Interesting. Another story today about funding for schools, and the resistance to increased school funding. I do not know how direct the link is...but we know that un-educated citizens outside the mainstream are frequently the residents of our prisons. I would suspect that keeping people out of prison (which costs about as much as a nice hotel) is costs us more than than education.

(1) stop locking up nonviolent drug offenders
(2) legalize marijuana and regulate like alcohol
(3) offer actual treatment and job training to people within the system
There will come a time when society realizes that punishing
people simply for being addicts makes as much sense as
punishing them for having diabetes.

conflicts with the emotions tikitime exibits. Most people don't like providing their prison population with education and training proving a better opportunity when they get out. California tried an experiment where they provided vocational training for non-violent inmates interested in the opportunity. It turned out to be an incredible success and the recidivism rates dropped dramatically among non-violent inmates. Problem was, many in society argued it was rewarding criminals for bad behavior. Like Tikitime suggesting we shouldn't treat the inmates so well. We should treat them like animals because that's what they are. Not really, but it's easy to say that and forget about the whole issue.

So when it came time to pass legislation that would actually lower recidivism rates greatly California said: "no, we like higher recidivism rates if it means we have to actually rehabilitate our inmates."

Here's a DCJ document from Colorado outlining what works:

http://dcj.state.co.us/ors/pdf/docs/ww08_022808.pdf

So when I see people interested in lowering recidivism rates I have to ask the only question I can think of: Do you really want to lower recidivism rates? My guess is not really.

You want to compare it to a disease. It is more like AIDs. Selfish lifestyle choices increase risk of getting it. Lying and hiding it put everyone around you at risk. It is lethal left untreated. There are those who like to "share" without regard to the lives of others.

As one who has an actual chronic disease, one left unchecked would shorten my life span. I take great offense at those who pretend addiction is something the addict is powerless over. You seek treatment until you find the right balance to get it in check, period. If you don't it isn't a disease it is a choice.

I do think life training is needed for inmates. I actually think in drug cases longer sentences are in order. Not to be in little cells, but to get clean and learn how to live clean. Life essentials like room, board and medical covered. Rather than getting funds from the outside inmates should "earn" funds for the extras, like they will need to on the outside.

I have watched many people who truly want to stop drinking fall off the wagon over and over and over. Alcoholism, if left unchecked, will kill a person. That is what makes addiction a disease; it has a chemical basis. Looking down on addicts and passing judgment is totally not helpful.

I believe many people like knowing that lots of people are locked up because it gives them someone to look down on and pass judgment on. Even Dept of Corrections officials will tell you that there are many people locked up do not belong in jail. They say, "We don't make the laws; we just deal with the people who are sent to us." If people truly want to reduce recidivism, there are effective ways of doing it. And making jails harsher is not one of them.

Type 2 is still not comparable. It doesn't have the same risk factor as addiction or AIDs. Addiction is a threat not only to the user but those around them. If you don't think so you are fortunate enough to not have spent time around addicts. Or you are unfortunate enough to be one.

My stuffing my face to a diabetic coma does not pose the same risk to you as my smoking heroin next to you. There is my imparement which increases the risk of accident. My kit which could poison a child or get you hooked. There is always the risk of my driving while under the influence. Look at the faces of children removed from meth labs, dumps that whole addicts only hurt themselves theory right on it's bum.

If you have a disease you try to cure it or in the case of incurable you manage it. If the person with the addiction doesn't treat it like a disease why should I? I don't look down at addicts. I just refuse to put them on a pedestal and feel sorry for them. I hold them to the same standard I hold myself. I think they need help, but not the kind they want. The kind they need. Rehab and life skill training. 12-18 months versus 30 days.

So you think they should continue doing the time even after they have done the time? No jobs, no housing, no getting back into society -- ever? How then are we supposed to prevent recidivism? Or do you really want to?

Two years ago, I sat in on a hearing which was an overview of the dept. of corrections. The committee chairman asked a very high-up DOC official how the state could lower jail costs, and prevent building yet another new prison. Her response, in a nutshell, was this "About 1/3 of prisoners are violent, dangerous offenders who should be locked up for a long time. Another 1/3 have committed crimes, but are capable of being reformed and returning to society and are unlikely to reoffend. The final 1/3 do not belong in jail at all. They should not be locked up. The state should use alternatives, such as community service and electronic monitoring, to deal with these people." This is the truth. Of course, the for-profit prison industry and those who believe correctional officers should be a growth industry, will disagree.

"Sex offenders are considered violent offenders". The truth is most sex offenders are not violent. Many individuals on this registry are on it for looking at pictures or other "victim-less" crimes. One way to curb recidivism is to prepare a risk assessment on offenders rather than lumping low risk with high risk groups. When you lump low risk offenders with high risk you basically just increase the risk of recidivism.
And for example offer hope or a pathway by establishing tiers for the sex offender registry: 5yr, 10yr, 15yr Putting low risk offenders / victim-less crimes automatically on the register for 15 yrs gives little chance for the folks re-integrating into society. There are hundreds of people on the sex offender register in Alaska that should not be on it. Other states only put high risk groups on this register because the registry does more harm than good.

All addicts are selfish, period. I don't know that there is anything more selfish than an addict. Lucky you didn't place a bet on my not knowing an addict, would have lost. I have been cleaning up after them for years. Fed, clothed, housed everything. Pandering does not work, infact it creates a more selfish addict.

I will support and stand beside anyone honestly working to break through the addiction. But don't cry disease while stealing from me for your next fix. Don't you cry disease while your baby cries in a car seat for days on end. Don't cry disease and text your dealer while pulling out of the rehab parking lot.

after being a state for over 50 years, Dept. of Corrections is finally going to "try" to reduce recidivism. Wow, did someone learn a new word or just how to spell it? What has Dept. of Corrections been doing the last 50 years?

The headline should read, Dept. of Corrections figures out its mission!