The fact that the United States imprisons more of its citizens than any other nation on earth has been previously discussed - see United States - A Nation of Criminals.

There are approximately 2.3 million Americans in jail, equivalent to 1 out of every 100 Americans.  America has in its jails almost 25% of the entire prison population in the world, yet we represent only 5% of the world’s population.   Sentencing for similar crimes in other nations results in much smaller prison sentences.

The increase in jail sentences has skyrocketed since the mid 1970’s when America was more in line with the rest of the world,  imprisoning only around 110 people per 100,000.   What would be considered a mild crime in another country, such as writing a bad check, results in prison time in the United States.

Jail time for drug use has grown with “get tough” drug policies which have done nothing to discourage rampant drug abuse.  A record total of 7.2 million people in 2007 were either in jail, on parole or on probation.   Black males in the 20 to 39 age group represented a third of all people incarcerated.  Convicted criminals lose the right to vote which further alienates them from society.

A more enlightened attitude towards imposing harsh jail sentences on non violent offenders is now being considered by some as a smarter way to deal with crime.

After decades of supercharged incarceration rates, our bloated prison system is straining under its own weight, and policy makers are finally being forced to deal with the need to shrink it.

According to a study last year by The Pew Center on the States entitled “One in 100: Behind bars in America 2008,” the prison population of the United States has nearly quadrupled over the last 25 years while the nation’s population has grown by less than a third.

This comes at a cost. According to a report published last month by the Vera Institute of Justice, an independent, nonprofit research group, $1 in every $15 from states’ general funds is now spent on corrections. That doesn’t work in a recession.

Much of the rise in the prison population was because of draconian mandatory sentencing laws that are illogical — sociologically and economically.

On the sociological side, as the criminal justice expert Joel Dvoskin of the University of Arizona explained to me, data overwhelmingly support the idea that locking up low-risk, nonviolent offenders makes them worse, not better.

A study from a decade ago that was published in the journal American Psychologist put it this way: “Department of corrections data show that about a fourth of those initially imprisoned for nonviolent crimes are sentenced a second time for committing a violent offense. Whatever else it reflects, this pattern highlights the possibility that prison serves to transmit violent habits and values rather than to reduce them.”

There are encouraging signs that policy makers are moving in the right direction. Many states have moved to repeal mandatory minimums, and there is a bill in Congress to repeal federal mandatory sentencing. Furthermore, Attorney General Eric Holder seems to be thinking about this issue the right way. Speaking to the American Bar Association last week, he said, “There is no doubt that we must be tough on crime. But we must also commit ourselves to being smart on crime. … We need to adopt what works.”

If imprisoning 1 out of every 100 Americans had resulted in virtually eliminating crime, our current policies would make a lot of sense.  Since our current policy has not eliminated crime but in fact is probably producing more violent criminals, a serious look at reforming the system is needed.  Many violent criminals certainly belong in jail, some even deserve capital punishment but the current system seems to have spun out of control with negative consequences for all involved.  An in depth review of mandatory sentences and alternatives to prison time for non violent offenders seems long overdue.

Can Mexico Win The War On Drug Dealers?

One defining characteristic of a weak central government is a weak military.  The Mexican military forces appear to be underpaid, underequiped and demoralized.  Under these circumstances, vulnerability to bribes increases geometrically.  Consider the first hand account of the wife of a Mexican army officer.

Plenty of policy makers agonize over the issue, but having lived on a military base in Mexico as the wife of a Mexican officer, I know that the biggest problem is simple — underequipped, unsupported and absurdly underpaid sailors and soldiers.

In November 2005, we moved into a house on base infested with cockroaches. They spilled out of holes in the walls and watched us from the tops of the door frames. We paid for the fumigation ourselves and then for curtains for the bare windows. The kitchen had only a sink and one counter, so we bought our own stove and refrigerator. We paid for utilities — which included space heaters in the winter and gas tanks that lasted a month and ran out midshower, and we spent a fortune on phone cards for the pay phone down the street. In the summer, we just opened the windows for a breeze. A green mold grew all over our clothing in the closets, and a black mold grew on the concrete walls.

As an officer, my husband earned about $1,000 a month. Although our family of four struggled financially, the sailors suffered much more. Their salaries, which despite recent increases are frequently under $600 a month, often have to support a wife, children and the occasional elderly parent. Many of them make extra cash sending their children door to door selling tamales and cookies that their wives make. Some take on second and third jobs.

In the spring of 2007, a Mexican marine walked up to my husband and said, forcefully, “Lieutenant Castillo, look at me!” Juan was surprised that the soldier had spoken so disrespectfully until he noticed that something about the man’s bulletproof vest looked odd. Upon closer inspection, he saw that the marine was not wearing a bulletproof vest at all, but instead had been given a life jacket that had been painted black to look like one.

This was the force that President Calderón deployed at the end of 2006 and early 2007 to rid the states of Michoacán and Baja California of corrupt police officers and fight the drug dealers directly. I thought it was the right move, despite the military’s shortcomings. The police force is notoriously corrupt, but the navy and the army are relatively free of infiltration by the cartels.

Still, a navy official once told my horrified husband that two men had offered him a large sum of money in exchange for information about the navy’s boat movements and patrol schedule. He told the men he didn’t have that information and that if they wanted it, they should go and ask the commandant of the base. When Juan tried to find out more, the official said, “The less involved you are, the safer you’ll be.”

What would make us all safer is straightforward — higher salaries and better weapons for the Mexican military. After all, the cartels already have money and weapons, which they use against those who stand in their way — to buy the ones who can be corrupted and brutally murder the rest.

When the police and military can be easily corrupted by the drug lords, the Mexican government’s chance of  winning the drug war are extremely limited.  The Mexican government seems powerless to stop the execution of government officials charged with fighting the drug war.  Many times, the police and military are outgunned in their battles with the drug cartels.  The drug lords apparently have an unlimited amount of financial resources available to defend themselves.

Since a government victory seems improbable, perhaps a classic “Mexican standoff” is the best result the government can hope for against a foe that employs the most ruthless methods available to remain in business.  The battle between being the drug cartels and the Mexican government have thus far resulted in minor collateral damage to civilians or tourists not directly involved in the conflict.  Should the Mexican government ever succeed to the point that the  survival of the drug lords is in question, that’s when ruthless desperation tactics by the drug lords could turn this battle into a nightmare.

The Cancun area produces many billions in needed tourist revenue for the Mexican government.  Anyone who has ever visited the area knows that there is a minimal military and police presence in the area.   One or two attacks on a minimally defended resort in the Cancun area that results in the deaths of tourists would quickly collapse the tourist trade to Mexico and put tremendous political and economic pressure on the Mexican government.   Given the nightmare scenario that could be generated by a handful of well armed and trained terrorists, perhaps the best outcome at this point would be a stalemate situation where neither side feels the need to deploy desperation tactics.

From The “Hard to Believe” Files

How does a postal employee steal $600,000 worth of stamps over a period of 10 years without the Post Office noticing that it’s stamps are missing??

Postal Clerk Admits $600,000 Stamp Theft

A Howard County postal clerk pilfered more than $600,000 worth of stamps, many of which were sold on eBay at a reduced price, federal authorities said.

Marvin L. Foster, 55, of Rosedale, who worked as a clerk at the Elkridge post office for a decade, pleaded guilty Thursday in U.S. District Court in Baltimore to conspiracy to steal from the U.S. Postal Service.

According to the U.S. attorney’s office for Maryland, Foster stole the stamps and then sold them to others for a profit. One of his alleged co-conspirators sold more than $259,000 worth of stamps on eBay for about $229,000, authorities said.

Foster was caught on hidden camera several times in December as he sneaked into the post office supply room and rifled through boxes of “forever” stamps, according to court documents. The stamps, which never expire, come in bricks of 2,000 stamps worth $840 as well as coils of 100 stamps that cost $42.

Certain questions, not covered in the Washington Post story, really need to be answered by the involved parties in this theft.

• If the Post Office took a decade to realize that a post office branch was missing $600,000 in stamps, one has to wonder how many other thefts took place or are taking place that have not yet been uncovered.

• Any private business that holds inventory conducts routine physical audits to spot shortages and verify inventory values.   Does the Post Office not conduct routine physical inventory counts to compare to recorded stamp inventory on their financial records?  If inventories are not conducted they should be, and if they are conducted, the Post Office procedures are obviously not very effective.

• How does EBAY not ask questions or investigate the sale of US Postal Stamps being sold at a discount?  Stamps are not sold by the Post Office at a discount based on volume.  Simple logic would suggest that anyone selling US Postal stamps at less than face value is probably selling stolen stamps.

The Postal Service has seen a severe decline in business due to the growth of email and on line bill payment services, etc. which obviate the need for physical mail delivery.  Instead of downsizing or becoming more efficient as volume declines, the Post Office solution has been to continuously raise rates which, of course, is self defeating.   That the Postal Service is in dire need of restructuring seems obvious to many - what is not obvious is why it hasn’t been done.