9 ms·

I'm hazy on where I heard this justification, but I recall some argument that the rate of violent criminals who recreationally use drugs is very high. That is,

I'm hazy on where I heard this justification, but I recall some argument that the rate of violent criminals who recreationally use drugs is very high. That is, if a violent criminal is caught walking down the street and is searched then there is a high probability that they will have some kind of illegal drug on them. The opposite isn't necessarily the case. That is, a drug user is not high probability to be a violent criminal. But by having available such a large net and by removing a large number of recreational drug users from the streets - the end result is a high proportion of violent offenders are also removed from the streets. So a combination of "stop and search" policing with "three strikes" policies has the effect of significantly reducing violent crime. However, there is a good argument to be made that the benefit is far outweighed by the damage such policies have caused.

callmeal 5y ago
> "three strikes" policies has the effect of significantly reducing violent crime. That's not quite true. The three strikes policy had the effect of increasing violent crime. After all, if it's going to be their third strike, why would anyone go small? https://slate.com/business/2008/03/do-three-strikes-laws-make-criminals-more-violent.html https://slate.com/business/2008/03/do-three-strikes-laws-mak...
- pseingatl 5y ago
  Or violently resist arrest if a three strike indictment is a possibility. No need to violently resist a shoplifting bust, but if it might carry a life sentence, the calculus is very different.
- reggieband 5y ago
  That article and the effect they are suggesting aren't in contradiction to the initial justification. There are two different arguments. 1. Individuals are more likely to act more violently if they already have two strikes against them. This leads to a measurable statistical increase in the violence perpetrated by individuals who have two strikes against them in jurisdictions where three strikes policies exist compared to individuals who have two comparable crimes on their records in jurisdictions where there are no such policies. 2. The overall amount of violent crime in jurisdictions with three strike policies is lower than comparable jurisdictions where there are no such policies. I see no incompatibility with these premises. That is, both can be true simultaneously. In fact, the evidence provided in the article you linked seems to suggest just that.
smoldesu 5y ago
"Recreational drug" can describe anything from pot to PCP, it's our government's mistake for not coloring a gradient between them.
greedo 5y ago
Stop and search had this nasty side affect of largely targeting minorities. I'm sure that if the same effort was applied to patrolling white neighborhoods and searching non-minorities, it would be really popular with voters...

callmeal 5y ago

> "three strikes" policies has the effect of significantly reducing violent crime. That's not quite true. The three strikes policy had the effect of increasing violent crime. After all, if it's going to be their third strike, why would anyone go small? https://slate.com/business/2008/03/do-three-strikes-laws-make-criminals-more-violent.html https://slate.com/business/2008/03/do-three-strikes-laws-mak...

pseingatl 5y ago
Or violently resist arrest if a three strike indictment is a possibility. No need to violently resist a shoplifting bust, but if it might carry a life sentence, the calculus is very different.
reggieband 5y ago
That article and the effect they are suggesting aren't in contradiction to the initial justification. There are two different arguments. 1. Individuals are more likely to act more violently if they already have two strikes against them. This leads to a measurable statistical increase in the violence perpetrated by individuals who have two strikes against them in jurisdictions where three strikes policies exist compared to individuals who have two comparable crimes on their records in jurisdictions where there are no such policies. 2. The overall amount of violent crime in jurisdictions with three strike policies is lower than comparable jurisdictions where there are no such policies. I see no incompatibility with these premises. That is, both can be true simultaneously. In fact, the evidence provided in the article you linked seems to suggest just that.

smoldesu 5y ago

"Recreational drug" can describe anything from pot to PCP, it's our government's mistake for not coloring a gradient between them.

greedo 5y ago

Stop and search had this nasty side affect of largely targeting minorities. I'm sure that if the same effort was applied to patrolling white neighborhoods and searching non-minorities, it would be really popular with voters...