5 ms·

> At some level, you have to understand the fact that people who go to prison are generally very bad, violent people, ... No. The vast majority are in for drug

> At some level, you have to understand the fact that people who go to prison are generally very bad, violent people, ... No. The vast majority are in for drug offenses and are not, generally, considered violent or bad. Edit: I was wrong. Federal prison have way more drug offenders than violent offenders. State has more violent offenders than drug offenders. The way they're classified too is that the worst offense is the one on record. So if you are on drugs and hit someone, stats will tick up one more violent offense but not a drug offense.

marcinzm 7y ago
No they're not. According this this[1] article drug crimes account for only 16% of inmates in state prisons. Violent crimes account for 54% of inmates. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-better-approach-to-violent-crime-1485536313 https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-better-approach-to-violent-cr...
- baud147258 7y ago
  The difference is coming from the fact that convictions for drug crimes are shorter than conviction for violent crimes, which could explain why there's more drug-related convictions but less drug-related inmates
rayiner 7y ago
Only 20% of the total incarcerated population is in for a “drug offense.” Many of those are also very bad people. Almost all federal drug offenders are traffickers. Even if you don’t think that selling harmful substances to people is bad, there is the fact that many of these drug traffickers are involved in violent conduct. But the conviction often won’t reflect that conduct. Most violent and property crimes, unless performed on federal property, are state criminal law issues. Drug trafficking is usually the hook for federal law enforcement jurisdiction. The federal government doesn’t have jurisdiction to enforce state criminal laws. So someone may be incarcerated for a federal drug offense, even though there are state law violent and property crimes that could have been charged. (And states have little incentive to prosecute the state-law crimes for someone who is going to federal prison anyway.) In order to get a more accurate picture, you have to not only look at the offense for which the prisoners are incarcerated, but also at prior criminal histories. (And even that will exclude situations where a first time drug offender is charged with a federal drug offense but there are also state violent and property offenses that could have been charged.) https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-numbers-dont-lie-its-the-hard-core-doing-hard-time/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-numbers-dont-lie-its-... > For example, in a forthcoming Wisconsin Policy Research Institute (WPRI) study of the complete adult and juvenile criminal histories of prisoners from Milwaukee, WPRI analyst George Mitchell and I find that 91 percent of these urban criminals had one or more convictions for a violent crime. First-time drug offenders were less than 2 percent of the population. The imprisoned drug offenders had multiple arrests, bouts on probation, and adult and juvenile crimes, including auto theft, burglary, robbery, retail theft, domestic violence, sexual assault, drunk driving, jumping bail and, of course, drug dealing too. > For example, in 1990, Harvard economist Anne Morrison Piehl and I studied a large sample of the Wisconsin prison population. We found that in the year before they were imprisoned, these prisoners committed a median of 12 crimes, excluding all drug crimes. In 1993 we studied a large sample of New Jersey prisoners and found exactly the same thing—they committed a median dozen crimes a year, again excluding all drug crimes. (Empirical studies by analysts at the National Bureau of Economic Research and elsewhere indicate that the average number of non-drug crimes that prisoners commit when free may be higher than twelve a year.)
tptacek 7y ago
State prisons also house six times as many people as the federal prison system does, so the argument that the "vast majority are in for drug offenses" is essentially the opposite of the truth.

marcinzm 7y ago

No they're not. According this this[1] article drug crimes account for only 16% of inmates in state prisons. Violent crimes account for 54% of inmates. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-better-approach-to-violent-crime-1485536313 https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-better-approach-to-violent-cr...

baud147258 7y ago
The difference is coming from the fact that convictions for drug crimes are shorter than conviction for violent crimes, which could explain why there's more drug-related convictions but less drug-related inmates

rayiner 7y ago

Only 20% of the total incarcerated population is in for a “drug offense.” Many of those are also very bad people. Almost all federal drug offenders are traffickers. Even if you don’t think that selling harmful substances to people is bad, there is the fact that many of these drug traffickers are involved in violent conduct. But the conviction often won’t reflect that conduct. Most violent and property crimes, unless performed on federal property, are state criminal law issues. Drug trafficking is usually the hook for federal law enforcement jurisdiction. The federal government doesn’t have jurisdiction to enforce state criminal laws. So someone may be incarcerated for a federal drug offense, even though there are state law violent and property crimes that could have been charged. (And states have little incentive to prosecute the state-law crimes for someone who is going to federal prison anyway.) In order to get a more accurate picture, you have to not only look at the offense for which the prisoners are incarcerated, but also at prior criminal histories. (And even that will exclude situations where a first time drug offender is charged with a federal drug offense but there are also state violent and property offenses that could have been charged.) https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-numbers-dont-lie-its-the-hard-core-doing-hard-time/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-numbers-dont-lie-its-... > For example, in a forthcoming Wisconsin Policy Research Institute (WPRI) study of the complete adult and juvenile criminal histories of prisoners from Milwaukee, WPRI analyst George Mitchell and I find that 91 percent of these urban criminals had one or more convictions for a violent crime. First-time drug offenders were less than 2 percent of the population. The imprisoned drug offenders had multiple arrests, bouts on probation, and adult and juvenile crimes, including auto theft, burglary, robbery, retail theft, domestic violence, sexual assault, drunk driving, jumping bail and, of course, drug dealing too. > For example, in 1990, Harvard economist Anne Morrison Piehl and I studied a large sample of the Wisconsin prison population. We found that in the year before they were imprisoned, these prisoners committed a median of 12 crimes, excluding all drug crimes. In 1993 we studied a large sample of New Jersey prisoners and found exactly the same thing—they committed a median dozen crimes a year, again excluding all drug crimes. (Empirical studies by analysts at the National Bureau of Economic Research and elsewhere indicate that the average number of non-drug crimes that prisoners commit when free may be higher than twelve a year.)

tptacek 7y ago

State prisons also house six times as many people as the federal prison system does, so the argument that the "vast majority are in for drug offenses" is essentially the opposite of the truth.