> And there are more jails and prisons than colleges and universities in this country
This seems reasonable to me, considering how people end up in jail and college, respectively.
College is something people generally go to voluntarily, with the consent of their family, and generally at a time when they are transitioning from living with the parents as a dependent to living as an independent adult. They are looking forward to their adult life, and putting childhood behind. They often seek a college away from their home region, as part of asserting their independence.
Most people who end up in jail didn't get there voluntarily. Sure, we could reduce the number of jails significantly. The majority of them are fairly small local facilities, serving a city or a county, and their population often is mostly people serving less than a year, or people who have not even been convicted yet but either could not make bail or are being held on charges too serious to allow bail. It would probably be more efficient to close all of those and move those prisoners to a few big facilities.
I don't think most of the affected prisoners would like that, though. It would make it a lot harder for their families to visit them. It would make it harder for those awaiting trial to meet with their lawyers.
I think it would be best if we had enough jails and prisons to allow most prisoners to be kept somewhere within a couple hours travel from their family, so that their spouse, kids, and friends can reasonably visit them every visiting day.
To put things in perspective, the U.S. has the second largest incarceration rate in the world, behind only Seychelles, which is tiny enough to be statistically aberrant. Despite the many similarities of Canada to the U.S., Canada has just one sixth the number of people in prison. With this statistic in mind you'd think the lawless streets of Canada would be far more violent and dangerous than those of the U.S., but exactly the opposite is the case. Something strange is going on in the U.S..
The best theory I've seen put forth is that prison's are a booming for-profit industry in the U.S., and profits breed corruption. Consider the "Kids for Cash" scandal from a few years back in Pennsylvania.
To sum up, a judge was found guilty of accepting bribes to sentence minors to a specific jail for minor offenses. The child incarceration rate was apparently not naturally high enough to support the prison, so steps were taken.
If a top to bottom examination of the U.S.'s justice system were made, there is little doubt that prison time is handed out more liberally than is warranted to deter and rehabilitate criminals. So, the fact that there are more prisons than colleges in your nation should seem alarming rather "reasonable".
I'm Canadian, and we're starting to see american style prisons, longer sentences, and a correspondingly higher incarceration rate with higher security prisons and, worst of all, proportionally more prisoners in solitary confinement. Our politicians make hay on being "tough on crime" even when all evidence suggests longer sentences provide no deterrent to first-time or repeat offenders. There is increasing evidence that solitary confinement, besides being inhumane, acts against the interests of rehabilitation. Canada, and many other nations as well, need to observe what's gone wrong in the U.S.'s justice system so that they can avoid making the same mistakes. In Canada, there were two private correctional facilities, but both have reverted to government control. This is good, but private prison companies continue to lobby the government for contract business. They must be denied. Private enterprises may be more efficient at many things, but the justice system must prioritize results and a lack of corruption above all else.
> The best theory I've seen put forth is that prison's are a booming for-profit industry in the U.S., and profits breed corruption.
Corruption need not be direct, or directly for profit. The Corrections Officers' Union in California is a formidable force. They can make sure that only those "tough on crime(tm)" get elected; and until recently, they were all for prison expansion, harsher sentencing (remember "three strikes"?), etc.
This seems reasonable to me, considering how people end up in jail and college, respectively.
College is something people generally go to voluntarily, with the consent of their family, and generally at a time when they are transitioning from living with the parents as a dependent to living as an independent adult. They are looking forward to their adult life, and putting childhood behind. They often seek a college away from their home region, as part of asserting their independence.
Most people who end up in jail didn't get there voluntarily. Sure, we could reduce the number of jails significantly. The majority of them are fairly small local facilities, serving a city or a county, and their population often is mostly people serving less than a year, or people who have not even been convicted yet but either could not make bail or are being held on charges too serious to allow bail. It would probably be more efficient to close all of those and move those prisoners to a few big facilities.
I don't think most of the affected prisoners would like that, though. It would make it a lot harder for their families to visit them. It would make it harder for those awaiting trial to meet with their lawyers.
I think it would be best if we had enough jails and prisons to allow most prisoners to be kept somewhere within a couple hours travel from their family, so that their spouse, kids, and friends can reasonably visit them every visiting day.