3 ms·

OK. That was a longer read than I expected. And it had some good parts. The premise, however, is not supported by the text, for several reasons. The most ob

by jMyles 10y ago

OK. That was a longer read than I expected. And it had some good parts. The premise, however, is not supported by the text, for several reasons. The most obvious is that, other than a brief mention of prohibition as a "proximate" cause of incarceration, there is no analysis of the degree to which drug prohibition is an underlying cause of violent and other crime, for which the author correctly points out sentences have become longer and commutations more rare. Although the exact value of the illicit drug trade in the United States is difficult to measure with precision, most researchers agree that it's in the neighborhood of $100 billion on in retail trades alone. The reality of life in poverty, and especially urban black poverty, is that there is no other market of similar size where entry-level jobs are as available or unencumbered. And this giant market, of course, lives almost entirely outside the civil justice system or any other mechanism for peaceful resolution of disputes. In addition, there are many people who, instead of rising the ranks of criminal enterprise and eventually becoming kingpins, become addicted ("high on their own supply") and are then in a position of constantly needing to rob or steal to pay back debts to heavy-handed, higher-ranking drug dealers. In short, I think that if the author accounts for the number of violent criminals incarcerated for crimes committed as a consequence of the drug trade, it is very likely that "it is just the drug war (and yes, some overzealousness about 'sex crimes')."

jacobush 10y ago
Sounds plausible to me! Someone, please crunch the numbers/do more research. :-/
maxerickson 10y ago
Do the people on the receiving end of drug related violence consistently report it to the police? I sort of think not. And most violent crime isn't murder (which police will tend to investigate if there is a body, so less dependence on reporting there).
- ensignavenger 10y ago
  I imagine that most convenience stores that get held up by a drug addict probably do report it. If your drug dealer breaks your legs because you didn't pay them back, you may not report that... so I would hypothesize that there is likely a pretty good mix of reported and unreported drug related violence.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Someone committing a robbery with drugs in their system would usually be included in drug crime, making it further difficult to figure out.
    - jMyles 10y ago
      > Someone committing a robbery with drugs in their system would usually be included in drug crime "included" in what context? Are you saying that publications like the FBI uniform crime report have a designation, "drug crime" under which these things fall? Can you link me to that?
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        I was probably thinking of the BJS reports on it: https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm
shkkmo 10y ago
I don't think that the interviewee would dispute the role of the war on drugs in creating the problem. If you look at the text, the stronger statements minimizing the war on drugs are all made by the interviewer. The point the interviewee is trying to make is that the debate is to focused on releasing non-violent drug offenders and ignores the bigger context and other solutions. In addition to ending the war drugs, the interviewee is advocating: > If you care about reentry and about keeping people out of prison in the first place, there’s no public policy that you should support more strongly now than Medicaid expansion. Medicaid expansion gives states huge infusions of federal money to expand mental health services, substance abuse treatment, and medical care for many of the people who are most likely to end up in prison. And: > We need comprehensive sentencing reform, and not just for drug crimes. We have to look at the hard cases like child pornography. We also need to roll back these very punitive sentences for people who’ve committed some pretty serious crimes — like homicide
Arizhel 10y ago
>And this giant market, of course, lives almost entirely outside the civil justice system or any other mechanism for peaceful resolution of disputes. It's not just people in the drug trade who don't have access to the civil justice system for peaceful resolution of disputes; anyone who's lower than upper-middle-class is priced out of the justice system by the insanely high fees and lawyer costs involved.
- bitwize 10y ago
  That's why small-claims court exists. You don't need a lawyer and in some places are forbidden from retaining one to sue or defend yourself in such a court. The drawback is that there's a cap on actual damages in order for small-claims court to have jurisdiction, but most disputes between individuals are likely to fall well under that cap.
wfo 10y ago
Beyond ignoring the side effects of prohibition and all the crime it creates one thing about the article I found eyebrow-raising was the dismissive tone they took towards ending the drug war. It's only 20% of the incarcerated population. Ending it would ONLY save the lives of millions of innocent Americans. It's definitely not the whole story, not even the majority, but 20% is ENORMOUSLY significant. And the most crucial thing is that it's a no-brainer. It's easy. It is the first of many steps, but it's the first and that's important in a way I think the article misses. If we can't convince the electorate to stop brutalizing innocent people who prefer safer and healthier alternatives to alcohol in the privacy of their own home, for example, how will we ever get to the point where we can consider releasing a serial drunk driver before 20 years of being beaten and raped and humiliated? The biggest change the drug war has made is to the law enforcement apparatus. It has given law enforcement unlimited power because it has turned everyone into a criminal: drugs are ubiquitous, especially in poorer communities, and proving that someone possesses something is MUCH easier than proving someone has done something in court. When everyone's a criminal and it's easy to prosecute all of a sudden you get enormous power concentrated in the hands of LEOs and prosecutors, it's all about who they choose to exact punishment upon. Prosecutors will get lazy and instead of going after someone for a real crime, use the drugs to force them into a plea and call it a day. It's quick, cost effective, and serves some sense of justice -- you get the person you've decided is the "bad guy". Getting rid of the war on drugs would stop this, so prosecutors would have to drop cases or prosecute real crimes, which I'd imagine would lead simultaneously to more prosecutions of those problem crimes with huge sentences mentioned in the article and fewer convictions. It's another factor.
- mtdewcmu 10y ago
  I didn't get the sense that the article was opposed to ending the drug war. It's like if you're laying out the problems facing public health in Africa: it's much bigger than just AIDS, but that doesn't mean solving AIDS wouldn't be worthwhile.

by jMyles 10y ago

jacobush 10y ago

Sounds plausible to me! Someone, please crunch the numbers/do more research. :-/

maxerickson 10y ago

Do the people on the receiving end of drug related violence consistently report it to the police? I sort of think not. And most violent crime isn't murder (which police will tend to investigate if there is a body, so less dependence on reporting there).

ensignavenger 10y ago
I imagine that most convenience stores that get held up by a drug addict probably do report it. If your drug dealer breaks your legs because you didn't pay them back, you may not report that... so I would hypothesize that there is likely a pretty good mix of reported and unreported drug related violence.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Someone committing a robbery with drugs in their system would usually be included in drug crime, making it further difficult to figure out.
  - jMyles 10y ago
    > Someone committing a robbery with drugs in their system would usually be included in drug crime "included" in what context? Are you saying that publications like the FBI uniform crime report have a designation, "drug crime" under which these things fall? Can you link me to that?
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      I was probably thinking of the BJS reports on it: https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/duc.cfm

shkkmo 10y ago

I don't think that the interviewee would dispute the role of the war on drugs in creating the problem. If you look at the text, the stronger statements minimizing the war on drugs are all made by the interviewer. The point the interviewee is trying to make is that the debate is to focused on releasing non-violent drug offenders and ignores the bigger context and other solutions. In addition to ending the war drugs, the interviewee is advocating: > If you care about reentry and about keeping people out of prison in the first place, there’s no public policy that you should support more strongly now than Medicaid expansion. Medicaid expansion gives states huge infusions of federal money to expand mental health services, substance abuse treatment, and medical care for many of the people who are most likely to end up in prison. And: > We need comprehensive sentencing reform, and not just for drug crimes. We have to look at the hard cases like child pornography. We also need to roll back these very punitive sentences for people who’ve committed some pretty serious crimes — like homicide

Arizhel 10y ago

>And this giant market, of course, lives almost entirely outside the civil justice system or any other mechanism for peaceful resolution of disputes. It's not just people in the drug trade who don't have access to the civil justice system for peaceful resolution of disputes; anyone who's lower than upper-middle-class is priced out of the justice system by the insanely high fees and lawyer costs involved.

bitwize 10y ago
That's why small-claims court exists. You don't need a lawyer and in some places are forbidden from retaining one to sue or defend yourself in such a court. The drawback is that there's a cap on actual damages in order for small-claims court to have jurisdiction, but most disputes between individuals are likely to fall well under that cap.

wfo 10y ago

Beyond ignoring the side effects of prohibition and all the crime it creates one thing about the article I found eyebrow-raising was the dismissive tone they took towards ending the drug war. It's only 20% of the incarcerated population. Ending it would ONLY save the lives of millions of innocent Americans. It's definitely not the whole story, not even the majority, but 20% is ENORMOUSLY significant. And the most crucial thing is that it's a no-brainer. It's easy. It is the first of many steps, but it's the first and that's important in a way I think the article misses. If we can't convince the electorate to stop brutalizing innocent people who prefer safer and healthier alternatives to alcohol in the privacy of their own home, for example, how will we ever get to the point where we can consider releasing a serial drunk driver before 20 years of being beaten and raped and humiliated? The biggest change the drug war has made is to the law enforcement apparatus. It has given law enforcement unlimited power because it has turned everyone into a criminal: drugs are ubiquitous, especially in poorer communities, and proving that someone possesses something is MUCH easier than proving someone has done something in court. When everyone's a criminal and it's easy to prosecute all of a sudden you get enormous power concentrated in the hands of LEOs and prosecutors, it's all about who they choose to exact punishment upon. Prosecutors will get lazy and instead of going after someone for a real crime, use the drugs to force them into a plea and call it a day. It's quick, cost effective, and serves some sense of justice -- you get the person you've decided is the "bad guy". Getting rid of the war on drugs would stop this, so prosecutors would have to drop cases or prosecute real crimes, which I'd imagine would lead simultaneously to more prosecutions of those problem crimes with huge sentences mentioned in the article and fewer convictions. It's another factor.

mtdewcmu 10y ago
I didn't get the sense that the article was opposed to ending the drug war. It's like if you're laying out the problems facing public health in Africa: it's much bigger than just AIDS, but that doesn't mean solving AIDS wouldn't be worthwhile.