16 ms·

Study: All non-violent criminals jailed on minor drug offence should be released

327 points by rustoo 6y ago

whiddershins 6y ago
First of all, I basically agree with this. Here’s something I don’t know: Sometimes I wonder whether some people in prison for non-violent drug offenses did a plea bargain down from a violent offense. And if that were the case, should this affect our opinion on any of this?
- pmiller2 6y ago
  What would you consider a "violent drug offense"? Or, am I misreading your question?
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    It's easy to see how pistol whipping someone over a bad drug deal could be plead down to a non-violent possession/dealing offense because proving assault and battery is hard when the prosecution only has testimony and circumstantial evidence the prosecution's star witness is an addict with a mile long record. Possession is very easy to prove. A&B, DV, etc, etc are much harder to prosecute (and by "much" I mean "some work" vs "practically no work") so possession is a good offense to anchor a plea bargain for those other things to. Personally I say release them all and just wait for the bad ones to filter back into the system but I can see why some people are hesitant.
    - pmiller2 6y ago
      But, neither assault nor battery are drug offenses.
    - rwmurrayVT 6y ago
      The original charges are always shown in the judicial record even if they are later dropped from prosecution.
      - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
        True, now what happens when prosecution systemically throws the book for the purpose of securing better plea bargains? Maybe you didn't pistol whip that guy, maybe you just smacked him upside the head but you were packing when you did it so the prosecutor throws all the possible charges on the list. Both sides of the problem relate to each other. People plead from "real crimes" down to "petty crimes" but prosecutors know this so they charge people with "real crimes" that won't stick just to get better plea deals on petty crimes and pad their stats.
- TLightful 6y ago
  Wouldn't that be held in the legal records? In which case, a judgement can be made?
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    Compared to someone's record of convictions, that information is pretty inaccessible. You'd have to go all the way back to court records at the time of their conviction.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - Hello71 6y ago
      as implied in a cousin comment, I don't think this applies if they're currently incarcerated. at least at the federal level, the BOP should have records of who was sentenced with firearms or other violent sentencing modifiers in order to properly segregate them from non-violent offenders. that wouldn't work for the idea of purging their records, but for the OP argument, it ought to work reasonably well. for the rare cases where it doesn't, some burden could be put on the inmate to collect and submit their documents for approval, the same as if they were filing an appeal.
    - rwmurrayVT 6y ago
      They make it very easy on the federal level with PACER and in the majority of states with an equivalent.
- mbbutler 6y ago
  At this point, I really don't care if some people who plead down to non-violent charges get released along with the immense number of actual non-violent offenders.
- at_a_remove 6y ago
  I agree. It needs a little more nuance, especially the plea bargaining. And on top of that, prosecutors are known to pile on tons of only vaguely-applicable, probably-not-convictable charges just to get someone to plea bargain down, so that complicates even the plea bargain exception. I'll throw in another part where more fine-grained control would be nice: the amount of said substances is measured by gross weight, baggie included, even if whatever the substance is has been "stepped on." Now, wave a gun in someone's face to take their money for drugs? Keep that charge. But otherwise we should not only free, but expunge the record, retroactively. Some kid with a dime bag ends up having to suffer for that decision for the rest of their life.
  - azinman2 6y ago
    And what about trafficking 100kg of heroin? Everyone likes to pick the seemingly trivial examples to justify liberal values on jailing (“what if the 3rd strike is stealing a loaf of bread!”) but the reality is there are a broad range of crimes by a broad range of people. That’s why we have judges and give them latitude.
    - BikiniPrince 6y ago
      I think in there case of something like Acid the weight can be an incorrect measure of substance. I heard it was popular to use the old books of stamps. So five doses on a stamp book is a silly about of weight. Then over a certain weight it is considered distribution and boom the sentence is jumped. Thanks to the war on drugs I’m not sure how much can even be reasoned by a judge. Now, keep in mind, I’m not necessarily on the side of no more crimes. I do see the cracks in how the offenses wer e codified. Things like marijuana outside distribution should probably be ignored. I was horrified watching someone on a cop show get arrested for a roach they found nearby on the ground. This was also a person who was strolling through a walkway in the forest between residences.
    - gowld 6y ago
      > That’s why we have judges and give them latitude. See "Mandatory sentencing" aka "Mandatory Minimums" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_sentencing#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_sentencing#United_St...
- leetcrew 6y ago
  that's a good question, but I don't think there's a good way to distinguish between people who pled down from charges they likely would have been convicted on at trial and charges that were heaped on for leverage but had little chance of sticking. from a criminal justice perspective, I think we need to consider only the actual convictions. we might take into consideration whether there are any meaningful priors though.
- rwmurrayVT 6y ago
  On the federal level in the USA that is not possible. Firearms and violence add on points to your sentencing and are often linked with mandatory minimums. Firearms in particular really tank your chances of a short sentence. Prior to the First Step Act you couldn't even participate in RDAP with a firearm linked to your crime. I outlined this in a different comment, but programming like RDAP should be developed and standardized to aide convicted in rehabilitation.
  - Hello71 6y ago
    to clarify, since most people without personal experience in the US criminal system don't know: in the US, you can be, and usually are, sentenced based on crimes and/or facts you were not convicted or even charged for.
  - bpodgursky 6y ago
    Yeah but (almost?) nobody is in federal prison on drug possession charges, especially after the latest reform bill. There are a lot in prison on trafficking and sales, but not possession ("minor", per the headline). The vast majority of drug charges are in state prison systems, where plea bargains are absolutely a thing.
    - rwmurrayVT 6y ago
      I agree. A number of the ones in the federal system are also only in the feds because of career criminal charges. You can be convicted multiple times as a juvenile and then 1+ times as an adult and receive a federal sentence for something minor.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- lallysingh 6y ago
  Fear holds justice back.
pmiller2 6y ago
Absolutely. There's no reason to lock anybody up whose only crime is that they got high.
oytis 6y ago
A study (if it's a real study) can't tell you what should be done, it should give you new knowledge about the state of affairs. (while I agree that drug offense should be decriminalized).
- quotemstr 6y ago
  Exactly. Any form of science cannot tell us what should or should not be done. Science informs our choices. It doesn't make them.
  - snet0 6y ago
    While I agree with the fundamental, the is-ought divide, I think this paper is basically saying "based on a load of measurements that are obviously goals of our society, criminalisation of drug offences is acting against our own interests".
    - khawkins 6y ago
      This is only a utilitarian ethical argument. If people approach from a deontological perspective, the measurements may not matter. Suggesting a policy prescription in the title of a scientific study puts the legitimacy of the study in complete question. The researchers must approach the question as one which can be falsifiable, else it's not science.
      - mcphage 6y ago
        > Suggesting a policy prescription in the title of a scientific study puts the legitimacy of the study in complete question. Does it? > The researchers must approach the question as one which can be falsifiable, else it's not science. Isn't that what this study was—they had a hypothesis which they wished to test: "We should do X." Then they did whatever they reported in their paper, and found that their hypothesis was supported by the evidence.
        khawkins 6y ago
rwmurrayVT 6y ago
The #1 issue in the USA beyond simple conviction and incarceration is rehabilitation. At the federal level, where I have personal experience, it seems like it's entirely retribution instead of rehabilitation. I was in a federal prison camp and it is primarily an exercise in leisure. The entire day was composed of well.. nothing. If you like reading, fresh air, and exercise you're in luck. If you like alcohol, drugs, and facetime you're in luck. There is very little programming activity to do. If you have the funds to support yourself you can get anything you want from the outside. You can have any book sent in or buy an illicit cell phone. There are so few guards to watch you and very little motivation to crack down on rampant offenses. The First Step Act is supposed to make programming uniform across all institutions and reward programming with sentence reductions. That's a fantastic idea and I hope that it works out well. There are very few levels to pull to incentivize people, but that should provide motivation. The problem after that is the stigma that follows you around forever. I count myself blessed to have opportunities when I came home. It was unpleasant to work as a laborer in block masonry, but it lead me back to the shipyard. That has lead me to a better opportunity in the shipyard. This was only afforded to me because I went to a university with name recognition in a field with job prospects. That combined with my previous maritime experience is the only reason I'm not still day laboring will praying for a better opportunity. If you have limited work experience and were accustomed to a high(er) level of living before incarceration it will be difficult to adjust to life after prison. There are so many thorny issues with the judicial system in the USA that reach into so many aspects of life.
- clairity 6y ago
  thanks for relating your incarceration story. with the benefit of hindsight, 'tough on crime' was plainly power exerting itself on the populace to enhance its own esteem, not an exercise in creating a more just society. let's cut every sentence (and sentencing guidelines) by 90% right off the bat and use the savings for better rehabilitation programs (like more support systems, instructional content, and training programs). involve families and communities to integrate folks back into society.
  - rwmurrayVT 6y ago
iridium_core 6y ago
Just legalise all drugs and let the free market decide. We could create innovative new substances which are safer and less socially damaging, compared to the plants and fermented liquids we happen to have stumbled upon millenia ago.
- drran 6y ago
  Just plant two electrodes directly into the brain.
  - greedo 6y ago
    Larry Niven's Ringworld series has a protagonist named Louis Wu who is addicted to a "tasp" that is pretty much a direct connection to the brain that provides stimulus. I fear that we'll end up with that as VR/AR get better and better. Combine that with Musk's neural stuff...
- cousin_it 6y ago
  Right now people spend hours every day joylessly scrolling their phones because the free market has found a way to profit from that. I want fewer addictive industries, not more.
  - 3131s 6y ago
    The blood is on your hands then. Edit: The poster I'm replying to should be deplatformed immediately for inciting violence, specifically for perpetuating black markets that have devastated entire countries, for supporting raids of homes at gunpoint over possession of substances that are bought and sold without coercion, for the inconsistent doses and impurities and stigmatization that will continue to kill addicts, and for widespread incarceration which is targeted toward already disadvantaged minorities.
    - Chris2048 6y ago
      Did they change their comment? "I want fewer addictive industries, not more" doesn't sound like what you describe..
gameswithgo 6y ago
Can't think of a better idea, that both sides of the aisle should be supportive of. Saves tax payer money for the GOP, liberalize drug laws for democrats.
snet0 6y ago
Full study link https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2020.1861364 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2020.1...
mulderc 6y ago
Should any non-violent criminal be jailed? Seems like there are better alternatives like house arrest, probation, etc.
m-p-3 6y ago
And the root cause of the problem is as long as for-profit prisons exists, there is no incentive to free those non-violent criminals.
- neogodless 6y ago
  Not disagreeing on incentive but for clarification... My understanding would be that freeing non-violent criminals would be a matter of legislation and the court system. The choice would not be up to the prison. But do you think the prisons influence the legislation (or, horrifically, the judicial system)? To say that it's a the root cause is to say that for-profit prisons drive legislation on drugs, but I do not believe that is the root cause of that legislation.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2015/jul/31/report-finds-two-thirds-private-prison-contracts-include-lockup-quotas/ https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2015/jul/31/report-find... > In the Public Interest (ITPI), a Washington, D.C.-based research and policy group on public services, reported in September 2013 that it found so-called bed guarantees in around 65% of the more than 60 private prison contracts it analyzed, including contracts from Texas, Ohio, Colorado and Florida. The bed guarantees, or “lockup quotas,” ranged from 70% minimum occupancy in at least one California facility to 100% occupancy at three Arizona prisons. The most common bed guarantee was 90%. > Public officials who agree to lockup quotas, according to corrections experts, become obligated – against their communities’ best interests – to keep prisons filled to ensure that taxpayer dollars aren’t being wasted. > “It’s really shortsighted public policy to do anything that ties the hands of the state,” said Michele Deitch, a senior lecturer at the University of Texas School of Public Affairs and an expert on private prisons. “If there are these incentives to keep the private prisons full, then it is reducing the likelihood that states will adopt strategies to reduce prison costs by keeping more people out.” Horrific is the right word.
  - elric 6y ago
    Looking at the history of slavery and prison labour in the US, I'm not sure I share your optimism. Many new (and victimless) crimes were introduced after slavery was abolished, and slavery was never abolished in prisons. Locking someone up for "vagrancy" and then forcing them to work for you does sound an awful lot like slavery.
hikerclimber 6y ago
i agree.
antattack 6y ago
Many of my colleagues and I voted for legalization of Marijuana, because law had vilified it to the point where actions against users did not justify the means at all. That, plus good outcome of drug decriminalization in Portugal.
- ativzzz 6y ago
  Decriminalization works when you have many organizations provide high quality rehabilitation programs, and are non-profit. See [1]. However, IMO the U.S. healthcare infrastructure and general profiteering culture will not allow any reasonable programs at high enough scale to operate. Ideally, instead of jailing drug offenders, we reintegrate them into society. This is expensive. Somebody needs to pay for it, and nobody wants to. Especially when you have the for-profit prison industry lobbying against it. Decriminalization without a comprehensive plan to deal with drug addiction will most likely not achieve the expected results. We'll probably get something like the opioid epidemic on a larger scale. The U.S. just does not do a good job of dealing with mental health. [1] https://craftsmanship.net/portugals-path-to-breaking-drug-addiction/ https://craftsmanship.net/portugals-path-to-breaking-drug-ad...
ed25519FUUU 6y ago
Kind of a funny moment in time we live in where some are clamoring to put people in jail for tweets/hate speech/mean words while simultaneously advocating for lower jail populations.
- greedo 6y ago
  Incitement to riot/insurrection isn't "mean words."
  - ed25519FUUU 6y ago
    Were you on twitter at all during any of the protests of last summer? Vague “incitement of riot” charges are going to be used against a whole lot of anti-establishment groups that were active during that time (and now). If you think it stops at MAGA you are deceived.
    - greedo 6y ago
      Show me a "Vague 'incitement of riot'" charge being brought against anyone. And I wouldn't include the BLM protests of the summer as anti-establishment in the same vein as the Qanon/1776er crowd that wanted to overthrow the government.
      - Chris2048 6y ago
        > And I wouldn't include the BLM protests of the summer as anti-establishment Why not? because they only wanted to defund the police?
        greedo 6y ago
        Defund the police wasn't a universal mantra for the entire BLM movement and protests. That was seized upon by some who wanted to paint the entire summer of protests as monolithic. Many protestors simply wanted the police to stop killing and abusing minorities. In my opinion, anti-establishment types are anarchists or revolutionaries who want to overthrow the existing government, not change it.
offtop5 6y ago
Society needs to have something between jaywalking and attempted murder. Right now if you fish without a permit in the wrong place you're a felon and you will never be able to get a decent job for the rest of your life. The entire reason the American criminal justice system is like this, at its core is to punish minority groups. I don't ever see this changing, and it's a big part of why I want to make an exit by 40. I imagine if I do decide to have a family it would be in a more civilized country
- leetcrew 6y ago
  > Society needs to have something between jaywalking and attempted murder. there is already a lot of gradation in the spectrum of consequences: fines, probation, house arrest, weekend sentence (free to work during the week, but need check into jail each weekend), different security levels for different offenses. not much "rehabilitation" occurs anywhere along the spectrum, but it's not like you go straight from a small fine to 25 years in supermax.
  - offtop5 6y ago
    Almost all of those come with an arrest record which can stop you from getting a decent job. Just because you can get 3 months for a felony charge, doesn't mean you'll ever be able to work again. We need a system to get rid of most criminal records after a certain amount of time
  - jawzz 6y ago
    True, but where there’s less of a spectrum is in the stigma that follows you after the punishment. For many companies and landlords, anyone without a squeaky clean record is lumped together. Even for crimes that a significant portion of the population has probably committed at some point and were just never caught.
- mrmuagi 6y ago
  > fish without a permit in the wrong place Are these ecological concerns, ie. protected species or preventing over fishing, or trespassing concerns? I tried searching 'fishing' + 'felon' and I couldn't whip up any laws.
ge96 6y ago
I got mad lucky in college, I was in a parking lot arrested for possession (was smoking) it was a tiny amount like a keyfob worth. It was reduced to a parking fine that I had to pay in court. That could have destroyed me (permanent label) if that was bigger. This was like 8-10 years ago. I am asian if it matters.
- jawzz 6y ago
  Has the record of arrest (and charge, if you were initially charged with possession before it was reduced) affected you at all, to your knowledge?
  - ge96 6y ago
    Well it was not recorded as that, it was just a "parking fine". What's why I'm saying I'm lucky it wasn't logged as substance possession. Also by arrested I mean handcuffed/put into a car, but I wasn't taken to a jail. I was just written a possession fine/piece of paper. I think the answer to your question is I was not affected. As I've taken jobs that had to do security checks to get in and I got through. I guess it depends what they're looking for.
avsteele 6y ago
While I agree with the conclusion. People tend to overestimate the fraction of people incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses. It is only ~15% https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html
- avsteele 6y ago
  And I'm assuming they mean incarcerated (jail+prison) and not just 'jail'. Most of the people in jail are awaiting trial, people in prison have been convicted.
  - quietbritishjim 6y ago
    The article linked in the comment you're replying to seems to include both jail and prison. The comment itself didn't mention either and just said "incarcerated".
  - greatgirl 6y ago
    > Only 2% of federal criminal defendants go to trial, and most who do are found guilty From pew research
- greatgirl 6y ago
  That's about where i expected it to be actually, and that's about 200k people, so it's pretty bad.
- coffeemaniac 6y ago
  15% of the US prison population is a huge number of people.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- hwillis 6y ago
  That's state only; in total it's ~20%. That still hugely misses the point, because sentences are not equal. Violent offenders serve on average 4.7 years while drug offenders serve under 2 years. ~40% of people who are sent to state prison are sent with drugs as the most serious charge. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/tssp16.pdf https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/tssp16.pdf
AHappyCamper 6y ago
No.
gowld 6y ago
Title is misleading. Authors of a study said that. A study can't express an opinion; that's a category error.
sam2426679 6y ago
Biden and Harris are trendsetting experts in the field of mass incarceration.
sigmaprimus 6y ago
I'm conflicted when it come to this idea, on one hand it does seem pointless to punish addicts but on the other, very few of the addicts that are incarcerated were not aware of the laws before they got caught. In many cases they traffic in "Minor" amounts to support their own addictions which just creates more addicts and spreads the sickness to other victims. In a perfect world, all drugs would be legal and more importantly free for anyone who wanted them. This could be possible while still requiring addicts to visit medical providers for their fix. This would quickly remove the profits from the illegal drug trade and keep the addicted from being exploited in order to feed their addictions. I have seen first hand the destruction caused by so called non violent drug offenders and can attest it is just as bad if not worse on the lives of those around them. In my case it started with small things disappearing from our household, like heirlooms and collectables but ended with a selfish addict telling lies and extorting money from myself and others. My particular situation finally ended with the addict overdosing and all the misery that came from that, being thrust upon those who still loved and depended on them. I bounce back and forth between being angry at myself, then the addict and sometimes the people working in law enforcement and the justice system(Who have managed to build nice little lives for themselves through policing and punishing the addicted under the guise of making the world a better place.) So IDK if freeing a bunch of drug users who were aware what they were doing at the time was criminal, is going to solve the root problems caused by drugs any better than the current system of keeping them locked away from the rest of us until they figure out how to toe the line.
- princevegeta 6y ago
  Why is it important if they know it’s illigal or not? Seems to me the important question is what harm they are doing to others.
  - sigmaprimus 6y ago
    Possibly You are right, it is very hard for me to comprehend what goes on inside the mind of an addict. I would say for arguments sake that the addict is also aware of the damage that they are doing to others but unfortunately the desire for the drug overpowers any sense of morality. Short of locking them up which then puts the burden and guilt on the rest of us, or making all drugs legal and free, I am not sure what would work. Like I said my thoughts are quite conflicted with this matter. My personal solution although fairly selfish is to avoid getting into and breaking away from any relationship if and when it becomes apperant that someone is using.
Ccecil 6y ago
There needs to be massive revision across society if this were to happen, jobs, housing, life...it is all burdened for the felon greater than the time in prison was. Many have trouble just adjusting to things like the choices in the supermarket...let alone navigating the troubles of finding housing. In the town I live in, (Inland NW, US), the majority of "affordable" rentals are all rented by a small number of property management companies which do not seem to be local and have 1-800 numbers. This covers a very sizable portion of the apartment buildings...guess what...they DO NOT rent to people with drug felonies...burglar...sure. But if you sold marlijuana 20 years ago you cannot rent from them...period. So...combine that with an area which the average rent has tripled in the last 20 years...with a massive shortage of for sale properties and what are these people to do? Work and other things are tricky as well...it isn't that a felon cannot get a job...but they are very likely to be manipulated by their employer. They will typically be paid less and be treated differently than their coworkers. Couple all that with the ineligibility for SBA loans if you have felony convictions...now what? You are likely to be able to get a passport and such...but most will never truly see these things go off their record permanently...unless you get a withheld judgement you are still required to say "yes" to the have you ever been convicted question. Employers being required to ask "in the last x years have you been convicted?" solves that issue...allows for the punishment to be served and forgiven. "have you ever been convicted?" assumes there is no retribution possible ever.
dado3212 6y ago
Locked In by John Pfaff does a great job of discussing prison reform, and the fallbacks of common mantras (such as this one). He observes that "setting every drug offender free would cut our prison population by only about 16 percent...still more than 200,000 people -- and that's a huge number by any measure." Because many offenses/crimes were dropped as part of plea bargaining, it's also hard to indicate how many would actually be characterized as "non-violent criminals jailed on minor drug offence". Pfaff tries to estimate this using Bureau of Justice Statistics surveying that asks inmates questions that go beyond their official convictions. According to this "about 1 percent of all prisoners...met that description". So yes, I think a lot of people would agree with the headline here, but it's not a panacea for the incarceration rate of the US.
- specialist 6y ago
  What's your wishlist of reforms?
ralmidani 6y ago
Releasing people convicted of non-violent drug offenses is not enough; it’s important that we provide a smooth ramp to re-join society. We should wipe their records clean, train them in useful, employable skills, and help them find decent jobs. (Edit: this is the bare minimum; I don’t want to get into direct monetary compensation, even though I think it’s worth considering.) I would imagine a lot of people formerly-incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses are (rightfully) resentful of society, and we should give them an alternative to committing crimes in order to survive.
charlescearl 6y ago
Ruth Wilson Gilmore [1,2], Angela Davis [3.4] and many, many others have been making the case for decades that the entirety of the prison system needs to be abolished. Among the more profound cases that Gilmore makes is that the it is not just for-profit prisons and policing. Racialized exclusion of Black people from the economy has essentially created a captive class -- a pool of bodies for exploitation. Essentially the industry of incarceration at the state (that is both State and Federal level) create sources of income -- for the States, the companies that supply resources to prisons, as well as the private prisons. Further, Gilmore [2] makes the argument that we need to do away with the presumption that there are people who are "deserving" of prison. Is the very notion of prison consistent with a civilized society? Just a further note that the incarceration rate of Black men in the U.S. [5] is comparable to that of Uyghur population in Xianjiang [6] -- that rate was estimated to be 5% for Black men across the U.S. in 2009, 5% for Uyghurs in non-Muslim majority districts, roughly 10% in majority-Muslim districts. It would be interesting to understand how the adoption of capitalist economic practices in China correlates with the rise of the carceral. [1] Golden gulag: Prisons, surplus, crisis, and opposition in globalizing California https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520242012/golden-gulag https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520242012/golden-gulag [2] Abolition Geography and the Problem of Innocence. In Futures of Black Radicalism, G. T.. Johnson and A. Loubin (Eds.). New York: Verso, 225–240. [3] Are Prisons Obsolete? https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/213837/are-prisons-obsolete-by-angela-y-davis/ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/213837/are-prisons-... [4] If They Come in the Morning … Voices of Resistance, Edited by Angela Y. Davis, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_They_Come_in_the_Morning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_They_Come_in_the_Morning [5] https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/ https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-just... [6] https://qz.com/1599393/how-researchers-estimate-1-million-uyghurs-are-detained-in-xinjiang/ https://qz.com/1599393/how-researchers-estimate-1-million-uy...
- elindbe3 6y ago
  It's an interesting idea. Can you give a TLDR of how it would work in practice? Cowboy justice?
  - 6y ago
BayezLyfe 6y ago
So how does one advocate for their state to move towards decriminalization?
pcglue 6y ago
This is why porch piracy will increase. I suspect the intersection of people who are non-violent druggies and who are porch pirates is huge. I hate porch pirates.
amanaplanacanal 6y ago
No victimless crime should ever be a felony. A felony conviction has so many knock on effects for the rest of your life. I could be talked into saying no non-violent crimes should ever be felonies. Looking at the categories of felonies on Wikipedia it is pretty obvious that some are not like the others. Murder is much different from copyright infringement.

327 points by rustoo 6y ago

First of all, I basically agree with this. Here’s something I don’t know: Sometimes I wonder whether some people in prison for non-violent drug offenses did a plea bargain down from a violent offense. And if that were the case, should this affect our opinion on any of this?

pmiller2 6y ago
What would you consider a "violent drug offense"? Or, am I misreading your question?
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  It's easy to see how pistol whipping someone over a bad drug deal could be plead down to a non-violent possession/dealing offense because proving assault and battery is hard when the prosecution only has testimony and circumstantial evidence the prosecution's star witness is an addict with a mile long record. Possession is very easy to prove. A&B, DV, etc, etc are much harder to prosecute (and by "much" I mean "some work" vs "practically no work") so possession is a good offense to anchor a plea bargain for those other things to. Personally I say release them all and just wait for the bad ones to filter back into the system but I can see why some people are hesitant.
  - pmiller2 6y ago
    But, neither assault nor battery are drug offenses.
  - rwmurrayVT 6y ago
    The original charges are always shown in the judicial record even if they are later dropped from prosecution.
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      True, now what happens when prosecution systemically throws the book for the purpose of securing better plea bargains? Maybe you didn't pistol whip that guy, maybe you just smacked him upside the head but you were packing when you did it so the prosecutor throws all the possible charges on the list. Both sides of the problem relate to each other. People plead from "real crimes" down to "petty crimes" but prosecutors know this so they charge people with "real crimes" that won't stick just to get better plea deals on petty crimes and pad their stats.
TLightful 6y ago
Wouldn't that be held in the legal records? In which case, a judgement can be made?
- pmiller2 6y ago
  Compared to someone's record of convictions, that information is pretty inaccessible. You'd have to go all the way back to court records at the time of their conviction.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Hello71 6y ago
    as implied in a cousin comment, I don't think this applies if they're currently incarcerated. at least at the federal level, the BOP should have records of who was sentenced with firearms or other violent sentencing modifiers in order to properly segregate them from non-violent offenders. that wouldn't work for the idea of purging their records, but for the OP argument, it ought to work reasonably well. for the rare cases where it doesn't, some burden could be put on the inmate to collect and submit their documents for approval, the same as if they were filing an appeal.
  - rwmurrayVT 6y ago
    They make it very easy on the federal level with PACER and in the majority of states with an equivalent.
mbbutler 6y ago
At this point, I really don't care if some people who plead down to non-violent charges get released along with the immense number of actual non-violent offenders.
at_a_remove 6y ago
I agree. It needs a little more nuance, especially the plea bargaining. And on top of that, prosecutors are known to pile on tons of only vaguely-applicable, probably-not-convictable charges just to get someone to plea bargain down, so that complicates even the plea bargain exception. I'll throw in another part where more fine-grained control would be nice: the amount of said substances is measured by gross weight, baggie included, even if whatever the substance is has been "stepped on." Now, wave a gun in someone's face to take their money for drugs? Keep that charge. But otherwise we should not only free, but expunge the record, retroactively. Some kid with a dime bag ends up having to suffer for that decision for the rest of their life.
- azinman2 6y ago
  And what about trafficking 100kg of heroin? Everyone likes to pick the seemingly trivial examples to justify liberal values on jailing (“what if the 3rd strike is stealing a loaf of bread!”) but the reality is there are a broad range of crimes by a broad range of people. That’s why we have judges and give them latitude.
  - BikiniPrince 6y ago
    I think in there case of something like Acid the weight can be an incorrect measure of substance. I heard it was popular to use the old books of stamps. So five doses on a stamp book is a silly about of weight. Then over a certain weight it is considered distribution and boom the sentence is jumped. Thanks to the war on drugs I’m not sure how much can even be reasoned by a judge. Now, keep in mind, I’m not necessarily on the side of no more crimes. I do see the cracks in how the offenses wer e codified. Things like marijuana outside distribution should probably be ignored. I was horrified watching someone on a cop show get arrested for a roach they found nearby on the ground. This was also a person who was strolling through a walkway in the forest between residences.
  - gowld 6y ago
    > That’s why we have judges and give them latitude. See "Mandatory sentencing" aka "Mandatory Minimums" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_sentencing#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_sentencing#United_St...
leetcrew 6y ago
that's a good question, but I don't think there's a good way to distinguish between people who pled down from charges they likely would have been convicted on at trial and charges that were heaped on for leverage but had little chance of sticking. from a criminal justice perspective, I think we need to consider only the actual convictions. we might take into consideration whether there are any meaningful priors though.
rwmurrayVT 6y ago
On the federal level in the USA that is not possible. Firearms and violence add on points to your sentencing and are often linked with mandatory minimums. Firearms in particular really tank your chances of a short sentence. Prior to the First Step Act you couldn't even participate in RDAP with a firearm linked to your crime. I outlined this in a different comment, but programming like RDAP should be developed and standardized to aide convicted in rehabilitation.
- Hello71 6y ago
  to clarify, since most people without personal experience in the US criminal system don't know: in the US, you can be, and usually are, sentenced based on crimes and/or facts you were not convicted or even charged for.
- bpodgursky 6y ago
  Yeah but (almost?) nobody is in federal prison on drug possession charges, especially after the latest reform bill. There are a lot in prison on trafficking and sales, but not possession ("minor", per the headline). The vast majority of drug charges are in state prison systems, where plea bargains are absolutely a thing.
  - rwmurrayVT 6y ago
    I agree. A number of the ones in the federal system are also only in the feds because of career criminal charges. You can be convicted multiple times as a juvenile and then 1+ times as an adult and receive a federal sentence for something minor.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
lallysingh 6y ago
Fear holds justice back.

pmiller2 6y ago

Absolutely. There's no reason to lock anybody up whose only crime is that they got high.

oytis 6y ago

A study (if it's a real study) can't tell you what should be done, it should give you new knowledge about the state of affairs. (while I agree that drug offense should be decriminalized).

quotemstr 6y ago
Exactly. Any form of science cannot tell us what should or should not be done. Science informs our choices. It doesn't make them.
- snet0 6y ago
  While I agree with the fundamental, the is-ought divide, I think this paper is basically saying "based on a load of measurements that are obviously goals of our society, criminalisation of drug offences is acting against our own interests".
  - khawkins 6y ago
    This is only a utilitarian ethical argument. If people approach from a deontological perspective, the measurements may not matter. Suggesting a policy prescription in the title of a scientific study puts the legitimacy of the study in complete question. The researchers must approach the question as one which can be falsifiable, else it's not science.
    - mcphage 6y ago
      > Suggesting a policy prescription in the title of a scientific study puts the legitimacy of the study in complete question. Does it? > The researchers must approach the question as one which can be falsifiable, else it's not science. Isn't that what this study was—they had a hypothesis which they wished to test: "We should do X." Then they did whatever they reported in their paper, and found that their hypothesis was supported by the evidence.
      - khawkins 6y ago

rwmurrayVT 6y ago

The #1 issue in the USA beyond simple conviction and incarceration is rehabilitation. At the federal level, where I have personal experience, it seems like it's entirely retribution instead of rehabilitation. I was in a federal prison camp and it is primarily an exercise in leisure. The entire day was composed of well.. nothing. If you like reading, fresh air, and exercise you're in luck. If you like alcohol, drugs, and facetime you're in luck. There is very little programming activity to do. If you have the funds to support yourself you can get anything you want from the outside. You can have any book sent in or buy an illicit cell phone. There are so few guards to watch you and very little motivation to crack down on rampant offenses. The First Step Act is supposed to make programming uniform across all institutions and reward programming with sentence reductions. That's a fantastic idea and I hope that it works out well. There are very few levels to pull to incentivize people, but that should provide motivation. The problem after that is the stigma that follows you around forever. I count myself blessed to have opportunities when I came home. It was unpleasant to work as a laborer in block masonry, but it lead me back to the shipyard. That has lead me to a better opportunity in the shipyard. This was only afforded to me because I went to a university with name recognition in a field with job prospects. That combined with my previous maritime experience is the only reason I'm not still day laboring will praying for a better opportunity. If you have limited work experience and were accustomed to a high(er) level of living before incarceration it will be difficult to adjust to life after prison. There are so many thorny issues with the judicial system in the USA that reach into so many aspects of life.

clairity 6y ago
thanks for relating your incarceration story. with the benefit of hindsight, 'tough on crime' was plainly power exerting itself on the populace to enhance its own esteem, not an exercise in creating a more just society. let's cut every sentence (and sentencing guidelines) by 90% right off the bat and use the savings for better rehabilitation programs (like more support systems, instructional content, and training programs). involve families and communities to integrate folks back into society.
- rwmurrayVT 6y ago

iridium_core 6y ago

Just legalise all drugs and let the free market decide. We could create innovative new substances which are safer and less socially damaging, compared to the plants and fermented liquids we happen to have stumbled upon millenia ago.

drran 6y ago
Just plant two electrodes directly into the brain.
- greedo 6y ago
  Larry Niven's Ringworld series has a protagonist named Louis Wu who is addicted to a "tasp" that is pretty much a direct connection to the brain that provides stimulus. I fear that we'll end up with that as VR/AR get better and better. Combine that with Musk's neural stuff...
cousin_it 6y ago
Right now people spend hours every day joylessly scrolling their phones because the free market has found a way to profit from that. I want fewer addictive industries, not more.
- 3131s 6y ago
  The blood is on your hands then. Edit: The poster I'm replying to should be deplatformed immediately for inciting violence, specifically for perpetuating black markets that have devastated entire countries, for supporting raids of homes at gunpoint over possession of substances that are bought and sold without coercion, for the inconsistent doses and impurities and stigmatization that will continue to kill addicts, and for widespread incarceration which is targeted toward already disadvantaged minorities.
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    Did they change their comment? "I want fewer addictive industries, not more" doesn't sound like what you describe..

gameswithgo 6y ago

Can't think of a better idea, that both sides of the aisle should be supportive of. Saves tax payer money for the GOP, liberalize drug laws for democrats.

snet0 6y ago

Full study link https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2020.1861364 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15265161.2020.1...

mulderc 6y ago

Should any non-violent criminal be jailed? Seems like there are better alternatives like house arrest, probation, etc.

m-p-3 6y ago

And the root cause of the problem is as long as for-profit prisons exists, there is no incentive to free those non-violent criminals.

neogodless 6y ago
Not disagreeing on incentive but for clarification... My understanding would be that freeing non-violent criminals would be a matter of legislation and the court system. The choice would not be up to the prison. But do you think the prisons influence the legislation (or, horrifically, the judicial system)? To say that it's a the root cause is to say that for-profit prisons drive legislation on drugs, but I do not believe that is the root cause of that legislation.
- klyrs 6y ago
  https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2015/jul/31/report-finds-two-thirds-private-prison-contracts-include-lockup-quotas/ https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2015/jul/31/report-find... > In the Public Interest (ITPI), a Washington, D.C.-based research and policy group on public services, reported in September 2013 that it found so-called bed guarantees in around 65% of the more than 60 private prison contracts it analyzed, including contracts from Texas, Ohio, Colorado and Florida. The bed guarantees, or “lockup quotas,” ranged from 70% minimum occupancy in at least one California facility to 100% occupancy at three Arizona prisons. The most common bed guarantee was 90%. > Public officials who agree to lockup quotas, according to corrections experts, become obligated – against their communities’ best interests – to keep prisons filled to ensure that taxpayer dollars aren’t being wasted. > “It’s really shortsighted public policy to do anything that ties the hands of the state,” said Michele Deitch, a senior lecturer at the University of Texas School of Public Affairs and an expert on private prisons. “If there are these incentives to keep the private prisons full, then it is reducing the likelihood that states will adopt strategies to reduce prison costs by keeping more people out.” Horrific is the right word.
- elric 6y ago
  Looking at the history of slavery and prison labour in the US, I'm not sure I share your optimism. Many new (and victimless) crimes were introduced after slavery was abolished, and slavery was never abolished in prisons. Locking someone up for "vagrancy" and then forcing them to work for you does sound an awful lot like slavery.

hikerclimber 6y ago

i agree.

antattack 6y ago

Many of my colleagues and I voted for legalization of Marijuana, because law had vilified it to the point where actions against users did not justify the means at all. That, plus good outcome of drug decriminalization in Portugal.

ativzzz 6y ago
Decriminalization works when you have many organizations provide high quality rehabilitation programs, and are non-profit. See [1]. However, IMO the U.S. healthcare infrastructure and general profiteering culture will not allow any reasonable programs at high enough scale to operate. Ideally, instead of jailing drug offenders, we reintegrate them into society. This is expensive. Somebody needs to pay for it, and nobody wants to. Especially when you have the for-profit prison industry lobbying against it. Decriminalization without a comprehensive plan to deal with drug addiction will most likely not achieve the expected results. We'll probably get something like the opioid epidemic on a larger scale. The U.S. just does not do a good job of dealing with mental health. [1] https://craftsmanship.net/portugals-path-to-breaking-drug-addiction/ https://craftsmanship.net/portugals-path-to-breaking-drug-ad...

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

Kind of a funny moment in time we live in where some are clamoring to put people in jail for tweets/hate speech/mean words while simultaneously advocating for lower jail populations.

greedo 6y ago
Incitement to riot/insurrection isn't "mean words."
- ed25519FUUU 6y ago
  Were you on twitter at all during any of the protests of last summer? Vague “incitement of riot” charges are going to be used against a whole lot of anti-establishment groups that were active during that time (and now). If you think it stops at MAGA you are deceived.
  - greedo 6y ago
    Show me a "Vague 'incitement of riot'" charge being brought against anyone. And I wouldn't include the BLM protests of the summer as anti-establishment in the same vein as the Qanon/1776er crowd that wanted to overthrow the government.
    - Chris2048 6y ago
      > And I wouldn't include the BLM protests of the summer as anti-establishment Why not? because they only wanted to defund the police?
      - greedo 6y ago
        Defund the police wasn't a universal mantra for the entire BLM movement and protests. That was seized upon by some who wanted to paint the entire summer of protests as monolithic. Many protestors simply wanted the police to stop killing and abusing minorities. In my opinion, anti-establishment types are anarchists or revolutionaries who want to overthrow the existing government, not change it.

offtop5 6y ago

Society needs to have something between jaywalking and attempted murder. Right now if you fish without a permit in the wrong place you're a felon and you will never be able to get a decent job for the rest of your life. The entire reason the American criminal justice system is like this, at its core is to punish minority groups. I don't ever see this changing, and it's a big part of why I want to make an exit by 40. I imagine if I do decide to have a family it would be in a more civilized country

leetcrew 6y ago
> Society needs to have something between jaywalking and attempted murder. there is already a lot of gradation in the spectrum of consequences: fines, probation, house arrest, weekend sentence (free to work during the week, but need check into jail each weekend), different security levels for different offenses. not much "rehabilitation" occurs anywhere along the spectrum, but it's not like you go straight from a small fine to 25 years in supermax.
- offtop5 6y ago
  Almost all of those come with an arrest record which can stop you from getting a decent job. Just because you can get 3 months for a felony charge, doesn't mean you'll ever be able to work again. We need a system to get rid of most criminal records after a certain amount of time
- jawzz 6y ago
  True, but where there’s less of a spectrum is in the stigma that follows you after the punishment. For many companies and landlords, anyone without a squeaky clean record is lumped together. Even for crimes that a significant portion of the population has probably committed at some point and were just never caught.
mrmuagi 6y ago
> fish without a permit in the wrong place Are these ecological concerns, ie. protected species or preventing over fishing, or trespassing concerns? I tried searching 'fishing' + 'felon' and I couldn't whip up any laws.

ge96 6y ago

I got mad lucky in college, I was in a parking lot arrested for possession (was smoking) it was a tiny amount like a keyfob worth. It was reduced to a parking fine that I had to pay in court. That could have destroyed me (permanent label) if that was bigger. This was like 8-10 years ago. I am asian if it matters.

jawzz 6y ago
Has the record of arrest (and charge, if you were initially charged with possession before it was reduced) affected you at all, to your knowledge?
- ge96 6y ago
  Well it was not recorded as that, it was just a "parking fine". What's why I'm saying I'm lucky it wasn't logged as substance possession. Also by arrested I mean handcuffed/put into a car, but I wasn't taken to a jail. I was just written a possession fine/piece of paper. I think the answer to your question is I was not affected. As I've taken jobs that had to do security checks to get in and I got through. I guess it depends what they're looking for.

avsteele 6y ago

While I agree with the conclusion. People tend to overestimate the fraction of people incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses. It is only ~15% https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html

avsteele 6y ago
And I'm assuming they mean incarcerated (jail+prison) and not just 'jail'. Most of the people in jail are awaiting trial, people in prison have been convicted.
- quietbritishjim 6y ago
  The article linked in the comment you're replying to seems to include both jail and prison. The comment itself didn't mention either and just said "incarcerated".
- greatgirl 6y ago
  > Only 2% of federal criminal defendants go to trial, and most who do are found guilty From pew research
greatgirl 6y ago
That's about where i expected it to be actually, and that's about 200k people, so it's pretty bad.
coffeemaniac 6y ago
15% of the US prison population is a huge number of people.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
hwillis 6y ago
That's state only; in total it's ~20%. That still hugely misses the point, because sentences are not equal. Violent offenders serve on average 4.7 years while drug offenders serve under 2 years. ~40% of people who are sent to state prison are sent with drugs as the most serious charge. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/tssp16.pdf https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/tssp16.pdf

AHappyCamper 6y ago

No.

gowld 6y ago

Title is misleading. Authors of a study said that. A study can't express an opinion; that's a category error.

sam2426679 6y ago

Biden and Harris are trendsetting experts in the field of mass incarceration.

sigmaprimus 6y ago

I'm conflicted when it come to this idea, on one hand it does seem pointless to punish addicts but on the other, very few of the addicts that are incarcerated were not aware of the laws before they got caught. In many cases they traffic in "Minor" amounts to support their own addictions which just creates more addicts and spreads the sickness to other victims. In a perfect world, all drugs would be legal and more importantly free for anyone who wanted them. This could be possible while still requiring addicts to visit medical providers for their fix. This would quickly remove the profits from the illegal drug trade and keep the addicted from being exploited in order to feed their addictions. I have seen first hand the destruction caused by so called non violent drug offenders and can attest it is just as bad if not worse on the lives of those around them. In my case it started with small things disappearing from our household, like heirlooms and collectables but ended with a selfish addict telling lies and extorting money from myself and others. My particular situation finally ended with the addict overdosing and all the misery that came from that, being thrust upon those who still loved and depended on them. I bounce back and forth between being angry at myself, then the addict and sometimes the people working in law enforcement and the justice system(Who have managed to build nice little lives for themselves through policing and punishing the addicted under the guise of making the world a better place.) So IDK if freeing a bunch of drug users who were aware what they were doing at the time was criminal, is going to solve the root problems caused by drugs any better than the current system of keeping them locked away from the rest of us until they figure out how to toe the line.

princevegeta 6y ago
Why is it important if they know it’s illigal or not? Seems to me the important question is what harm they are doing to others.
- sigmaprimus 6y ago
  Possibly You are right, it is very hard for me to comprehend what goes on inside the mind of an addict. I would say for arguments sake that the addict is also aware of the damage that they are doing to others but unfortunately the desire for the drug overpowers any sense of morality. Short of locking them up which then puts the burden and guilt on the rest of us, or making all drugs legal and free, I am not sure what would work. Like I said my thoughts are quite conflicted with this matter. My personal solution although fairly selfish is to avoid getting into and breaking away from any relationship if and when it becomes apperant that someone is using.

Ccecil 6y ago

There needs to be massive revision across society if this were to happen, jobs, housing, life...it is all burdened for the felon greater than the time in prison was. Many have trouble just adjusting to things like the choices in the supermarket...let alone navigating the troubles of finding housing. In the town I live in, (Inland NW, US), the majority of "affordable" rentals are all rented by a small number of property management companies which do not seem to be local and have 1-800 numbers. This covers a very sizable portion of the apartment buildings...guess what...they DO NOT rent to people with drug felonies...burglar...sure. But if you sold marlijuana 20 years ago you cannot rent from them...period. So...combine that with an area which the average rent has tripled in the last 20 years...with a massive shortage of for sale properties and what are these people to do? Work and other things are tricky as well...it isn't that a felon cannot get a job...but they are very likely to be manipulated by their employer. They will typically be paid less and be treated differently than their coworkers. Couple all that with the ineligibility for SBA loans if you have felony convictions...now what? You are likely to be able to get a passport and such...but most will never truly see these things go off their record permanently...unless you get a withheld judgement you are still required to say "yes" to the have you ever been convicted question. Employers being required to ask "in the last x years have you been convicted?" solves that issue...allows for the punishment to be served and forgiven. "have you ever been convicted?" assumes there is no retribution possible ever.

dado3212 6y ago

Locked In by John Pfaff does a great job of discussing prison reform, and the fallbacks of common mantras (such as this one). He observes that "setting every drug offender free would cut our prison population by only about 16 percent...still more than 200,000 people -- and that's a huge number by any measure." Because many offenses/crimes were dropped as part of plea bargaining, it's also hard to indicate how many would actually be characterized as "non-violent criminals jailed on minor drug offence". Pfaff tries to estimate this using Bureau of Justice Statistics surveying that asks inmates questions that go beyond their official convictions. According to this "about 1 percent of all prisoners...met that description". So yes, I think a lot of people would agree with the headline here, but it's not a panacea for the incarceration rate of the US.

specialist 6y ago
What's your wishlist of reforms?

ralmidani 6y ago

Releasing people convicted of non-violent drug offenses is not enough; it’s important that we provide a smooth ramp to re-join society. We should wipe their records clean, train them in useful, employable skills, and help them find decent jobs. (Edit: this is the bare minimum; I don’t want to get into direct monetary compensation, even though I think it’s worth considering.) I would imagine a lot of people formerly-incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses are (rightfully) resentful of society, and we should give them an alternative to committing crimes in order to survive.

charlescearl 6y ago

Ruth Wilson Gilmore [1,2], Angela Davis [3.4] and many, many others have been making the case for decades that the entirety of the prison system needs to be abolished. Among the more profound cases that Gilmore makes is that the it is not just for-profit prisons and policing. Racialized exclusion of Black people from the economy has essentially created a captive class -- a pool of bodies for exploitation. Essentially the industry of incarceration at the state (that is both State and Federal level) create sources of income -- for the States, the companies that supply resources to prisons, as well as the private prisons. Further, Gilmore [2] makes the argument that we need to do away with the presumption that there are people who are "deserving" of prison. Is the very notion of prison consistent with a civilized society? Just a further note that the incarceration rate of Black men in the U.S. [5] is comparable to that of Uyghur population in Xianjiang [6] -- that rate was estimated to be 5% for Black men across the U.S. in 2009, 5% for Uyghurs in non-Muslim majority districts, roughly 10% in majority-Muslim districts. It would be interesting to understand how the adoption of capitalist economic practices in China correlates with the rise of the carceral. [1] Golden gulag: Prisons, surplus, crisis, and opposition in globalizing California https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520242012/golden-gulag https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520242012/golden-gulag [2] Abolition Geography and the Problem of Innocence. In Futures of Black Radicalism, G. T.. Johnson and A. Loubin (Eds.). New York: Verso, 225–240. [3] Are Prisons Obsolete? https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/213837/are-prisons-obsolete-by-angela-y-davis/ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/213837/are-prisons-... [4] If They Come in the Morning … Voices of Resistance, Edited by Angela Y. Davis, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_They_Come_in_the_Morning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_They_Come_in_the_Morning [5] https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/ https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-just... [6] https://qz.com/1599393/how-researchers-estimate-1-million-uyghurs-are-detained-in-xinjiang/ https://qz.com/1599393/how-researchers-estimate-1-million-uy...

elindbe3 6y ago
It's an interesting idea. Can you give a TLDR of how it would work in practice? Cowboy justice?
- 6y ago

BayezLyfe 6y ago

So how does one advocate for their state to move towards decriminalization?

pcglue 6y ago

This is why porch piracy will increase. I suspect the intersection of people who are non-violent druggies and who are porch pirates is huge. I hate porch pirates.

amanaplanacanal 6y ago

No victimless crime should ever be a felony. A felony conviction has so many knock on effects for the rest of your life. I could be talked into saying no non-violent crimes should ever be felonies. Looking at the categories of felonies on Wikipedia it is pretty obvious that some are not like the others. Murder is much different from copyright infringement.