home

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! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

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" >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    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.

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


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

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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?

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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...f