12 ms·

Parents Behind Bars

aisofteng 10y ago
Generally you get put in jail for committing crimes. How about we try to fix the reasons leading to people committing those crimes instead? Why is it so outlandish to suggest that people shouldn't commit crime in the first place? You break the law, you go to jail. You keep doing it, you go back. If you have kids, stop doing things that can out you in jail, like a reasonable human being. And if certain communities have a culture where crime is accepted, well, doesn't seem to be much choice if they don't want to change. Why is that becoming politically incorrect to say?
- lanna 10y ago
  While I agree with you, it is more complicated than that. Not everyone who commits a crime is a criminal in the sense we use to think about it. For instance, once I had a car accident and hit a wall. Just a few meters from impact there were people standing, I could have killed them. Luckily, no one but me got hurt. I'm not a bad person, I never did anything wrong my entire life. But for a matter of meters I could have spent years in prison for manslaughter.
  - aisofteng 10y ago
    Frankly I wonder how you hit a wall without having done anything reckless or dangerous yourself; if someone else hit you off the road, the yes they would likely be responsible for causing people to get killed. If you just did it on your own, then that would indeed be manslaugher. You'd have taken the lives of a family. How could you argue that that would in any way be okay?
    - lanna 10y ago
      > Frankly I wonder how you hit a wall without having done anything reckless or dangerous yourself You are just being a jerk, making assumptions and being judgmental. You obviously never heard of "innocent until proved guilty". > You'd have taken the lives of a family. Who said "family"? > How could you argue that that would in any way be okay? When did I said that? That it would be okay? I never said anything like that. Frankly, your reading comprehension skills are below par. My point, in the context of the discussion, is that good, innocent, hard-working people sometimes also go to jail due to circumstances beyond their control. Accidents happen, and not always due to recklessness. Maybe you have super-human driving skills with sub nanosecond reaction times. Maybe you are flawless, faultless, perfect. Most people aren't that exemplary.
      - aisofteng 10y ago
        Sorry, but I just don't see how driving into a wall, which is quite stationary, with enough force to have killed someone had they been standing there, is an unavoidable mistake anyone could make.
      - wruza 10y ago
        "The road is a source of danger". It wasn't intent, but you lost concentration, lost control, etc., performed a thing called "dangerous driving". I know man who killed a child in similar accident. 3-5km/h, he just jumped on his bumper from nowhere and died. He could do that with a fence, but instead chose his car. That's why YOU have to be aware of everything going on around. If you don't know what's there behind an obstacle, you must assume it is full of children, families and sudden walls. We now have many devices that kill people when we neglect boring rules. >My point, in the context of the discussion, is that good, innocent, hard-working people sometimes also go to jail due to circumstances beyond their control. Ideally, jailtime should end when "innocent beyond my control" in their mind becomes "that was definitely my fault because I often drive tired and that will happen again if I continue". Otherwise it is like saying "It wasn't me, it was a bullet! I just pulled trigger."
    - ChoHag 10y ago
      That you are apparently suggesting lanna is a criminal yet is walking free is yet more evidence that your position lacks the necessary nuance.
      - aisofteng 10y ago
        No, I'm saying that there's no such thing as innocently driving into a wall and killing people, which apparently almost happened. It would actually have been manslaughter.
        ChoHag 10y ago
        I am well aware that that's exactly what you're saying. It's sad that you can come up with a valid premise but can't take the comparatively dull step of following it to its logical conclusion.
- arielweisberg 10y ago
  "You break the law, you go to jail." I think the argument is that there is nothing productive about sending people to prison. At least not as prison, prison time, and transitioning back to society is currently structured. It's not better for society, it's not better for the victim (and what if there is no victim), and it's not better for the person going to jail. So why do it? Why not take a more results based approach to preventing people from reoffending? Why not make it easier for them to reintegrate into society once they are out? If all you want to do is punish people out of some need for retribution sure keep it up. But then you have to accept the costs that come with that need for retribution.
  - aisofteng 10y ago
    The productive part is preventing them from damaging public safety and the lives of others who choose not to do things that we have decided as a society to codify as illegal. If someone is robbing people in a neighborhood, say, how could not removing them possibly be the better choice?
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      How about removing the reasons they rob, or giving them the psychiatric help they need to prevent them from robbing someone? I'd much rather have someone become a productive member of society then let them rot away in jail.
      - Fjolsvith 10y ago
        Do you own a house or a car? Lets take them away from you so they won't rob you.
      - wruza 10y ago
        Psychiatry doesn't work that way, man. You can't take a pill and become greatest neighbor on the block. Or solve everyone's problems and then live happily. Your otherwise cool idea has no real implementations (communism doesn't count).
- jandrese 10y ago
  What about when the law is unfair and targets particular communities? A simplistic "you break the law you go to jail" attitude sweeps the systematic injustices under the rug. Should we have just thrown Ghandi in jail and thrown away the key? How about Rosa Parks? Laws aren't perfect and they won't be fixed if people are just blindingly following them. Sometimes laws are a vehicle of oppression rather than justice.
  - aisofteng 10y ago
    The cases you cite were examples of laws designed to target specific communities in their actual formulation, and which are now gone and deemed reprehensible. If a community has a high degree of crime that is defined in terms of an act, such as robbery or violence, then high incarceration rates are the obvious effect. The solution is not to ignore that it's happening and let everyone else in those neighborhoods be subject to routine criminal activity. That's ludicrous. There are indeed systemic flaws in some communities where power is abused. But that's because of those actors, not the laws themselves.
    - jandrese 10y ago
      So your position is that while the laws were racist in the past it is no longer the case? I think you may be surprised at some of the laws and policies still on the books. The worst part is that it is a self reinforcing cycle. Communities with high crime have heavy handed enforcement and are targeted with punitive laws. This results in many parents behind bars and a general distrust of the police, which combined with lack of opportunities creates another generation of career criminals. Breaking the cycle takes work from both sides, which is why it is important to address police (and law!) reform even if the community isn't responding. You need to keep the door open if you want to have even a chance, and removing the inherent racism in the laws--like making the penalties for crack cocaine much harsher than powdered because blacks use the former and wall street uses the latter.
- russnewcomer 10y ago
  This is about fixing the reasons leading people to commit those crimes in the first place. Let me tell you a story. A friend of mine helps convicts with societal reintegration. One of the guys he was working with, we'll call him Mark, had dealt heroin. Did his time (3-5 years, I think), had gotten serious in prison about his life and responsibilities (4 kids by 3 different women), and decided when he got out he was going to stay clean, get an honest job, and do what he could to take care of his kids. He had child support judgements against him before and during his time in prison, and he owed something like $30k in back support. So, after he gets out, he has to go to the family court judge and tells him, "Sir, I know I have responsibility to my kids, and I want to repay what I owe on my child support. I'm working on getting a job, what do I have to do to meet my obligations?" Family court judge helps work out a plan whereby Mark is not going to be held in contempt for his back support as long as he makes his current payments. Mark sleeps on couches, eats ramen, walks 2 hours to work the each way to work the night shift, (can't get an apt near work without 3+ months of deposit because he has a felony) saves as much as he can while paying his child support, spends time with his kids every weekend, finally saves enough to by a car. Not a nice car, an older beater, but now he doesn't have to walk to work, and he can go pick up his kids, take them to the park, etc, etc. He's saving up so he can get his own apartment and not have to sleep on couches in the neighborhood where he is surrounded by his old friends that are trying to get him back into dealing. Mark is doing lots of hard work now. When he was dealing, he drove new cars, partied, always had money. Now he's going through the grind of constantly having to make the right choices, but doing good. Did you remember Mark's old car? Well, he didn't realize that the taillight had gone out. Mark's night shift job was in a 'whiter' part of town. Mark's black. Mark got stopped for having a tail light out. Mark's license check showed that he was in contempt for back support because some clerk didn't file his repayment plan correctly or something. Mark went to jail. Mark's apartment deposit went to bail, and he only got 75% back. Mark's car got impounded because he had to spend 48 hrs overnight and his one phone call couldn't cover getting his car in time, and his deposit dropped another couple hundred dollars. Mark's doing OK now, he was able to get some help and get his apartment and keep doing what he needs to do. But that's largely because he had some white friends help him navigate the system. I could tell you have a dozen other stories of guys like Mark who had something similar happen and say, "Even if I do what's right, the man is going to get me. Why bother?" And kids internalize these stories, and then they don't even want to make the changes. Sometimes, the reasons for crimes are that being a reasonable human being says there's no reason not to commit crime.
- CaptSpify 10y ago
  And what about people who don't commit crimes, but end up in jail? It's silly to think the system has no corruption, especially with consistent evidence otherwise.
  - aisofteng 10y ago
    How many cases are there nationally where someone is put in jail for no crime at all? If you suggest that it's a common enough occurrence to justify removing prison as a punishment, you'll have to give some number showing that this is extremely common.
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      A) That is a pretty easy google search. First result I got: https://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/ronhuff.htm https://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/ronhuff.htm B) That's quite a logic leap that you put in my mouth there. I never said we should remove prison as punishment.
- sandworm101 10y ago
  > Generally you get put in jail for committing crimes. That is true for prisons, but not jails. There is a big difference. Most people in jails are awaiting trials/hearings or other procedures. They haven't been convicted. I'd say not convicted 'yet' but an increasing number are never convicted. That doesn't mean they are innocent. Some are, but they may also go to diversionary programs without convictions. Many individuals are held in jails pending psychiatric evaluations, after which no charges are brought as no prosecutable crime has been committed. And there is a very small subset of persons, material witnesses, who are held in jails without any suggestion that they have committed any crime. Children certainly don't see much of a difference between jail and prison, but that's the problem. We too casually jail people without actual convictions and pretend it's OK because they aren't being held as convicts. But the kids are impacted just the same.
  - ravenstine 10y ago
    > We too casually jail people without actual convictions and pretend it's OK because they aren't being held as convicts. But the kids are impacted just the same. Is there a better alternative? And are you suggesting that a significant number of people are being held in jail indefinitely without convictions? I find that hard to believe. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but I don't know that it's as much of a problem as you seem to be framing it to be.
    - sandworm101 10y ago
      Go to any US jail. A large number of persons are in a form of indefinite detention awaiting proceedings that are regularly and repeatedly delayed. A prisoner in a prison can mark his exit date on a calender. Someone awaiting trial in a jail has no such definitive answer. Some could be released, but cannot afford the fees necessary to get a bail bond. Those are a real problem, people who are safe to release but too poor to afford it. The only convicts in jails are those serving sentences of less than a year. Anything greater than that goes to a prison, give or take depending on circumstances. So yes, there is a very large population of persons in jails without convictions. That's what they are for. The answer is probably a better-resourced court system capable of processing hearings more efficiently. Remember the tv-series Night Court? Night courts were meant to accelerate the process of hearings and get people out on bail more quickly. They didn't handle trials. They have almost disappeared today.
- ryandrake 10y ago
  You probably break 5 laws every day and do not even know it. There are so many things that are against the law that it is nearly impossible to not be guilty of something. This is by design, allowing these multitudes of laws to be selectively enforced on certain people. "Stop committing crimes" is an overly simplistic response.
  - aisofteng 10y ago
    Actually, I'm very confident that I do not engage in any behavior that is punishable with jail time. Claiming that our current system of laws was created in order to be able to target people at will is an extraordinary statement that will require some pretty strong evidence.
    - westbywest 10y ago
      While I can have no idea what you would deem to be strong evidence, swift Googling can point you to published research from sociologists, et al, about bias and other behaviors that make the justice system dramatically less impartial than it's intended to be. Recent WaPo story, for example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/24/researchers-have-discovered-a-surprising-racial-bias-in-the-criminal-justice-system/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/24/resea...
      - aisofteng 10y ago
        Having some degree of biased participants in a national system does not in any way imply that that system was designed to be able to maliciously target individuals at will. That leap of logic is simply irrational to a concerning degree.
    - CaptSpify 10y ago
      http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487044715045744389... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_t...
- nkrisc 10y ago
  It's funny that you suggest to fix the reasons leading to people committing crimes and then advocate for some of the reasons leading to people committing crimes: growing up with parents in jail or unable to hold steady work because of having been in jail. It's a cycle. Throwing your hands up and saying, "well, stop going to jail!" isn't going to break the cycle.
  - aisofteng 10y ago
    And how would normalizing crime and having children be raised by people that engage in it as a part of life the solution? You've oversimplified my statement to the point of absurdity. There are potentially many other ways to address those problems that do not require just letting people go after they commit crimes.
  - ravenstine 10y ago
    So is your alternative to let kids grow up with full-time criminal parents? I find it hard to believe that children are more likely to become criminals themselves if their parents are behind bars(i.e. not in the picture most of the time).
- DanBC 10y ago
  The US incarcerates very many more people than other western nations. How's it working?
FussyZeus 10y ago
This is a direct result of the "tough on crime" laws from the 90's, combined with the fact that we treat our convicted felons like human trash. Ridiculous sentences for low level, non-violent offenses turn people who did one dumb thing one weekend into hard criminals, and then we throw them on the street with a twenty dollar bill and nothing else, prevent them from getting work at every opportunity, and wonder why the end up committing more crime. And on top of all of that, there's NO evidence that higher sentences and harsher punishments have any effect on the overall crime rates.

Generally you get put in jail for committing crimes. How about we try to fix the reasons leading to people committing those crimes instead? Why is it so outlandish to suggest that people shouldn't commit crime in the first place? You break the law, you go to jail. You keep doing it, you go back. If you have kids, stop doing things that can out you in jail, like a reasonable human being. And if certain communities have a culture where crime is accepted, well, doesn't seem to be much choice if they don't want to change. Why is that becoming politically incorrect to say?

lanna 10y ago
While I agree with you, it is more complicated than that. Not everyone who commits a crime is a criminal in the sense we use to think about it. For instance, once I had a car accident and hit a wall. Just a few meters from impact there were people standing, I could have killed them. Luckily, no one but me got hurt. I'm not a bad person, I never did anything wrong my entire life. But for a matter of meters I could have spent years in prison for manslaughter.
- aisofteng 10y ago
  Frankly I wonder how you hit a wall without having done anything reckless or dangerous yourself; if someone else hit you off the road, the yes they would likely be responsible for causing people to get killed. If you just did it on your own, then that would indeed be manslaugher. You'd have taken the lives of a family. How could you argue that that would in any way be okay?
  - lanna 10y ago
    > Frankly I wonder how you hit a wall without having done anything reckless or dangerous yourself You are just being a jerk, making assumptions and being judgmental. You obviously never heard of "innocent until proved guilty". > You'd have taken the lives of a family. Who said "family"? > How could you argue that that would in any way be okay? When did I said that? That it would be okay? I never said anything like that. Frankly, your reading comprehension skills are below par. My point, in the context of the discussion, is that good, innocent, hard-working people sometimes also go to jail due to circumstances beyond their control. Accidents happen, and not always due to recklessness. Maybe you have super-human driving skills with sub nanosecond reaction times. Maybe you are flawless, faultless, perfect. Most people aren't that exemplary.
    - aisofteng 10y ago
      Sorry, but I just don't see how driving into a wall, which is quite stationary, with enough force to have killed someone had they been standing there, is an unavoidable mistake anyone could make.
    - wruza 10y ago
      "The road is a source of danger". It wasn't intent, but you lost concentration, lost control, etc., performed a thing called "dangerous driving". I know man who killed a child in similar accident. 3-5km/h, he just jumped on his bumper from nowhere and died. He could do that with a fence, but instead chose his car. That's why YOU have to be aware of everything going on around. If you don't know what's there behind an obstacle, you must assume it is full of children, families and sudden walls. We now have many devices that kill people when we neglect boring rules. >My point, in the context of the discussion, is that good, innocent, hard-working people sometimes also go to jail due to circumstances beyond their control. Ideally, jailtime should end when "innocent beyond my control" in their mind becomes "that was definitely my fault because I often drive tired and that will happen again if I continue". Otherwise it is like saying "It wasn't me, it was a bullet! I just pulled trigger."
  - ChoHag 10y ago
    That you are apparently suggesting lanna is a criminal yet is walking free is yet more evidence that your position lacks the necessary nuance.
    - aisofteng 10y ago
      No, I'm saying that there's no such thing as innocently driving into a wall and killing people, which apparently almost happened. It would actually have been manslaughter.
      - ChoHag 10y ago
        I am well aware that that's exactly what you're saying. It's sad that you can come up with a valid premise but can't take the comparatively dull step of following it to its logical conclusion.
arielweisberg 10y ago
"You break the law, you go to jail." I think the argument is that there is nothing productive about sending people to prison. At least not as prison, prison time, and transitioning back to society is currently structured. It's not better for society, it's not better for the victim (and what if there is no victim), and it's not better for the person going to jail. So why do it? Why not take a more results based approach to preventing people from reoffending? Why not make it easier for them to reintegrate into society once they are out? If all you want to do is punish people out of some need for retribution sure keep it up. But then you have to accept the costs that come with that need for retribution.
- aisofteng 10y ago
  The productive part is preventing them from damaging public safety and the lives of others who choose not to do things that we have decided as a society to codify as illegal. If someone is robbing people in a neighborhood, say, how could not removing them possibly be the better choice?
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    How about removing the reasons they rob, or giving them the psychiatric help they need to prevent them from robbing someone? I'd much rather have someone become a productive member of society then let them rot away in jail.
    - Fjolsvith 10y ago
      Do you own a house or a car? Lets take them away from you so they won't rob you.
    - wruza 10y ago
      Psychiatry doesn't work that way, man. You can't take a pill and become greatest neighbor on the block. Or solve everyone's problems and then live happily. Your otherwise cool idea has no real implementations (communism doesn't count).
jandrese 10y ago
What about when the law is unfair and targets particular communities? A simplistic "you break the law you go to jail" attitude sweeps the systematic injustices under the rug. Should we have just thrown Ghandi in jail and thrown away the key? How about Rosa Parks? Laws aren't perfect and they won't be fixed if people are just blindingly following them. Sometimes laws are a vehicle of oppression rather than justice.
- aisofteng 10y ago
  The cases you cite were examples of laws designed to target specific communities in their actual formulation, and which are now gone and deemed reprehensible. If a community has a high degree of crime that is defined in terms of an act, such as robbery or violence, then high incarceration rates are the obvious effect. The solution is not to ignore that it's happening and let everyone else in those neighborhoods be subject to routine criminal activity. That's ludicrous. There are indeed systemic flaws in some communities where power is abused. But that's because of those actors, not the laws themselves.
  - jandrese 10y ago
    So your position is that while the laws were racist in the past it is no longer the case? I think you may be surprised at some of the laws and policies still on the books. The worst part is that it is a self reinforcing cycle. Communities with high crime have heavy handed enforcement and are targeted with punitive laws. This results in many parents behind bars and a general distrust of the police, which combined with lack of opportunities creates another generation of career criminals. Breaking the cycle takes work from both sides, which is why it is important to address police (and law!) reform even if the community isn't responding. You need to keep the door open if you want to have even a chance, and removing the inherent racism in the laws--like making the penalties for crack cocaine much harsher than powdered because blacks use the former and wall street uses the latter.
russnewcomer 10y ago
This is about fixing the reasons leading people to commit those crimes in the first place. Let me tell you a story. A friend of mine helps convicts with societal reintegration. One of the guys he was working with, we'll call him Mark, had dealt heroin. Did his time (3-5 years, I think), had gotten serious in prison about his life and responsibilities (4 kids by 3 different women), and decided when he got out he was going to stay clean, get an honest job, and do what he could to take care of his kids. He had child support judgements against him before and during his time in prison, and he owed something like $30k in back support. So, after he gets out, he has to go to the family court judge and tells him, "Sir, I know I have responsibility to my kids, and I want to repay what I owe on my child support. I'm working on getting a job, what do I have to do to meet my obligations?" Family court judge helps work out a plan whereby Mark is not going to be held in contempt for his back support as long as he makes his current payments. Mark sleeps on couches, eats ramen, walks 2 hours to work the each way to work the night shift, (can't get an apt near work without 3+ months of deposit because he has a felony) saves as much as he can while paying his child support, spends time with his kids every weekend, finally saves enough to by a car. Not a nice car, an older beater, but now he doesn't have to walk to work, and he can go pick up his kids, take them to the park, etc, etc. He's saving up so he can get his own apartment and not have to sleep on couches in the neighborhood where he is surrounded by his old friends that are trying to get him back into dealing. Mark is doing lots of hard work now. When he was dealing, he drove new cars, partied, always had money. Now he's going through the grind of constantly having to make the right choices, but doing good. Did you remember Mark's old car? Well, he didn't realize that the taillight had gone out. Mark's night shift job was in a 'whiter' part of town. Mark's black. Mark got stopped for having a tail light out. Mark's license check showed that he was in contempt for back support because some clerk didn't file his repayment plan correctly or something. Mark went to jail. Mark's apartment deposit went to bail, and he only got 75% back. Mark's car got impounded because he had to spend 48 hrs overnight and his one phone call couldn't cover getting his car in time, and his deposit dropped another couple hundred dollars. Mark's doing OK now, he was able to get some help and get his apartment and keep doing what he needs to do. But that's largely because he had some white friends help him navigate the system. I could tell you have a dozen other stories of guys like Mark who had something similar happen and say, "Even if I do what's right, the man is going to get me. Why bother?" And kids internalize these stories, and then they don't even want to make the changes. Sometimes, the reasons for crimes are that being a reasonable human being says there's no reason not to commit crime.
CaptSpify 10y ago
And what about people who don't commit crimes, but end up in jail? It's silly to think the system has no corruption, especially with consistent evidence otherwise.
- aisofteng 10y ago
  How many cases are there nationally where someone is put in jail for no crime at all? If you suggest that it's a common enough occurrence to justify removing prison as a punishment, you'll have to give some number showing that this is extremely common.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    A) That is a pretty easy google search. First result I got: https://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/ronhuff.htm https://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/ronhuff.htm B) That's quite a logic leap that you put in my mouth there. I never said we should remove prison as punishment.
sandworm101 10y ago
> Generally you get put in jail for committing crimes. That is true for prisons, but not jails. There is a big difference. Most people in jails are awaiting trials/hearings or other procedures. They haven't been convicted. I'd say not convicted 'yet' but an increasing number are never convicted. That doesn't mean they are innocent. Some are, but they may also go to diversionary programs without convictions. Many individuals are held in jails pending psychiatric evaluations, after which no charges are brought as no prosecutable crime has been committed. And there is a very small subset of persons, material witnesses, who are held in jails without any suggestion that they have committed any crime. Children certainly don't see much of a difference between jail and prison, but that's the problem. We too casually jail people without actual convictions and pretend it's OK because they aren't being held as convicts. But the kids are impacted just the same.
- ravenstine 10y ago
  > We too casually jail people without actual convictions and pretend it's OK because they aren't being held as convicts. But the kids are impacted just the same. Is there a better alternative? And are you suggesting that a significant number of people are being held in jail indefinitely without convictions? I find that hard to believe. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but I don't know that it's as much of a problem as you seem to be framing it to be.
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    Go to any US jail. A large number of persons are in a form of indefinite detention awaiting proceedings that are regularly and repeatedly delayed. A prisoner in a prison can mark his exit date on a calender. Someone awaiting trial in a jail has no such definitive answer. Some could be released, but cannot afford the fees necessary to get a bail bond. Those are a real problem, people who are safe to release but too poor to afford it. The only convicts in jails are those serving sentences of less than a year. Anything greater than that goes to a prison, give or take depending on circumstances. So yes, there is a very large population of persons in jails without convictions. That's what they are for. The answer is probably a better-resourced court system capable of processing hearings more efficiently. Remember the tv-series Night Court? Night courts were meant to accelerate the process of hearings and get people out on bail more quickly. They didn't handle trials. They have almost disappeared today.
ryandrake 10y ago
You probably break 5 laws every day and do not even know it. There are so many things that are against the law that it is nearly impossible to not be guilty of something. This is by design, allowing these multitudes of laws to be selectively enforced on certain people. "Stop committing crimes" is an overly simplistic response.
- aisofteng 10y ago
  Actually, I'm very confident that I do not engage in any behavior that is punishable with jail time. Claiming that our current system of laws was created in order to be able to target people at will is an extraordinary statement that will require some pretty strong evidence.
  - westbywest 10y ago
    While I can have no idea what you would deem to be strong evidence, swift Googling can point you to published research from sociologists, et al, about bias and other behaviors that make the justice system dramatically less impartial than it's intended to be. Recent WaPo story, for example: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/24/researchers-have-discovered-a-surprising-racial-bias-in-the-criminal-justice-system/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/24/resea...
    - aisofteng 10y ago
      Having some degree of biased participants in a national system does not in any way imply that that system was designed to be able to maliciously target individuals at will. That leap of logic is simply irrational to a concerning degree.
  - CaptSpify 10y ago
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240527487044715045744389... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_t...
nkrisc 10y ago
It's funny that you suggest to fix the reasons leading to people committing crimes and then advocate for some of the reasons leading to people committing crimes: growing up with parents in jail or unable to hold steady work because of having been in jail. It's a cycle. Throwing your hands up and saying, "well, stop going to jail!" isn't going to break the cycle.
- aisofteng 10y ago
  And how would normalizing crime and having children be raised by people that engage in it as a part of life the solution? You've oversimplified my statement to the point of absurdity. There are potentially many other ways to address those problems that do not require just letting people go after they commit crimes.
- ravenstine 10y ago
  So is your alternative to let kids grow up with full-time criminal parents? I find it hard to believe that children are more likely to become criminals themselves if their parents are behind bars(i.e. not in the picture most of the time).
DanBC 10y ago
The US incarcerates very many more people than other western nations. How's it working?

FussyZeus 10y ago

This is a direct result of the "tough on crime" laws from the 90's, combined with the fact that we treat our convicted felons like human trash. Ridiculous sentences for low level, non-violent offenses turn people who did one dumb thing one weekend into hard criminals, and then we throw them on the street with a twenty dollar bill and nothing else, prevent them from getting work at every opportunity, and wonder why the end up committing more crime. And on top of all of that, there's NO evidence that higher sentences and harsher punishments have any effect on the overall crime rates.