7 ms·

Stop throwing people in jail for "moral crimes" such as drug use, and we'd see a massive decline. Victimless crimes, such as contempt of court for not being "re

Stop throwing people in jail for "moral crimes" such as drug use, and we'd see a massive decline. Victimless crimes, such as contempt of court for not being "respectful" enough of a sitting judge, or the like should never send you to a cage either. One could make a massive list of the ridiculous uses of our criminal justice system, and sadly many don't see it as a problem.

gok 10y ago
Drug crimes cover only 16% of inmates in US state prisons [1]. It's higher in Federal institutions, but that's only about 15% of total inmates. I don't disagree that many drug offenders probably shouldn't be in jail, but the US could release all of them and we'd still have the highest incarceration rate in the world. [1] http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p13.pdf http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p13.pdf (table 13)
- drawkbox 10y ago
  Take another look at this data from same source regarding Federal instead of State: Half of males (50%) and more than half of females (59%) in federal prison were serving time for drug offenses on September 30, 2014.[1] [1] http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf How many started that way or their crime involved weapons/money that were involved in a drug operation? How many repeat or lifetime criminals were first created with a non-violent drug crime? If it is non-violent it should not be something that locks you up ever as that is cruel and unusual punishment, outside the law that is abduction and locking them up in a box. Jailing non-violent offenses costs the taxpayer and the individual more to no benefit. There should be payment penalties and temporary records for those that do repeat offenses, real rehabilitation, mental help, also job programs for them if desired. All of that would probably be cheaper than creating lifetime criminals. Not just for non-violent drug offenses, when I hear about people stealing cars for instance and getting locked up it makes no sense. Insurance exists, and we want the criminal out working to pay that back not debt taxpayers 30k+ per year, it is a loss all around and compounding.
  - yazaddaruvala 10y ago
    Is it violent to sell drugs/alcohol to a minor? Does "violent" cover emotional abuse? How would you rather deal with such crimes?
    - drawkbox 10y ago
      Fines, repeated violations rise up the amount and possibly barring licenses, restraining orders, rehab programs, mental health, and more. Until it is violent there should not be an authority abducting and locking up someone causing tax payer dollars to be further wasted and creating more problems.
      - pcardh0 10y ago
        So under your system, a person can steal without the threat of jail so long as they don't do it violently. Hard to see the downsides of such a system.
        mveety 10y ago
        I'm not entirely convinced that it's the threat of punishment that stops criminals. Going on the criminals I know (crap evidence, I know), excluding the total psychopaths, what has stopped them is guilt for hurting people and/or wanting to be a better role model to their kids/siblings/younger kids that look up to them. All that the justice system seems to do is take away their ability to make legal income and years of their life. For the criminals lacking empathy, I don't know of a good solution to preventing them from hurting people.
      - yazaddaruvala 10y ago
        Fines? - People who steal or sell drugs, do it because they believe they can't survive any other way! Additionally, what if people cannot and do not pay fines? You have a recursive problem right? Are you gonna fine people who cannot pay a fine? Or would you like to add an amendment to your system to put people who cannot afford fines in jail? Barring licenses? - Why do they need licenses? If they get caught, they'll just "pay" a fine right? Restraining orders? - Why would they accommodate? Rehab programs? - Isn't this what prison[0] is supposed to be? Or are you suggesting they can walk out at any time (including before being taken there)? Mental health? - Isn't this just prison[0] with pills? Or are you suggesting they can walk out at any time (including before being taken there)? Please don't misunderstand me, I respect and would love to see a better system. I'm even convinced you're on the right path. I just don't think its as easy as you seemed to state. [0] Where prison is defined: "something that locks you up"
- mschuster91 10y ago
  That statistic only targets drug crime (possession, selling, manufacturing, smuggling), but not the associated crimes like theft, robbery and prostitution, or burglary/forgery (e.g. to get "legal" drugs from pharmacies or Rx blocks from doctors). Depending on the crime, in Germany up to 26% of specific crimes (here: vehicle burglary) relate to known hard-drug users (https://www.polizei.nrw.de/media/Dokumente/Behoerden/LKA/Lagebild_Rauschgift_2014.pdf https://www.polizei.nrw.de/media/Dokumente/Behoerden/LKA/Lag... page 5, section 1.9). When assuming similar numbers for the US, I'd rather think of up to 40% of inmates in due to drug-associated crimes. edit: Also, violence and gun crimes should be counted to drug-related, if the crime was committed in relation to "turf wars" or similar gang activity... and furthermore, drug convictions usually make a person next to unhireable, which leaves the convict without legal means to earn money other than social security, which isn't nearly as comprehensive and extensive as e.g. Germany's system. This in turn leads to more drug-related crime... all of which could be avoided by simply legalizing the most common kinds of drugs.
- Avshalom 10y ago
  16% is not an only kind of number and .16.85+.15.5... 21% of all inmates is certainly not an only number.
rayiner 10y ago
Contempt of court is not a victimless crime. Nobody gets sent to jail just for being disrespectful--they get held in contempt for disrupting the process other people rely on to adjudicate their rights.
- 67726e 10y ago
  So telling a judge to go fuck himself ought to get you some time?
  - rayiner 10y ago
    I'm sure in a country of 300 million people it's happened before, but I don't know of an actual example, and certainly it doesn't happen enough to register even as a blip in terms of the number of people in jail or prison. People get held in contempt for refusing to cooperate with the legal process. Not turning over documents they are obligated to turn over, not testifying when they are obligated to testify, etc.
    - CalRobert 10y ago
      In fact, it has escalated to far longer terms. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vN_PEmeKb0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vN_PEmeKb0
      - rayiner 10y ago
        That hearing involved a defendant accused of murder who demanded a new attorney for frivolous reasons. His vulgarity was not just rude--he prevented the hearing from moving forward. That wasted time and taxpayer dollars and also delayed further prosecution of the actual crime. That's a terrible example of a "victimless crime." Also, as far as I know, the "10 year sentence" was just bluster from the judge, who promptly self-reported the exchange and recused himself from the case, not to mention was publicly admonished for it by the court.
    - baddox 10y ago
      I don't know the statistics, but any basic definition of contempt of court gives the two main reasons: disobeying a court order, or being rude to court officials. Being jailed for disrespect is absolutely a major component of contempt of court.
sandworm101 10y ago
(1) Contempt of court will never see anyone in prison. Prison (in the US) is only for those serving sentences of over one year. A contempt charge is not going to result in a guaranteed sentence of over a year. Six months is generally the outside, but even then only if you disregard any "purge" stipulations. Contempt sends you to jail, not prison. (2) Contempt is not a "victimless" crime. It's not really a crime, but the court/judge is the victim in the situation. (3) There is strong argument for "victimless" crimes to be punished more severely. They are the easier to hide as there is nobody around with a desire to report them. Drunk driving (absent an accident) is victimless but we punish it as we do to deter the legions me know are going undetected. (4) Be very careful about throwing around the victimless label, especially in regards to drugs. Many a family has suffered horribly as one member is consumed by drugs. That nobody is bleeding in hospital doesn't mean there aren't victims.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Prison (in the US) is only for those serving sentences of over one year. This is a popular conception of the prison/jail distinction, and it has some general connection with reality, but it is both possible to be in a "prison" with a sentence of less than a year, and to be sentenced to a "jail" for sentences of greater than a year.
  - dalke 10y ago
    Susan McDougal is a specific example which shows there is both criminal contempt-of-court and some of can happen as a result of civil contempt-of-court. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_McDougal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_McDougal : > From September 9, 1996 until March 6, 1998, McDougal spent the maximum possible 18 months imprisonment for civil contempt, including 8 months in solitary confinement, and was subjected to "diesel therapy" (the practice of hauling defendants around the country and placing them in different jails along the way).[12] In her case, Susan was shuffled from Arkansas to "Los Angeles to the Oklahoma City transfer center, and then on to the Pulaski County Jail in Little Rock, Arkansas". > ... McDougal's trial for criminal contempt-of-court and obstruction of justice charges began in March 1999. The jury hung 7-5 to acquit her for contempt of court, and found her not guilty on the charge of obstruction of justice. Also, H. Beatty Chadwick was held in jail at the county prison for more than 14 years as a result of contempt of court.
Clubber 10y ago
I read an article the other day where police placed a bicycle unlocked in a public place, then watched it. Once someone took off with it, they arrested him. Since he didn't plea bargain, the judge gave him 3 years. A couple things: 1. I would think either a fine or a 30 day sentence is more than enough. 2. I think it's bad for society in general for police to actively bait people into committing crimes. 3. That's about $150,000 of taxpayer dollars for a $100 bicycle. 4. Unrelated but important. In the US, it's legal for police to lie to you about your rights, what evidence they have, or anything really. I believe that is bad for society as well.
- koenigdavidmj 10y ago
  Bike thieves have no fear in most cities, even when it's a $500+ bike (that is, any bike not purchased at Walmart). That's not easy to replace for most people, even engineers. Locking up bike thieves is plenty productive.
  - Clubber 10y ago
    If it was, why are there so many bike thieves?
    - Pica_soO 10y ago
      We should simply lock everyone up, who could become a bike thief. If you have hands and legs, i personally find that very suspicious. The problem is, that there is a strong retalitation instinct in humanity, to enforce group norms.That worked well in villages, but if allowed to be lived out produces ridiculous amounts of locked up people. Whats even more disturbing is, how those locked up people are not allowed to be a productive part in society. They get hamster-wheelian-jobs in the prison industry, instead of continuing with there real jobs. Everybody looses to the brain bug.
    - gozur88 10y ago
      It's possible if we didn't lock them up there would be more. Probable, IMO.
- 10y ago

gok 10y ago

Drug crimes cover only 16% of inmates in US state prisons [1]. It's higher in Federal institutions, but that's only about 15% of total inmates. I don't disagree that many drug offenders probably shouldn't be in jail, but the US could release all of them and we'd still have the highest incarceration rate in the world. [1] http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p13.pdf http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p13.pdf (table 13)

drawkbox 10y ago
Take another look at this data from same source regarding Federal instead of State: Half of males (50%) and more than half of females (59%) in federal prison were serving time for drug offenses on September 30, 2014.[1] [1] http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf How many started that way or their crime involved weapons/money that were involved in a drug operation? How many repeat or lifetime criminals were first created with a non-violent drug crime? If it is non-violent it should not be something that locks you up ever as that is cruel and unusual punishment, outside the law that is abduction and locking them up in a box. Jailing non-violent offenses costs the taxpayer and the individual more to no benefit. There should be payment penalties and temporary records for those that do repeat offenses, real rehabilitation, mental help, also job programs for them if desired. All of that would probably be cheaper than creating lifetime criminals. Not just for non-violent drug offenses, when I hear about people stealing cars for instance and getting locked up it makes no sense. Insurance exists, and we want the criminal out working to pay that back not debt taxpayers 30k+ per year, it is a loss all around and compounding.
- yazaddaruvala 10y ago
  Is it violent to sell drugs/alcohol to a minor? Does "violent" cover emotional abuse? How would you rather deal with such crimes?
  - drawkbox 10y ago
    Fines, repeated violations rise up the amount and possibly barring licenses, restraining orders, rehab programs, mental health, and more. Until it is violent there should not be an authority abducting and locking up someone causing tax payer dollars to be further wasted and creating more problems.
    - pcardh0 10y ago
      So under your system, a person can steal without the threat of jail so long as they don't do it violently. Hard to see the downsides of such a system.
      - mveety 10y ago
        I'm not entirely convinced that it's the threat of punishment that stops criminals. Going on the criminals I know (crap evidence, I know), excluding the total psychopaths, what has stopped them is guilt for hurting people and/or wanting to be a better role model to their kids/siblings/younger kids that look up to them. All that the justice system seems to do is take away their ability to make legal income and years of their life. For the criminals lacking empathy, I don't know of a good solution to preventing them from hurting people.
    - yazaddaruvala 10y ago
      Fines? - People who steal or sell drugs, do it because they believe they can't survive any other way! Additionally, what if people cannot and do not pay fines? You have a recursive problem right? Are you gonna fine people who cannot pay a fine? Or would you like to add an amendment to your system to put people who cannot afford fines in jail? Barring licenses? - Why do they need licenses? If they get caught, they'll just "pay" a fine right? Restraining orders? - Why would they accommodate? Rehab programs? - Isn't this what prison[0] is supposed to be? Or are you suggesting they can walk out at any time (including before being taken there)? Mental health? - Isn't this just prison[0] with pills? Or are you suggesting they can walk out at any time (including before being taken there)? Please don't misunderstand me, I respect and would love to see a better system. I'm even convinced you're on the right path. I just don't think its as easy as you seemed to state. [0] Where prison is defined: "something that locks you up"
mschuster91 10y ago
That statistic only targets drug crime (possession, selling, manufacturing, smuggling), but not the associated crimes like theft, robbery and prostitution, or burglary/forgery (e.g. to get "legal" drugs from pharmacies or Rx blocks from doctors). Depending on the crime, in Germany up to 26% of specific crimes (here: vehicle burglary) relate to known hard-drug users (https://www.polizei.nrw.de/media/Dokumente/Behoerden/LKA/Lagebild_Rauschgift_2014.pdf https://www.polizei.nrw.de/media/Dokumente/Behoerden/LKA/Lag... page 5, section 1.9). When assuming similar numbers for the US, I'd rather think of up to 40% of inmates in due to drug-associated crimes. edit: Also, violence and gun crimes should be counted to drug-related, if the crime was committed in relation to "turf wars" or similar gang activity... and furthermore, drug convictions usually make a person next to unhireable, which leaves the convict without legal means to earn money other than social security, which isn't nearly as comprehensive and extensive as e.g. Germany's system. This in turn leads to more drug-related crime... all of which could be avoided by simply legalizing the most common kinds of drugs.
Avshalom 10y ago
16% is not an only kind of number and .16.85+.15.5... 21% of all inmates is certainly not an only number.

rayiner 10y ago

Contempt of court is not a victimless crime. Nobody gets sent to jail just for being disrespectful--they get held in contempt for disrupting the process other people rely on to adjudicate their rights.

67726e 10y ago
So telling a judge to go fuck himself ought to get you some time?
- rayiner 10y ago
  I'm sure in a country of 300 million people it's happened before, but I don't know of an actual example, and certainly it doesn't happen enough to register even as a blip in terms of the number of people in jail or prison. People get held in contempt for refusing to cooperate with the legal process. Not turning over documents they are obligated to turn over, not testifying when they are obligated to testify, etc.
  - CalRobert 10y ago
    In fact, it has escalated to far longer terms. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vN_PEmeKb0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vN_PEmeKb0
    - rayiner 10y ago
      That hearing involved a defendant accused of murder who demanded a new attorney for frivolous reasons. His vulgarity was not just rude--he prevented the hearing from moving forward. That wasted time and taxpayer dollars and also delayed further prosecution of the actual crime. That's a terrible example of a "victimless crime." Also, as far as I know, the "10 year sentence" was just bluster from the judge, who promptly self-reported the exchange and recused himself from the case, not to mention was publicly admonished for it by the court.
  - baddox 10y ago
    I don't know the statistics, but any basic definition of contempt of court gives the two main reasons: disobeying a court order, or being rude to court officials. Being jailed for disrespect is absolutely a major component of contempt of court.

sandworm101 10y ago

(1) Contempt of court will never see anyone in prison. Prison (in the US) is only for those serving sentences of over one year. A contempt charge is not going to result in a guaranteed sentence of over a year. Six months is generally the outside, but even then only if you disregard any "purge" stipulations. Contempt sends you to jail, not prison. (2) Contempt is not a "victimless" crime. It's not really a crime, but the court/judge is the victim in the situation. (3) There is strong argument for "victimless" crimes to be punished more severely. They are the easier to hide as there is nobody around with a desire to report them. Drunk driving (absent an accident) is victimless but we punish it as we do to deter the legions me know are going undetected. (4) Be very careful about throwing around the victimless label, especially in regards to drugs. Many a family has suffered horribly as one member is consumed by drugs. That nobody is bleeding in hospital doesn't mean there aren't victims.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Prison (in the US) is only for those serving sentences of over one year. This is a popular conception of the prison/jail distinction, and it has some general connection with reality, but it is both possible to be in a "prison" with a sentence of less than a year, and to be sentenced to a "jail" for sentences of greater than a year.
- dalke 10y ago
  Susan McDougal is a specific example which shows there is both criminal contempt-of-court and some of can happen as a result of civil contempt-of-court. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_McDougal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_McDougal : > From September 9, 1996 until March 6, 1998, McDougal spent the maximum possible 18 months imprisonment for civil contempt, including 8 months in solitary confinement, and was subjected to "diesel therapy" (the practice of hauling defendants around the country and placing them in different jails along the way).[12] In her case, Susan was shuffled from Arkansas to "Los Angeles to the Oklahoma City transfer center, and then on to the Pulaski County Jail in Little Rock, Arkansas". > ... McDougal's trial for criminal contempt-of-court and obstruction of justice charges began in March 1999. The jury hung 7-5 to acquit her for contempt of court, and found her not guilty on the charge of obstruction of justice. Also, H. Beatty Chadwick was held in jail at the county prison for more than 14 years as a result of contempt of court.

Clubber 10y ago

I read an article the other day where police placed a bicycle unlocked in a public place, then watched it. Once someone took off with it, they arrested him. Since he didn't plea bargain, the judge gave him 3 years. A couple things: 1. I would think either a fine or a 30 day sentence is more than enough. 2. I think it's bad for society in general for police to actively bait people into committing crimes. 3. That's about $150,000 of taxpayer dollars for a $100 bicycle. 4. Unrelated but important. In the US, it's legal for police to lie to you about your rights, what evidence they have, or anything really. I believe that is bad for society as well.

koenigdavidmj 10y ago
Bike thieves have no fear in most cities, even when it's a $500+ bike (that is, any bike not purchased at Walmart). That's not easy to replace for most people, even engineers. Locking up bike thieves is plenty productive.
- Clubber 10y ago
  If it was, why are there so many bike thieves?
  - Pica_soO 10y ago
    We should simply lock everyone up, who could become a bike thief. If you have hands and legs, i personally find that very suspicious. The problem is, that there is a strong retalitation instinct in humanity, to enforce group norms.That worked well in villages, but if allowed to be lived out produces ridiculous amounts of locked up people. Whats even more disturbing is, how those locked up people are not allowed to be a productive part in society. They get hamster-wheelian-jobs in the prison industry, instead of continuing with there real jobs. Everybody looses to the brain bug.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    It's possible if we didn't lock them up there would be more. Probable, IMO.
10y ago