3 ms·

> The shift to tougher penal policies three decades ago was originally credited with helping people in poor neighborhoods by reducing crime. But now that Americ

> The shift to tougher penal policies three decades ago was originally credited with helping people in poor neighborhoods by reducing crime. But now that America’s incarceration rate has risen to be the world’s highest But the crime rate has been steadily decreasing since then. Oh, except for the bump related to the "crack epidemic." Which is exactly what the guy was dealing. > they don’t see what good was accomplished by keeping him there for two decades Keeping him away from law-abiding citizens for two decades was accomplished. Don't get me wrong. It is a sad story. And I sympathize with someone who didn't see a better way for himself than crack dealing but what about all those other people, the society at large, who don't want to be afraid to walk after dark, don't want their property vandalized...?

agwa 14y ago
> Keeping him away from law-abiding citizens for two decades was accomplished. >Don't get me wrong. It is a sad story. And I sympathize with someone who didn't see a better way for himself than crack dealing but what about all those other people, the society at large, who don't want to be afraid to walk after dark, don't want their property vandalized...? What makes 20 years the magic number after which Harris could be safely returned to live among law-abiding citizens? A key point of the article is that we're keeping people locked up long after they become unlikely to commit more crimes. It's not saying that lawbreakers shouldn't be incarcerated at all. You also have to consider unintended consequences of long incarceration, such as the effect it has on children, and the fact that it perpetuates the cycle of poverty that led Harris to crack dealing in the first place. Other western countries deter crime and protect the public with far shorter sentences. Why wouldn't that work here too?
- tsotha 14y ago
  >What makes 20 years the magic number after which Harris could be safely returned to live among law-abiding citizens? Actually, there is some logic to it. Men are much less likely to commit crimes when they reach middle age. If the goal is to keep society safe from criminals, you could do worse than to keep every serious offender in until he's forty.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jhaglund 14y ago
1. Saying that the rest of us are law abiding is an exaggeration. 2. http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-facts/cocaine-and-crack-facts http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-facts/cocaine-and-crack-facts
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
rdtsc 14y ago
> Keeping him away from law-abiding citizens for two decades was accomplished. Why not execute him and that will keep him permanently away from "law abiding" citizens? We could fast track that China style and just send a speedy execution bus to county jails and voila, problem fixed. Would you agree with that?

agwa 14y ago

> Keeping him away from law-abiding citizens for two decades was accomplished. >Don't get me wrong. It is a sad story. And I sympathize with someone who didn't see a better way for himself than crack dealing but what about all those other people, the society at large, who don't want to be afraid to walk after dark, don't want their property vandalized...? What makes 20 years the magic number after which Harris could be safely returned to live among law-abiding citizens? A key point of the article is that we're keeping people locked up long after they become unlikely to commit more crimes. It's not saying that lawbreakers shouldn't be incarcerated at all. You also have to consider unintended consequences of long incarceration, such as the effect it has on children, and the fact that it perpetuates the cycle of poverty that led Harris to crack dealing in the first place. Other western countries deter crime and protect the public with far shorter sentences. Why wouldn't that work here too?

tsotha 14y ago
>What makes 20 years the magic number after which Harris could be safely returned to live among law-abiding citizens? Actually, there is some logic to it. Men are much less likely to commit crimes when they reach middle age. If the goal is to keep society safe from criminals, you could do worse than to keep every serious offender in until he's forty.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

jhaglund 14y ago

1. Saying that the rest of us are law abiding is an exaggeration. 2. http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-facts/cocaine-and-crack-facts http://www.drugpolicy.org/drug-facts/cocaine-and-crack-facts

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

rdtsc 14y ago

> Keeping him away from law-abiding citizens for two decades was accomplished. Why not execute him and that will keep him permanently away from "law abiding" citizens? We could fast track that China style and just send a speedy execution bus to county jails and voila, problem fixed. Would you agree with that?