10 ms·

"laws are often injust ... the war on drugs" Look up the statistics. Even if every person in the U.S. incarcerated for drug possession was released tomorrow,

"laws are often injust ... the war on drugs" Look up the statistics. Even if every person in the U.S. incarcerated for drug possession was released tomorrow, the U.S. would still have the highest incareration rate in the world. If every drug trafficker was released, the U.S. would still have an incarceration rate triple that of every Western European country. If every non-violent offender was released, the inceration rate would stll be double that of every western European country. Also, note that many drug offenders have a violent history, but the police were only able to make the drug charges stick. Also note that in many cases the drug offenders were selling on street corners, playgrounds, and such, and residents were begging the police to move in and arrest the gang members. America first and foremost has a crime problem. And it has a crime problem due to terrible law enforcement. The incarceration rate is actually at a point that is analogous to the famous Laffer curve in tax policy. If you have really good law enforcement, and predictably catch and punish felons, you have very low incarceration rates because so few people commit crime (see for instance Japan and Singapore). If your country catches nobody, obviously its incarceration rate is 0%. But if law enforcement is mostly lax, but is inconsistently and randomly harsh, then you get high crime and a very high total incarcerated population.

phillmv 15y ago
>Also, note that many drug offenders have a violent history, but the police were only able to make the drug charges stick. Also note that in many cases the drug offenders were selling on street corners, playgrounds, and such, and residents were begging the police to move in and arrest the gang members. "In many cases" is disingenuously broad. That's not the case at all. Here is a great primer on the topic - http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/143/sentencing http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/143/s... When we talk about the War on Drugs driving incarceration rates, we do not speak solely of drug possession. It's economics. There is immense demand for narcotics because people love to get high. Since narcotics are illegal, engaging in their trade becomes a risky proposition, which in turn drives up prices. Since narcotics are such a lucrative endeavour, there is a lot of competition. Since competing groups lack the capacity to settle their differences through the judicial system, violence is often the answer they resort to. By making the trade legal you will remove all of these problems overnight. >America first and foremost has a crime problem. And it has a crime problem due to terrible law enforcement. Convicting and incarcerating people has little to do with law enforcement and more to do with the laws they were accused of breaking and the judicial system at large. Police officers round people up; they have no responsibility in determining whether they get locked up. > But if law enforcement is mostly lax, but is inconsistently and randomly harsh, then you get high crime and a very high total incarcerated population. So, you agree with me then: large amounts of people who are correctly locked up shouldn't be locked up.
- tptacek 15y ago
  You seem to be evading his point: "Even if every person in the U.S. incarcerated for drug possession was released tomorrow, the U.S. would still have the highest incareration rate in the world. If every drug trafficker was released, the U.S. would still have an incarceration rate triple that of every Western European country. If every non-violent offender was released, the incarceration rate would stll be double that of every western European country." This seems like a refutation of your comment.
  - kbolino 15y ago
    If I kill you over a bad drug deal, but none of us has drugs on us at the time, what crime do I get charged with? The counterpoint offered by phillmv was that just because, on paper, the crime has nothing to do with drugs, doesn't mean that it wasn't motivated by the drug trade.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      (1) Murder. (2) It's likely that many crimes are caused by the black market for drugs; the black market for drugs can be suppressed by legalizing them. It's also likely that many crimes are caused by drugs; these crimes can't be suppressed by legalizing, and in fact may be exacerbated by them. Drug dependency is devastating to economic well-being and to family systems and both those failures also give rise to criminality. I'm pro-legalization, and if you read his blog Devin seems to be too, but if legalizing is a pipe-dream solution to the "incarceration problem", then pointing wildly to it during discussions of the incarceration problem does everyone a disservice.
      - chc 15y ago
        I wonder: From what I understand, cigarettes are more strongly addictive than many "hard drugs", so do they give rise to many criminal acts? If we're just looking at the dependency factor and not the direct effects of the drug (e.g. "that stuff makes you violent"), it seems like it ought to be a useful model.
tomp 15y ago
> And it has a crime problem due to terrible law enforcement. There is another side to that. Yes, people will commit crimes if the probability of punishment (which is correlated with the probability of getting caught) is too low. However, people will also commit crimes if the expected loss from getting caught is too little. I believe social inequality is to blame here. People in poor neighborhoods know that basically whatever they do, legally, they will never live a good life - have a place to live, have a car, eat good food, live in a safe neighborhood, maybe travel once or twice per year. They have poor access to schooling, which leads to poor access to jobs, which leads to poor access to money, ... unless they do crimes (e.g. rob a bank, sell drugs, steal cars, kidnap people and demand ransom). I cannot speak from experience, because I was born rather privileged, but I imagine they don't even see this as unfair/immoral - there is nothing moral in one baby being born into a rich family and having all the options, and another being born to poor parents and thus having none. When you think of it, it might actually be immoral. Some criminals simply seek to correct this imbalance, to award themselves, and their kids, the opportunities that the society denied them. Note that I am in no way trying to justify their behaviour, I'm just trying to understand it. Only understanding can lead to an effective cure.

phillmv 15y ago

>Also, note that many drug offenders have a violent history, but the police were only able to make the drug charges stick. Also note that in many cases the drug offenders were selling on street corners, playgrounds, and such, and residents were begging the police to move in and arrest the gang members. "In many cases" is disingenuously broad. That's not the case at all. Here is a great primer on the topic - http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/143/sentencing http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/143/s... When we talk about the War on Drugs driving incarceration rates, we do not speak solely of drug possession. It's economics. There is immense demand for narcotics because people love to get high. Since narcotics are illegal, engaging in their trade becomes a risky proposition, which in turn drives up prices. Since narcotics are such a lucrative endeavour, there is a lot of competition. Since competing groups lack the capacity to settle their differences through the judicial system, violence is often the answer they resort to. By making the trade legal you will remove all of these problems overnight. >America first and foremost has a crime problem. And it has a crime problem due to terrible law enforcement. Convicting and incarcerating people has little to do with law enforcement and more to do with the laws they were accused of breaking and the judicial system at large. Police officers round people up; they have no responsibility in determining whether they get locked up. > But if law enforcement is mostly lax, but is inconsistently and randomly harsh, then you get high crime and a very high total incarcerated population. So, you agree with me then: large amounts of people who are correctly locked up shouldn't be locked up.

tptacek 15y ago
You seem to be evading his point: "Even if every person in the U.S. incarcerated for drug possession was released tomorrow, the U.S. would still have the highest incareration rate in the world. If every drug trafficker was released, the U.S. would still have an incarceration rate triple that of every Western European country. If every non-violent offender was released, the incarceration rate would stll be double that of every western European country." This seems like a refutation of your comment.
- kbolino 15y ago
  If I kill you over a bad drug deal, but none of us has drugs on us at the time, what crime do I get charged with? The counterpoint offered by phillmv was that just because, on paper, the crime has nothing to do with drugs, doesn't mean that it wasn't motivated by the drug trade.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    (1) Murder. (2) It's likely that many crimes are caused by the black market for drugs; the black market for drugs can be suppressed by legalizing them. It's also likely that many crimes are caused by drugs; these crimes can't be suppressed by legalizing, and in fact may be exacerbated by them. Drug dependency is devastating to economic well-being and to family systems and both those failures also give rise to criminality. I'm pro-legalization, and if you read his blog Devin seems to be too, but if legalizing is a pipe-dream solution to the "incarceration problem", then pointing wildly to it during discussions of the incarceration problem does everyone a disservice.
    - chc 15y ago
      I wonder: From what I understand, cigarettes are more strongly addictive than many "hard drugs", so do they give rise to many criminal acts? If we're just looking at the dependency factor and not the direct effects of the drug (e.g. "that stuff makes you violent"), it seems like it ought to be a useful model.

tomp 15y ago

> And it has a crime problem due to terrible law enforcement. There is another side to that. Yes, people will commit crimes if the probability of punishment (which is correlated with the probability of getting caught) is too low. However, people will also commit crimes if the expected loss from getting caught is too little. I believe social inequality is to blame here. People in poor neighborhoods know that basically whatever they do, legally, they will never live a good life - have a place to live, have a car, eat good food, live in a safe neighborhood, maybe travel once or twice per year. They have poor access to schooling, which leads to poor access to jobs, which leads to poor access to money, ... unless they do crimes (e.g. rob a bank, sell drugs, steal cars, kidnap people and demand ransom). I cannot speak from experience, because I was born rather privileged, but I imagine they don't even see this as unfair/immoral - there is nothing moral in one baby being born into a rich family and having all the options, and another being born to poor parents and thus having none. When you think of it, it might actually be immoral. Some criminals simply seek to correct this imbalance, to award themselves, and their kids, the opportunities that the society denied them. Note that I am in no way trying to justify their behaviour, I'm just trying to understand it. Only understanding can lead to an effective cure.