2 ms·

IMO what is disingenuous is that the vast majority of prisoners belong in the first category, but when discussing any kind of reform the standard argument used

by paxys 3y ago

IMO what is disingenuous is that the vast majority of prisoners belong in the first category, but when discussing any kind of reform the standard argument used is "but we can't let the Ted Bundys out!" and that kills all further progress.

bb88 3y ago
"Who are you scared of and who are you angry at?" If you're angry at someone for using/possessing IV drugs, why lock them up in prison with the violent offenders, e.g, the people we're scared of? If you inject people with non-violent crime histories into a violent prison, what do you think the outcome is going to be? More people we're scared of.
ch4s3 3y ago
> IMO what is disingenuous is that the vast majority of prisoners belong in the first category I'm not sure evidence bares that out. I always like to reference this great project when discussing this topic[1]. Some 63% of people in state prison in the US are there for some violent crime, which is an unfortunately muddy category. I don't have the exact stat at hand but something like 70% of people incarcerated for the first time have 5 or more priors. My point is there is a vast middle where most prisoners have some kind of violent conviction and half a dozen or more priors. It's a thorny problem to think about how to best keep communities safe, and to best serve these people who are falling through the cracks. However I think its fair to say that some of them probably need a few years to cool off where they can't be a danger to others. And I say this as someone who is highly critical of the carceral state and generally doesn't want to see any person lose their freedom. [1] https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2023.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2023.html
- paxys 3y ago
  It's going to be a lot more meaningful to look at the reasons for peoples' first incarceration, because that's where the problem needs to be addressed. Because of the way the legal system works it is all but guaranteed that successive instances will be more and more severe (the primary one being that no one is going to employ you once you get a record).
  - ch4s3 3y ago
    Aggravated assault is the most common violent that turns up in the stats, with a rate of ~250 per 100k, and about half of those result in convictions. So that's pretty common among first incarcerations. I don't have the stat at hand, but most people entering prison have multiple priors before the thing that lands them in jail.
FpUser 3y ago
I noticed that too. In Canada they've introduced sweeping rules that have increased time for pardon eligibility to be 10 years instead of 5. All because of a one fucking case of Homolka. If it was up to me I'd rather see politicians responsible for these changes to be in jail. Why is this imbecilic tendency to keep punishing people long after they've paid for their crimes?

by paxys 3y ago

bb88 3y ago

"Who are you scared of and who are you angry at?" If you're angry at someone for using/possessing IV drugs, why lock them up in prison with the violent offenders, e.g, the people we're scared of? If you inject people with non-violent crime histories into a violent prison, what do you think the outcome is going to be? More people we're scared of.

ch4s3 3y ago

> IMO what is disingenuous is that the vast majority of prisoners belong in the first category I'm not sure evidence bares that out. I always like to reference this great project when discussing this topic[1]. Some 63% of people in state prison in the US are there for some violent crime, which is an unfortunately muddy category. I don't have the exact stat at hand but something like 70% of people incarcerated for the first time have 5 or more priors. My point is there is a vast middle where most prisoners have some kind of violent conviction and half a dozen or more priors. It's a thorny problem to think about how to best keep communities safe, and to best serve these people who are falling through the cracks. However I think its fair to say that some of them probably need a few years to cool off where they can't be a danger to others. And I say this as someone who is highly critical of the carceral state and generally doesn't want to see any person lose their freedom. [1] https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2023.html https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2023.html

paxys 3y ago
It's going to be a lot more meaningful to look at the reasons for peoples' first incarceration, because that's where the problem needs to be addressed. Because of the way the legal system works it is all but guaranteed that successive instances will be more and more severe (the primary one being that no one is going to employ you once you get a record).
- ch4s3 3y ago
  Aggravated assault is the most common violent that turns up in the stats, with a rate of ~250 per 100k, and about half of those result in convictions. So that's pretty common among first incarcerations. I don't have the stat at hand, but most people entering prison have multiple priors before the thing that lands them in jail.

FpUser 3y ago

I noticed that too. In Canada they've introduced sweeping rules that have increased time for pardon eligibility to be 10 years instead of 5. All because of a one fucking case of Homolka. If it was up to me I'd rather see politicians responsible for these changes to be in jail. Why is this imbecilic tendency to keep punishing people long after they've paid for their crimes?