Unnecessary Crime Brought To You By The ACLU

The answer to overcrowded prisons are bigger ones

The ACLU continues to file lawsuits to protest overcrowded prisons. The ACLU sues prisons they know they have the best chance of winning. In the end, the ACLU wins virtually every case.

In the three years after the ACLU wins, the prison population in these states drops by 15% relative to other states. The result: violent crime and property crime rise by 10% and five percent, respectively.

Moreover, an analysis by the authors of Super Freakonomics, Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, found the total impact of TV on crime in the 1960's was an increase of 50% in property crimes and 25% in violent crimes. The data, however, failed to provide answers as to why.

In response to the ACLU law suits, why aren't bigger and/or more prisons being built? Why should citizens be subject to more crime, criminal investigation costs, and policing/court costs? Likewise, if we have tied specific prison sentences to specific crimes, why are we reducing sentences? The sentences no longer fit the crimes committed and justice is no longer served. The deterrent to committing crime has been significantly reduced.

In addition to rewarding criminals with shorter sentences, the cost to society is enormous. There are social, emotional, and mental costs that remain with the victims for the rest of their lives.

The public needs to demand enough prisons and space to accommodate full-term sentences for everyone, except in special cases where parole is warranted.

How about cheap prisons like the tent city Sheriff Arpaio used? Whether you agreed with Sheriff Arpaio or not, we must have the capacity necessary to hold all of our sentenced criminals for their full sentences.

Keep criminals behind bars and society will best be served.