The "Let's Put More People In Jail" Stimulus Grants

By Jeralyn, Section Economy
Posted on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 10:02:32 AM EST
Tags: stimulus (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Here are the final numbers of grants to law enforcement for lock em up programs:

Violence against women prevention and prosecution programs $225,000,000
Southern border and high-intensity drug trafficking areas $30,000,000
ATF Project Gunrunner $10,000,000
Internet crimes against children initiatives $50,000,000
Rural drug crime program $125,000,000
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants $1,000,000,000
Justice Department salaries and expenses for administration of police grant programs $10,000,000
Office of Justice Programs state and local law enforcement assistance (Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants) $2,000,000,000

[More...]

Among the other law-enforcement grants not designed to lock to people up:

Crime victim assistance $100,000,000
State and local law enforcement assistance to Indian tribes $225,000,000
State and local law enforcement assistance grants to improve criminal justice systems, assist crime victims and mentor youth $225,000,000

As I said the other day, this reads like a Joe Biden crime bill.

< When Legal Realism Attacks | From "Drill, Baby Drill" To "It's The Economy, Stupid" >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

The "Let's Put More People In Jail" Stimulus Grants | 22 comments (22 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Jeralyn (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by jbindc on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 10:13:49 AM EST

Do you disagree with all of these grants? Seems violence against women prevention and prosecution programs and internet crimes against children initiatives seem to be good things. As for the others, I would have to look at more detail, but they can't all be bad things.

yes I disagree with all of them (none / 0) (#2)
by Jeralyn on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 10:23:00 AM EST

and they don't belong in an economic stimulus program.


: Ok, fair enough. (none / 0) (#3)
by jbindc on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 10:25:49 AM EST

: Why do you disagree (none / 0) (#4)
by SOS on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 10:35:33 AM EST

with them?

Good things in theory... (none / 0) (#5)
by kdog on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 10:39:23 AM EST

nobody is a fan of wife beaters or child abusers or anything...the question is how will the receivers of the cheese spend the money?

Law enforcement agencies receiving a sudden windfall is usually bad news for liberty, and is often not used as intended, or fails to achieve the results intended...instead offering up negative unintended consequences.


So... (none / 0) (#6)
by jbindc on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 10:44:46 AM EST

we should just throw up our hands and say "people are gonna do what they're gonna do"? Seriously - do you want to disband all police forces and let people really live without rules?


Not disband... (none / 0) (#9)
by kdog on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 11:00:58 AM EST

but greatly reduce and place more limitations on police power...legalize drugs and focus more on violent crime.


Add... (none / 0) (#12)
by kdog on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 11:50:04 AM EST

I'd like the rules to jive a little more with human nature, and certainly have less of them...you bet.

In a free society, you have to to accept a certain level of crime and bad behavior...deal with it when it occurs, but you have to accept that it is gonna happen as long as your society is free. The only alternative is tyranny...we don't want that.


I guess the problem is (none / 0) (#14)
by jbindc on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 12:03:02 PM EST

You and I may differ on what is "bad behavior" and what is criminal. I agree with you on some of the drug laws, but that doesn't mean I think weed should be able to purchased by minors at 7-11. I don't think people should be allowed to smoke weed, or drink alcohol and drive. I don't think kids who beat up other kids should get slaps on the wrists because "boys will be boys".

No, I agree that we don't want tyranny, but we need SMART laws and we need people to enforce them correctly.


: The rub, as always,... (none / 0) (#18)
by kdog on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 12:26:11 PM EST

is the people...flawed as ever. And the societal systems we have created, especially the law and law enforcement.
That's why I like to error on the side of liberty and freedom, everytime. People can be held accountable, you can't put a bueracratic system in jail.
Where we differ I think is the amount of crime (real crime with victims, not the nonsense that passes as crime) we are willing to accept. I think I can accept a higher degree of crime and danger than the average joe, but I have much less tolerance for the police state and bueracratic tyranny...kind of a personal taste thing.
For example, I shrugged off my house being robbed pretty quickly, chalked it up as a loss of doing business on planet earth, didn't even report it. I'm still stewing over being chained to a bench over some reefer a decade ago...for a little perspective on where I'm coming from with my brand of madness:) Personally I have no use for police...I have a personal oath never to call them for anything...ever.

"Good things in theory..." (none / 0) (#13)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 11:59:36 AM EST

Par for the course in much of our gvt...


You said it... (none / 0) (#15)
by kdog on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 12:09:28 PM EST

one of the most dangerous sentences I know is "somebody should do something about 'x'"...if I had a nickel for everytime the something we did blew up in our faces.

I believe the saying goes "it is better to do the wrong thing than to do nothing" or something like that...I never was too sure about that one, sometimes nothing is preferable to the wrong thing.


Lotsa people saying exactly that (none / 0) (#16)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 12:10:39 PM EST

about the "stimulus."


: "Stimulus..." (none / 0) (#17)
by kdog on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 12:15:25 PM EST

looks a lot like a death warrant to me, but what the hell do I know except what I was taught, in this case the lesson I recall is "money doesn't grow on trees".

Well, (5.00 / 0) (#10)
by bocajeff on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 11:05:31 AM EST

If Sexually Transmitted Disease education is an economic stimulus then so is crime prevention...

One of the major flaws of this stimulus bill is that it really isn't an economic stimulus bill. It's a laundry list of pet projects designed to look like a stimulus bill.

Very little will actually promote economic activity. And there is nothing in this bill which attacks the underlying economic issue: the credit markets and housing...

: Exactly (none / 0) (#11)
by SOS on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 11:16:50 AM EST

it's more like a package to try to buy us some time to get used to being 6% of the worlds populations consuming 5% of the worlds resources instead of consuming 25% or higher.

Was prison construction removed? (none / 0) (#7)
by Ben Masel on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 10:50:06 AM EST

New FBI HQ?

: Doubt it (none / 0) (#8)
by SOS on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 11:00:37 AM EST

It will probably be another million years at this rate before prisons become meaningless.

Doubt down-the-line expenses are included (none / 0) (#19)
by jonell on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 02:07:01 PM EST

Unless there's something new here, these programs can end up creating a lot of problems for state and local governments. Adding new cops means more court cases, but these grants seldom include funds for more public defenders, more judges, and more treatment programs. Our PDs (Clark County, Nevada) currently have a caseload of around 400 gross misdemeanor and felony clients per attorney and our County says it doesn't have enough money to pay for more attorneys. We can't handle hundreds of new cops hitting the streets.

: This will be a repeat of what happened (none / 0) (#20)
by JSN on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 04:50:55 PM EST

last time they did this. The courts and jails will become even more
overloaded than they are now.
We saw a big increase in misdemeanor arrests with little or no increase in felony arrests plus a lot of problems with young inexperienced cops who had no idea how to deal with challenges to their authority.
This is bad news for local governments.

Ouch Jeralyn (none / 0) (#21)
by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 06:45:30 PM EST

It is difficult to see you dogging grants for the prevention of violence against women. Those shelters and counseling services used to be great places to donate unneeded household items and clothing because often when a woman is attempting to leave an abuser they must start from zero. There isn't even one within a thirty mile radius of me and only one serving Dothan. I think there are services for women that exist in only Dothan, Birmingham, Mobile, and Auburn. There is only one word for that reality......pathetic.

: I don't think (none / 0) (#22)
by JamesTX on Sat Feb 14, 2009 at 05:10:31 PM EST

this money will go to women's services. It will go to law enforcement, meaning that it will create more (and more comfortable and profitable) jobs for police. Actual benefits for women will still have to come from somewhere else.