8 ms·

1.) Though this is becoming an increasingly popular viewpoint in many of the American cities that are experiencing these problems right now, it’s far from unive

1.) Though this is becoming an increasingly popular viewpoint in many of the American cities that are experiencing these problems right now, it’s far from universally held. 2.) The U.S. is not a monolith, so looking at the prison population of the United States as a whole doesn’t tell you about what’s going on in an individual state or city. 3.) The number of people incarcerated has a long tail. In the U.S. in particular, many people received long sentences during the years following the ‘94 crime bill. Little if any effort is being made to commute these despite policies centered on new incarceration changing. 4.) In the places where reduced incarceration is being tried in the U.S. it’s important to recognize that it’s being tried effectively in a vacuum. In many other places which are able to sustain low incarceration rates, there are a lot of social programs that help make that possible, and also programs to help people rehabilitate after a conviction. The U.S. has little if any of that. Where reduced incarceration is being tried, it’s usually not replaced with something that’s more effective.

wing-_-nuts 3y ago
I consider myself a liberal, but while I think pretty much all drug possession charges should be dropped and decriminalized, violent crime? Robbery? Those folks should absolutely be in jail. I don't care if we have to build tent cities to incarcerate them. You hurt someone intentionally, you should not be breathing free air for a while.
- mindslight 3y ago
  The fundamental problem is that the misguided attempt to criminalize drugs destroyed respect for the law for generations. Once you're at risk of being locked in a cage for decades for engaging in behavior that would otherwise just be called running a small business, then robbery isn't a huge leap. Especially after your industry ends up creating its own parallel justice system because the usual courts have been made unavailable. So yes, while drugs should be deillegalized and those crimes expunged, this is only but a first step on a long road to repairing the severe damage that was done to actual law and order by the very people fallaciously rallying behind "law and order" in the 80's and 90's.
  - kevviiinn 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - pb7 3y ago
      I looked up "police state" and got this: >a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens' activities Can you explain how the US is all of those things?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - hn_throawlles 3y ago
        they use your intel against you, don't know about amd.... * slaps knee *
      - kevviiinn 3y ago
        The police unions have a crazy amount of influence over politics where the basically just cry if they don't get their way and threaten to not go after criminals, it's happened in multiple states iirc Basically every step of the way, whenever some sort of reform comes up they fight it tooth and nail while simultaneously grabbing every bit of extra power that they can. These powers include things like surveillance and literal highway robbery in the form of civil forfeiture. In the way of surveillance, they can now purchase peoples data and there are companies selling services to police which analyze and track citizens movements without a warrant. Combine this with a story I saw on HN earlier today about a company purchasing live footage feeds from citizen surveillance cameras for cops to, again without a warrant, use at will. But wait, there's more! There are also electronic communications surveillance programs such as prism (NSA) and hemisphere (DEA) combined with the magic of parallel construction to obfuscate the fact that any surveillance was even used to spy on citizens illegally. Cops basically get to do whatever they want without any sort of punishment when they do harm to citizens, which they do regularly including murdering innocent ones. Perhaps you've heard of the LASD gangs that terrorize the communities they're supposed to be protecting? It's well documented and has been going on for years, it still is. Prosecutors and judges generally side with the cops because they need them to do their jobs, they have undue influence not only over prosecution but also legislation in the form of strikes and union lobbying. Police unions are probably the only union I think should be dismantled, all other unions for workers are great but police unions are actively harmful to society.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  Prison is where criminals go. Jail is where people not convicted of a crime go. Drug Offenses are nearly half the prison population [1]. So the prison population can decrease by significant amounts without releasing any violent criminals. [1]: https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offen...
  - kooshball 3y ago
    > Drug Offenses are nearly half the prison population this is not true. your data is federal only. most prisoners are at state prisons. drug offense is about 1/5 of total. source https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2023.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2023.html
    - dotancohen 3y ago
      A reduction of 20% is most certainly significant.
      - shjake 3y ago
        What proportion of them are in prison for possession of small/personal amounts? And is imprisoning people who are smuggling/distributing hard and potentially very dangerous drugs really that controversial?
        dotancohen 3y ago
        I have no idea, I don't live there. I'm responding to the assertion that 1/5 is not significant.
        kooshball 3y ago
        no one asserted 1/5 is not significant. you misread this. i was just stating the fact that the initial number posted was wrong/incomplete.
- mattmanser 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - dhdjsjnsjxj 3y ago
    [flagged]
- bluescrn 3y ago
  The problem area seems to be property crime without direct violence. It can ruin the victims life just as much as non-lethal violence (taking away a person's source of income, or transport required to keep a job, or wrecking a business they've spent many years building), but many take the 'it's only property, it's probably insured!' attitude. And many at least see stealing from 'big nasty corporations' as relatively OK. But if people keep stealing from businesses until they close down or relocate and there's no easy shoplifting targets, will the thieves stop, or will they move on to stealing from homes?
  - giantg2 3y ago
    'it's only property, it's probably insured!' I wonder why insurance is so high...
    - nxm 3y ago
      O why there are food deserts when stores continue to get robbed without any meaningful repercussions for the thieves
    - thephyber 3y ago
      I almost had to sit for a jury trial. Guy stole things worth less than $950, was likely homeless, the prosecution took 22 months to build a case and failed to leverage a plea bargain, named about 30 law enforcement officers and/or forensics specialists as potential witnesses, and jury selection started with 100 citizens and took 4+ days, then the judge claimed it would take 6 weeks to try the case. The problem isn’t just insurance. It’s that prosecution is insanely slow and is far more harmful to society than the actual crime.
      - giantg2 3y ago
        "and is far more harmful to society than the actual crime." I doubt the victims see it that way. If we just let people steal, it can turn into a runaway chain reaction due to a lack of consequences.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  It should also be noted that locking people up puts them in contact with a bunch of convicted criminals. Making weed illegal put a bunch of otherwise harmless people in a situation where they wanted to do illegal business. The liberal position—don’t make relatively harmless stuff illegal—is one way to reduce the amount of crime. Sure, lock up people who do violent crimes (I mean, get them out of society while we try to figure out if we can get them psychological help), but instead of doing something dystopian like tent prison cities, just let out the people who shouldn’t be there in the first place. (All that is to say, I agree with you, just think we should focus on the part that will benefit society).
  - quad_eye_oh 3y ago
    I think some of this political conflict is over what constitutes a harmless or victimless or nonviolent crime. In the past year I've seen different people claim that hemp consumption, property crime, and even intimidation with a firearm were nonviolent and that their perpetrators were merely marginalized individuals who need social assistance rather than prosecution. I think GP's point is that even property crime is not victimless: It hurts everyone, it makes society worse, and it likely hurts the people at the bottom of society disproportionately. But I may add, then, that the reformers have the burden of showing evidence for their position: they need to demonstrate that it is possible to have a low-crime, low-prosecution, high social net city somewhere in the US. I'm beginning to suspect that they are missing some critical component which is required to make such a system work for everyone.
    - cdogl 3y ago
      Hemp consumption _is_ non violent. I agree with your overall sentiment but that inclusion made me squint.
      - quad_eye_oh 3y ago
        That's my point, that some people will draw the line at things that are objectively nonviolent, and others will draw it at things that are objectively very close to violent. Actually come to think of it, violence is really just a proxy for harm to others.
- EliRivers 3y ago
  You hurt someone intentionally, you should not be breathing free air for a while. Genuine question; is that only physically? If I like causing people pain and anguish and suffering, and my weapon of choice is words, should I also be incarcerated because I hurt people intentionally? I tend towards not giving people a free pass simply because their weapon of choice is words, but (amongst other things) the US has a reputation for being very permissive with the spoken word.
  - bilvar 3y ago
    Please don't equate words with physical violence. It's Orwellian and the only purpose it serves is to destabilize society.
  - DiggyJohnson 3y ago
    Sticks and stones may break my bones… I think there is a massive difference between physical violence (and property crime) and words. What sort of words are you envisioning here?
  - bavell 3y ago
    Agreed with the sibling comments, physical violence is an entirely different beast than verbal "violence".
  - naijaboiler 3y ago
    Or I'm a greedy or incompe exec taking silly risks and now people are out of a livelihood and are hurting because of my actions
  - filoleg 3y ago
    > If I like causing people pain and anguish and suffering, and my weapon of choice is words, should I also be incarcerated because I hurt people intentionally? No, you shouldn't be incarcerated for that. You would be an asshole if you intentionally caused people anguish with your words, but being an asshole is not a crime (and shouldn't be).

wing-_-nuts 3y ago

I consider myself a liberal, but while I think pretty much all drug possession charges should be dropped and decriminalized, violent crime? Robbery? Those folks should absolutely be in jail. I don't care if we have to build tent cities to incarcerate them. You hurt someone intentionally, you should not be breathing free air for a while.

mindslight 3y ago
The fundamental problem is that the misguided attempt to criminalize drugs destroyed respect for the law for generations. Once you're at risk of being locked in a cage for decades for engaging in behavior that would otherwise just be called running a small business, then robbery isn't a huge leap. Especially after your industry ends up creating its own parallel justice system because the usual courts have been made unavailable. So yes, while drugs should be deillegalized and those crimes expunged, this is only but a first step on a long road to repairing the severe damage that was done to actual law and order by the very people fallaciously rallying behind "law and order" in the 80's and 90's.
- kevviiinn 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - pb7 3y ago
    I looked up "police state" and got this: >a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens' activities Can you explain how the US is all of those things?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - hn_throawlles 3y ago
      they use your intel against you, don't know about amd.... * slaps knee *
    - kevviiinn 3y ago
      The police unions have a crazy amount of influence over politics where the basically just cry if they don't get their way and threaten to not go after criminals, it's happened in multiple states iirc Basically every step of the way, whenever some sort of reform comes up they fight it tooth and nail while simultaneously grabbing every bit of extra power that they can. These powers include things like surveillance and literal highway robbery in the form of civil forfeiture. In the way of surveillance, they can now purchase peoples data and there are companies selling services to police which analyze and track citizens movements without a warrant. Combine this with a story I saw on HN earlier today about a company purchasing live footage feeds from citizen surveillance cameras for cops to, again without a warrant, use at will. But wait, there's more! There are also electronic communications surveillance programs such as prism (NSA) and hemisphere (DEA) combined with the magic of parallel construction to obfuscate the fact that any surveillance was even used to spy on citizens illegally. Cops basically get to do whatever they want without any sort of punishment when they do harm to citizens, which they do regularly including murdering innocent ones. Perhaps you've heard of the LASD gangs that terrorize the communities they're supposed to be protecting? It's well documented and has been going on for years, it still is. Prosecutors and judges generally side with the cops because they need them to do their jobs, they have undue influence not only over prosecution but also legislation in the form of strikes and union lobbying. Police unions are probably the only union I think should be dismantled, all other unions for workers are great but police unions are actively harmful to society.
lesuorac 3y ago
Prison is where criminals go. Jail is where people not convicted of a crime go. Drug Offenses are nearly half the prison population [1]. So the prison population can decrease by significant amounts without releasing any violent criminals. [1]: https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offen...
- kooshball 3y ago
  > Drug Offenses are nearly half the prison population this is not true. your data is federal only. most prisoners are at state prisons. drug offense is about 1/5 of total. source https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2023.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2023.html
  - dotancohen 3y ago
    A reduction of 20% is most certainly significant.
    - shjake 3y ago
      What proportion of them are in prison for possession of small/personal amounts? And is imprisoning people who are smuggling/distributing hard and potentially very dangerous drugs really that controversial?
      - dotancohen 3y ago
        I have no idea, I don't live there. I'm responding to the assertion that 1/5 is not significant.
        kooshball 3y ago
        no one asserted 1/5 is not significant. you misread this. i was just stating the fact that the initial number posted was wrong/incomplete.
mattmanser 3y ago
[flagged]
- dhdjsjnsjxj 3y ago
  [flagged]
bluescrn 3y ago
The problem area seems to be property crime without direct violence. It can ruin the victims life just as much as non-lethal violence (taking away a person's source of income, or transport required to keep a job, or wrecking a business they've spent many years building), but many take the 'it's only property, it's probably insured!' attitude. And many at least see stealing from 'big nasty corporations' as relatively OK. But if people keep stealing from businesses until they close down or relocate and there's no easy shoplifting targets, will the thieves stop, or will they move on to stealing from homes?
- giantg2 3y ago
  'it's only property, it's probably insured!' I wonder why insurance is so high...
  - nxm 3y ago
    O why there are food deserts when stores continue to get robbed without any meaningful repercussions for the thieves
  - thephyber 3y ago
    I almost had to sit for a jury trial. Guy stole things worth less than $950, was likely homeless, the prosecution took 22 months to build a case and failed to leverage a plea bargain, named about 30 law enforcement officers and/or forensics specialists as potential witnesses, and jury selection started with 100 citizens and took 4+ days, then the judge claimed it would take 6 weeks to try the case. The problem isn’t just insurance. It’s that prosecution is insanely slow and is far more harmful to society than the actual crime.
    - giantg2 3y ago
      "and is far more harmful to society than the actual crime." I doubt the victims see it that way. If we just let people steal, it can turn into a runaway chain reaction due to a lack of consequences.
bee_rider 3y ago
It should also be noted that locking people up puts them in contact with a bunch of convicted criminals. Making weed illegal put a bunch of otherwise harmless people in a situation where they wanted to do illegal business. The liberal position—don’t make relatively harmless stuff illegal—is one way to reduce the amount of crime. Sure, lock up people who do violent crimes (I mean, get them out of society while we try to figure out if we can get them psychological help), but instead of doing something dystopian like tent prison cities, just let out the people who shouldn’t be there in the first place. (All that is to say, I agree with you, just think we should focus on the part that will benefit society).
- quad_eye_oh 3y ago
  I think some of this political conflict is over what constitutes a harmless or victimless or nonviolent crime. In the past year I've seen different people claim that hemp consumption, property crime, and even intimidation with a firearm were nonviolent and that their perpetrators were merely marginalized individuals who need social assistance rather than prosecution. I think GP's point is that even property crime is not victimless: It hurts everyone, it makes society worse, and it likely hurts the people at the bottom of society disproportionately. But I may add, then, that the reformers have the burden of showing evidence for their position: they need to demonstrate that it is possible to have a low-crime, low-prosecution, high social net city somewhere in the US. I'm beginning to suspect that they are missing some critical component which is required to make such a system work for everyone.
  - cdogl 3y ago
    Hemp consumption _is_ non violent. I agree with your overall sentiment but that inclusion made me squint.
    - quad_eye_oh 3y ago
      That's my point, that some people will draw the line at things that are objectively nonviolent, and others will draw it at things that are objectively very close to violent. Actually come to think of it, violence is really just a proxy for harm to others.
EliRivers 3y ago
You hurt someone intentionally, you should not be breathing free air for a while. Genuine question; is that only physically? If I like causing people pain and anguish and suffering, and my weapon of choice is words, should I also be incarcerated because I hurt people intentionally? I tend towards not giving people a free pass simply because their weapon of choice is words, but (amongst other things) the US has a reputation for being very permissive with the spoken word.
- bilvar 3y ago
  Please don't equate words with physical violence. It's Orwellian and the only purpose it serves is to destabilize society.
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  Sticks and stones may break my bones… I think there is a massive difference between physical violence (and property crime) and words. What sort of words are you envisioning here?
- bavell 3y ago
  Agreed with the sibling comments, physical violence is an entirely different beast than verbal "violence".
- naijaboiler 3y ago
  Or I'm a greedy or incompe exec taking silly risks and now people are out of a livelihood and are hurting because of my actions
- filoleg 3y ago
  > If I like causing people pain and anguish and suffering, and my weapon of choice is words, should I also be incarcerated because I hurt people intentionally? No, you shouldn't be incarcerated for that. You would be an asshole if you intentionally caused people anguish with your words, but being an asshole is not a crime (and shouldn't be).