4 ms·

Sounds like your stats support the argument that if we let out the drug offenders there will be plenty of space, since it effectively doubles the amount of room

Sounds like your stats support the argument that if we let out the drug offenders there will be plenty of space, since it effectively doubles the amount of room currently taken by those convicted of rape and sexual assault. Also, you haven't considered length of terms. If 62.5% are serving for violent crimes, they are most likely serving longer sentences than those convicted only of drug offenses. This means over the time of one violent criminal's stay in prison, you have maybe 1.5 or 2 or even 3 or more drug offenders being taken in and released. This doesn't affect the amount of people in prison at one time, but it affects the amount of people who end up going to prison.

philwelch 3y ago
By the same token, life sentences for rape are going to take up a lot more prison capacity than you’re accounting for. If you change a rape sentence from ten years to life (and a ten year sentence might mean you get out in six), you could end up 5xing or 10xing the number of prisoner-years the system needs to handle from the same population of offenders. Also by the same token, you’ve essentially made my case that “mass incarceration” is more a consequence of harsher sentences for serious violent crimes than it is a consequence of drug prohibition. If you favor even harsher sentences for serious violent crimes (I do too) then you need to accept that this will require significantly more prison capacity. Either that or we need to start talking about expanding the death penalty, and expediting the appeals process in capital cases so it can be applied at scale.
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  I think your case is overly simplistic. My response was pointing out that quoting basic statistics is not going to explain anything, and diving beyond the surface will reveal complications. Move on to 'violent crime caused by drug prohibition' to see yet another aspect of this. I am not making any argument beyond this.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    It doesn’t really add anything to the discussion to wave your hands around, say “it’s more complicated than that” if you’re not prepared to seriously explore the consequences of the complications you’re bringing up. For instance, you raised the complication that prison term length will have certain effects on the amount of prison capacity required for a class of crime. Fair enough, but once we actually explore that complication in depth, the conclusion is that lengthening prison terms for rape will consume significantly more prison capacity than you can free up by completely eliminating prison terms that are already relatively short. Likewise, unless you have some sort of data-backed argument as to how and why eliminating drug prohibition will change the conclusion that we will need more prison capacity to incarcerate all sex offenders for life, you’re not actually making any useful point.
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      There is no way to have a real discussion about this without actually being informed. Pointing out that your feelings about how rapists should be sentenced should not depend on whether or not drug prohibition is just because of 'room in the prisons' is perfectly valid. Statistics that mean nothing without broader context and analysis are pointless and misleading.
      - philwelch 3y ago
        > There is no way to have a real discussion about this without actually being informed. I don’t know about you but I don’t have this problem. > Pointing out that your feelings about how rapists should be sentenced should not depend on whether or not drug prohibition is just because of 'room in the prisons' is perfectly valid. It’s completely beside the point here. I’m making the argument that if we want to incarcerate rapists for life, we will need the prison capacity to do so. Which means, keeping everything else equal, building more prison capacity and increasing the degree of “mass incarceration” in the country. Something that is a very controversial suggestion to say the least. AnthonyMouse responded with the claim, “Let out the non-violent drug offenders and there will be plenty of cells for the rapists and pedophiles.” I could have backtracked and tried to make the argument that one has nothing to do with the other. But there was no need because I could, and did, simply refute AnthonyMouse’s claim directly. > Statistics that mean nothing without broader context and analysis are pointless and misleading. You’re clearly implying this is a mistake that I’ve made. I don’t think that it is. While you’ve pointed out a specific complication that I didn’t explicitly mention (the relationship between length of prison term and share of prison population), this complication doesn’t undermine my point but rather strengthens it. You made a further suggestion that maybe we should consider the violent crime that’s caused by drug prohibition. That would be a fine counterargument for you to make! Bring your own data and analysis and maybe we can both learn something. The problem is that it’s a lot easier for you to sit there and criticize me for not bringing enough “context and analysis” when you’re not bringing any of your own. If you have a point to make, make it. Don’t complain that my arguments are “simplistic” when you’re just going to make lazy sniping comments and expect me to do the work of making your counterarguments for you.

philwelch 3y ago

By the same token, life sentences for rape are going to take up a lot more prison capacity than you’re accounting for. If you change a rape sentence from ten years to life (and a ten year sentence might mean you get out in six), you could end up 5xing or 10xing the number of prisoner-years the system needs to handle from the same population of offenders. Also by the same token, you’ve essentially made my case that “mass incarceration” is more a consequence of harsher sentences for serious violent crimes than it is a consequence of drug prohibition. If you favor even harsher sentences for serious violent crimes (I do too) then you need to accept that this will require significantly more prison capacity. Either that or we need to start talking about expanding the death penalty, and expediting the appeals process in capital cases so it can be applied at scale.

Eisenstein 3y ago
I think your case is overly simplistic. My response was pointing out that quoting basic statistics is not going to explain anything, and diving beyond the surface will reveal complications. Move on to 'violent crime caused by drug prohibition' to see yet another aspect of this. I am not making any argument beyond this.
- philwelch 3y ago
  It doesn’t really add anything to the discussion to wave your hands around, say “it’s more complicated than that” if you’re not prepared to seriously explore the consequences of the complications you’re bringing up. For instance, you raised the complication that prison term length will have certain effects on the amount of prison capacity required for a class of crime. Fair enough, but once we actually explore that complication in depth, the conclusion is that lengthening prison terms for rape will consume significantly more prison capacity than you can free up by completely eliminating prison terms that are already relatively short. Likewise, unless you have some sort of data-backed argument as to how and why eliminating drug prohibition will change the conclusion that we will need more prison capacity to incarcerate all sex offenders for life, you’re not actually making any useful point.
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    There is no way to have a real discussion about this without actually being informed. Pointing out that your feelings about how rapists should be sentenced should not depend on whether or not drug prohibition is just because of 'room in the prisons' is perfectly valid. Statistics that mean nothing without broader context and analysis are pointless and misleading.
    - philwelch 3y ago
      > There is no way to have a real discussion about this without actually being informed. I don’t know about you but I don’t have this problem. > Pointing out that your feelings about how rapists should be sentenced should not depend on whether or not drug prohibition is just because of 'room in the prisons' is perfectly valid. It’s completely beside the point here. I’m making the argument that if we want to incarcerate rapists for life, we will need the prison capacity to do so. Which means, keeping everything else equal, building more prison capacity and increasing the degree of “mass incarceration” in the country. Something that is a very controversial suggestion to say the least. AnthonyMouse responded with the claim, “Let out the non-violent drug offenders and there will be plenty of cells for the rapists and pedophiles.” I could have backtracked and tried to make the argument that one has nothing to do with the other. But there was no need because I could, and did, simply refute AnthonyMouse’s claim directly. > Statistics that mean nothing without broader context and analysis are pointless and misleading. You’re clearly implying this is a mistake that I’ve made. I don’t think that it is. While you’ve pointed out a specific complication that I didn’t explicitly mention (the relationship between length of prison term and share of prison population), this complication doesn’t undermine my point but rather strengthens it. You made a further suggestion that maybe we should consider the violent crime that’s caused by drug prohibition. That would be a fine counterargument for you to make! Bring your own data and analysis and maybe we can both learn something. The problem is that it’s a lot easier for you to sit there and criticize me for not bringing enough “context and analysis” when you’re not bringing any of your own. If you have a point to make, make it. Don’t complain that my arguments are “simplistic” when you’re just going to make lazy sniping comments and expect me to do the work of making your counterarguments for you.