@ISIDEWITHQuestionsCriminal IssuesStarted 8yrs agoActive 2mos ago

Should non-violent prisoners be released from jail in order to reduce overcrowding?

Prison overcrowding is a social phenomenon occurring when the demand for space in prisons in a jurisdiction exceeds the capacity for prisoners.The issues associated with prison overcrowding are not new, and have been brewing for many years. During the United States’ War on Drugs, the states were left responsible for solving the prison overcrowding issue with a limited amount of money. Moreover, federal prison populations may increase if states adhere to federal policies, such as mandatory minimum sentences. On the other hand, the Justice Department provides billions of dollars a year…  

Read more
+
Expand
+ Settings x  

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 2.1k Stuttgart voters.

38%
Yes
62%
No
17%
Yes
55%
No
11%
Yes, but they must perform community service on a daily basis
3%
No, we should build more prisons
11%
Yes, but place them under house arrest using an electronic bracelet
3%
No, but we should increase funding to offer education and skill building services for prisoners
0%
No, transfer them to under crowded prisons instead

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 2.1k Stuttgart voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 2.1k Stuttgart voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Stuttgart voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @B26G3K9from California  answered…2mos2MO

No, but we should expand and expedite the death penalty to rapists, murderers, and child abusers who can be proven guilty beyond a doubt (including those that are non-citizens). Non-violent offenders should be handled on a case by case basis. Increase efforts for rehabilitation and education of non-violent/victimless criminals.

 @9XPB38Yfrom Virginia  answered…4mos4MO

Completely depends on the scenario, but overall I would agree with a combination of certain precautions.

 @9S6KB2Jfrom North Carolina  answered…6mos6MO

Yes, but they should have to wear an electronic bracelet, report to a parol officer weekly, and preform community service

 @9MLX6MSanswered…9mos9MO

Yes, but maybe not directly released and they need to be able to be accounted for. Also it would really depend on the crime, for example someone who committed a non-violent crime against children should not be allowed near them

 @9M6X6CW from Florida  answered…10mos10MO

It definitely depends on their crime. If the crimes that have been committed were violent, then no. They should be kept unless given the deal penalty. If the crimes were not violent then they can be released and made to do community service on a daily basis.

 @9HRSGJL answered…1yr1Y

Depends on the crime. Some non-violent crimes can still pose serious risk and measures should be put into place to prevent repeated offenders.

 @9GYNHJFfrom Michigan  answered…1yr1Y

We should offer rehabilitation, education, to those who go through testing to see if they have violent tendencies.

 @9G8NM2M from District of Columbia  answered…1yr1Y

For nonviolent drug offenders, petty thefts, etc. White collar criminals should not be released for overcrowding

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2wks2W

Jon Stewart Begs Democrats To ‘Please Stop Trotting Out Chuck Schumer!'

Jon Stewart criticized Democrats for repeatedly using Chuck Schumer as their spokesperson against Trump, calling his performances ineffective and monotonous.Stewart mocked Schumer's response to Trump's trade war threats, particularly his simplistic explanation about Mexican imports like Corona beer and avocados.The former Daily Show host expressed frustration at Schumer's basic observation that "guacamole is made of avocados" as a response to complex trade policy issues.Stewart sarcastically highlighted the Democrats' poor strategic choice in selecting Schumer to counter Trump, whom he described as "one of the most savvy presidential media manipulators in history."The comedian ridiculed Schumer's appearance and presentation style, particularly mocking his use of reading glasses positioned low on his nose.Stewart's criticism centered on the Democratic leadership's judgment in repeatedly choosing an "uninteresting" and "monotone" spokesperson.The commentary addressed Trump's threats of tariffs against Canada and Mexico, though focused more on the Democratic response than the policy itself.Stewart used hyperbole to emphasize his point, stating that Schumer's speaking makes him "want to bomb Canada."The piece highlighted the perceived disconnect between Democratic messaging strategy and effective opposition to Trump's policies.Stewart's criticism suggested a broader frustration with Democratic leadership's media strategy and public presentation.

▲  4817 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1wk1W

Gavin Newsom Defends Immigrants With $25 Million

Governor Newsom signed legislation allocating $50 million total to protect California's policies from Trump administration challenges and defend immigrants facing deportation, split evenly between the state's DOJ and legal defense groups.The funding comes as California anticipates renewed conflicts with Trump's administration, following over 100 legal actions against his first term policies on issues including climate, water, and immigration.Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas justified the funding by characterizing the Trump administration as "out-of-control" and threatening to Californians' constitutional rights.The signing occurred just after Newsom's Washington visit to secure federal disaster aid for January's devastating Los Angeles wildfires, which claimed more than two dozen lives.California recently enacted a separate $2.5 billion fire relief package, with expectations of federal reimbursement for disaster response costs.Republican lawmakers criticized the legal defense funding as a political distraction from wildfire recovery efforts, with State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones calling it a "slush fund."Critics raised concerns about the possibility of funds being used to defend immigrants with serious felony convictions, though Newsom indicated this wasn't the intended purpose.The legislation emerged from a special session Newsom called shortly after Trump's election in November, demonstrating California's proactive stance against anticipated federal challenges.During Trump's first term, California initiated more than 120 lawsuits against his administration, spending approximately $42 million on legal battles.Annual legal expenses fighting federal policies during Trump's first term ranged from $2 million to nearly $13 million per year.

▲  1120 replies