Could we use house arrest more often for non violent offenders?

 We all know we have a major issue with our criminal justice system and that there are too many people in prison, especially non violent offenders. I have to think that in many many many cases non violent offenders would have a spouse/family member both capable and happy to support a loved one who was allowed house arrest as an option. It just seems like both a simpler, cheaper(Quick google fu puts the cost of housing an inmate in the pen at $25,000-$30,000) and more human system. The only two downsides I am seeing is an argument can be made that people are not truly being punished and that a program like this will be biased towards whites/the rich. I would argue though that there are controls against both issues and that the good of not having non violent offenders reenter society violent after being raped and tortured in jail outweighs that negative.

Anyways, anyone know anything about this? I know little about the issue and am really curious if this is typical it takes forever for us to adapt to doing the common sense thing, or if there are costs and issues I am overlooking.

Don't forget when you throw non violent probably harmless people into prison and mix them with harden criminals, what do you think these guys will learn while they are inside there and who their new role models are.

Any idea what the cost of an ankle monitor is?

An ankle monitor could be cheaper than jailing somebody for six months to a year at any given time. House arrest could benefit the richer non-violent offenders. But if you're poor and you have nothing, I imagine being stuck in the same place day after day could drive somebody crazy, having a refrigerator or not.

The costs of running our prison system is just astounding, close to a trillion dollars per year! How much of that money could be better spent preventing people from committing acts that would get them arrested in the first place?! And it certainly doesn't help that our social systems are designed in such a way that the poor are screwed from the moment they are born ie the "school to prison pipeline."

You could say charge them room and board for their time in prison. That's unfeasible as well, as people can be jailed for not being able to pay the court fees involved with their original misdemeanor or felony. How can you expect them to pay for their prison time?

The solution is eliminating as many non-violent crimes from the books as possible, not altering the mode of punishment.

Feeding the Abscess said:

The solution is eliminating as many non-violent crimes from the books as possible, not altering the mode of punishment.

Click to expand...

I might agree with you but I highly doubt we are just going to empty the prisons of offenders already convicted. I also do not have the best hope for reform that decriminalizes many of these things. In the mean time why not try to find the most cost effective humane way?

detectiveconan16 said:

An ankle monitor could be cheaper than jailing somebody for six months to a year at any given time. House arrest could benefit the richer non-violent offenders. But if you're poor and you have nothing, I imagine being stuck in the same place day after day could drive somebody crazy, having a refrigerator or not.

Click to expand...

Give any man Xbox live and cheetos for 6-9 months and he'll be fine.

I will say this, the example Obama used to support his stance is complete horse shit. Saying the money saved from not housing non violent criminals is enough to give all Americans free college. Would it ever go towards that? No. So in reality, it doesn't effect you or I at all. Just a rich get richer scheme.

To further elaborate, if you're a criminal take your ass to prison. I don't care if you steal shit, murder, drive while under the influence, sell drugs, do drugs, smuggle drugs whatever.

Who's to say where the line is drawn between violent and non-violent anyway? Involuntary manslaughter would be filed under what? that.