Political Roundtable Part XXV

[pancakes3]

i never understood how the party that champions natural rights and individual freedoms is also the party that's the quickest to strip those freedoms from people.

But wouldn't you think certain actions/crimes should warrant such removal of privileges?

I see the argument for and against. Personally, I'm on your side, and I don't think inmates should vote, but I also don't think Bernie is a kook for proposing it. His home state of Vermont already has inmate voting, and it wasn't a political ploy to pump D votes, but rather done bc there's legitimate benefits associated with keeping inmates engaged in their community for recidivism purposes.

It also starts a national dialogue on felony disenfranchisement, which I think is important. I would like to see Virginia change its voter rights for felons for sure.

[JWizmentality]

So do you propose it being based on the actual crime? Sure the one you mentioned is small in the grand scheme of things, what about a murderer? A rapist? A child molester? Are we going to grant them this privilege just so those small percentages like the ones you mentioned can have such an honor?

I'm saying you can't determine those things. No one should. How about punishment relevant to the crime...like voter fraud? Last I heard Roy Moore and Brett Kavanaugh could still vote.

And so can Justin Fairfax, like Kavanaugh all these supposed allegations came out conveniently when one was to assume a high position. And considering one of Kavanugh's accusers hired Michael Avenetti, I think that alone speaks to credibility.

What punishments aren't relative to crimes though? A murderer, rapist, child molester, drug dealer should all be locked away. The anecdotal ones you mentioned like the woman who wanted her children to attend better schools, that's such a small percentage.

Twas a joke. Be still thine poor triggered conservative heart.

No it's not a small percentage. Educate yourself.
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2019.html

[daoneandonly]

I'm saying you can't determine those things. No one should. How about punishment relevant to the crime...like voter fraud? Last I heard Roy Moore and Brett Kavanaugh could still vote.

And so can Justin Fairfax, like Kavanaugh all these supposed allegations came out conveniently when one was to assume a high position. And considering one of Kavanugh's accusers hired Michael Avenetti, I think that alone speaks to credibility.

What punishments aren't relative to crimes though? A murderer, rapist, child molester, drug dealer should all be locked away. The anecdotal ones you mentioned like the woman who wanted her children to attend better schools, that's such a small percentage.

Twas a joke. Be still thine poor triggered conservative heart.

No it's not a small percentage. Educate yourself.
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2019.html

I just dont think ruining a person's reputation and character for political purposes is a joke, as in the case of kavanaugh and fairfax, if they were truly guilty, then the allegations should have come out way before the were about to potentially reach the height of their respective careers

As it relates to the article, so what do you propose is the fix? How do the courts/legal system ensure that people arrested for a crime don't flee if they are just let out? And the various references to drugs should not be ignored, it's illegal and those in possession of drugs should be punished for their crime. Again, drug use is a choice, it's a fairly easy decision to say no to drugs in my book. I had easy access to drugs being an alumn of the cesspool that si Gaithersburg High School, or even later in life with opiods in my plight, but I chose not to use the former or abuse the latter

[dckingsfan]

And so can Justin Fairfax, like Kavanaugh all these supposed allegations came out conveniently when one was to assume a high position. And considering one of Kavanugh's accusers hired Michael Avenetti, I think that alone speaks to credibility.

What punishments aren't relative to crimes though? A murderer, rapist, child molester, drug dealer should all be locked away. The anecdotal ones you mentioned like the woman who wanted her children to attend better schools, that's such a small percentage.

Twas a joke. Be still thine poor triggered conservative heart.

No it's not a small percentage. Educate yourself.
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2019.html

I just dont think ruining a person's reputation and character for political purposes is a joke, as in the case of kavanaugh and fairfax, if they were truly guilty, then the allegations should have come out way before the were about to potentially reach the height of their respective careers

As it relates to the article, so what do you propose is the fix? How do the courts/legal system ensure that people arrested for a crime don't flee if they are just let out? And the various references to drugs should not be ignored, it's illegal and those in possession of drugs should be punished for their crime. Again, drug use is a choice, it's a fairly easy decision to say no to drugs in my book. I had easy access to drugs being an alumn of the cesspool that si Gaithersburg High School, or even later in life with opiods in my plight, but I chose not to use the former or abuse the latter

This begs the question - has the war on drugs and the tough on crime been successful? Is crime going down and are we still increasingly incarcerating people? Has the industrial prison complex sucked money out of education? Has the war on drugs and tough on crime hurt our GDP and added additional debt that we can't pay for (especially a the state level)?

Let's face it - we should rename this to stupid on drugs and stupid on crime - that's our current platform.

[dobrojim]

Drug prohibition has exacerbated rather than improved the impact of drug use and abuse
in our society. Hypothetical - if we could suddenly improve interdiction and cut supply by 90%
and that resulted in a 200% increase in street price, would that be a good thing? Please consider
the full implications of your answer.

[I_Like_Dirt]

In a general election, I think it's a guarantee that the majority of prisoners would vote for the Democratic candidate if they had a vote.

I mean in regards to the topic, if these individuals are deemed a danger to society with their presence in society, why wouldn't their vote be considered the same?

I think it's dangerous to assume they're going to vote for any particular party at any time. You restrict once, you restrict again, you keep on restricting and they never get undone. It's definitely a dangerous path.

I also disagree with your contention that prisoners are not a part of the greater community. They absolutely are. It's no different than people thinking they aren't a part of nature - they're absolutely a part of nature and it doesn't matter how a person attempts to see things. In this case, prisoners are a part of the greater community that the greater community has decided, for one reason or another, to isolate as much as possible. This comes with pros and cons - pros tend to come where rehabilitation is concerned and cons tend to come where vengeance is concerned.

I also very much doubt these people are actually all deemed a danger to society as you suggest. They're incarcerated, sure, but incarceration doesn't even mean guilt let alone a danger to society. Those that commit crimes and aren't caught or who have lawyers to get them off the hook can vote but people jailed for trying to get their children into better school districts because of problems in their own underfunded school districts can't?

In theory, I'm not even actually against your idea. In practice, despite what you're suggesting, it isn't actually that simple. It makes for rather simple practices to restrict voters the way a person wants, provided they have the power to create those restrictions. Can't vote in prison? What happens when suddenly politics gets twisted and people are thrown in jail for failing to pay back student loans or failing to pay for health insurance or something like that? I'm not saying it will but it absolutely can and isn't something that should be dismissed so easily.

Elections are essentially a popularity contest, at their core. When the popularity contest decides to stop allowing those who don't vote the way they want to on average from even participating, that's a dangerous game. And beyond that, if someone is in a position where they feel they can't win unless they block other groups from voting, perhaps they should put forward a platform that actually appeals to more people than just trying to split hairs and blocking people from voting. Beyond that, I would also prefer a situation where elected officials weren't offered a political incentive to jail their opponents to prevent them from voting. The incentive would preferably be to keep people out of prison rather than put them in. Not that people shouldn't be jailed for crimes depending on the circumstances; just that there shouldn't be reasons to be looking for opportunities to jail people.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[daoneandonly]

In a general election, I think it's a guarantee that the majority of prisoners would vote for the Democratic candidate if they had a vote.

I mean in regards to the topic, if these individuals are deemed a danger to society with their presence in society, why wouldn't their vote be considered the same?

I think it's dangerous to assume they're going to vote for any particular party at any time. You restrict once, you restrict again, you keep on restricting and they never get undone. It's definitely a dangerous path.

I also disagree with your contention that prisoners are not a part of the greater community. They absolutely are. It's no different than people thinking they aren't a part of nature - they're absolutely a part of nature and it doesn't matter how a person attempts to see things. In this case, prisoners are a part of the greater community that the greater community has decided, for one reason or another, to isolate as much as possible. This comes with pros and cons - pros tend to come where rehabilitation is concerned and cons tend to come where vengeance is concerned.

I also very much doubt these people are actually all deemed a danger to society as you suggest. They're incarcerated, sure, but incarceration doesn't even mean guilt let alone a danger to society. Those that commit crimes and aren't caught or who have lawyers to get them off the hook can vote but people jailed for trying to get their children into better school districts because of problems in their own underfunded school districts can't?

In theory, I'm not even actually against your idea. In practice, despite what you're suggesting, it isn't actually that simple. It makes for rather simple practices to restrict voters the way a person wants, provided they have the power to create those restrictions. Can't vote in prison? What happens when suddenly politics gets twisted and people are thrown in jail for failing to pay back student loans or failing to pay for health insurance or something like that? I'm not saying it will but it absolutely can and isn't something that should be dismissed so easily.

Elections are essentially a popularity contest, at their core. When the popularity contest decides to stop allowing those who don't vote the way they want to on average from even participating, that's a dangerous game. And beyond that, if someone is in a position where they feel they can't win unless they block other groups from voting, perhaps they should put forward a platform that actually appeals to more people than just trying to split hairs and blocking people from voting. Beyond that, I would also prefer a situation where elected officials weren't offered a political incentive to jail their opponents to prevent them from voting. The incentive would preferably be to keep people out of prison rather than put them in. Not that people shouldn't be jailed for crimes depending on the circumstances; just that there shouldn't be reasons to be looking for opportunities to jail people.

The ones jailed because "they tried to get their kids in better schools", I mean how many people are we talking here? It's been brought up multiple times but those numbers are very low in the grand scheme of things.

If we're talking those arrested but not yet convicted, well then we need a better alternative. A solution where those individuals cannot just flee, I don't have any ideas off the top of my head, but I'd love to hear from others on their thoughts. We can absolutely try and improve this if we can

The debate on whether drug sentences are fair or not, I tend to lean on the side again of actions having consequences, and leading with an iron fist. Yes the criminal justice system is a joke and people don't fear it, I think instilling a deeper level of fear with stiffer punishment/sentences would indeed make for a safer America

I dont think this is an issue of restricting ppl from voting to help a side win, but I think ppl should lose more than just their out and about freedom if they are jailed, and losing the right to vote is one of those privileges. I do believe that Bernie is pushing this not because of some empathy or heart strings being tugged, but because he knows votes from prisoners would benefit the Democratic side far more than it would the Republican.

[dckingsfan]

Interesting trendlines - instead of a celebration of rapidly falling crime rates back to the 50s and 60s level, we are celebrating by incarcerating more folks. Stupid on crime and stupid on drugs continues.

[pancakes3]

Again, I have to reiterate, it's so cognitively dissonant for so many members of the party that preaches small government, and power to the people, to also say things like "leading with an iron fist" and "instilling a deeper level of fear." Multiply that dissonance with how much of the moral pearl clutching has to do with victimless crimes such as drug possession, not to mention the surge in abortion bills that criminalize family planning.

[JWizmentality]

You mean the ones to bring Sharia Law to the USA is the GOP? Color me shocked.

[AFM]

Have I told this board my story about getting detained and interrogated by customs? (I'm iranian) and trumps middle eastern ban hasn't been too kind for me

[Pointgod]

Have I told this board my story about getting detained and interrogated by customs? (I'm iranian) and trumps middle eastern ban hasn't been too kind for me

Sorry to hear that. I hope all you vote blue straight down the ticket in these upcoming elections and tell all your friends, family and even acquaintances to vote blue up and down the ticket as well.

[I_Like_Dirt]

The ones jailed because "they tried to get their kids in better schools", I mean how many people are we talking here? It's been brought up multiple times but those numbers are very low in the grand scheme of things.

If we're talking those arrested but not yet convicted, well then we need a better alternative. A solution where those individuals cannot just flee, I don't have any ideas off the top of my head, but I'd love to hear from others on their thoughts. We can absolutely try and improve this if we can

The debate on whether drug sentences are fair or not, I tend to lean on the side again of actions having consequences, and leading with an iron fist. Yes the criminal justice system is a joke and people don't fear it, I think instilling a deeper level of fear with stiffer punishment/sentences would indeed make for a safer America

I dont think this is an issue of restricting ppl from voting to help a side win, but I think ppl should lose more than just their out and about freedom if they are jailed, and losing the right to vote is one of those privileges. I do believe that Bernie is pushing this not because of some empathy or heart strings being tugged, but because he knows votes from prisoners would benefit the Democratic side far more than it would the Republican.

I'm not aware of any particular stats that will show for anything so narrow as your requesting. It's a significant number, though, once you factor in a bunch of different ways people get incarcerated. Is someone who doesn't pay their parking tickets a danger to society that should have their right to vote taken away? Dck has done a pretty good job of explaining how ridiculous the whole incarceration issue is - in an era where crime rates are actually falling, we're seeing exponentially more people incarcerated. It's wrong to simply assume that it's dangerous criminals removed from society in prison who shouldn't be allowed to vote because it's patently clear that those two variables aren't linked in the slightest.

And just because you don't think this is an issue of restricting people from voting to help a side win doesn't make it true. I'd suggest it's disingenuous of you to say that, though. You're the one who keeps bringing up how criminals would or wouldn't vote, starting by suggesting Bernie would get them to vote for him, and then to backtrack to the idea that they would support the Democratic candidate when I pointed out Bernie might not be their favorite candidate. And you're not alone on the issue. It's obviously partisan politics at this point, as is pretty much everything. Which sucks because these are dangerous issues with consequences people generally don't tend to foresee.

And for what it's worth, I don't have any actual answers on how to make an actual workable plan regarding crime where voting rights are taken away. It's so obviously abused already. It's depressing but I don't really think it's so out of the realm of possibility that politics change to the point where people get hurt in accidents and are taken to hospitals and treated but then put into debtors prison because they can't pay and therefore can't vote. Or maybe they have an undiagnosed illness, pass out somewhere, get emergency treatment, same results. We aren't there yet, though we're closer than makes me comfortable. Take away those who can't pay for health care from voting and suddenly corporate health care lobbyists find their jobs much easier. Now let's consider the industrial prison complex that would have every incentive to start lobbying to imprison anyone who protested against them. Can't protest the prison system or you go to jail and then can't vote to change the prison system? Why on earth would that kind of risk be something we'd even bother considering?

[daoneandonly]

The ones jailed because "they tried to get their kids in better schools", I mean how many people are we talking here? It's been brought up multiple times but those numbers are very low in the grand scheme of things.

If we're talking those arrested but not yet convicted, well then we need a better alternative. A solution where those individuals cannot just flee, I don't have any ideas off the top of my head, but I'd love to hear from others on their thoughts. We can absolutely try and improve this if we can

The debate on whether drug sentences are fair or not, I tend to lean on the side again of actions having consequences, and leading with an iron fist. Yes the criminal justice system is a joke and people don't fear it, I think instilling a deeper level of fear with stiffer punishment/sentences would indeed make for a safer America

I dont think this is an issue of restricting ppl from voting to help a side win, but I think ppl should lose more than just their out and about freedom if they are jailed, and losing the right to vote is one of those privileges. I do believe that Bernie is pushing this not because of some empathy or heart strings being tugged, but because he knows votes from prisoners would benefit the Democratic side far more than it would the Republican.

I'm not aware of any particular stats that will show for anything so narrow as your requesting. It's a significant number, though, once you factor in a bunch of different ways people get incarcerated. Is someone who doesn't pay their parking tickets a danger to society that should have their right to vote taken away? Dck has done a pretty good job of explaining how ridiculous the whole incarceration issue is - in an era where crime rates are actually falling, we're seeing exponentially more people incarcerated. It's wrong to simply assume that it's dangerous criminals removed from society in prison who shouldn't be allowed to vote because it's patently clear that those two variables aren't linked in the slightest.

And just because you don't think this is an issue of restricting people from voting to help a side win doesn't make it true. I'd suggest it's disingenuous of you to say that, though. You're the one who keeps bringing up how criminals would or wouldn't vote, starting by suggesting Bernie would get them to vote for him, and then to backtrack to the idea that they would support the Democratic candidate when I pointed out Bernie might not be their favorite candidate. And you're not alone on the issue. It's obviously partisan politics at this point, as is pretty much everything. Which sucks because these are dangerous issues with consequences people generally don't tend to foresee.

And for what it's worth, I don't have any actual answers on how to make an actual workable plan regarding crime where voting rights are taken away. It's so obviously abused already. It's depressing but I don't really think it's so out of the realm of possibility that politics change to the point where people get hurt in accidents and are taken to hospitals and treated but then put into debtors prison because they can't pay and therefore can't vote. Or maybe they have an undiagnosed illness, pass out somewhere, get emergency treatment, same results. We aren't there yet, though we're closer than makes me comfortable. Take away those who can't pay for health care from voting and suddenly corporate health care lobbyists find their jobs much easier. Now let's consider the industrial prison complex that would have every incentive to start lobbying to imprison anyone who protested against them. Can't protest the prison system or you go to jail and then can't vote to change the prison system? Why on earth would that kind of risk be something we'd even bother considering?

I think it's more disingenuous to bring up the instances you bring up of parking ticket violations and those who cannot afford to pay the ridiculous over inflated hospital bills, versus stone cold killers, rapists, druggies, molesters, and others that make up the good majority of prisoners. Sure the numbers can be improved, as with everything in life can and should, but I'm not about to ever argue that a killer, rapist, or the alike should ever have the right to vote.

As it relates to Bernie, sure they may not necessarily vote for him in the primaries, but I'm willing to bet a substantial amount of money that if prisoners are allowed to vote, the vast majority would vote Democrat vs Republican. Do you honestly think that's not reality or some agenda?

[UcanUwill]

i never understood how the party that champions natural rights and individual freedoms is also the party that's the quickest to strip those freedoms from people.

But wouldn't you think certain actions/crimes should warrant such removal of privileges?

I see the argument for and against. Personally, I'm on your side, and I don't think inmates should vote, but I also don't think Bernie is a kook for proposing it. His home state of Vermont already has inmate voting, and it wasn't a political ploy to pump D votes, but rather done bc there's legitimate benefits associated with keeping inmates engaged in their community for recidivism purposes.

It also starts a national dialogue on felony disenfranchisement, which I think is important. I would like to see Virginia change its voter rights for felons for sure.

usually I am super left, but I think inmates shouldn't be allowed to vote here honestly. I always liked that America is hard on criminals, I think thats one thing conservatives get right.
I live in a country were you can kill a folk and walk free in 3 years. I remember 8 or 10 years ago here, we had a situation, a man who lost his driving license because of DUI, was caught many times driving without one after wards, once completely drunk got into car crash and killed 7 people!!!! And at the end I believe he never went to jail even, because it was talked out as accident!!! Thats disgusting, and in America this piece of **** would have been on death row for good.

[TGW]

But wouldn't you think certain actions/crimes should warrant such removal of privileges?

I see the argument for and against. Personally, I'm on your side, and I don't think inmates should vote, but I also don't think Bernie is a kook for proposing it. His home state of Vermont already has inmate voting, and it wasn't a political ploy to pump D votes, but rather done bc there's legitimate benefits associated with keeping inmates engaged in their community for recidivism purposes.

It also starts a national dialogue on felony disenfranchisement, which I think is important. I would like to see Virginia change its voter rights for felons for sure.

usually I am super left, but I think inmates shouldn't be allowed to vote here honestly. I always liked that America is hard on criminals, I think thats one thing conservatives get right.
I live in a country were you can kill a folk and walk free in 3 years. I remember 8 or 10 years ago here, we had a situation, a man who lost his driving license because of DUI, was caught many times driving without one after wards, once completely drunk got into car crash and killed 7 people!!!! And at the end I believe he never went to jail even, because it was talked out as accident!!! Thats disgusting, and in America this piece of **** would have been on death row for good.

America is hard on criminals, but it's not for reasons you think (and no, conservatives are completely WRONG).

In the US, the prison system (much like many other things that shouldn't be) is privatized. There's a financial incentive for states and private companies to lock up as many people as possible. It means more funding and bigger profits for the prisons. That means that making everything under the sun illegal. Smoke a little weed? Jail. Loitering? Jail. Behind on child support? Jail. Can't pay your taxes? Jail. Private prison lobbyists make sure this is the case, and it costs the taxpayers billions of dollars. In some states, they spend more to feed and house an inmate than on a child's education per capita.

It's a pretty disgusting system. I didn't even bring up the cash bail or prison work scams.

And yes, inmates should be able to vote. Voting is a human right, not a citizen's right, IMO. Inmates should be stripped of a citizen's rights, not human rights.

[I_Like_Dirt]

I think it's more disingenuous to bring up the instances you bring up of parking ticket violations and those who cannot afford to pay the ridiculous over inflated hospital bills, versus stone cold killers, rapists, druggies, molesters, and others that make up the good majority of prisoners.

Do they really make up the majority of prisoners?



You're throwing a lot of stuff out there but it's clear you're not bothering to check if it's actually true. Seems to me like they make up a lot but they aren't actually the majority of the people you're talking about. Like I said, I'm not necessarily against your idea in theory based on some of the more dangerous criminals not voting. I'm not really willing to consider being for it, either, unless we have a wait to clearly separate things to make it actually worthwhile.


To be honest, I'd also love to see something designed where we have better enforcement, too. I don't love the idea of the dividing line being "incarcerated" or not. People can be incarcerated for all sorts of reasons. If someone wants to tie it to certain crimes? That might be more interesting, though I haven't given too much thought on that subject, either. I'd probably want to start by increasing the enforcement on white collar crimes and then putting in some sort vote losing scheme if you were tied to that (not incarcerated). It's probably a terrible idea (as I mentioned, I haven't thought about the details too much) would give a massive disincentive to the concept of plausible deniability if we just took people's votes away for running companies that were involved in tax evasion and other financial violations above a certain threshold, regardless of the outcome.

[daoneandonly]

I see the argument for and against. Personally, I'm on your side, and I don't think inmates should vote, but I also don't think Bernie is a kook for proposing it. His home state of Vermont already has inmate voting, and it wasn't a political ploy to pump D votes, but rather done bc there's legitimate benefits associated with keeping inmates engaged in their community for recidivism purposes.

It also starts a national dialogue on felony disenfranchisement, which I think is important. I would like to see Virginia change its voter rights for felons for sure.

usually I am super left, but I think inmates shouldn't be allowed to vote here honestly. I always liked that America is hard on criminals, I think thats one thing conservatives get right.
I live in a country were you can kill a folk and walk free in 3 years. I remember 8 or 10 years ago here, we had a situation, a man who lost his driving license because of DUI, was caught many times driving without one after wards, once completely drunk got into car crash and killed 7 people!!!! And at the end I believe he never went to jail even, because it was talked out as accident!!! Thats disgusting, and in America this piece of **** would have been on death row for good.

America is hard on criminals, but it's not for reasons you think (and no, conservatives are completely WRONG).

In the US, the prison system (much like many other things that shouldn't be) is privatized. There's a financial incentive for states and private companies to lock up as many people as possible. It means more funding and bigger profits for the prisons. That means that making everything under the sun illegal. Smoke a little weed? Jail. Loitering? Jail. Behind on child support? Jail. Can't pay your taxes? Jail. Private prison lobbyists make sure this is the case, and it costs the taxpayers billions of dollars. In some states, they spend more to feed and house an inmate than on a child's education per capita.

It's a pretty disgusting system. I didn't even bring up the cash bail or prison work scams.

And yes, inmates should be able to vote. Voting is a human right, not a citizen's right, IMO. Inmates should be stripped of a citizen's rights, not human rights.

I think you're referencing a bit too much of Orange is the New Black, the system is corrupt and flawed, but not nearly as slanted as you're making it out to be

And no, voting is a privilege not some automatic right, and you use the word human, that's a term to be used loosely for a murderer or rapist

[daoneandonly]

I think it's more disingenuous to bring up the instances you bring up of parking ticket violations and those who cannot afford to pay the ridiculous over inflated hospital bills, versus stone cold killers, rapists, druggies, molesters, and others that make up the good majority of prisoners.

Do they really make up the majority of prisoners?



You're throwing a lot of stuff out there but it's clear you're not bothering to check if it's actually true. Seems to me like they make up a lot but they aren't actually the majority of the people you're talking about. Like I said, I'm not necessarily against your idea in theory based on some of the more dangerous criminals not voting. I'm not really willing to consider being for it, either, unless we have a wait to clearly separate things to make it actually worthwhile.


To be honest, I'd also love to see something designed where we have better enforcement, too. I don't love the idea of the dividing line being "incarcerated" or not. People can be incarcerated for all sorts of reasons. If someone wants to tie it to certain crimes? That might be more interesting, though I haven't given too much thought on that subject, either. I'd probably want to start by increasing the enforcement on white collar crimes and then putting in some sort vote losing scheme if you were tied to that (not incarcerated). It's probably a terrible idea (as I mentioned, I haven't thought about the details too much) would give a massive disincentive to the concept of plausible deniability if we just took people's votes away for running companies that were involved in tax evasion and other financial violations above a certain threshold, regardless of the outcome.

On the State side, yes, that pie graph clearly shows the majority as of 1,351,000 inmates, more than half (718 K) are there due to violent crimes.