that same firm might hire a guy convicted of drug use as a janitor with minimal responsibility (and no keys). Would you hire a rapist as an assistant in an old folks home? Hmmmmm. What about a person guilty of tampering with the mail (mailbox baseball) --which is a felony-- being hired as a short-order cook; sure. There are degrees and circumstances. You're right that much has to be weighed. I did not mean to suggest that such considerations were absent. Of course not. It does go without saying.
Further, you are criminalizing people who don't have a criminal background. Sure, people steal and commit crimes and don't get caught, but by your words, all Americans might as well be convicted felons. Innocent until proven guilty, right? You're convicting people who haven't been convicted by the system. Again, yes, people commit crimes without getting caught, and that's a harsh reality. But, a convicted criminal is most likely guilty of the crime he/she has been found guilty. Employers can't worry about what an UNconvicted person (no criminal record) **might** have done. In our society, if you haven't been found guilty of a crime in a court of law, then the GIVEN is that you are not a criminal. Sure, there are exceptions, but in general, that is the case.


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
If business owners are investing in "brighter futures" then why does this nations economy look so bleak today?

Hey, small business owners and even some large ones (short of being a mega corporation) are not to blame for the bleak economy. They're trying to make money via products and services and they need to hire good people to effect the business.


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Your view of employers is one from rose colored glasses, of which you seem to wear in way similar to Janet Reno...

Nah, not really. I disagree. And why bring Reno into this? You're trying to obfuscate the issue about people with criminal backgrounds and their prospects at getting hired. You're politicizing and polarizing the conversation unnecessarily. Janet Reno is neither here nor there, so I will disregard the rest of your rant about her.


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The United States imprisons more people, per capita, than any other industrialized nation on the planet. That means more people than China. That means more people than the Soviet Union ever did at the height of their tyranny.

Most of our prisoners, it seems, are there because of illegal drug use. Legalizing marijuana would not only bring in billions (perhaps trillions) in tax revenue, but would free up a lot of prison space. As far as comparing us to China and the USSR... Well, the numbers may say one thing, but what about other numbers that might characterize those nations... numbers of dead civilian protesters in the millions, numbers of political killings in the hundreds of thousands if not millions? Unrestrained massacres of unarmed women and children? If, per captia, their prisons are less crowded than ours, it is only because you don't imprison the DEAD. YOU BURY THEM. The US has no such number of mass graves as those countries do. The fact that we *do* imprison more per captia sends a different message than the one you suggest: we will imprison rather than massacre.


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Is this fact because Americans are a bunch of criminals? Some, no doubt are, but all? Are you so naive as to think that government can be trusted, and the fact that the U.S. imprisons more people per capita than any other industrialized nation is due to the fact that our government is so trustworthy?

Our government is run by and for the people, which means that it is *inherently* flawed. Any endeavor run my human beings is sure to be flawed. That being said, no government is fully trusted, yet aspects of that government may be trusted. The entire entity of our government is not solid, it is comprised of jerks, fantastic people, idiots and innovators. Just like any company or organization. Just like ATS. Some people are less aggressive and more pleasant; some seem angry and make discussions feel like a grudge-match in a blood pit. So, in a fashion, you're pit-bull aggressiveness sends out signals of angry naivety, as the following quote from you suggests:


Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining.

Again, please relax a little and maybe smile from time to time.


edit on 26-3-2011 by GhostLancer because: Typo



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   

People have criminal records because they break the law.



A very high number of those laws are unjust.


So you lobby for the laws to get changed. Don't just decide to break the laws you don't like and not expect any consequences. Don't cry if you get busted with a blunt in your ashtray and have to spend some time in a cell with Big Bad Bubba.


Trying to argue the written law after the fact is nonsensincal.



What? It's nonsensical to argue against unjust laws? You are very obedient. Would have made a fine slave catcher. Some of us have the ability to think for ourselves and follow our own moral compass.


No it's nonsensical to argue them after you knowingly (with your self-thought and moral compass) break them and then get busted.


Trying to drum up excuses like "what about those that needed the pot for medicinal purposes?" is lame. I'll give you 1/100000 of 1% of mary-jane related offences have to do with folks trying to get it for medicinal purposes. The rest are dopers and pushers.



Don't think so baby, you are obviously highly ignorant on the subject. And what exactly is wrong with being a "doper"? Better that than a drunkard or tobacco fiend. And what is wrong with being a "pusher" of safe, illegal drugs? Better that than the liquor store and gas station pushers of the most deadly, damaging and addictive drugs on the planet. Good to see you have picked up on the governments propaganda terminology though. The pharmaceutical and alcohol industries will be proud.


Yes I'm highly ignorant on the subject of drug use; from the first-hand perspective that is.
I can answer your questions of what's wrong with being a doper and a pusher however:
Dopers are dumb.
Smoking it opens the door to all kinds of stupid and bad beliefs and ideas.
Also, dope is illegal.
Selling it is a crime, and it also promotes the use of it and allows it to fall into the hands of kids. Some of those kids will become the dumb dopers of the future. Others will move on to harsher stuff. Still others will become pushers because it's easier than getting a job and they'll have all the dope they want at their disposal.

Booze and tobacco are legal, so no, being a doper is not better. I'm not a promoter of them either; that's just an herb-contrived misinterpretation.


Some advice; stop smoking the stuff



My advice to anyone: Don't obey unjust laws, live free. No one has the authority to dictate how you spend your existence and what medicines or recreational drugs you use. No one owns you unless you let them.

"If the words 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' don't include the right to experiment with your own consciousness, then the Declaration of Independence isn't worth the hemp it was written on."

— Terence McKenna

Like I said, some advice; stop smoking the stuff.


Random drug screenings kept the dope smokers out too.



But it kept the drunks and users of hard drugs in.

There was alot of drinking going on when I was in the Army. I Never saw illegal drug usage though. The drunks always had sober ones like me around to look after them. They weren't breaking any laws which is my whole point.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by primus2012
 



No it's nonsensical to argue them after you knowingly (with your self-thought and moral compass) break them and then get busted.


Like I said...

You would have made a fine slave catcher.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 02:14 AM
link   
Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed;
To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless!

thou didst shew them no mercy; upon the ancient hast thou very heavily laid thy yoke.

And ye were now turned, and had done right in my sight, in proclaiming liberty every man to his neighbour; and ye had made a covenant before me in the house which is called by my name: But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids.

The princes of Judah, and the princes of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, and the priests, and all the people of the land, which passed between the parts of the calf

And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage)

which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar—

but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.

And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.




edit on 26-3-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
47
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join