home

Local Jail Population Drops For First Time in 28 Years

By Jeralyn, Section Inmates and Prisons
Posted on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 11:43:14 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

For the first time since 1982, the inmate population at local jails across the country has declined.

The government says the number of inmates in county and city jails was more than 767,600 at the end of June 2009. That's down by nearly 18,000 inmates from a year earlier.

The top six local incarcerators in 2008 and 2009: LA, NYC, Houston, Chicago, Philly and Phoenix:

Los Angeles County Calif. 19,533/ 19,869
New York City N.Y. 13,804/ 13,130
Harris County Texas 10,063 /11,360
Cook County Ill. 9,984/ 9,737
Philadelphia City Pa. 8,824/ 9,436
Maricopa County Ariz. 9,536/ 8,745

The lowest: Denver and El Paso, TX. El Paso shows not every border town is a hotbed of crime. It's one of the safest cities in the country.

< Thursday Open Thread: Politics as Usual | Thursday Afternoon Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Local Jail Population Drops For First Time in 28 Years | 36 comments (36 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Those here illegally are not causing (none / 0) (#1)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 12:29:51 PM EST
    a crime wave.  The linked statistics prove that.....

    El Paso.  Right across the river from Juarez....Actually it is often thought of as one combined metroplex.

    El Paso has always been safe.  It has only about 10 murders a year....and has been that way for seemingly forever.  El Paso's demographics.  Today about 80% Latino.  The statistics would show that Latino communities have less crime....

    Also, of note:  El Paso has a high concentration of lithium in its water supply.....

    Juarez used to be wonderfully safe too.  Church outings would be done across the border in parks in Juarez.  People would go shopping or out to eat at fancy restaurants there all the time....It was fun, festive.   The tragedy of the drug wars has changed all that.

    Since I think it's safe to say that, (none / 0) (#3)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 01:39:44 PM EST
    since some of those here illegally do cause crime, there would be less crime here without them.

    iow, there was nothing in J's post about any "crime wave," so I'm not sure why you chose to interject it.

    Anyway, re: el Paso:

    How has El Paso managed to escape the grisly mayhem going on across the border [in Juarez, Mexico]?

    The chief explanation, according to experts on the drug trade, is that the traffickers have kept their base of operations on the Mexican side and do very little business in El Paso itself.

    One explanation given: While violence tends to follow drugs and money, in El Paso the drugs and money are mostly just passing through, said David Cuthbertson, the FBI agent in charge in El Paso. Cuthbertson said the marijuana and cocaine smuggled across the border are bound for bigger cities, including Phoenix and Los Angeles.

    El Paso has also been spared drug violence because the Mexican cartels have managed their operations from Mexico, with its lower cost of living and "easier-to-buy-off police," said Peter Moskos, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

    Howard Campbell, a sociologist at the University of Texas-El Paso and expert on the violence in Juarez, said the Mexican cartels learned a lesson from the Colombian druglords who set up operations in Miami -- that causing mayhem on the U.S. side can bring a crackdown from law enforcement.

    "In a way you could say Miami was kind of an experiment and Mexican cartel people wouldn't want that to happen again," Campbell said.



    Parent
    But to get rid of (none / 0) (#5)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:35:31 PM EST
    that very small percentage of a criminal element among those here illegally, you would have to root out so many, many others....

    You would cost the local communities a lot of money, as immigrants buy a lot of products and services here, and pay taxes in the form of at least sales and property taxes.

    Latino immigrants carry their own weight.  They are a net plus--in dollars and cents....

    And, thanks for your information on the Juarez cartels--it makes sense.....And it does help to dispel the demagogue appeal to nasty statutes like the Arizona one.  We do not need a border crackdown to stop the drug war from spilling over the border--because it isn't spilling over.

    Parent

    Well, I take a less one-sided pov of the issue. (none / 0) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 03:28:15 PM EST
    Logically, because some of those here illegally are involved in crime here, there would be less crime here if they were not here.

    Whether that's a valid reason to support, or not support, those here illegally is personal opinion.

    Local communities would almost assuredly not lose money if those communities did not have those here illegally.

    The money those here illegally spend in the local communities comes from the jobs they do here, so if those here illegally were not here, that work would be done by those here legally and that same money would be spent, albeit by those here legally.

    Lastly, this is from the actual AZ bill. I see no mention of "a border crackdown to stop the drug war from spilling over the border"

    Purpose

    Requires officials and agencies of the state and political subdivisions to fully comply with and assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws and gives county attorneys subpoena power in certain investigations of employers.  

    Establishes crimes involving trespassing by illegal aliens, stopping to hire or soliciting work under specified circumstances, and transporting, harboring or concealing unlawful aliens, and their respective penalties.



    Parent
    Most studies show (none / 0) (#8)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:10:36 PM EST
    that those here illegally contribute significant dollars to their communities.  

    If you just got rid of all 12 million people here illegally, you say that could be replaced by other people earning that income.....Just a theory....any evidence to support it?   The evidence tends to be that many Latinos take jobs that no one else wants....

    And, there were all kinds of hysteria in the news and cited by supporters of the bill about drug violence.  Just because the bill itself does not report it does not mean it was not part of the impetus behind the bill.  The anti-Latino intent is clear....Especially when considered with the companion bill outlawing Latino Studies classes.....

    The law on its face may sound neutral, but one must never only consider that.....The intent and manner of application matters.

    Parent

    Goodness (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:28:39 PM EST
    What is it about the fact the jobs are here and the money is here and it would be here if the undocumented workers were not here.... that you do not understand.

    That is not a theory, that is a simple irrefutable fact.

    Or do you claim that they bring pockets full of cash?

    Parent

    Look at any economic model (none / 0) (#14)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:55:04 PM EST
    or historical predecent, and a sudden loss of 12 million people--that usually comes with all kinds of bad things for an economy.

    You guys and your reliance on abstract concepts of "logic."  The real world answer is that the Latinos here provide value here--that is why they are here and accepted by businesses here.....It is all about the Laws of Supply and Demand, which conservatives typically worship--but I guess they make an exception on this point....

    Parent

    Quit making false arguments (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 10:37:42 PM EST
    No one is saying that we deport 12 million people.

    What I am saying is that the 12 million that are here brought nothing with them that would create anything. They took jobs that existed when they arrived. They brought large families of school age children and they surely don't pay around $5,000 per child in taxes for schools. They use our hospital's ER's as their family physician and Western Union as their bank to send money back to Mexico.

    I repeat. If they had not come illegally then the jobs would have been filled by citizens or people who were here legally.

    Supply and demand indeed.


    Parent

    Data posted on this thread show (none / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 02:10:16 AM EST
    your arguments are wrong.....

    Parent
    If having more people show up for the same (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 09:55:25 AM EST
    number of jobs helps the economy then the law of supply and demand has been repealed.

    I repeat. The jobs were here before they arrived.

    There is no way their "arrival" created anything except tax payer funded social services.


    Parent

    Dunno, the restaurants will still need busboys, (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:40:50 PM EST
    houses will still need painting, lawns will still need to be mowed, beef will still need to be processed, etc., whether it's done by those here legally or illegally.

    And, whether this work is done legally or illegally, the money will still be spent by the worker.

    And since much of the money earned by those here illegally gets wired back to relatives in their home country, I suppose much more money would be spent here if all the workers who earned that money were here legally.

    Granted, some - perhaps many - of those foreign nationals here legally also send money back to their home country, but clearly more would stay here if it wasn't being sent to foreign countries by those here illegally.

    Regarding AZ HB 2281 recently signed into law, it was absolutely not a "companion bill." A companion bill is "Similar or identical legislation which is introduced in the Senate and House." For cripe's sake.

    Are you just making it up as you go along?

    And the AZ law was the result of:

    HB 2281 bans schools from teaching classes that are designed for students of a particular ethnic group, promote resentment or advocate ethnic solidarity over treating pupils as individuals. The bill also bans classes that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government.

    The bill was written to target the Chicano, or Mexican American, studies program in the Tucson school system, said state Supt. of Public Instruction Tom Horne.

    Horne has been trying to end the program for years, saying it divides students by race and promotes resentment.

    He singled out one history book used in some classes, "Occupied America: A History of Chicanos," by Rodolfo Acuna, a professor and founder of the Chicano studies program at Cal State Northridge.

    Again, whether you think that's the type of slanted pov that should be taught or not in our public schools is personal opinion.

    Parent

    It was enacted at roughly the same time (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:00:21 PM EST
    by the same author of the papers please law....

    The anti-Latino intent is clear.....

    Keep pressing on this issue.  You are making sure Boxer wins in California, and Bennett in Colorado will have a better chance.  If you keep it up, you may even send Harry Reid back to Washington.

    And, some day, Texas will flip.  What will you do then?

    Parent

    I'll happily keep pressing on (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:34:07 PM EST
    your (intentional?) misinformation.

    But don't take it personally, I treat all misinformation I read on TL equally...

    Parent

    Well, I know of no misreprsentation (none / 0) (#20)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:35:11 PM EST
    If you find one, let me know....

    Parent
    Well, here's a relatively neutral analysis: (none / 0) (#21)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:47:20 PM EST
    Measured against the passions it arouses, immigration's economic consequences are surprisingly modest, economists say.

    Less than 5% of the nation's 148 million workers are illegal immigrants, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

    By one estimate, immigrants raise total economic output by $21.5 billion -- equivalent to less than one day of extra output each year.

    "We know that the net benefit of immigration is very small," says George Borjas, an economist at Harvard University who specializes in the subject.

    Transfer of wealth

    Yet, that tiny economywide number masks a major redistribution of wealth.

    The cross-border movement of generally low-skilled, low-educated immigrants has depressed wages for unskilled native workers while helping keep consumer prices under control and inflating profits for employers.

    Borjas estimates that workers lose $278 billion because of immigration, while employers gain $300 billion.

    "There's a huge redistribution away from workers to people who use immigrants. ... That's what people are arguing about," says Borjas, an immigration specialist.



    Parent
    The article you link to (none / 0) (#22)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 06:04:02 PM EST
    also states:

    Experts dispute the cost to government of illegal immigrants. Between 55% and 65% of illegal migrants have income and Social Security taxes withheld from their pay, says Jeffrey Passel of the Pew Hispanic Center. Those who buy or rent homes also pay property taxes. In communities that impose sales taxes, they pay those, too.

    However, illegal households also use government services, especially education and health care. The Center for Immigration Studies, which seeks tighter immigration controls, says each illegal household costs the federal government $2,700 annually. But Passel says other estimates show a small net benefit to society.

    So, Latinos pay taxes and are a (small) net benefit to society.  The downside--(allegedly)depressing wages of the native unskilled workers.....That is the entire reason that illegal immigration is opposed by high wage Republican Tea Baggers?

    Why the reaction against Spanish being spoken here, why the purge of teachers with Spanish accents, why the abolition of Latino Studies classes....

    Rove gets it.  So did George W. Bush, for Pete's sake....

     

    Parent

    The article you link to (none / 0) (#23)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 06:04:24 PM EST
    also states:

    Experts dispute the cost to government of illegal immigrants. Between 55% and 65% of illegal migrants have income and Social Security taxes withheld from their pay, says Jeffrey Passel of the Pew Hispanic Center. Those who buy or rent homes also pay property taxes. In communities that impose sales taxes, they pay those, too.

    However, illegal households also use government services, especially education and health care. The Center for Immigration Studies, which seeks tighter immigration controls, says each illegal household costs the federal government $2,700 annually. But Passel says other estimates show a small net benefit to society.

    So, Latinos pay taxes and are a (small) net benefit to society.  The downside--(allegedly)depressing wages of the native unskilled workers.....That is the entire reason that illegal immigration is opposed by high wage Republican Tea Baggers?

    Why the reaction against Spanish being spoken here, why the purge of teachers with Spanish accents, why the abolition of Latino Studies classes....

    Rove gets it.  So did George W. Bush, for Pete's sake....

     

    Parent

    Like I said, it's a pretty even-handed analysis... (none / 0) (#24)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 06:16:43 PM EST


    Parent
    What does the anti-Latino Studies bill (none / 0) (#16)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:11:46 PM EST
    have to do with illegal immigration?  Or crime?  

    Better Question:  What does it have to do with "taking our country back from them?"

    You really don't see it?

    Illegal immigration in Arizona is down--according to the measure used, which is detentions of those crossing illegally.

    Violent crime in Arizona is down--significantly.

    Yet, we hear all this hysteria about illegal aliens invading Arizona.....

    What else is going on?  A bad economy.  And scapegoating immigrants and minorities.  A classic, age-old story.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 10:44:10 PM EST
    I am not going to let you get away with that claim.

    No one is scapegoating legal immigrants. It is the ones flooding into the country without permission that is the problem.

    And you know I am right.

    Parent

    I do not believe you (none / 0) (#34)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 02:13:38 AM EST
    True test:  make everyone here legal by regsitering etc.  Would that satisfy those concerned about illegal immigration?  Of course not...The issue is too many brown people.....Too much Spanish being spoken......

    Parent
    That is not the problem (none / 0) (#35)
    by nyjets on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 05:10:29 AM EST
    The problem is that economy can not handle any more immgrants (legal or illegal). There are 2 few jobs as it is. If we are going to protect the economy and American citizen's jobs we have to limit immigration.

    Parent
    In a down economy (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 11:04:36 AM EST
    immigration is sharply curtailed.  If there are no jobs, people will not come....

    Parent
    The fact that you do not believe (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 08:35:24 AM EST
    is meaningless.

    Parent
    And, how could I forget, (none / 0) (#17)
    by MKS on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:15:45 PM EST
    the witch hunt of teachers with accents.....

    What does that have to do with illegal immigration or crime?

    Parent

    Maricopa County, AZ (none / 0) (#2)
    by Zorba on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 01:29:16 PM EST
    has fewer incarcerations?  Sheriff Joe Arpaio must be off his feed.  (/snark)

    No wonder... (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 02:22:01 PM EST
    he flirted with the idea of running for office...he's got less people under his thumb to kick around.

    First decrease since '82...wow.  Lets hope it is the start of a new 30 year trend, this time in the right direction...and that it spreads to prisons too.

    Parent

    Or else you don't know (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:29:27 PM EST
    the facts..

    snark

    Parent

    That is why we have (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:31:48 PM EST
    the military. To protect our borders.

    I don't understand why it is only Repubs and Tea Party people that know that.

    Must be something in the water.

    Somethings got to give.. (none / 0) (#12)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 04:40:05 PM EST
    between protecting our borders, rooting out radical Islam and thwarting creeping socialist dictatorships around the world..

    Even our creditors the Chinese are going to start looking at bankrolling an overextended Late Roman Empire as a bad bet.

    Parent

    And your point is what?? (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 06:56:23 PM EST
    That you have another dumb position re what? That the military is stressed?

    What do you think its condition was around 6-3-43??????????

    gesh.

    Parent

    Gesh (none / 0) (#26)
    by jondee on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 07:46:31 PM EST
    in 1943 we weren't already in debt to a totalitarian dictatorship to the tune of tens-of-billions.

    One striking similarity though, is that in 1943 we had another President who Planet Wingnut swore would destroy this country forever..

    Parent

    I started working when I was 14 and outside of 10 (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 10:25:46 PM EST
    years of service in Naval Aviation I never worked for the government.

    So if we want to talk about where we live and what we do I don't have to live through the accomplishments of someone else waving some new state law or regulation.

    And I certainly understand that what you were saying is that we should surrender to the flood of people coming across the borders instead of standing up and telling Mexico to correct their own problems and then doing the legal and correct thing.... protect our borders.

    Too bad you can't figure that out instead of passing out snarks.

    Parent

    "progressive" definition of a troll: (none / 0) (#36)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Jun 04, 2010 at 07:52:47 AM EST
    Someone they disagree with.  

    Parent
    Although apparently the military (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 07:52:08 PM EST
    is very restricted, at least as to National Guard, as to what they can and cannot do at the border.  For example:  cannot carry loaded firearms (and no, I am not advocating shooting undocumjented migranets).

    Parent
    Crime rate in San Diego County, (none / 0) (#18)
    by oculus on Thu Jun 03, 2010 at 05:22:22 PM EST
    which borders Mexico, is ok.  Crime rate in Tijuana and Baja is horrendous.  Same as Juarez:  federales, local police, drug cartels shooring each other.  

    Local Jail Population Drops For First Time in 28 Years | 36 comments (36 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment