Incarceration in the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

These statistics tell one of two stories. Either we have the very best criminal justice system or the worst. There isn't much room here for middle ground.
Much like most of our out dated "systems" we are refusing to deal with this issue. Health care, infrastructure, education, gun culture are all becoming a matter of concern for the average American. Because we have the best ?

And....

https://www.facebook.com/StopTheTeaParty/photos/a.502129386487003.92449663.50212...

How on earth can an individual with this much lack of critical thinking skills be representative of so much power over the laws that govern our nation.

I think the two top things are related...just not quite sure how but, there seems to be a lack of value for anything that requires critical thinking skills.
Kind of like....times have changed but this is the way we've always done things so lets just fly by the seat of our pants. Doesn't always prove to be the best solution.

>1 faceinbook: I believe that the biggest problem is simply what is considered illegal, and how it's enforced. Non-violent drug crimes are the number one cause for incarceration. Over 50% of inmates in federal prison are there because of drug crimes (see here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/10/war-on-drugs-prisons-infographic_n_4914..., and also the wikipedia article you cited).

In contrast, violent crimes in the US have fallen considerably in the last three decades.

Perhaps the start of a solution would be to redefine what is considered a crime.

#2--I brought this up a short while ago in another thread. You're absolutely right. We've created an industry out of imprisoning people for non violent and victimless crimes. It's even worse in that once out of a prison so many of these people are stigmatized as criminals and have great difficulty finding employment. The war on drugs is an utter failure. What it's done is help to create and enrich huge criminal cartels--meanwhile sending huge numbers of much more than less harmless people into our various prison systems.

Among the reasons for legalizing marijuana is to take the production and sales away from the criminal enterprises--which are huge pools of wealth and violence. For producers and sellers in those states that have legalized--they have to go through background checks and be licensed pretty much like someone who wants a liquor license anywhere in the country. If you're in with bad people your chances of being licensed are pretty much nil. What this does is create tax revenues for the state--put some people to work--it helps to dismantle the criminalization industry for non violent prisoners. Instead of all the costs to the state (trials, incarceration--the medical and food, the etc.'s and etc.'s) for putting them away and the damage you do to their personal lives--instead of all that you have fewer prisoners--more state tax revenue and you've created a structure where you give people a choice of going to a legal person selling you his product and thanking you instead of a guy packing a guy selling you something illegal.

Beyond that just looking at the pharmaceutical ad commercials (any number of legal drugs)--the adverse effects of all these so-called legal drugs that they're required to enumerate in their ads--you have to wonder is marijuana that fucking bad--because it is not. People take it to fight cancer--it's not like tobacco which gives you cancer.

Once again, I'd like to recommend The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. We are putting people in prison who should not be there.

>4 RidgewayGirl: Of course we are. The overt and covert racism in our judicial system is a travesty. Minorities are seriously over-represented in prison. I think that eliminating a lot of the drug laws would go a long way toward reducing this problem, but would NOT eliminate it. There's too much bias in the criminal justice system for that. When a young black man that commits a crime is put in jail on his first offense, but a young white man who commits exactly the same crime is sent on his way with probation or community service (or a suspended sentence) -- if he even makes it before a judge -- there is something rotten at the core.

>5 ljbryant: Not to mention that someone with a record can no longer receive housing assistance or vote and has an almost impossible time finding a job and we're consigning thousands upon thousands of people to a shadow existence. Not to mention the attitude we Americans have to those who have criminal records (hint: it's not "you've done your time, now let us all help you become a contributing and valuable member of society.")

>6 RidgewayGirl: Still no disagreement. Did I take a wrong turn somewhere and miss the on-ramp to the internet? :-)

Start by striking drug laws and other victimess crimes off of the books, including expunging records for such crimes. Follow up by examining court records and firing any judge that consistently issues harsher penalties based on race or sex. The police are a bit more difficult -- maybe implement an oversight committee (in theory we have those now, so I'm not sure how this would work any better than our current system) that has a specific goal of reducing racial discrimination. None of these will fix our attitude towards those who commit crimes and "pay their debt to society" (that phrase alone is part of the problem -- we should be providing alternatives to crime when possible, not punishments).

I don't have any easy answers, and I don't think anything is going to fix the problem in a single generation. Reducing prison populations is a good start, though, since it's ALWAYS easier to fix a smaller system than a larger system, all other things being equal.

All of that being said, it is not in the interest of the government overall to reduce the number of people judged as criminals. The more things on the books as illegal, the more control the government has over their population. Yes, I'm a bit cynical.

>6 RidgewayGirl: Not to mention the attitude we Americans have to those who have criminal records

It's not just Americans. Have you read the stories about the blame being put on the French security forces for not tracking the Hebdo shooter after he got out of prison.

Might as well mention that police departments and organizations around the country have a vested interest in keeping the War on Drugs firing on all cylinders. A lot of money comes their way to keep on doing that--a lot of perks. Knocking down doors at 4am and shooting someone's dog just to see if someone's got a small stash of pot or not. Happens all the time and they seize a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with the alleged crimes. It's fucked up.

And the fact is there is only one other country in the world ranking higher than us in incarceration rates per 100,000 people. It's the Seychelles Islands. About 99.5% of the US population would have to do an internet search to have any idea where the Seychelles Islands are. It's fucking disturbing--we think of ourselves as the beacon of freedom for all the peoples of the world--yet here we are with the highest incarceration rate. Go figure.

>9 lriley: The privatization of prisons is also a problem, as there is now a profit motive in putting more and more people in prison.

It's all starting to come to a head though. We can't afford to imprison so many people, especially with the concurrent trend of slashing taxes. One county in Ohio had to release a large proportion of inmates recently: http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/01/13/ohio-inmates-released

#10--which is also correct. We've created an industry for ruining lives--by creating a category of victimless and non-violent 'criminals'. And other people through corporate prisons or police departments can and do enrich themselves by taking advantage of this situation.

To me it also comes down to what people very often do in the privacy of their own homes--and as long as it's not dangerous to others who cares? There use to be sodomy laws in this country--at least in some states--but as long as the sex was consensual IMO--it's no harm--no foul but these laws were useful to some politicians/religious figureheads for advancing their own agenda and their own careers. To me there are parallels between the two.

>2 ljbryant: Now wait a minute. That graph in the Huffington Post



is not trying to say that the convictions are for using those drugs. Those people are in federal prison for manufacturing distributing and marketing. Not quite the victimless crime >3 lriley: posits.

Yes, there are glaring problems in the justice system and in economic opportunities for the poor. De-criminalizing drugs is not the obvious answer.

>12 2wonderY: Irrelevant, and, yes, selling drugs is a victimless crime. If the drugs weren't illegal, there'd be no incentive to produce many of them -- there'd simply be no large profit in it.

Who is the victim, exactly? The person that buys the drugs? Aren't they doing it voluntarily? Of course, if the drugs are cut with poison, then there's a crime, but come on -- 27.6% are POT? Really?

Much of the harm in drug sale is because it IS illegal. This gives a huge incentive to illegal drug manufacturers and distributors to keep their market through any means (getting kids hooked, gunning down the competition -- and funding PACs to encourage the USA to keep their draconian drug laws in place).

Decriminalize drugs, decriminalize prostitution, decriminalize ANYTHING that happens between consenting adults.

>13 ljbryant: decriminalize ANYTHING that happens between consenting adults.

And tax the hell out of it. :)

Peter McWilliams proposed the term 'consensual crimes' to replace 'victimless'. Drugs, prostitution, and so forth are consensual; neither seller nor buyer have any incentive to contact the police in a normal transaction. This means the normal police procedures are distorted; the 'victim' doesn't alert them to the occurrence of an offense, so the police are forced to either patrol and search for crimes (ineffective) or use undercover agents and informants to locate crimes (which leads to other problems).

#15--it's a good way to look at it. Puts the pro-active nature of police looking for trouble in its proper perspective.

Another thing that hasn't been mentioned--at least in some of the states (maybe all of them) where marijuana has been legalized--it is legal for people to grow to at least a few plants of their own. So good for seed companies and apart from that no cartel connected middlemen again--or even state approved middlemen.

>15 BruceCoulson: Drugs, prostitution, and so forth are consensual; neither seller nor buyer have any incentive to contact the police in a normal transaction.

In theory. Presumably, if they were not criminalized, the transaction would be consensual in the same way drinking alcohol is consensual. But the fact that drugs and prostitution are criminalized now means that drugs and prostitution are not "consensual" but in fact fueled by coercion. Human trafficking is the business of coercion. So legalizing is only one step. Monitoring and regulating would be necessary requirements as well.

>17 southernbooklady: Right. So much this. Legalize it, tax it, and monitor it. Eliminate the current power structure for prostitution, eliminate the incentive to illegally force women (and men, but significantly more women) into prostitution, eliminate the ability to control those prostitutes through illegal drugs, and you've greatly reduced the problems currently associated with the sex trade.

This doesn't entirely eliminate the problem. You will still have pedophiles looking for girls and boys rather than women and men, among other things that require coercion, but it is a good start.

>17 southernbooklady: southernbooklady

No, drugs and prostitution are not 'fueled by coercion'; rather, the criminalization of those acts have led to coercion being profitable in those businesses. Crimes that occur in those businesses are vastly under-reported, because a. the victim has (or was going to) commit a crime ("They took my money and didn't give me no drugs!") and b. police, being human, don't treat crimes committed against criminals as being as serious as crimes against law-abiding citizens. (e.g. rape is crime whether the woman was merely walking to a store or waiting for a 'John'; guess which crime gets more police (and media) attention?)

We monitor the sales of alcohol and cigarettes, regulate hairdressers and plumbers; legalization doesn't magically solve the problems, but it DOES reduce them considerably, and turns them into problems we have a lot more experience in handling. Both drugs and prostitution have been legal in past societies (sanctioned by secular and religious authorities, and regulated by them as well), and Western societies did fine despite the moral issues.

I see what you mean about drug use being a victimless crime:

http://blog.al.com/live/2009/08/man_guarded_at_mobile_hospital.html

Of course if meth were legal (which is a step I'm not willing to take yet) then it would be manufactured in legal facilities which would be subject to all the safety laws we have for chemical manufacturers, which I imagine include that babies not sleep at the factory.

1 Legalization doesn't mean the average guy will stop making his own.
2 Where do you draw that legalization line?

>20 2wonderY: The crime would be having a baby at a drug manufacturing facility.

I believe this would fall under child endangerment laws, already in place, among other restrictions like good manufacturing practices. GMP / GAMP is taken very seriously in the food and drug industry, unlike Joe Blow at home.

>22 2wonderY: Of course legalization means the average guy will stop making his own. You don't make one or two doses of methamphetamine -- you make a batch. The REASON for making that batch is because you can make a LOT of money selling it. If there's no monetary incentive (and there wouldn't be, because legal, monitored manufacture is safe and would undercut the illegal drugs on the price) for home manufacture, this would never happen.

Sure, people would still grow their own pot, and some small percentage of people would still make their own drugs at home to avoid taxes... But, really, how many moonshiners do you know of today? They still exist, because making moonshine is easy and doesn't require access to any regulated chemicals, but how many people want to risk blindness because some idiot running the still doesn't know to throw out the first few shots to get rid of the methanol?

Legalizing drugs reduces danger and risk.

As far as drawing the line -- well, if something causes more deaths than some prescription drugs, sure, you might think about it, but otherwise, why would it be illegal? People CHOOSE to use these drugs. Let them know the risks in advance, and minimize those risks by eliminating unsafe add-ins.

The war on drugs is a losing proposition. Decriminalize possession of any drug.

This blood donor question should not need to be asked:
"Have been in juvenile detention, lockup, jail or prison for 72 or more consecutive hours IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS? Yes/No."

Prison Rape Can, And Must, Be Stopped
Don't tell me it's impossible. We just decided not to care.
Dilan Esper | 3/10/2022