4 ms·

> First off, prison labor hasn't been phased-out in the United States, quite the contrary; it's at an all-time high. AFAIK, all labour in USA prisons is volunt

by w00pla 17y ago

> First off, prison labor hasn't been phased-out in the United States, quite the contrary; it's at an all-time high. AFAIK, all labour in USA prisons is voluntary and paid (i.e. it is not part of punishment). Most countries (including the USA AFAIK) also ban the use of prison labour for non-governmental work. If this requirement is removed, the government can recuperate much more money from prisoners (that they lose due to the cost of their incarceration). > Secondly, three-strikes laws have proven to be completely effete at combating non-violent crime. Drug possession charges, which have seen the widest adoption of three-strike laws, have tripled since 1982. Meanwhile, violent crime has dropped steadily All types of crime are related. A reason for the drop in violent crime may be an increase in incarceration of the number of drug users.

spamizbad 17y ago
>All types of crime are related. A reason for the drop in violent crime may be an increase in incarceration of the number of drug users. Then please explain this relationship. I understand the connection between the drug trade and the violent crime, pertaining to the criminal element of the black market; but the notion that I'm buying weed today, raping/murdering tomorrow, is nonsense. I'm not entirely certain these 3-strike laws even work for violent crime, when you consider they weren't widely used by prosecutors until the late 90s, at which point we had already seen steep drops in our violent crime rate. Regardless of whether or not a state has a 3-strike statute, you see a downward trend starting in or around '93.
- catzaa 17y ago
  You created a bit of a strawman in your post. But anyways, look below. From http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/cri...: > Past year illicit drug users were also about 16 times more likely than nonusers to report being arrested and booked for larceny or theft; more than 14 times more likely to be arrested and booked for such offenses as driving under the influence, drunkenness, or liquor law violations; and more than 9 times more likely to be arrested and booked on an assault charge. You can look at that website for several statistics. You will note that that website shows increased offenses for drug users that are not related to traditional "drug-trafficking" or "black-market" activities (so this can’t be blamed on the prohibition of drugs). > I understand the connection between the drug trade and the violent crime, pertaining to the criminal element of the black market; but the notion that I'm buying weed today, raping/murdering tomorrow, is nonsense. You should make a distinction between hard and soft drugs. Claiming that weed is safe, therefore all drugs are safe isn’t correct – and it is a strawman. That website clearly states that drug-users have a significantly increased crime rate. I am not going to discuss in detail the causes of crime for drug users (which doesn’t have anything to do with any statement I made). From the same website: > Another dimension of drug-related crime is committing an offense to obtain money (or goods to sell to get money) to support drug use. According to the 1991 joint survey of Federal and State prison inmates, an estimated 17 percent of State prisoners and 10 percent of Federal prisoners reported committing their offense to get money to buy drugs; And the conclusion: > The evidence indicates that drug users are more likely than nonusers to commit crimes, that arrestees frequently were under the influence of a drug at the time they committed their offense, and that drugs generate violence.

by w00pla 17y ago

spamizbad 17y ago

>All types of crime are related. A reason for the drop in violent crime may be an increase in incarceration of the number of drug users. Then please explain this relationship. I understand the connection between the drug trade and the violent crime, pertaining to the criminal element of the black market; but the notion that I'm buying weed today, raping/murdering tomorrow, is nonsense. I'm not entirely certain these 3-strike laws even work for violent crime, when you consider they weren't widely used by prosecutors until the late 90s, at which point we had already seen steep drops in our violent crime rate. Regardless of whether or not a state has a 3-strike statute, you see a downward trend starting in or around '93.

catzaa 17y ago
You created a bit of a strawman in your post. But anyways, look below. From http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/cri...: > Past year illicit drug users were also about 16 times more likely than nonusers to report being arrested and booked for larceny or theft; more than 14 times more likely to be arrested and booked for such offenses as driving under the influence, drunkenness, or liquor law violations; and more than 9 times more likely to be arrested and booked on an assault charge. You can look at that website for several statistics. You will note that that website shows increased offenses for drug users that are not related to traditional "drug-trafficking" or "black-market" activities (so this can’t be blamed on the prohibition of drugs). > I understand the connection between the drug trade and the violent crime, pertaining to the criminal element of the black market; but the notion that I'm buying weed today, raping/murdering tomorrow, is nonsense. You should make a distinction between hard and soft drugs. Claiming that weed is safe, therefore all drugs are safe isn’t correct – and it is a strawman. That website clearly states that drug-users have a significantly increased crime rate. I am not going to discuss in detail the causes of crime for drug users (which doesn’t have anything to do with any statement I made). From the same website: > Another dimension of drug-related crime is committing an offense to obtain money (or goods to sell to get money) to support drug use. According to the 1991 joint survey of Federal and State prison inmates, an estimated 17 percent of State prisoners and 10 percent of Federal prisoners reported committing their offense to get money to buy drugs; And the conclusion: > The evidence indicates that drug users are more likely than nonusers to commit crimes, that arrestees frequently were under the influence of a drug at the time they committed their offense, and that drugs generate violence.