3 ms·

Are you ignorant or choosing to ignore how much of the prison population is there due to criminalising the use of narcotics and much of the violent crimes commi

by antris 8y ago

Are you ignorant or choosing to ignore how much of the prison population is there due to criminalising the use of narcotics and much of the violent crimes committed is a result of this policy? Are you also ignorant or choosing to ignore that the policy has been used to target especially minorities who get sentenced much more often than whites despite drug use being at similar levels across races? Calling all these people simply "criminals" is a bit too straightforward term when the system has been set up to mainly jail black men for crimes that have no clear victim. That's a serious issue for a country that claims to be all about liberty.

PavlovsCat 8y ago
> Are you ignorant or choosing to ignore how much of the prison population is there due to criminalising the use of narcotics and much of the violent crimes committed is a result of this policy? Neither, that's simply besides the point.
- antris 8y ago
  How's putting people in jail based on racism besides the point when it comes to liberty? What good is being able to criticise leaders if you're in jail and can never vote again?
  - beatgammit 8y ago
    It's beside the point because the discussion is about mass surveillance, which will only make the problems you mention worse. If we give police more and more ability to track people, who do you think they'll track, murderers or drug dealers/users? As a hint, the latter is far more profitable to the police station. Yes we need to change laws that disproportionately put non-violent offenders in jail, but that's beside the point when talking about mass surveillance. Both are bad, and both should have separate discussions.
  - PavlovsCat 8y ago
    > How's putting people in jail based on racism besides the point when it comes to liberty? The point made upstream was that optimizing for jailing criminals and ignoring all else is not a good metric, while also making the terrible mistake of calling the US pretty free, which was "refuted" by with, well, a single metric, incarceration rate -- I asked what that changes about the original point, and said incarceration rate is not the one and only metric by which to measure liberty. If you wish to contest either of those points, actually do it.

by antris 8y ago

PavlovsCat 8y ago

> Are you ignorant or choosing to ignore how much of the prison population is there due to criminalising the use of narcotics and much of the violent crimes committed is a result of this policy? Neither, that's simply besides the point.

antris 8y ago
How's putting people in jail based on racism besides the point when it comes to liberty? What good is being able to criticise leaders if you're in jail and can never vote again?
- beatgammit 8y ago
  It's beside the point because the discussion is about mass surveillance, which will only make the problems you mention worse. If we give police more and more ability to track people, who do you think they'll track, murderers or drug dealers/users? As a hint, the latter is far more profitable to the police station. Yes we need to change laws that disproportionately put non-violent offenders in jail, but that's beside the point when talking about mass surveillance. Both are bad, and both should have separate discussions.
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  > How's putting people in jail based on racism besides the point when it comes to liberty? The point made upstream was that optimizing for jailing criminals and ignoring all else is not a good metric, while also making the terrible mistake of calling the US pretty free, which was "refuted" by with, well, a single metric, incarceration rate -- I asked what that changes about the original point, and said incarceration rate is not the one and only metric by which to measure liberty. If you wish to contest either of those points, actually do it.