it climb so much from 1980 to 2006?

Here's a good read:

and we could close half the prisons in this country. It would save a bundle.

Do you?

jailers, all to the absolute detriment of society.

for the growth of the for-profit prison industry. I'm sure the correlation won't surprise anyone here.

Any time an industry is created it must continually grow to satisfy the investors...and once it has the power of money to lobby then that growth is certain...
Some things should NOT be for profit.

...istration in 1970.

http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/obama-federal-prison-budget

Obama Budget: Grow Prisons and Keep Gitmo
As broke states try to shed nonviolent inmates, the federal detention machine looks to expand.
—By James Ridgeway and Jean Casella
| Wed Feb. 22, 2012 3:00 AM PST

President Obama's budget request for fiscal year 2013 includes cuts to everything from Medicare and Medicaid to defense and even homeland security. But federal prisons are among its "biggest winners," according to an analysis by the Federal Times. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is seeking a 4.2 percent increase, one of the largest of any federal agency, which would bring its total budget to more than $6.9 billion.

So what kind of criminals are we spending all this money to incarcerate? If you're thinking terrorists and kidnappers, think again. According to the Sentencing Project, only 1 in 10 federal prisoners is locked up for a violent offense of any kind. More than half are drug offenders—hardly surprising, since federal prosecutions for drug offenses more than doubled between 1984 and 2005. The 1980s also produced mandatory minimum sentences, which meant we were not only sending more people to prison, we were keeping them there far longer—a perfect formula for an exploding prison population.
....

chart:




Looks like the significant increases in both population and dollars to support it occurred prior to 2009.

In fact, the article states that from 1980 and 2010, the budget grew 1,700 percent and the population increased 800 percent.

It appears to be slowing significantly since 2009.

Budgets still increasing dramatically.

And all you can do is knee-jerk into trying to manufacture a non-existent turning point in 2009, trying desperately to make sure the Obama administration escapes the blame.

It is so so tired, so utterly predictable, this constant effort to frame *everything* solely in terms of whether President Obama can be protected.

...nonsense. A 4.3 percent increase for budget that increased 1,700 percent since 1980, isn't "dramatically." In fact, with the decrease in prison population for two consecutive years, likely means the increases are slowing.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002430710


What's that about? Are you trying to blame him for the 1,700 percent increase? Do you see the top chart in your OP? It ends at 2006.

There's really no alternative to judging a sitting president differently than one for whom the end result of their policies is visible. We have to look at what CHANGES Obama is making, because it's entirely reasonable to presume that, with no policy change, a forty-year trend is likely to continue.

Any serious steps to end the drug war would make a HUGE difference in these numbers, but it would take years to show. Almost nothing but a mass pardon of all drug crimes, or a mass roundup of somebody, will significantly affect the numbers in the short-term.

Fair Sentencing Act already resulted in more than 12,000 people being released because it was retroactive.

Last edited Fri Mar 16, 2012, 12:06 PM - Edit history (2)

war on the LEAST dangerous, even medically-approved drug users, rather than putting on the brakes.

reprehensible and wholly indefensible? Here's betting someone will.

This is not sustainable... this is bound to overwhelm the system.

whose entire business model for profit depends on increasing the number of people arrested, not decreasing it.

that it's just a coincidence.

the violence in those time was simply astounding.

rises very steeply right when saint ronnie started his terms in office.

Or is it As above (criminals) so below (increased incarceration)?

and Order" republicans.

Ron Paul sources usually fail to impress my intended audiences.

The graph really feels right. I'm sincere about that. But your top graph is located on afpn.org, which is a Ron Paul site. There they reference http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/sheets/p06.zip. It's really late, and I'm sleepy, but I don't see any data from the 80's or 90's there. Am I overlooking it?

Can you point me to the data that backs up your top graphic? Like I said, I think it is probably true. I just want to be able to back it up with real data.

Thank you.