6 ms·

These two paragraphs lead me to believe that if the author had considered the rise of mandatory minimum sentences part of the war on drugs the headline of the p

These two paragraphs lead me to believe that if the author had considered the rise of mandatory minimum sentences part of the war on drugs the headline of the paper might be different. "The five means by which the War on Drugs can drive up incarceration rates (or punishment more generally) considered in Part II are (1) the direct incarceration of drug offenders, (2) the re-incarceration of all types of offenders due to drug-related parole violations, (3) the impact of drug incarcerations on prison admissions instead of prison populations, (4) the extent to which prior drug offenses trigger repeat-offender enhancement, even for non-drug crimes, and (5) the effects of large-scale drug arrests and incarcerations on neighborhood social cohesion, and the connections between social stability and incarceration. " "The connection here between the War on Drugs, longer criminal records, and increased prosecutorial aggressiveness is fairly straightforward. Increased drug enforcement results in defendants with longer felony records and prosecutors may be more aggressive against such defendants. They may be less willing to plead down felonies to misdemeanor, or to drop cases altogether; to divert to an alternative program, or to drop more serious charges. They may also be more willing to select charges that carry mandatory minimums even when there are viable alternate charges that carry no minimum. Such harshness could reflect increasingly punitive attitudes on the part of prosecutors, perhaps in response to rising crime rates from the 1960s to the 1990s, or to other political and social factors. Or it could be that prosecutors have maintained a relatively constant approach toward charging repeat offenders, but the number of arrestees with long records has grown, thanks in part to drug-related convictions. Note, too, that prosecutors need not be more aggressive just toward those with more convictions, but perhaps also toward those only with more prior arrests, even if some of those arrests never resulted in convictions."

luso_brazilian 11y ago
The first paragraph you quote was cut short in your summary. The rest of it is: As noted above, despite the theoretical plausibility of all five, the data cautions against putting too much weight on any of them. And then the author goes on debunking each of them: While the first two theories — that drug incarcerations and drug-related parole violations drive growth — have received the most attention, they are also the easiest to debunk. and so it follow.
- encoderer 11y ago
  Yes, my point is, the increase of mandatory minimum sentencing doesn't seem to have been given consideration as a "direct" cause. Seems like all the objective data is undermined by the subjectivity of determining what are the "direct" and "indirect" effects.
rayiner 11y ago
Mandatory minimums aren't a part of the drug war. They're a response to the huge spike in crime that started in the late 1960's: http://www.americanthinker.com/legacy_assets/articles/assets/Murders%201.bmp http://www.americanthinker.com/legacy_assets/articles/assets.... Note that the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (which imposed mandatory sentencing guidelines), and the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 (which eliminated federal parole), came two years before legislation to increase punishments for drug-related crimes. Similarly, it wasn't the drug war that led the way when states passed reforms limiting/eliminating parole or imposing life sentences for three strikes. In fact, most states don't include drug crimes within the scope of their three strikes laws.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  For much of the 1980s, Michigan imposed a mandatory life sentence for possession of large amounts of hard drugs. Which isn't contrary to your point that the drug laws should be considered separately, but if the drug sentencing is independently harsh, it doesn't need the three strikes accelerator. A famous comedian made a deal to avoid that sentence. One that promotes a family values image.
- peterwwillis 11y ago
  So what caused the bump in crime? Boredom? Perhaps fun-loving kids just looking to have a good time? Or, I dunno, maybe............ drugs?
  - tptacek 11y ago
    The prison population isn't a function of a bump in crime. The prison population shot up as the crime rate fell through the 90s. The paper concludes by asking a series of questions about why prosecutors got harsher even as the crime rate dropped.
    - peterwwillis 11y ago
      Well that's a nonsensical question to pose. First of all, harsh is subjective. Prosecutors don't dole out "harsh" sentences, they dole out longer or more restrictive sentences. To them, the sentence is not harsh because they're keeping innocent civilians safer by keeping criminals behind bars longer, or by making it easier to send potentially harmful people back to prison. Prison is no longer seen as a way to be penitent about one's actions: prison is now seen as a way to keep the bad away from the good. The rate of crime may have dropped, but the kind of crime did not, and prison gangs certainly haven't diminished in size or scope. People seem to forget that going to prison is a way of life to many people. Keeping those people 'off the streets' is basically the prosecutor's primary role.
Tloewald 11y ago
Actually I think the article does address these points: "For all the talk about drug incarcerations driving up prison populations, drug offenders comprise only 17% of state prison populations and explain only about 20% of prison growth since 1980." "Perhaps drug incarcerations are relatively short but ultimately trigger much longer sentences for future non-drug crimes via repeat offender laws. The available data make it clear that prior drug incarcerations do not seem to play any important role in future non-drug incarcerations." They also acknowledge that prior contact with the legal system owing to minor drug offenses might increase the probability that police will choose to arrest someone for a non-drug crime, etc. but that such effects are invisible to their approach (i.e. they may exist, but they can't tell from the data they have). It does not seem to me that the authors have an agenda to excuse the "war on drugs" so much as fully understand the contribution of drug enforcement to our huge prison population. Bear in mind that the 17-20% of prisoners who are in for drugs on their own would constitute the entire prison population based on incarceration rates before 1980. If it's not (just) low level drug crimes, what is it? Is it the prison as poorhouse / cash cow model which has been exposed in Ferguson Missouri (and is common across the country?)

luso_brazilian 11y ago

The first paragraph you quote was cut short in your summary. The rest of it is: As noted above, despite the theoretical plausibility of all five, the data cautions against putting too much weight on any of them. And then the author goes on debunking each of them: While the first two theories — that drug incarcerations and drug-related parole violations drive growth — have received the most attention, they are also the easiest to debunk. and so it follow.

encoderer 11y ago
Yes, my point is, the increase of mandatory minimum sentencing doesn't seem to have been given consideration as a "direct" cause. Seems like all the objective data is undermined by the subjectivity of determining what are the "direct" and "indirect" effects.

rayiner 11y ago

Mandatory minimums aren't a part of the drug war. They're a response to the huge spike in crime that started in the late 1960's: http://www.americanthinker.com/legacy_assets/articles/assets/Murders%201.bmp http://www.americanthinker.com/legacy_assets/articles/assets.... Note that the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (which imposed mandatory sentencing guidelines), and the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 (which eliminated federal parole), came two years before legislation to increase punishments for drug-related crimes. Similarly, it wasn't the drug war that led the way when states passed reforms limiting/eliminating parole or imposing life sentences for three strikes. In fact, most states don't include drug crimes within the scope of their three strikes laws.

maxerickson 11y ago
For much of the 1980s, Michigan imposed a mandatory life sentence for possession of large amounts of hard drugs. Which isn't contrary to your point that the drug laws should be considered separately, but if the drug sentencing is independently harsh, it doesn't need the three strikes accelerator. A famous comedian made a deal to avoid that sentence. One that promotes a family values image.
peterwwillis 11y ago
So what caused the bump in crime? Boredom? Perhaps fun-loving kids just looking to have a good time? Or, I dunno, maybe............ drugs?
- tptacek 11y ago
  The prison population isn't a function of a bump in crime. The prison population shot up as the crime rate fell through the 90s. The paper concludes by asking a series of questions about why prosecutors got harsher even as the crime rate dropped.
  - peterwwillis 11y ago
    Well that's a nonsensical question to pose. First of all, harsh is subjective. Prosecutors don't dole out "harsh" sentences, they dole out longer or more restrictive sentences. To them, the sentence is not harsh because they're keeping innocent civilians safer by keeping criminals behind bars longer, or by making it easier to send potentially harmful people back to prison. Prison is no longer seen as a way to be penitent about one's actions: prison is now seen as a way to keep the bad away from the good. The rate of crime may have dropped, but the kind of crime did not, and prison gangs certainly haven't diminished in size or scope. People seem to forget that going to prison is a way of life to many people. Keeping those people 'off the streets' is basically the prosecutor's primary role.

Tloewald 11y ago

Actually I think the article does address these points: "For all the talk about drug incarcerations driving up prison populations, drug offenders comprise only 17% of state prison populations and explain only about 20% of prison growth since 1980." "Perhaps drug incarcerations are relatively short but ultimately trigger much longer sentences for future non-drug crimes via repeat offender laws. The available data make it clear that prior drug incarcerations do not seem to play any important role in future non-drug incarcerations." They also acknowledge that prior contact with the legal system owing to minor drug offenses might increase the probability that police will choose to arrest someone for a non-drug crime, etc. but that such effects are invisible to their approach (i.e. they may exist, but they can't tell from the data they have). It does not seem to me that the authors have an agenda to excuse the "war on drugs" so much as fully understand the contribution of drug enforcement to our huge prison population. Bear in mind that the 17-20% of prisoners who are in for drugs on their own would constitute the entire prison population based on incarceration rates before 1980. If it's not (just) low level drug crimes, what is it? Is it the prison as poorhouse / cash cow model which has been exposed in Ferguson Missouri (and is common across the country?)