Why are there so many people in prison in America? (2017)(braino.org)
braino.org
Why are there so many people in prison in America? (2017)
http://braino.org/essays/why_so_many_people_in_prison/
165 comments
> which uses a public health approach to target all forms of violent behaviour including street/gang violence, domestic abuse, school bullying and workplace bullying.
What's this mean exactly?
What's this mean exactly?
Well, they have their own explanation, but as I understand it:
- there's an epidemiology of violence: untreated violence tends to breed more violence. Fear of violence and responses to violence cause violence of their own. Either retaliation or pre-emptively carrying weapons.
- squalor tends to breed violence in the same way as it breeds disease
- this stuff often starts at school (see US "school to prison pipeline")
- A&E departments of hospitals are convenient contact points for people who've been stabbed or punched - this is an opportunity to discourage them from taking revenge or starting more fights
- also it recognises that the effectiveness of police before a crime has been committed is (rightly) pretty limited, but social services can perform other kinds of interventions.
- there's an epidemiology of violence: untreated violence tends to breed more violence. Fear of violence and responses to violence cause violence of their own. Either retaliation or pre-emptively carrying weapons.
- squalor tends to breed violence in the same way as it breeds disease
- this stuff often starts at school (see US "school to prison pipeline")
- A&E departments of hospitals are convenient contact points for people who've been stabbed or punched - this is an opportunity to discourage them from taking revenge or starting more fights
- also it recognises that the effectiveness of police before a crime has been committed is (rightly) pretty limited, but social services can perform other kinds of interventions.
My understanding is that programs like these work on the hypothesis that violent crime is often a symptom of an underlying public health issue (often mental health, in particular), and so should be addressed by public health resources more than by enforcement resources.
So the Chesa Boudin strategy? That seems to be working out great for San Francisco.
Thanks for sharing this, I have never heard of VRU or the American versions in Boston and Cincinnati. Though I'm no fan of reliance on stop-and-search.
It was called "stop and frisk" in the US. When Giuliani did it in NYC in the 1990s, crime was reduced _dramatically_. Entire neighborhoods were liberated. Washington Square Park went from a very dangerous "no go" zone to a lovely, family-friendly park. Giuliani was praised for the outcome, and other agencies started the practice.
But, unfortunately, political correctness won over, and the practice is mostly gone now -- and the crime rates have since soared. Giuliani was once called "America's Mayor" -- my how quickly times change.
But, unfortunately, political correctness won over, and the practice is mostly gone now -- and the crime rates have since soared. Giuliani was once called "America's Mayor" -- my how quickly times change.
Crime rates have soared ? Pre-pandemic NYC had some of historically low crime rates. And it is one of the safest cities in the world
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/p0106a/overall-crime-new...
And all this without having to stop and search some rando black or brown dude walking down the road. This categorically proves that stop and frisk had no impact on crime rates at all. Los Angeles also experienced similarly historically low crime rates and had no stop and frisk. I can’t imagine how someone can live in a liberal democracy and be ok with authoritarian behavior like stop and search.
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/p0106a/overall-crime-new...
And all this without having to stop and search some rando black or brown dude walking down the road. This categorically proves that stop and frisk had no impact on crime rates at all. Los Angeles also experienced similarly historically low crime rates and had no stop and frisk. I can’t imagine how someone can live in a liberal democracy and be ok with authoritarian behavior like stop and search.
Yes, because authoritarian policing drives out anyone who can get out and career criminals tend to not have very long term living arrangements.
All Giulliani did was move the problems to New Jersey.
It was successful in reducing crime in his jurisdiction. It didn't really reduce crime in the NYC metro area relative to anywhere else. Crime dropped off a lot over the 90s and '00s everywhere.
There's a really wide gulf between police state tactics that ignore people's rights (90s stop and frisk) and the current situation in parts of the country where crimes with a victim that people are complaining about are ignored or given such a small slap on the risk they have a positive ROI.
All Giulliani did was move the problems to New Jersey.
It was successful in reducing crime in his jurisdiction. It didn't really reduce crime in the NYC metro area relative to anywhere else. Crime dropped off a lot over the 90s and '00s everywhere.
There's a really wide gulf between police state tactics that ignore people's rights (90s stop and frisk) and the current situation in parts of the country where crimes with a victim that people are complaining about are ignored or given such a small slap on the risk they have a positive ROI.
So what would happen if New Jersey implemented the same policy as well?
Stop and frisk is unconstitutional and had nothing to do with political correctness.
My understanding is, that while it may have been deterrent it didn't actually catch more criminals.
Know someone who works in a Glasgow A and E, says this really helped.
I think it has more to do with accessibility to guns. Anyone in America can be carrying a gun and it’s incredibly easy for criminals to buy them because they are so abundant. That’s not something people have to worry about in Japan or Europe.
This doesn’t square with the fact that many of the most gun dense states have the lowest violent crime rates. New Hampshire has tons of guns, violent crime comparable to Nordic countries.
I’d say in order the biggest determinants are: culture, social cohesion, and poverty.
I put culture and social cohesion ahead of income because plenty of poorer asian countries do much better than richer european countries.
I’d say in order the biggest determinants are: culture, social cohesion, and poverty.
I put culture and social cohesion ahead of income because plenty of poorer asian countries do much better than richer european countries.
New Hampshire doesn't have a city of the size of Stockholm, Oslo, or Helsinki in it. Large cities almost always have higher crime rates than rural areas. Clearly class and culture are part of the equation but I believe so too is the ready access to guns.
Ready access to guns, also ready access to alcohol, ready access to knives, etc these are all part of the equation, but I contend that they are so dwarfed by the other factors that focusing on them seems disingenuous and otherwise random except as a result of knee-jerk politics.
So maybe cities have the same order of magnitude effect in increasing crime as guns do - what would you suggest we do about that? Should we lower violent crime by banning cities and banning guns, or should we focus on the root problems of culture, social cohesion, and poverty?
Also: Switzerland also has a ton of guns and major cities, violent crime rate is near the bottom - is suspect because their culture, social cohesion, and efforts to minimize poverty.
So maybe cities have the same order of magnitude effect in increasing crime as guns do - what would you suggest we do about that? Should we lower violent crime by banning cities and banning guns, or should we focus on the root problems of culture, social cohesion, and poverty?
Also: Switzerland also has a ton of guns and major cities, violent crime rate is near the bottom - is suspect because their culture, social cohesion, and efforts to minimize poverty.
You are absolutely right that culture and inequality is the key decider on violence. The US worship guns and the military to a degree I have never seen in any other western country. I am not surprised at all that individuals in the US believe they can fix things by shooting a random number of people or blow up federal buildings. I have lived and worked in western Europe, USA and Australia so I have seen the differences in culture up close.
HackerNews isn’t for “scoring points”, your comment doesn’t contribute anything to the discussion. Make your snappy clap backs on twitter
I don't suggest anything other than what I wrote. Specifically, that comparing the crime rate of a rural American state that has no major metropolitan centers to the crime rate of Scandinavian countries which do have major metropolitan centers is not apt.
Switzerland has a ton of guns but not a ton of ready access to ammunition. Also according to this article [1] the U.S. has far more guns per person than Switzerland.
According to the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey, there are about 89 civilian-owned guns for every 100 people who live in the United States. Switzerland ranks third in terms of gun ownership, the Survey estimates, with 3.4 million guns among its population of nearly eight million.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912
Switzerland has a ton of guns but not a ton of ready access to ammunition. Also according to this article [1] the U.S. has far more guns per person than Switzerland.
According to the Geneva-based Small Arms Survey, there are about 89 civilian-owned guns for every 100 people who live in the United States. Switzerland ranks third in terms of gun ownership, the Survey estimates, with 3.4 million guns among its population of nearly eight million.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21379912
All of what you said are true. But when you add gun to the mix it makes matters far worse. Gangs in the UK typically resort to stabbing, which leads to far fewer deaths
Absolutely. If nukes were legal it wouldn’t just be cinemas and churches being attacked by crazy individuals but whole cities. Crazies would kill hundreds of thousands. Not “just” a few dozens.
It is both but I believe the comment you were replying to was saying violence prevention programs are harder due to the number of guns.
So NH having a high amount of guns isn't really a counter example. The point wasn't that guns are the sole cause, but that their prevalence makes it harder to resolve a violence problem (that stems from many sources).
Or if I am assuming too much about the original posters view, I can instead just say this is my view.
So NH having a high amount of guns isn't really a counter example. The point wasn't that guns are the sole cause, but that their prevalence makes it harder to resolve a violence problem (that stems from many sources).
Or if I am assuming too much about the original posters view, I can instead just say this is my view.
Sure, but access to alcohol has the same effect and I’d imagine has the same level of magnitude impact in increased violent crime. There are a million factors, but singling our access to guns - which is way down on the list of factors - sounds less like a genuine interest in solving the problem and more like a gut reaction “solution” that actually solves very little.
So making nukes legal would be OK in your mind because it isn’t nukes that kill people but people?
This is an interesting point. I thought about it and concluded that for me there’s a gradient of any freedom between the harm it causes and the liberty it grants. Making nukes accessible at Walmart is a little bit more freedom with likely much more harm. Allowing gun ownership is much more freedom with an increase in harm, but as I see it the increase in freedom is much bigger than the increase in harm.
On the other end of the spectrum of marginally more harm but dramatically less freedom, would you suggest that we go into a covid shutdown every flu season? Or compelled speech laws? Or banning cars because the harm they cause? It’s all a balance between freedom and harm.
On the other end of the spectrum of marginally more harm but dramatically less freedom, would you suggest that we go into a covid shutdown every flu season? Or compelled speech laws? Or banning cars because the harm they cause? It’s all a balance between freedom and harm.
Yep I agree that everything is a balance between freedom and harm. As for your examples: Cars are necessary for a modern society to function. Gun’s aren’t. Australia (where I live) have very few COVID deaths because of strict shutdowns. The US decided to let close to a million people die for “freedom”. Clearly our perceptions of harm is different. So our conclusions will also be different. Having lived and worked in the US, Europe, and Australia, it is clear to me that the US (in general) value human lives less than other Western nations. So the outcomes will be different.
> New Hampshire has tons of guns, violent crime comparable to Nordic countries.I’d say in order the biggest determinants are: culture, social cohesion, and poverty.
This sounds like borderline race theory or something Charles Murray would argue... So basically you’re saying that richer white people in homogeneous states are less violent than the states with poor, more diverse populations? I don’t think it’s based on race or culture, but income and class are definitely factors.
This sounds like borderline race theory or something Charles Murray would argue... So basically you’re saying that richer white people in homogeneous states are less violent than the states with poor, more diverse populations? I don’t think it’s based on race or culture, but income and class are definitely factors.
What? I justified why I put culture and social cohesion first explicitly in my comment: because many poorer asian countries do much better than many richer white countries on average. The culture variable is overriding the income one.
Culture is so obviously a factor: why does Switzerland have so many guns and similar average income to New Hampshire but much less violence? Clearly culture has an effect.
Culture is so obviously a factor: why does Switzerland have so many guns and similar average income to New Hampshire but much less violence? Clearly culture has an effect.
Income is probably the biggest predictor of who will go on to commit violent crime, but guess what also correlates to income? In the US, non-white people are mostly poor.
Counter-point: highest income earners are actually Indian-Americans: https://gulfnews.com/world/americas/indians-in-america-make-...
No he didnt basically say that
The crime just shifts down to knives, which are less lethal. Back in the notorious days of Glasgow that's what was used for the murders. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-45572691
This was way more interesting than I thought it would be. (Assuming this is accurate) The answers offered are not what I expected.
Well, roughly speaking, the prison population for a given crime is:
Occurrence Per Year x Report Rate x Solve Rate x Conviction Rate x Prison Sentence Length.
In all of those, American ranks either high or very high.This equation doesn't take into account,
* false convictions
* concurrent sentences
* parole
* time off for good behavior
* remand (detention without conviction)
and probably other factors I couldn't think of off the top of my head.
Unless your just lumping all these factors "prison sentence length" in which case the equation doesn't seem useful.
* false convictions
* concurrent sentences
* parole
* time off for good behavior
* remand (detention without conviction)
and probably other factors I couldn't think of off the top of my head.
Unless your just lumping all these factors "prison sentence length" in which case the equation doesn't seem useful.
The equation is just that, how to solve for the current # of people in prison, therefore it ignores false convictions. Prison generally denotes long-term custody of people convicted of a crime, therefore remand is ignored here (people are mostly remanded to jail, not prison, aka custody before trial).
Concurrent sentences are tricky because it's almost always the case that sentences are served concurrently. This equation would probably be most accurate if only the most serious sentence were used for "Prison Sentence Length."
Parole and good behavior definitely would affect prison pop. and so should be included.
Concurrent sentences are tricky because it's almost always the case that sentences are served concurrently. This equation would probably be most accurate if only the most serious sentence were used for "Prison Sentence Length."
Parole and good behavior definitely would affect prison pop. and so should be included.
> The equation is just that, how to solve for the current # of people in prison, therefore it ignores false convictions
I don't follow this. If you're falsely convicted of murder and get 30 years, why would that show up in the statistics any different than your cell mate who was correctly convicted.
> This equation would probably be most accurate if only the most serious sentence were used for "Prison Sentence Length."
Not if the lesser crimes affect the total length of your sentence.
> people are mostly remanded to jail, not prison, aka custody before trial
I think the difference between prison and jail in this case is irrelevant. If you were held in jail awaiting trail for 1 year and acquitted vs. being sentenced to 1 year in prison on conviction, you're still held against your will for 1 year.
I don't follow this. If you're falsely convicted of murder and get 30 years, why would that show up in the statistics any different than your cell mate who was correctly convicted.
> This equation would probably be most accurate if only the most serious sentence were used for "Prison Sentence Length."
Not if the lesser crimes affect the total length of your sentence.
> people are mostly remanded to jail, not prison, aka custody before trial
I think the difference between prison and jail in this case is irrelevant. If you were held in jail awaiting trail for 1 year and acquitted vs. being sentenced to 1 year in prison on conviction, you're still held against your will for 1 year.
>> The equation is just that, how to solve for the current # of people in prison, therefore it ignores false convictions
>I don't follow this. If you're falsely convicted of murder and get 30 years, why would that show up in the statistics any different than your cell mate who was correctly convicted.
Falsely convicted people are in prison. The equation is about calculating prison population. The equation is not about calculating the number of people who should be in prison or any other qualifier.
That being said, "solve rate" is probably a bad term to use here. It might be more accurate to say something like, "percentage of cases resulting in a charge/indictment"
>> This equation would probably be most accurate if only the most serious sentence were used for "Prison Sentence Length."
>Not if the lesser crimes affect the total length of your sentence.
In the vast majority of criminal cases, the following is true: conviction of 1 count of murder and 100 counts of other crimes (with a lower guideline sentence) results in a sentence equal to the sentence of the most serious crime in the case: murder. It is irrelevant what the other crimes are as the sentences for those crimes will be served concurrently to the murder sentence, which is longer/more serious. So in the vast majority of cases there will be no effect on the total length of the sentence to be convicted of multiple crimes, only the longest/most serious sentence matters.
>I think the difference between prison and jail in this case is irrelevant. If you were held in jail awaiting trail for 1 year and acquitted vs. being sentenced to 1 year in prison on conviction, you're still held against your will for 1 year.
The article quote is:
>I don't follow this. If you're falsely convicted of murder and get 30 years, why would that show up in the statistics any different than your cell mate who was correctly convicted.
Falsely convicted people are in prison. The equation is about calculating prison population. The equation is not about calculating the number of people who should be in prison or any other qualifier.
That being said, "solve rate" is probably a bad term to use here. It might be more accurate to say something like, "percentage of cases resulting in a charge/indictment"
>> This equation would probably be most accurate if only the most serious sentence were used for "Prison Sentence Length."
>Not if the lesser crimes affect the total length of your sentence.
In the vast majority of criminal cases, the following is true: conviction of 1 count of murder and 100 counts of other crimes (with a lower guideline sentence) results in a sentence equal to the sentence of the most serious crime in the case: murder. It is irrelevant what the other crimes are as the sentences for those crimes will be served concurrently to the murder sentence, which is longer/more serious. So in the vast majority of cases there will be no effect on the total length of the sentence to be convicted of multiple crimes, only the longest/most serious sentence matters.
>I think the difference between prison and jail in this case is irrelevant. If you were held in jail awaiting trail for 1 year and acquitted vs. being sentenced to 1 year in prison on conviction, you're still held against your will for 1 year.
The article quote is:
Well, roughly speaking, the __prison__ population for a given crime is:
Occurrence Per Year x Report Rate x Solve Rate x Conviction Rate x Prison Sentence Length.
You should read the article for more context. As the author points out, reduced crime skews the overall statistical population of the prison system toward the more violent crimes due to prison length, which is the context of that formula.
Also re-offenders and rehabilitation are not even mentioned
With regard to several of these I feel like a big component is the destruction of community. We used to deal with many petty crimes personally. If Jimmy stole your bike you used to just go to Jimmy’s house and get it back, maybe beat him up, and that was it. Bar fights and the like just resulted in a black eye and getting thrown out. Now we don’t even know our neighbors names and that lack of familiarity tends to lead to impersonal/state/police type responses. Now if Jimmy steals your bike and you go get it back and beat him up you’re the one going to jail instead of Jimmy.
I don't know what kind of community you're advocating, but I'd much prefer one where my neighbors don't play judge, jury, and torturer, attempting to enforce vigilante justice by physical assault against my person because they think I might have committed petty theft against their property.
The current system is we send a Derek Chauvin to your house. Your choice whether you view that as an improvement over the old system.
Yep. I literally had someone from the next street over call the police about a dog being off leash instead of talking to the person about it. The law doesn't even require a leash, but that's the way the police interpret it. Dis you know my state allows you to be jailed for 90 days in addition to a $100-500 fine for not having a dog on a leash? Seems a little cruel to throw someone in jail over that. Yet the people in the system are too lazy to fix the law and the general population doesn't care because they don't know about it.
We people of colour have a shorthand way to describe this system of yours: Lynching.
Communities who think they "know who did it" will bypass the right to legal representation, will bypass courts, will bypass proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and will bypass the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
The result, of course, is not justice, but horrific oppression. Encouraging communities to take matters into their own hands is encouraging injustice.
Communities who think they "know who did it" will bypass the right to legal representation, will bypass courts, will bypass proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and will bypass the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
The result, of course, is not justice, but horrific oppression. Encouraging communities to take matters into their own hands is encouraging injustice.
Which group do you believe has done more harm to people of color?
A) regular American citizens, that unfortunately includes racist people
B) the United States federal, state, and local governments
I believe the answer is clearly B is far worse. I have no desire to argue or change your mind if you believe A. If we’re lucky, perhaps we can live in different communities that go by different rules so we can both be happy.
A) regular American citizens, that unfortunately includes racist people
B) the United States federal, state, and local governments
I believe the answer is clearly B is far worse. I have no desire to argue or change your mind if you believe A. If we’re lucky, perhaps we can live in different communities that go by different rules so we can both be happy.
Do people of color actually take matters into their own hands? There is an incredible amount of violent crime in black communities that other black people have done nothing to mitigate.
> Do people of color actually take matters into their own hands?
Probably more than others, distrust of government and especially the justice system tends to produce that result.
> There is an incredible amount of violent crime in black communities
“Taking matters into your own hands” is, itself, typically crime, often violent crime, and disputes about the correctness of the attribution or level of punishment in a community that does self-service law enforcement tend to be resolved by more self-service “justice”.
So, yeah, that’s exactly what you’d expect with self-service justice, even if you ignore that the reason for that is itself selective criminalization, prosecution, remand, and punishment of blacks. All of which (because US penal facilities don’t just house criminals but help form and harden them) contributes to criminality in the black community.
Probably more than others, distrust of government and especially the justice system tends to produce that result.
> There is an incredible amount of violent crime in black communities
“Taking matters into your own hands” is, itself, typically crime, often violent crime, and disputes about the correctness of the attribution or level of punishment in a community that does self-service law enforcement tend to be resolved by more self-service “justice”.
So, yeah, that’s exactly what you’d expect with self-service justice, even if you ignore that the reason for that is itself selective criminalization, prosecution, remand, and punishment of blacks. All of which (because US penal facilities don’t just house criminals but help form and harden them) contributes to criminality in the black community.
> "Taking matters into your own hands” is, itself, typically crime, often violent crime
I personally started with making sure my youngsters respect teachers.
I personally started with making sure my youngsters respect teachers.
Do people of color actually take matters into their own hands?
Irrelevant, my comment is about white people taking matters into their own hands by torturing and murdering black people, which is a specific case of the comment about communities enforcing laws for themselves. Speak to that, or go elsewhere to ask about other forms of vigilante justice.
There is an incredible amount of violent crime in black communities that other black people have done nothing to mitigate.
I am not in the mood to rehash the “black-on-black violence, what are black people doing about it” trope. It is not my responsibility to pivot to discussing your pet topic given that I was talking about lynching.
This is a blatant example of “whataboutism” rhetoric, and I’m not going to play along.
* plonk *
Irrelevant, my comment is about white people taking matters into their own hands by torturing and murdering black people, which is a specific case of the comment about communities enforcing laws for themselves. Speak to that, or go elsewhere to ask about other forms of vigilante justice.
There is an incredible amount of violent crime in black communities that other black people have done nothing to mitigate.
I am not in the mood to rehash the “black-on-black violence, what are black people doing about it” trope. It is not my responsibility to pivot to discussing your pet topic given that I was talking about lynching.
This is a blatant example of “whataboutism” rhetoric, and I’m not going to play along.
* plonk *
There's some ambiguity in the second paragraph of your first comment. I believe you are describing lynching there, but it is also possible to read it as a description of present day communities.
Ok, I’ll adjust it. Thank you.
As a non-USA citizen it seems to me that Americans are really into self ownership, if you're successful that's because you pulled yourself up by the bootstraps, if you're not it's because you didn't work hard enough. So the person is held 100% accountable for everything they do. It's like the phrase "guns don't kill people, people kill people".
Liberty and Accountability go hand-in-hand. When you try to decouple them, you decrease Liberty and sometimes make it nonviable.
What does "Liberty and Accountability" mean in this context? Accountability is quite broad. Can you narrow things down a bit and elaborate? Can you give examples of countries that tried liberty without accountability (as you mean it) and have failed?
Accountability doesn’t work when crazies have easy access to military style weapons and routinely attack churches and cinemas full of people. If you truly believe that accountability is all you need then make nukes legal. Because “nukes doesn’t kill people. People kill people” right? Good luck with that.
Seems to me like those with the greatest liberties face the least accountability.
Yeah, that's because of corruption. Lots of societies and forms of government are workable - whether they lean more socialistic, capitalistic, individualist, collectivist... whatever floats your ideological boat.
But add corruption to the mix, and they all go to crap.
But add corruption to the mix, and they all go to crap.
That seems a false dichotomy to me. As if you have to choose between either radical accountability or absolute dictatorship. Understanding what brings people to do bad things can actually prevent them from happening to a certain degree, simply saying "drugs are bad, m'kay" only condemns the deed and the person.
The problem with this way of looking at people is that it assumes we're fully rational beings. This is what neo-liberalism and Christianity share with each other, they assume full free will, the sin belongs to the sinner alone.
I get angry just like any other person when someone breaks into my car or my home and I believe they should be punished. But if problems become structural, structural solutions are necessary.
The problem with this way of looking at people is that it assumes we're fully rational beings. This is what neo-liberalism and Christianity share with each other, they assume full free will, the sin belongs to the sinner alone.
I get angry just like any other person when someone breaks into my car or my home and I believe they should be punished. But if problems become structural, structural solutions are necessary.
How about my Liberty to live my life without being afraid of crazies running around with military style machine guns? And my Liberty to go to church or the cinema without having crazies attacking me with machine guns? The problem with words like “Liberty” is that they mean different things for different people. Your “Liberty” to have access to guns impact my “Liberty” to not get shot by crazy people or people high on drugs.
There are a lot of Americans and we believe a lot of things that aren't supported by evidence (46% of Americans are very or somewhat worried that someone in their family will become a victim of terrorism [0]).
As for bootstraps: we don't all start the race to success on the same starting line. Some work very hard to get where they are and some don't.
Unfortunately, my small personal sample size isn't close to representative, but if I had to guess, this is ... slowly getting better?
[0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/4909/terrorism-united-states.as...
As for bootstraps: we don't all start the race to success on the same starting line. Some work very hard to get where they are and some don't.
Unfortunately, my small personal sample size isn't close to representative, but if I had to guess, this is ... slowly getting better?
[0] https://news.gallup.com/poll/4909/terrorism-united-states.as...
[deleted]
‘Nukes don’t kill people, people kill people”. So following that logic the US should make nukes legal? So that whole cities can be blown up by crazies and not just cinemas and churches? How about taking guns away from crazies so that they only have access to knives and not machine guns?
There's a perverse incentive to jail people driven by the stupid war on drugs. Besides, if someone steals a bread leaf, they might go to jail at the expense of the whole society. This has to change. Justice should not be punitive, but rather reparative... and people who commit crimeless victims are the victims themselves of improper incarceration (in other words, state sanctioned kidnapping).
The statistics support that in an even stronger way if you expand the list beyond drug charges to "charges probably related to drugs". Check fraud, for example, is often done to buy drugs. Similar for many other types of theft, etc.
So what’s the alternative? Tent camps under every freeway overpass and near every park and green space with roaming tweakers and junkies stealing bikes and any other property not locked down? Honestly that seems like the worse option. It seems like the bleeding heart strategy of letting these people just go about their day is just a slow death for those drug users and lowers quality of life for everyone else. Why is there no middle ground like in Europe? America is too extreme. Either we lock people up for a joint or we give them more needles to use heroin and enable their addiction. It is totally bizarre in my opinion. California looks dirtier than most third-world countries I’ve been to. Clearly we can do better.
I feel like tent camps are a housing problem and homelessness shouldn’t be a crime. We can do better, indeed.
(Edit; also, apparently giving needles actually has significant benefits to a community, in that addicts are constantly exposed to a medically safe space where their addiction is treated like the health problem it is. It also gives them constant exposure to safe, non-judge mental avenues for recovery programs and detox clinics. It’s easy to say, as an addict, that I’m not going to a program recommended by a stranger or a cop. It’s harder to refuse when it’s this friendly receptionist who has never judged me and has told me that they know 5 others like me who have all succeeded breaking the addiction.)
(Edit; also, apparently giving needles actually has significant benefits to a community, in that addicts are constantly exposed to a medically safe space where their addiction is treated like the health problem it is. It also gives them constant exposure to safe, non-judge mental avenues for recovery programs and detox clinics. It’s easy to say, as an addict, that I’m not going to a program recommended by a stranger or a cop. It’s harder to refuse when it’s this friendly receptionist who has never judged me and has told me that they know 5 others like me who have all succeeded breaking the addiction.)
How would a drug addict on meth or heroin afford an apartment at any price? The homeless problem is made worse by the housing problem, but the people we see in the tent camps under freeways were not priced out because their rent got raised. That’s just propaganda the mayors in democrat cities put out to shift blame and responsibly.
> Edit; also, apparently giving needles actually has significant benefits to a community, in that addicts are constantly exposed to a medically safe space where their addiction is treated like the health problem it is. It also gives them constant exposure to safe, non-judge mental avenues for recovery programs and detox clinics.
But we don’t give free needles or insulin to people with diabetes? I just think our priorities are fucked. And you look at a city budget like SF where hundreds of millions are spent on the homeless only for the problem to get worse every single year and the money is never spend in an accountable way. I’d just prefer to help people who would actually help themselves so we aren’t just enabling them further in a self-destructive path.
I’ve never seen another country with our policies that seems to be a working model. Why can’t we just copy something that actually work? I find it bizarre we just keep spending more and more but won’t look beyond our own paradigm for a better strategy.
> Edit; also, apparently giving needles actually has significant benefits to a community, in that addicts are constantly exposed to a medically safe space where their addiction is treated like the health problem it is. It also gives them constant exposure to safe, non-judge mental avenues for recovery programs and detox clinics.
But we don’t give free needles or insulin to people with diabetes? I just think our priorities are fucked. And you look at a city budget like SF where hundreds of millions are spent on the homeless only for the problem to get worse every single year and the money is never spend in an accountable way. I’d just prefer to help people who would actually help themselves so we aren’t just enabling them further in a self-destructive path.
I’ve never seen another country with our policies that seems to be a working model. Why can’t we just copy something that actually work? I find it bizarre we just keep spending more and more but won’t look beyond our own paradigm for a better strategy.
What works is that we straight up give them housing, free needles, free-at-the-point-of-access healthcare, and treating addiction like we would treat a medical condition like diabetes-get them on a treatment plan without judgement.
The reason why there’s a ton of inefficient waste in Democrat cities is because of bullshit NIMBYism and constant resistance to just giving people minimum standards of living due to some notion of wanting to figure out who “deserves” it more.
We know what works. Needles exchanges work. Free healthcare works. Providing housing works. Strong social programs work.
The reason why there’s a ton of inefficient waste in Democrat cities is because of bullshit NIMBYism and constant resistance to just giving people minimum standards of living due to some notion of wanting to figure out who “deserves” it more.
We know what works. Needles exchanges work. Free healthcare works. Providing housing works. Strong social programs work.
Platitudes. Show me a country your model is functioning in. I don't see Portugal or other places just giving people free needles and letting drug addicts defecate all over tourist areas or make huge trash piles that look like spillover from a landfill. Why do we constantly waste money on these unaccountable programs instead of actually finding a working model?
I'm all for giving them public housing and I believe in universal healthcare. But at what point after we offer them an alternative to living on the street to we force them to stop leaving needles and trash and being a public health hazard to everyone else? There has to be a carrot and a stick approach otherwise it won't work. San Francisco has tried an all carrot and no stick approach and it's getting worse by the day.
I'm all for giving them public housing and I believe in universal healthcare. But at what point after we offer them an alternative to living on the street to we force them to stop leaving needles and trash and being a public health hazard to everyone else? There has to be a carrot and a stick approach otherwise it won't work. San Francisco has tried an all carrot and no stick approach and it's getting worse by the day.
>> As an approximation, all of the murders from fifteen years ago, back when murder rates were much higher, are still in prison today.
The author is unaware of the fact that in recent years, the murder rate in South Carolina has increased to meet or exceed what it was 15 years ago
https://www.postandcourier.com/news/north-charleston-among-c...
The author is unaware of the fact that in recent years, the murder rate in South Carolina has increased to meet or exceed what it was 15 years ago
https://www.postandcourier.com/news/north-charleston-among-c...
I'm not sure the author is unaware of that. The last paragraph explicitly calls this out.
>> Secondly, the rate of homicides in the US has been going up quite a bit for the past two years. This is supposedly a localized effect of a few high crime cities, but even in South Carolina the number of people in prison for murder has gone up by about 10% in just the last four years. This is concerning.
>> Secondly, the rate of homicides in the US has been going up quite a bit for the past two years. This is supposedly a localized effect of a few high crime cities, but even in South Carolina the number of people in prison for murder has gone up by about 10% in just the last four years. This is concerning.
Dead link in the article revived:
"I pulled up a breakdown of total inmate population, by most serious offense. Only 16% were there on drug related charges."
http://www.doc.sc.gov/research/InmatePopulationStats/ASOF-Mo...
"I pulled up a breakdown of total inmate population, by most serious offense. Only 16% were there on drug related charges."
http://www.doc.sc.gov/research/InmatePopulationStats/ASOF-Mo...
This is an interesting exploration of the incarceration statistics, but it doesn't go one step further and explain why American prison sentences are so long.
I've seen numerous explanations for this, one being that there is a strong incentive for US politicians to look "tough on crime", a greater emphasis on retribution than rehabilitation, historic racial injustice, and a sizeable for-profit private prison industry. But other developed countries also have these factors to some extent, for example the UK's private prisons house 18% of prisoners compared to the USA's housing 8%.
In my view, understanding the cause of why these long sentences are considered normal is essential to preventing a lot of pain and suffering. There are several examples of harmless people given life sentences for marijuana possession under three strikes laws, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. A society that is obsessed with freedom yet incarcerates more of its citizens than Cuba or Russia, and hands down disproportionately severe sentences for transgressions that would be viewed much less seriously in other countries, is a bizarre phenomenon with a huge human cost.
I've seen numerous explanations for this, one being that there is a strong incentive for US politicians to look "tough on crime", a greater emphasis on retribution than rehabilitation, historic racial injustice, and a sizeable for-profit private prison industry. But other developed countries also have these factors to some extent, for example the UK's private prisons house 18% of prisoners compared to the USA's housing 8%.
In my view, understanding the cause of why these long sentences are considered normal is essential to preventing a lot of pain and suffering. There are several examples of harmless people given life sentences for marijuana possession under three strikes laws, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. A society that is obsessed with freedom yet incarcerates more of its citizens than Cuba or Russia, and hands down disproportionately severe sentences for transgressions that would be viewed much less seriously in other countries, is a bizarre phenomenon with a huge human cost.
USA has a zero-tolerance policy so it might has to do with that, you can go to prison for pretty much anything. On top of that you add inequality, cost of education etc...
Let’s be clear:
It has a zero-tolerance policy for some people. Some get life sentences for crimes committed while juveniles. Others get an “Aw, they’re just boys being boys pass” for their entire lives, right up to being appointed to the Supreme Court.
It has a zero-tolerance policy for some people. Some get life sentences for crimes committed while juveniles. Others get an “Aw, they’re just boys being boys pass” for their entire lives, right up to being appointed to the Supreme Court.
There's also quite a lot of "3 strikes" and "your misdemeanor is now a felony due to some prior conviction" type laws in the US.
Similarly, fairly minor infractions while on probation/parole result in lengthy sentences via revocation.
Similarly, fairly minor infractions while on probation/parole result in lengthy sentences via revocation.
And there are many more that reduce felonies like drunk driving or violent crimes to misdemeanors if some anger management or drug rehab program is attended. It goes both way and it’s not clear to me either is working very effectively.
Yes, though I'm surprised that upgrading charges based on past crimes is constitutional. It just seems very odd to me to charge someone with something they didn't actually do.
to charge someone with something they didn't actually do
Not sure how you can frame a previous "strike" as something they didn't actually do. The strikes were actual crimes with convictions.
The legal notion of sentence modifications based upon various factors is nothing new. You can get extra time for committing a robbery if you had a gun when committing it, even if the gun wasn't loaded or fired.
Not sure how you can frame a previous "strike" as something they didn't actually do. The strikes were actual crimes with convictions.
The legal notion of sentence modifications based upon various factors is nothing new. You can get extra time for committing a robbery if you had a gun when committing it, even if the gun wasn't loaded or fired.
"You can get extra time for committing a robbery if you had a gun when committing it"
That's something you did, and an actual named charge "Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon" or similar.
Charging someone with a felony for repeated petty shoplifting is just odd though. They upgrade the charge to, "felony burglary", for example, when the crime clearly didn't fit the definition of "felony burglary" in the law. They have separate laws for how the "upgrade" occurs.
That's something you did, and an actual named charge "Robbery with a Dangerous Weapon" or similar.
Charging someone with a felony for repeated petty shoplifting is just odd though. They upgrade the charge to, "felony burglary", for example, when the crime clearly didn't fit the definition of "felony burglary" in the law. They have separate laws for how the "upgrade" occurs.
Shouldn't people who just made one bad decision be given lighter sentences than career criminals?
Judges already have broad leeway in sentencing.
Did you read the article?
A great book on the subject: Overcriminalization: The Limits of the Criminal Law by Douglas Husak (an academic philosopher who is also a lawyer)
https://www.amazon.com/Overcriminalization-Limits-Criminal-D...
https://www.amazon.com/Overcriminalization-Limits-Criminal-D...
1) dumb drug laws which create gangs
2) urban gang violence culture
3) effective criminal justice system
2) urban gang violence culture
3) effective criminal justice system
Its not effective if it does not provide defendant with a proper lawyer and convicts innocent people in 'plea deals' without judicial oversight. It also fails the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio#:~:text....
It's not even a "urban gang violence culture" issue. It's just the natural result of what happens when you can't use courts and threat of state violence to settle disputes that would be civil issues in any other industry.
If the people shooting at each other over bad business involving drugs were plumbers they would be arguing with each other in a courtroom.
If the people shooting at each other over bad business involving drugs were plumbers they would be arguing with each other in a courtroom.
uhhh see #1
Drug laws dont create gangs. People create gangs.
You're right, but the laws create the opportunity. a prohibition creates a black market and cartels or gangs form in order to meet the demand of the market.
Way too much sympathy for criminals in this thread. Most people in prison could have trivially avoided being there by not committing crimes. Many of the people in prison imposed a massive cost on their community and its good they have been removed. Considering how many rapists and murders get away with it the prison population should be even higher.
Amen. We have an under incarceration problem if anything. I can take you to a few places where people regularly steal and fence stolen goods—what about their daily victims? Or all the filthy homeless camps causing environmental damage by dumping trash into rivers and wetlands. Society has gone too far to the other end of accommodation and now just turns a blind eye. This helps literally no one but the bleeding hearts who smugly pat themselves on the back.
Thinking poverty induced crime warrants incarcerating people instead of helping them overcome poverty is a view too cynical to be real. I think that you should reanalyze your empathy towards your fellow man if you're arguing in good faith.
I dont think anyone will sympathize with murderers or criminals, but that half of the criminals are in for non violent crimes such as drug offenses. Luckily the tides on marijuana are changing. Imagine though if half of our prison population wasnt there and instead were in some time of rehabilitation center to get past the drug use and back to be a productive part of society.
How many of those non violent convictions are the result of plea deals down from violent felonies?
How many of those violent crime convictions are police officers stating "Stop resisting!" while putting someone in handcuffs and they trip and fall and get a bloody lip and throw assault at the perp? Sadly these are all "what ifs" and not looking at the actual data in front of us.
I don't know, but I think both are reasonable questions.
We dont know. But not knowing isnt the same as knowing not.
You definitely didn't read the article. It's less than 20%
It's that simple?
There's 40,000 people in prison for Marijuana.
Do they belong there?
There's 40,000 people in prison for Marijuana.
Do they belong there?
The post has no mention of mandatory minimums, prosecution pressuring innocent people into plea deals without proper oversight by a judge, quality of publically provided lawyers, no mention of re-offence rate and no comparison with countries that focus on rehabilitation.
I am sorry but this is vacuuous, it doesnt even scratch the surface of the issue
I am sorry but this is vacuuous, it doesnt even scratch the surface of the issue
There are a lot of people breaking the law in America. Many of them get caught and go to prison. Few know this.
So if many people are breaking the law, is the law set at a level where many are not able/willing to follow it (like say speed limits in many areas) or are more Americans by nature law breakers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime
passing law that criminalizes victimless behavior should be a crime!
passing law that criminalizes victimless behavior should be a crime!
Answer: the law sucks.
Proposed fix: put the right not to be charged with a victimless crime in a constitutional amendment. (this should be a much loved amendment for those true freedom lover in the US, that are all cringing at the incarceration rate)
Proposed fix: put the right not to be charged with a victimless crime in a constitutional amendment. (this should be a much loved amendment for those true freedom lover in the US, that are all cringing at the incarceration rate)
That victimless crimes (or purportedly victimless crimes) are responsible for most prisoners in the US is one of those "everybody knows" things, so it might be puzzling that your call to stop putting perpetrators of victimless crimes in prison would get a bunch of quick down votes.
Alas, in this case it turns out that it is also one of those "everybody knows" things where everybody turns out to be wrong, and that is covered very early in the article.
That's what makes the article interesting--it is not just another article about how our prisons are stuffed to overflowing due to victimless crime. Instead, it finds that that explanation is wrong, and goes on to work out what is actually going on, which is a lot more interesting.
Note that if the question instead had been "why are there so many people in America who have been in prison" rather than asking about people who are in prison, then it is possible that victimless crime would be the answer.
Alas, in this case it turns out that it is also one of those "everybody knows" things where everybody turns out to be wrong, and that is covered very early in the article.
That's what makes the article interesting--it is not just another article about how our prisons are stuffed to overflowing due to victimless crime. Instead, it finds that that explanation is wrong, and goes on to work out what is actually going on, which is a lot more interesting.
Note that if the question instead had been "why are there so many people in America who have been in prison" rather than asking about people who are in prison, then it is possible that victimless crime would be the answer.
Is drunk driving without running anyone over that particular night victimless? I agree with your sentiment generally, but I think the details get tricky.
I think the exemption should be where the crime, even though victimless, has a high chance of causing someone harm.
Drunk driving would fall into that category. However something like illicit drug consumption would not.
Drunk driving would fall into that category. However something like illicit drug consumption would not.
Also there's "crime vs offense". First few times drunk driving could be an offense for instance. Same for other annoyance or statistical offenses/crimes.
I feel like potential to put others at risk would void protection under the amendment. I don’t think it would have to be 100% perfect, just better than we are doing now while avoiding false positives.
Anyways, I feel like we have courts to interpret these things. The existing amendments are interpreted in a variety of convoluted ways depending on the scenario.
Anyways, I feel like we have courts to interpret these things. The existing amendments are interpreted in a variety of convoluted ways depending on the scenario.
Well, what defines that potential risk? They can already charge you with crimes for endangering yourself. It's mostly stuff like drunk in public, excessive speeding with moby else around or in the car, or doing donuts alone in a snowy parking lot.
If we leave it up to the courts, it's not worth the paper its written on.
If we leave it up to the courts, it's not worth the paper its written on.
Yes.
So just fine the person and make them do community service.
Which is usually what the courts do for DUI without a victim assuming the accused lawyers up.
So just fine the person and make them do community service.
Which is usually what the courts do for DUI without a victim assuming the accused lawyers up.
yes, just like shooting a gun out your window because you felt like it and not hitting anything is victimless but probably good to discourage anyway.
> put the right not to be charged with a victimless crime in a constitutional amendment.
Unfortunately the only way this would happen is over a lot of dead bodies or if you spend three generations boiling the frog.
People are too addicted to using overt state violence (as opposed to obfuscated state violence, i.e. fines) to prevent people from engaging in behavior they don't like or risky but not guaranteed harmful behavior. The idea that you could get a DUI or sell heroin and as long as nobody gets hurt the max penalty would be a fine, community service, etc. etc. is just unacceptable to them (despite that being the typical end result in those cases assuming the person charged lawyers up). You can already see this in the comments.
Unfortunately the only way this would happen is over a lot of dead bodies or if you spend three generations boiling the frog.
People are too addicted to using overt state violence (as opposed to obfuscated state violence, i.e. fines) to prevent people from engaging in behavior they don't like or risky but not guaranteed harmful behavior. The idea that you could get a DUI or sell heroin and as long as nobody gets hurt the max penalty would be a fine, community service, etc. etc. is just unacceptable to them (despite that being the typical end result in those cases assuming the person charged lawyers up). You can already see this in the comments.
They would just ignore or find a way around it. Civil asset forfeiture exists despite the 4th amendment. "Drug sniffing" dogs do to. They will just charge people they don't like with something else, like arresting someone for resisting arrest.
> Proposed fix: put the right not to be charged with a victimless crime in a constitutional amendment.
That's a good idea, but much harder to implement than it sounds. Being a small time drug dealer may be a victimless crime to many people, but it certainly isn't to parents who've had a teenager who's OD'd.
And then there are crimes like insurance fraud, that don't hurt any one individual, but do make the cost of living higher for everyone else who's premiums go up as a result.
TLDR; it's very hard to determine which crimes are and are not "victimless".
That's a good idea, but much harder to implement than it sounds. Being a small time drug dealer may be a victimless crime to many people, but it certainly isn't to parents who've had a teenager who's OD'd.
And then there are crimes like insurance fraud, that don't hurt any one individual, but do make the cost of living higher for everyone else who's premiums go up as a result.
TLDR; it's very hard to determine which crimes are and are not "victimless".
Any constitutional amendment would require the courts to work out what it means; and we have seen the courts come up with very complicated rules for seemingly simple constitutional ones.
A relatively simple system would be to require the state to articulate who the victim is. It is then a constitutionally protected defense that the alleged victim was not a victim. Regarding the insurance company, this seems like the exactly the type of scenario that corporate personhood was designed for.
A relatively simple system would be to require the state to articulate who the victim is. It is then a constitutionally protected defense that the alleged victim was not a victim. Regarding the insurance company, this seems like the exactly the type of scenario that corporate personhood was designed for.
Idk, maybe I’m not understanding something but I feel like both of those examples are crimes with victims.
I’d err on the side of avoiding false positives and say that only actions impacting yourself receive the protections of an amendment. Ex:
* not wearing a seatbelt
* consuming drugs
I’d err on the side of avoiding false positives and say that only actions impacting yourself receive the protections of an amendment. Ex:
* not wearing a seatbelt
* consuming drugs
70K overdose deaths per year is certainly not victimless:
https://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/data/statedeaths.html
Families lose sole providers and parents have to bury their own children.
Families lose sole providers and parents have to bury their own children.
95k deaths a year are due to alcohol, many more premature deaths because of obecity, smoking and other vices. So lets be consistent
You can't just look at absolute deaths. You need to compare the chance that a hard drug user dies of a drug-related cause with the chance that an alcohol user dies of an alcohol-related cause. The number of people who drink alcohol is orders of magnitude higher than the number of people who do drugs, but the number of alcohol deaths is not orders of magnitude higher than the number of drug deaths.
nah. you have to look at the whole population. so the numbers are comparable. less people may try heroin than alcohol for a reason.
but even without that: everyone should be allow to tweak themselves how they see fit. that's just basic tolerance to me.
putting people in cages because they trade chemicals that people seek to induce happiness is to me the main atrocity here.
but even without that: everyone should be allow to tweak themselves how they see fit. that's just basic tolerance to me.
putting people in cages because they trade chemicals that people seek to induce happiness is to me the main atrocity here.
> less people may try heroin than alcohol for a reason.
Isn't the reason that heroin is way, way worse?
Isn't the reason that heroin is way, way worse?
What's with the value judgement? It is known to be very addictive -- why is that? Because it is so "good", the experience is pleasant. That why people take it!
To me being an addict is not a problem. I see coffee/nicotin/alc/TV/porn addicts every day and call them my friends'n'fam. No problem. It's "their choice", and they dont look bad for it in my view.
In some cases addiction comes together with other behavior that do make people look bad to me: not taking responsibility, being a cunt, etc. Those behaviors I do look bad at.
To me being an addict is not a problem. I see coffee/nicotin/alc/TV/porn addicts every day and call them my friends'n'fam. No problem. It's "their choice", and they dont look bad for it in my view.
In some cases addiction comes together with other behavior that do make people look bad to me: not taking responsibility, being a cunt, etc. Those behaviors I do look bad at.
Who is charged with these crimes right now? You point to CDC data of overdoses but is there matching data about people being charged with crimes here?
If not I don’t understand how the proposed amendment could make this situation any worse than it is now, while it may help many other situations.
If not I don’t understand how the proposed amendment could make this situation any worse than it is now, while it may help many other situations.
This is a public health problem, not a crime problem. The fact that the United States treats it as a crime problem is a big part of why it's gotten so bad.
It's not as if it has to one or the other, it can be both. The fact is, there is both a public health component as well as a moral component associated with the drug trade.
This gets tricky though as you get deeper. Ok you don't want to wear your seatbelt, what about your kids in the car? Does a baby have to sit in a baby seat? If you don't want to wear a seatbelt, get in an accident and have to get scraped off the sidewalk, what about the person that has to scrape you up? If you are disabled due to the accident, who pays your disability? Who looks after your kids now that you are gone? Society has to shoulder that expense. Does forcing people to wear seatbelts result in a reduced financial burden to others? Interesting questions.
I feel like adults supervising minors are responsible for their safety. Even now it’s not a minor who is fined if they aren’t wearing a seatbelt, it’s the driver.
I find the point about financial burden to society more interesting because it’s hard to articulate a clear test that would indicate whether society is a victim or not. A few others have made the same point as you. I’d love if anyone has ideas here.
I find the point about financial burden to society more interesting because it’s hard to articulate a clear test that would indicate whether society is a victim or not. A few others have made the same point as you. I’d love if anyone has ideas here.
" If you don't want to wear a seatbelt, get in an accident and have to get scraped off the sidewalk, what about the person that has to scrape you up"
What about that person?
Also, if financially burdening society is a crime, then we ought to imprison CEOs of tabacco and alcohol companies. What about abundance of sugar in food where it doesn't belong, unhealthy lifestyles, etc. Where is the line that preserves any liberties?
And before you say it's obvious, alcohol and McDonald have both ruined more lives than weed ever did.
What about that person?
Also, if financially burdening society is a crime, then we ought to imprison CEOs of tabacco and alcohol companies. What about abundance of sugar in food where it doesn't belong, unhealthy lifestyles, etc. Where is the line that preserves any liberties?
And before you say it's obvious, alcohol and McDonald have both ruined more lives than weed ever did.
I fully support the legalization of marijuana. Again you have raised interesting questions, at what point does society have the right to impose restrictions on your free will and at what point are people pushing clearly harmful products to willing consumers liable? I don't know the answers, but these are things a society wrestles with all the time as it evolves.
Consuming drugs is not a crime in most jurisdictions.
And with not wearing a seatbelt, you are the victim, along with your loved ones and the rest of us who have to help bear the cost of the emergency response to accidents involving major injuries or fatalities.
And with not wearing a seatbelt, you are the victim, along with your loved ones and the rest of us who have to help bear the cost of the emergency response to accidents involving major injuries or fatalities.
Not wearing a seat belt does not impact only yourself. If you are driving and encounter a situation where you have to swerve sharply to avoid an accident and you are not wearing a seat belt it is harder to maintain control of the car.
A sharp swerve tends to make you lurch to the side relative to the car, which tends to cause you to turn the steering wheel more or less than you intended to turn it. A properly used seat belt limits the extent of that lurch.
If you've got access to a big empty parking lot, it is interesting to do some testing making sharp turns with and without your seat belt. That belt makes a lot of difference.
A sharp swerve tends to make you lurch to the side relative to the car, which tends to cause you to turn the steering wheel more or less than you intended to turn it. A properly used seat belt limits the extent of that lurch.
If you've got access to a big empty parking lot, it is interesting to do some testing making sharp turns with and without your seat belt. That belt makes a lot of difference.
Not wearing a seatbelt in accident could be argued increases the cost of your healthcare treatment (or possibly reduces if you go too fast). In same vein as that insurance example. Consuming drugs - what about blowing pot smoke on kids playing in the park or walking across the street? Leaving used needles scattered on the ground? What about smoking pot with a friend? What all conditions must be OK for that friend to co-smoke?
We can come up with more or less obscure but real examples all day. That's not how laws should be designed.
We can come up with more or less obscure but real examples all day. That's not how laws should be designed.
Well in the kind of political views such arguments come from, a victim would be someone who's rights were violated, not just someone for whom the interaction turned out to be detrimental but consented anyway.
Well, in a country with socialised medicine, which the U.S. is going to become under Biden as it seems, not wearing a seatbelt or consuming drugs will not be victimless anymore.
Given that we don't let hospitals or paramedics check if people can pay before they provide emergency care, this is already the case.
Not necessarily disagreeing, but if you don't have the means to pay for your own healthcare, both of those actions have a downside risk that creates a victim out of your entire community. A society where paramedics make sure car crash victims or overdosed drug users can pay the bill before they provide emergency care isn't one I want to live in.
I don't know about that as the fix. There are plenty of things that need to be fixed in the law. In my opinion most come from laziness, win-at-all costs mindset, and ignoring rule of law from the people who run the system.
Reigning in LEO/DA/judge discretion would make the system more fair and potentially prompt the public to demand we fix the broken laws since they would be more likely to be subjected to them rather than let off the hook. I've seen people admit to crimes and be let off the hook based on discretion when others have not. I've seen DAs violate their office policy to ignore misconduct allegations against LEOs - not just performing a shotty investigation, but deciding not to investigate at all even though it's part of a case they are prosecuting. I've also seen a judge give contradictory reasoning in the same case to the detriment of the defense (said lack of a record means they are denying the motion from the defense, when the defense later said they had a record he then said no prior records were allowed to be used).
Changing the mindset of the public from "those criminals deserve it" and truly believing in innocent until proven guilty would also help with the bias defendants face in the system. The first person to call the police is labeled as the victim and that carries a huge bias that affects police and DAs to the point that they don't perform though investigations. In science and other logic based fields you at least think about the devils advocate perspective to verify you are right. This doesn't happen in law. As soon as they get the evidence to "prove" you are guilty, they stop looking. You could have a valid defense or have information that one of their facts is wrong if they investigate a little deeper, but they won't. This puts the defense at a disadvantage since the police and DA have much greater power to investigate than a defendant does. This victim/complainant positive bias will only get worse with things like ex-parte red flag laws and Marcy's law. These are popular with the public, yet in many cases undermine constitutional protections. We even see that things like PFAs are being sought without basis with the intent of weaponizing them in divorces. And this is done with the knowledge of and even pressure from the lawyers, who are supposed to be held to the ethical standards of the bar.
We also need better oversight and higher standards for those who run the system. I've seen a trooper contradict himself multiple times in official reports and in court, one of which I believe was an outright lie to the judge. The investigator said it was just a misunderstanding and they did not care about the contradictions. Any other witness would have been discredited. I doubt they logged these contradictions as Giglio information for future cases. Magistrates in my states aren't required to be lawyers or even pass the bar in my state. I've had magistrates believe that they were being called prejudiced when being asked to dismiss a case with prejudice. Unreal.
Cost of prosecution is covered by the government and virtually unlimited. Cost of defense, other than the indignant, is not covered and can outweigh the cost of pleading guilty and paying a fine. You aren't reimbursed after being found not guilty. This means you can be punished (pay more) more as an innocent person than if you were guilty. How is this justice?
Most cases are settled in plea deals. Many people settle because they could be held in jail while waiting. In many states, if you're not in custody, they consider a speedy trial as anything that starts withing 4 or 5 years. So much for that constitutional protection.
Reigning in LEO/DA/judge discretion would make the system more fair and potentially prompt the public to demand we fix the broken laws since they would be more likely to be subjected to them rather than let off the hook. I've seen people admit to crimes and be let off the hook based on discretion when others have not. I've seen DAs violate their office policy to ignore misconduct allegations against LEOs - not just performing a shotty investigation, but deciding not to investigate at all even though it's part of a case they are prosecuting. I've also seen a judge give contradictory reasoning in the same case to the detriment of the defense (said lack of a record means they are denying the motion from the defense, when the defense later said they had a record he then said no prior records were allowed to be used).
Changing the mindset of the public from "those criminals deserve it" and truly believing in innocent until proven guilty would also help with the bias defendants face in the system. The first person to call the police is labeled as the victim and that carries a huge bias that affects police and DAs to the point that they don't perform though investigations. In science and other logic based fields you at least think about the devils advocate perspective to verify you are right. This doesn't happen in law. As soon as they get the evidence to "prove" you are guilty, they stop looking. You could have a valid defense or have information that one of their facts is wrong if they investigate a little deeper, but they won't. This puts the defense at a disadvantage since the police and DA have much greater power to investigate than a defendant does. This victim/complainant positive bias will only get worse with things like ex-parte red flag laws and Marcy's law. These are popular with the public, yet in many cases undermine constitutional protections. We even see that things like PFAs are being sought without basis with the intent of weaponizing them in divorces. And this is done with the knowledge of and even pressure from the lawyers, who are supposed to be held to the ethical standards of the bar.
We also need better oversight and higher standards for those who run the system. I've seen a trooper contradict himself multiple times in official reports and in court, one of which I believe was an outright lie to the judge. The investigator said it was just a misunderstanding and they did not care about the contradictions. Any other witness would have been discredited. I doubt they logged these contradictions as Giglio information for future cases. Magistrates in my states aren't required to be lawyers or even pass the bar in my state. I've had magistrates believe that they were being called prejudiced when being asked to dismiss a case with prejudice. Unreal.
Cost of prosecution is covered by the government and virtually unlimited. Cost of defense, other than the indignant, is not covered and can outweigh the cost of pleading guilty and paying a fine. You aren't reimbursed after being found not guilty. This means you can be punished (pay more) more as an innocent person than if you were guilty. How is this justice?
Most cases are settled in plea deals. Many people settle because they could be held in jail while waiting. In many states, if you're not in custody, they consider a speedy trial as anything that starts withing 4 or 5 years. So much for that constitutional protection.
I was robbed at gunpoint in Colombia. I argued with robber I want to keep my passport and will take my cards from wallet. In US they would shoot me just for good measure.
It's fascinating to me that everywhere that I've traveled and lived in South America (including Colombia), people seem to have this narrative about the locals that they'll "just shoot you and go through your pockets after." I've not seen any evidence that it's based in anything except media-cultivated fear of their own culture. I'm not used to hearing it said about the US, but with the constant pushes here to keep us afraid and willing to give up civil liberties, it makes sense that I'd run into it one day.
This is so far from reality I'm fascinated as to where you've gotten this idea from. Is your concept of the US based on comic books or old spaghetti westerns or some media in your country?
The odds of getting shot by someone wanting to take your wallet is just so close to zero that it literally never crosses my mind. I'm more likely to die getting struck by lightning or having a meteorite fall out of the sky and hit me.
The odds of getting shot by someone wanting to take your wallet is just so close to zero that it literally never crosses my mind. I'm more likely to die getting struck by lightning or having a meteorite fall out of the sky and hit me.
I want to make sure I understand your argument. You're suggesting you're more likely to be murdered by a mugger in the US than in Colombia?
Thats actually a well known phenomenon - in countries where kidnapping is widespread, the kidnapper is a 'businessman', they are not there to kill people and they evade justice and keep low-ish profile.
By contrast in US crininals know they will likely spend many years in jail
By contrast in US crininals know they will likely spend many years in jail
It's factually incorrect and easy to verify by comparing murder rates. Colombia's murder rate is 8x higher than the US. Stating that you're more likely to be murdered in the US than Colombia is ridiculous.
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Colombia/U...
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Colombia/U...
Yes, Colombian guy was polite.
I still favor the lead crime hypothesis for why violent crime was so high between the 70’s and the 90’s.
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/02/an-updated-le...
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/02/an-updated-le...
Is it odd to think there should be more? I see people stealing, doing hard drugs like heroin or meth, prostitution, and doing other anti-social behavior daily but we all just accept it now. Cops give tickets for heroin or meth and there’s no consequence if they don’t show up to court... I’m kind of ready for the pendulum to swing the other way again, especially before my kid grows up and has to be exposed to it.
Sending someone to jail does not magically cure them of their meth addiction. It probably compounds it as whatever sense of desperation or alienation drove them to drugs is now catalyzed by the inability to find meaningful work with due to a drug conviction / prison time. The solution should be to help these people get off of drugs but that is a society wide effort that needs to occur. Its much easier just to send a a few armed dudes over to rough them up and throw them in a cell. America does love to remove its undesirables from the view of others.
Sending to jail is supposed to be a prevention factor, not a cure.
That being said, being an addict is not a crime in most countries. Selling drugs is.
Is it different in the US?
That being said, being an addict is not a crime in most countries. Selling drugs is.
Is it different in the US?
Being an addict is not a crime in the US but possession of drugs even for personal use is for the most part, exceptions exist for marijuana in some areas. I think history has proven that if you are at the point you are considering using heroin or meth, the threat of incarceration is generally not a deterrent. I don't know that I have the answers, I just don't think that throwing someone in prison is the solution to the drug pandemic. I do agree that dealers should go to jail.
No but the rest of society is no longer victimized or harmed. Why do we just let drug users trash our public spaces and commit so much destruction? Does that not have a toll on society and everyone else’s quality of life? What about all the stuff they steal daily? I don’t see other developed countries bend over so far to accommodate criminals and drug addicts and frankly our strategy isn’t working at all—these populations just get bigger every year....
If they are stealing, committing vandalism or generally victimizing others then yes I absolutely agree they should be punished. My main point was I disagree with arresting people for possession of narcotics. Once it crosses over from a victimless crime to something else then I agree.
Prop 47 and 57 turned most of California cities into slums. Now you can steal up to $950 a day and use drugs openly and camp anywhere you want--a great foundation for any functioning society.
Almost every large city in California has a few streets of blocks where they just push all the homeless and trash piles up, you see open bike chop shops pop up, there are super sketchy pimps/prostitutes. I just think we are allowing someone who has a drug addiction to descend to an even deeper downward spiral. I think Neo-liberals tell themselves that they have to not further harm these marginalized folks, but really it's just the the further soft bigotry of low expectations.
My dad was a drug addict and the only time I saw him get sober was after he was incarcerated. I don't think the people out there sleeping under bridges and pushing carts full of trash are getting help, society is just letting them rot until they die off and neoliberals like Nancy Pelosi can just ignore them like a meaningless statistic. Republicans straight up don't care either, but I've never seen lower levels of human despair and drug addiction than in San Francisco or other deeply blue democrat run states.
Almost every large city in California has a few streets of blocks where they just push all the homeless and trash piles up, you see open bike chop shops pop up, there are super sketchy pimps/prostitutes. I just think we are allowing someone who has a drug addiction to descend to an even deeper downward spiral. I think Neo-liberals tell themselves that they have to not further harm these marginalized folks, but really it's just the the further soft bigotry of low expectations.
My dad was a drug addict and the only time I saw him get sober was after he was incarcerated. I don't think the people out there sleeping under bridges and pushing carts full of trash are getting help, society is just letting them rot until they die off and neoliberals like Nancy Pelosi can just ignore them like a meaningless statistic. Republicans straight up don't care either, but I've never seen lower levels of human despair and drug addiction than in San Francisco or other deeply blue democrat run states.
> I see people stealing, doing hard drugs like heroin or meth, prostitution, and doing other anti-social behavior daily but we all just accept it now.
Uhm... opiates and prostitution have been around for quite some time. Large scale prison systems... not so much.
Uhm... opiates and prostitution have been around for quite some time. Large scale prison systems... not so much.
Comparing smoking opium to fentanyl is just ignorant. The drugs are just tremendously more addictive and potent. A few small baggies of fentanyl could kill dozens. Not the same with opium poppies....
Agree... but fentanyl wasn’t mentioned.
The shoe doesn't fit the foot. A year of someone's precious life in exchange for doing drugs or selling their body is cruel and disproportionate. We have to remember that prisons are expensive and dehumanizing, and ex-prisoners in the US become repeat offenders almost as much as they become reformed. It's not a magical cure for society's ills.
The text of the 13th Amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
Except as a punishment for crime. America never abolished slavery, we just made up crimes that disproportionately affect people of color and then use them for free labor. We don't sell their offspring like chattel, we just convict them of the same crimes. Private prisons shouldn't exist and prison labor should be fairly compensated.
Boiling the cause down to a formula like the article does is an incredibly superficial analysis, there's no examination or even curiosity about why any part of the equation is the way it is.
Except as a punishment for crime. America never abolished slavery, we just made up crimes that disproportionately affect people of color and then use them for free labor. We don't sell their offspring like chattel, we just convict them of the same crimes. Private prisons shouldn't exist and prison labor should be fairly compensated.
Boiling the cause down to a formula like the article does is an incredibly superficial analysis, there's no examination or even curiosity about why any part of the equation is the way it is.
Note only 8% of prisons in the US are private prisons. By focusing on private prisons we are focusing on a small part of the problem that while emotionally outraging is pragmatically inconsequential.
That completely ignores that the "public" prisons often contract significant amounts of their running out to private corporations anyway. One of Aramark's big businesses is providing food for prisons
A lot of people, especially Americans, like to think of Americans as a uniquely violent people, but this is really a systemic and cultural problem as well as a failing of individuals. People used to think of Glasgow as uniquely violent but that problem has been greatly reduced thanks to the VRU.