Land of the free

[soylentgreen]

The way I see it, there aren't enough people in jail. Look at the murder rate in our big cities. Holy fucking shit...more people were killed in Chicago over the last 10 years than the number of soldiers lost in Iraq over the same period of time.

Perhaps we're just putting the wrong people in jail? I don't know...

[Malcolm Wright]

I think that's just this week. To be honest, I think we're supposed to be afraid of each other.

Exactly right and the next 10 years will bear this out with increasing clarity

[Malcolm Wright]

Pho has a point about the 51% figure. Hides a lot of subtlety.
That being said, its a shame to get lost arguing about that when the drive of the OP is incredibly powerful and really does reflect a dysfunctional society.

[Pho King]

Pho has a point about the 51% figure. Hides a lot of subtlety.
That being said, its a shame to get lost arguing about that when the drive of the OP is incredibly powerful and really does reflect a dysfunctional society.

yes, but the OP claims that the source of the dysfunction suggested by those stats is our drug laws. Of course those numbers reflect, at least, dysfunction within society.

[Malcolm Wright]

yes, but the OP claims that the source of the dysfunction suggested by those stats is our drug laws. Of course those numbers reflect, at least, dysfunction within society.

http://norml.org/marijuana/personal/...lking-points-2

With marijuana alone, we're spending about 10 billion dollars per year to prosecute and incarcerate marijuana-only offenders.
They make up about 2 percent of the prison population.
Once incarcerated, the likelihood of them entering a life of more serious crime skyrockets, making marijuana incarceration effectively a 'gateway' incarceration. As such, these figures are not representative of the full extent of marijuana incarceration effects on the penal population.

Almost half the states in the US hold three strikes laws which overwhelmingly net long term prison sentences for people whose most recent crime was non-violent.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...olent-felonies

Two years after California's tough "three strikes and you're out" law went into effect, twice as many defendants had been imprisoned under the law for marijuana possession as for murder, rape and kidnapping combined...

M.

[Pho King]

http://norml.org/marijuana/personal/...lking-points-2

With marijuana alone, we're spending about 10 billion dollars per year to prosecute and incarcerate marijuana-only offenders.
They make up about 2 percent of the prison population.
Once incarcerated, the likelihood of them entering a life of more serious crime skyrockets, making marijuana incarceration effectively a 'gateway' incarceration. As such, these figures are not representative of the full extent of marijuana incarceration effects on the penal population.

Almost half the states in the US hold three strikes laws which overwhelmingly net long term prison sentences for people whose most recent crime was non-violent.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...olent-felonies


M.

Malcolm- you are committing the same error that Boo did. Very very few people go to prison for a first-time marijuana trafficking charge. If they landed in prison on a marijuana charge- you can bet that the individual has repeatedly demonstrated a disdain for and unwillingness to follow the state's criminal statutes.

[Malcolm Wright]

Malcolm- you are committing the same error that Boo did. Very very few people go to prison for a first-time marijuana trafficking charge. If they landed in prison on a marijuana charge- you can bet that the individual has repeatedly demonstrated a disdain for and unwillingness to follow the state's criminal statutes.

I understand. It still remains that if marijuana was decriminalized, those incarcerations would not be.

M

[Pho King]

I understand. It still remains that if marijuana was decriminalized, those incarcerations would not be.

M

You could be right, assuming that there was not additional criminal activity associated with the marijuana. However, that is generally not the case.

[Malcolm Wright]

You could be right, assuming that there was not additional criminal activity associated with the marijuana. However, that is generally not the case.

My post referred to marijuana-only offenses.
If some of these masked other offenses because plea-bargaining was involved, my only answer is that plea-bargaining sucks.
That said, I doubt it is common for a violent crime to be occluded in favor of mere marijuana charges during plea-bargaining.

M

[Malcolm Wright]

This thread should be balanced with a discussion of other factors leading to high rates of incarceration.
Factors stemming from our cultural, and political leanings.

In a nation where aggressive competitors receive all the glory, and team players close to none, it stands to reason that more individuals will resort to criminal activity in their race to 'go out and get mine'. The American Dream's material component is very strong, and Americans are raised with a certain notion that we have a right to material abundance. This is a powerful disinhibitor: if you see your neighbor living the American Dream, and see that it was easier for him to attain it because of the family he was born into, the school he went to, or even just the talent he was born with, there is the strong temptation to level the playing field by considering oneself entitled to bypass some of the rules of society.

We are reaping the effects of the American Dream, and many of them are not pleasant.

M

[Pho King]

My post referred to marijuana-only offenses.
If some of these masked other offenses because plea-bargaining was involved, my only answer is that plea-bargaining sucks.
That said, I doubt it is common for a violent crime to be occluded in favor of mere marijuana charges during plea-bargaining.

M

Violent crimes? No. Other crimes? Generally. Marijuana offenses, on their own, are simply not aggressively prosecuted, even in Maricopa County- the toughest place in the US to be charged with a crime.

[Zordar]

In a nation where aggressive competitors receive all the glory, and team players close to none, it stands to reason that more individuals will resort to criminal activity in their race to 'go out and get mine'. The American Dream's material component is very strong, and Americans are raised with a certain notion that we have a right to material abundance. This is a powerful disinhibitor: if you see your neighbor living the American Dream, and see that it was easier for him to attain it because of the family he was born into, the school he went to, or even just the talent he was born with, there is the strong temptation to level the playing field by considering oneself entitled to bypass some of the rules of society.

This is interesting. In the United States, its public schools and corporations in particular, we have moved toward an "it's-all-about-the-team" culture over the last 30 years, to the point where office cubicles have no walls (or privacy, if that's your view) in order to encourage "togetherness and communication," where every task more complicated than transferring a phone call requires a team project, and where attending stupid social events and "friending" your coworkers on Facebook isn't just encouraged, but mandatory . This has a very negative effect upon introverts, those who aren't interested in shouting and beating their chests, and people from cultures with a strong "think-then-speak" bias (Asian, Indian, and Finnish come to mind), as they are passed up time and again for raises and promotions for not being the life of the party.

This is a new phenomena, but is very well documented by Harvard lawyer and writer Susan Cain, in her book Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking.

Sorry for the digression; I don't disagree with your point, but I wonder what sort of effect this newthink on public education/corporate workplace will have on those attitudes? Will your critique still hold water in 30 years?

[Malcolm Wright]

Violent crimes? No. Other crimes? Generally. Marijuana offenses, on their own, are simply not aggressively prosecuted, even in Maricopa County- the toughest place in the US to be charged with a crime.

I mentioned violent crimes specifically because those should be our priority.
I also doubt that plea-bargains often occur which eclipse more serious drug charges in favor of leaving only marijuana.

M

[Pho King]

I mentioned violent crimes specifically because those should be our priority.
I also doubt that plea-bargains often occur which eclipse more serious drug charges in favor of leaving only marijuana.
M

That does happen, with some frequency. But thats not the point. The point is that people that are incarcerated for marijuana crimes would likely still be incarcerated if marijuana were decriminalized. Because of the attendant criminal behavior (generally) coupled with their past criminal behavior. It takes A LOT of very bad behavior to wind up in jail on a marijuana charge.

[BooRadley]

The 51% number which you rely on so heavily does nothing to explain how those individuals ended up incarcerated. It says nothing of attendant and prior criminal behavior.

Yes, it does. It explains that they're in prison for DRUG offences. That's how they ended up in prison for drug offences. They got convicted of drug offences. That simple. yeah, maybe they have committed some other crime in the past, but if they're not in prison for that now, then that has nothing to do with their current conviction on drug related charges.

Further, most of the related violent crime is caused by rivalry for market share in the black market that's created by the drug laws that we're talking about.

Glad to see you discussing the subject, by the way. Let's see how long you can keep at it.

[Pho King]

Yes, it does. It explains that they're in prison for DRUG offences. That's how they ended up in prison for drug offences. They got convicted of drug offences. That simple. yeah, maybe they have committed some other crime in the past, but if they're not in prison for that now, then that has nothing to do with their current conviction on drug related charges.

Further, most of the related violent crime is caused by rivalry for market share in the black market that's created by the drug laws that we're talking about.

Glad to see you discussing the subject, by the way. Let's see how long you can keep at it.

Ok. Clearly you have no understanding of how criminal histories impact sentencing. You need help. Im glad you came to me. We will take AZ as an example. In AZ, a charge of posession of meth for a first time offender carries a mandatory probation sentence. But if that same individual has a prior felony conviction, and the state pursues the enhanced charge- the offender is going away. Not so much for the instant crime, but for his past conviction. Additionally, typically there are associated charges with a drug conviction- charges that are pled away. But in any event, your statement that "if they are not in prison for that now, then that (prior offense) has nothing to do with their current conviction on drug charges" is true, but off point. It is that prior crime that is the basis of their sentence.

I have been addressing the subject. I see you are choosing to as well. Unfortunately, your understanding of the subject is pretty simplistic, and completely inaccurate. I get it. You hate drug laws. It would just be nice if you could provide some support for that emotion-driven response aside from "51% of prisoners are incarcerated for drug offenses".

[BooRadley]

Ok. Clearly you have no understanding of how criminal histories impact sentencing. You need help. Im glad you came to me. We will take AZ as an example. In AZ, a charge of posession of meth for a first time offender carries a mandatory probation sentence. But if that same individual has a prior felony conviction, and the state pursues the enhanced charge- the offender is going away. Not so much for the instant crime, but for his past conviction. Additionally, typically there are associated charges with a drug conviction- charges that are pled away. But in any event, your statement that "if they are not in prison for that now, then that (prior offense) has nothing to do with their current conviction on drug charges" is true, but off point. It is that prior crime that is the basis of their sentence.

So you're saying that if a guy's arrested for meth, but meth weren't illegal, he would have been arrested for something else anyway? If not, then past arrests, especially fro drug related priors, has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. If meth weren't illegal, he wouldn't be in front of a judge for meth to get sentenced, in the first place.

You hate drug laws. It would just be nice if you could provide some support for that emotion-driven response

See what I mean? You just can't stop yourself, can you? Yet you piss yourself if someone does the same to you. So, why do you hate freedom again?

Fucking troll.

[Pho King]

So you're saying that if a guy's arrested for meth, but meth weren't illegal, he would have been arrested for something else anyway? If not, then past arrests, especially fro drug related priors, has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.



See what I mean? You just can't stop yourself, can you? Yet you piss yourself if someone does the same to you. So, why do you hate freedom again?

Fucking troll.

Generally, arrests for meth carry all sorts of other potential charges. But your understanding of my point is......weird. Nowhere have I suggested that a guy would be arrested for meth if meth was not illegal. In fact- that makes no sense. Past CONVICTIONS (I thought I already taught you about criminal records?) have everything to do with sentencing. In fact, nearly everyone incarcerated for drug offenses would not have been so incarcerated if it were not for the prior convictions. And, in many cases, for additional present offenses. Most people in prison for drugs are habitual criminals. Not tough to understand. But your inability to grasp even very simple concepts- concepts which, by the way, do not necessarily undercut your opposition to drug laws- leads me to believe that it is through emotion that you have generated your conclusions, and not logic, or even applicable knowledge. Generally, pointing out the weak points in one's argument is considered good debate. You, however, take it personally, and then engage in exactly the behavior you think I am engaging in. However, I am not insulting you, except to the extent that I am ruining the basis you use for your arguments.

The fact that you cannot defend your arguments and thus resort to childish name calling does not cause me to, as you say, piss my pants. Rather, it amuses me. Especially in this thread, where right after you turn yourself into a "troll" you accuse me of doing so. Its interesting, thats all. I don't mind. Because usually somewhere in your trollish rant there is a nugget of actual substance- no matter how in conflict with the facts it may be.

[BooRadley]

Nowhere have I suggested that a guy would be arrested for meth if meth was not illegal. In fact- that makes no sense. Past CONVICTIONS (I thought I already taught you about criminal records?) have everything to do with sentencing. In fact, nearly everyone incarcerated for drug offenses would not have been so incarcerated if it were not for the prior convictions.

Again, if this hypothetical meth head weren't in front of a judge for his drug offence, then his past history would be irrelevant, because he wouldn't be in front of a judge to worry about it. His priors are irrelevant, especially drug related priors, because those wouldn't have existed either.

I know you don't have the capacity to understand that very, very basic logic, but that's something that I can't help you with. You should try talking to a grammar school teacher.

Most people in prison for drugs are habitual criminals.

Yeah, no shit. Drugs are addictive. This is new information to you? If the drugs weren't illegal in the first place, then all prior drug offences wouldn't have happened, either. You seem to be missing the basic concept, which is pretty much par for course for you. Maybe you should go back to retarded person jabs?

Especially in this thread

This isn't the only thread, troll. You do it in every thread you post in.

[Lulu]

Pho seems very hung up on this 50% number to the point that he's wringing his hands over it w/o addressing the topic. I don't think it much matters if it's their first drug offense or their 4th when we are discussing if drugs should be legalized.

I've done a 180 on the drug laws in the past 5 years. I used to think they were a good idea, all drugs should be illegal. Now I certainly think it's reasonable to legalize pot - probably not legalize the meth heads since they have a tendency to blow things up and go wacko. We have a ton of people filling up prisons who've never committed a violent crime and who've never burglarized anything. It sure would cut down on a some of the drug wars of gangs as well. The dumbest thing California ever did was pass that 3 strikes law... again it was knee jerk reactions by legislators w/o them fully understanding the consequences. Interesting numbers on the full break down of what people are in jail for.

Types of Offenses back to top

Drug Offenses: 95,528 (48.7 %)
Weapons, Explosives, Arson: 30,821 (15.7 %)
Immigration: 23,726 (12.1 %)
Robbery: 8,280 (4.2 %)
Burglary, Larceny, Property Offenses: 7,328 (3.7 %)
Extortion, Fraud, Bribery: 10,763 (5.5 %)
Homicide, Aggravated Assault, and Kidnapping Offenses: 5,592 (2.9 %)
Miscellaneous: 1,721 (0.9 %)
Sex Offenses: 10,235 (5.2 %)
Banking and Insurance, Counterfeit, Embezzlement: 811 (0.4 %)
Courts or Corrections: 640 (0.3 %)
Continuing Criminal Enterprise: 508 (0.3 %)
National Security: 94 (0.0 %)

http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp#1