|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) is criticizing efforts to reform America’s criminal justice system, arguing on Thursday that the country actually has an “under-incarceration problem” — even though the U.S. has the world’s largest prison population.
Cotton gave a speech on criminal justice Thursday at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, D.C. During his remarks, he argued that policy goals like reducing mandatory minimum sentences, restoring voting rights for felons and reducing barriers to employment for ex-offenders are misguided and “dangerous.”
“The claim that too many criminals are being jailed, that there is over-incarceration, ignores an unfortunate fact: For the vast majority of crimes, a perpetrator is never identified or arrested, let alone prosecuted, convicted and jailed,” Cotton said. “Law enforcement is able to arrest or identify a likely perpetrator for only 19 percent of property crimes and 47 percent of violent crimes. If anything, we have an under-incarceration problem.”
Cotton specifically criticized a bill under consideration in the Senate that would reform federal sentencing laws for nonviolent crimes. He dismissed as “baseless” the argument that too many low-level offenders are already locked up, and declared the bill “dead” even though it has bipartisan support.
“The truth is you cannot decrease the severity and certainty of sentences without increasing crime,” Cotton said. “It’s simply impossible.”
According to the latest rankings from the Institute for Criminal Policy Research at Birkbeck, University of London, the United States has the largest prison population in the world and the second highest incarceration rate, trailing only Seychelles. (Experts argue that Seychelles, an island country with about 90,000 citizens, is an outlier due to its small population size.) At the end of 2014, more than 2.3 million Americans were inmates in federal or state prisons, local jails or juvenile correction facilities, with people of color accounting for a far greater share than national demographics would suggest.
Source
|
On May 20 2016 09:12 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2016 06:39 Plansix wrote:On May 20 2016 06:33 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 06:11 Plansix wrote:On May 20 2016 05:49 Rebs wrote:On May 20 2016 05:48 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 05:04 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 04:31 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 04:07 SolaR- wrote:That huffington post source gots me convinced. The Clinton's racist history is far more frightening. I can post articles too. www.thenation.com Convinced of what? oBlade made an assertion, namely that the "Drumpf is racist" narrative started because of the election. I showed that to be factually false. If you'd like to argue that it's true, then present arguments in defense of that position instead of deflecting to Hillary. I think you should know what Oblade is saying. Sure you can find some stuff here and there where people accused trump of sexism or racism. Hell, you can find dirt like that on pretty much any popular figure. He is saying that this consensus that trump is a racist/sexist across all media didnt start until he ran for president. I don't think you can argue against that. Most people in the media, if the idea really catches on that they're somehow prejudiced, like Don Imus, they lose their jobs, status, and so forth. Drumpf bringing up birth certificates in 2011 was part of his overtures to possibly running in 2012. The idea is obvious, fling shit at the sitting president -> attention. But NBC and everyone still kept him around. What really stuck? Not much, right, it didn't explode until after he announced last summer and everyone ran with the anti-Hispanic charge. ok fine you can obfuscate the issue all you want and argue timing, but whats your point ? That someone who is running for president shouldnt be subject to having his rhetoric examined ? Oblade challenges almost every assertion of sexism or racism on any subject, only to never accept any evidence as sufficient to prove it exists. Its pretty much the “if I keep asking questions, then it isn’t real” approach to discussion. You've said "we are all racist" and yet still expect people to lap it up uncritically every time someone cries wolf. On May 20 2016 05:49 Rebs wrote:On May 20 2016 05:48 oBlade wrote:On May 20 2016 05:04 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 04:31 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 04:07 SolaR- wrote:On May 20 2016 03:53 kwizach wrote:On May 20 2016 03:51 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
The racism/sexism narrative did basically start because of the election Again, false. That huffington post source gots me convinced. The Clinton's racist history is far more frightening. I can post articles too. www.thenation.com Convinced of what? oBlade made an assertion, namely that the "Drumpf is racist" narrative started because of the election. I showed that to be factually false. If you'd like to argue that it's true, then present arguments in defense of that position instead of deflecting to Hillary. I think you should know what Oblade is saying. Sure you can find some stuff here and there where people accused trump of sexism or racism. Hell, you can find dirt like that on pretty much any popular figure. He is saying that this consensus that trump is a racist/sexist across all media didnt start until he ran for president. I don't think you can argue against that. Most people in the media, if the idea really catches on that they're somehow prejudiced, like Don Imus, they lose their jobs, status, and so forth. Drumpf bringing up birth certificates in 2011 was part of his overtures to possibly running in 2012. The idea is obvious, fling shit at the sitting president -> attention. But NBC and everyone still kept him around. What really stuck? Not much, right, it didn't explode until after he announced last summer and everyone ran with the anti-Hispanic charge. ok fine you can obfuscate the issue all you want and argue timing, but whats your point ? That someone who is running for president shouldnt be subject to having his rhetoric examined ? I think the media is in the business of peddling tons of bullshit, which is fun to watch if we don't let ourselves take it seriously. And that you should be suspicious when people wait 30 years to stir up outrage. Pretty sure the guy becoming the GOP’s nominee for President of the United States is the reason why all this stuff is being written about now. I don’t think anyone was sitting on these hot scoops hope for the day when he would become the nominee. That's the reason we shouldn't suddenly care about things that would otherwise be non-issues like the NYT's invented hit piece against Trump about Rowanne Brewer Lane. I assume that counts as one of the scoops you meant.
Absolutely, that was completely unnecessary imo. I dont agree with that at all. But I can see how in their eagerness to shut him down they could get baited into playing the gutter game. Sadly with the stakes so high and the perceived effectiveness of such activity no one is above attempts at character assasination. Except for Drumpf they dont really need to bother. It wont change how his support feels about him and might turn off some liberals and independants aswell.
|
They didn't get baited into the gutter game. They went there right away. They've always been there. They've just never had to be so overt about it with their fear "oh shit we might all be held accountable". The media is the establishment. Trump is the supposed anti-establishment. Judging by how much crap they are flinging at him and praying that it will stick they've just shot their own credibility even more. Once people get on board with knowing that journalists lie to you, they lie to you every day, and they know they are doing it, it becomes easier to see why people would vote Trump.
The NYT story is an absolute perfect example of this. But they no longer care. They will continue to fling crap against the wall because no one is going to hold them accountable.
So to people in this thread I ask.. what are the most trusted sources in news at this moment in time?
Politifact and politico are compromised. They're definitely not even remotely fair.
On Incarceration:
It's true. You do have an under incarceration problem. Groups always say, "we have so many people in prison compared to other countries!" Yet have the most functional country in the entire world that has over 100,000,000 people.
If you hold true to your laws, that people who break the law go to jail for X years. Then you most definitely have an under incarceration problem for every single crime. Because a large % of crimes never have enough evidence or a suspect even to prosecute or take to jail.
I've always wondered how they reconcile these facts. The fact that a lot of crimes go unreported, a lot of crimes don't have suspects, a lot of crimes don't have enough evidence to convict said suspect... so where is the problem with Americas incarceration rate?
|
On May 20 2016 12:55 SK.Testie wrote:
They didn't get baited into the gutter game. They went there right away. They've always been there. They've just never had to be so overt about it with their fear "oh shit we might all be held accountable". The media is the establishment. Trump is the supposed anti-establishment. Judging by how much crap they are flinging at him and praying that it will stick they've just shot their own credibility even more. Once people get on board with knowing that journalists lie to you, they lie to you every day, and they know they are doing it it becomes easier to see why people would vote Trump.
The NYT story is an absolute perfect example of this. But they no longer care. They will continue to fling crap against the wall because no one is going to hold them accountable.
So to people in this thread I ask.. what are the most trusted sources in news at this moment in time?
Politifact and politico are compromised. They're definitely not even remotely fair.
On Incarceration:
It's true. You do have an under incarceration problem. Groups always say, "we have so many people in prison compared to other countries!" Yet have the most functional country in the entire world that has over 100,000,000 people.
If you hold true to your laws, that people who break the law go to jail for X years. Then you most definitely have an under incarceration problem for every single crime. Because a large % of crimes never have enough evidence or a suspect even to prosecute or take to jail.
I've always wondered how they reconcile these facts. The fact that a lot of crimes go unreported, a lot of crimes don't have suspects, a lot of crimes don't have enough evidence to convict said suspect... so where is the problem with Americas incarceration rate?
are u serious
the statistic about "under incarceration" is such a red herring, you don't measure the success of laws by the number of people punished by them. this sort of rhetoric is why we have so fucking many prisons (more than 15 new ones in California while only 1 public university was built in a 30 year span)
also if you dont think putting (mostly black and brown) men into prison for 15 years for having an ounce of weed or a few grams of crack is disproportionate then idk
|
I'm sorry, is crack legal? Is that a legal thing to have now? Do I want people offering my friends, family, or daughters and sons crack? Is that something they as an adult have a right to choose despite knowing the risks that it can quite literally destroy a person? Is that also in the nations best interests to legalize another extremely harmful and extremely addictive substance? I'm more Singapore on drugs than I am Portugal. Either way one of them just said 'fuck it' and legalized everything. We need to wait for the long term on that.
I like how you spin the, "is this many years for having a few grams of crack wrong?" Often times they try not to throw these people into jail burdening the system and the taxpayers. But often times they are repeat offenders. (Crack does that). That's why there's so many criminals in America with sheets of crime and people wonder.. "why are they out of jail again?"
There's very legitimate injustices on the issue. But in America I think it's undeniable that Americas incarceration rate is too low. Do you think I want a 63 year old black grandmother in jail because she used marijuana? No. Not in the slightest. But I want quite literally anyone who will break the social fabric of trust whom disrespects the laws within a community to serve time. If I'm in Portugal where drugs are now legal, I can go ham. If I'm in Singapore, I'd better fly straight. In America, you fly straight..ish.. and if you have money (like any country) you get a little more leeway.
Look at the data on the FBI from 2014 for instance
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-43
There are many, many other types of crime on that list and the total amount of them far exceeds the drug abuse crimes. There's other lists as well from various other organizations in the USA. You can pick and choose your favourite but generally if you add up all the other types of crimes, then multiply them by the amount that are caught, looked into, reported etc.. it's very clear Americas incarceration rate is too low.
Here we can see of the drug abuse violations that of the 1.2 million of them, 840,000 of them are white. Is it still disproportional? Yes. But is it as bad as you think? Probably not. The justice departments, judges, lawyers, police, they're not criminally insane people. They're people trying to do the best job they can.
For a person with a few ounces of weed to face 15 years in prison, they probably had to be repeat offenders or have a rap sheet. Cops are very lenient with people who respect their authority, yes, even coloured people. Check youtube to see the kind of shit cops put up with regularly on traffic stops alone. Most prisons are state owned and not "for profit prisons" as of this moment. There's plenty of criminals out there with very long rap sheets. And people then wonder, 'why is this person not behind bars?!' after said criminal ends up killing a person deliberately or not deliberately.
The argument I'm attempting to make isn't that I want everyone who does drugs jailed. The argument I'm making is that it is currently illegal and will be treated as such. That in table43 of the FBI you can see all the types of crimes committed, and realize that that is not even close to all the actual crimes committed, and that when you account for that there are clearly too few criminals in prison.
|
On May 20 2016 13:44 SK.Testie wrote:I'm sorry, is crack legal? Is that a legal thing to have now? Do I want people offering my friends, family, or daughters and sons crack? Is that something they as an adult have a right to choose despite knowing the risks that it can quite literally destroy a person? Is that also in the nations best interests to legalize another extremely harmful and extremely addictive substance? I'm more Singapore on drugs than I am Portugal. Either way one of them just said 'fuck it' and legalized everything. We need to wait for the long term on that. I like how you spin the, "is this many years for having a few grams of crack wrong?" Often times they try not to throw these people into jail burdening the system and the taxpayers. But often times they are repeat offenders. (Crack does that). That's why there's so many criminals in America with sheets of crime and people wonder.. "why are they out of jail again?" There's very legitimate injustices on the issue. But in America I think it's undeniable that Americas incarceration rate is too low. Do you think I want a 63 year old black grandmother in jail because she used marijuana? No. Not in the slightest. But I want quite literally anyone who will break the social fabric of trust whom disrespects the laws within a community to serve time. If I'm in Portugal where drugs are now legal, I can go ham. If I'm in Singapore, I'd better fly straight. In America, you fly straight..ish.. and if you have money (like any country) you get a little more leeway. Look at the data on the FBI from 2014 for instance https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-43There are many, many other types of crime on that list and the total amount of them far exceeds the drug abuse crimes. There's other lists as well from various other organizations in the USA. You can pick and choose your favourite but generally if you add up all the other types of crimes, then multiply them by the amount that are caught, looked into, reported etc.. it's very clear Americas incarceration rate is too low. Here we can see of the drug abuse violations that of the 1.2 million of them, 840,000 of them are white. Is it still disproportional? Yes. But is it as bad as you think? Probably not. The justice departments, judges, lawyers, police, they're not criminally insane people. They're people trying to do the best job they can. For a person with a few ounces of weed to face 15 years in prison, they probably had to be repeat offenders or have a rap sheet. There's plenty of criminals out there with very long rap sheets. And people then wonder, 'why is this person not behind bars?!' The argument I'm attempting to make isn't that I want everyone who does drugs jailed. The argument I'm making is that it is currently illegal and will be treated as such. That in table43 of the FBI you can see all the types of crimes committed, and realize that that is not even close to all the actual crimes committed, and that when you account for that there are clearly too few criminals in prison.
Regarding the gutter flinging, generally till things were civil there is little evidence of overt sensationalism. Unless you can find me a consistency in the liberal media when it come to shit flinging and less reliance on facts, I choose to disagree with you.
With respect to there being too little incarceration in the US. No comment, its like trying to argue with someone who thinks that the earth is the center of the universe. This was some real self serving crock of shit though. Present supposed facts to agree with your POV and just dismiss things like disproportionate incarceration as unlikely.
Heres a little anecdote. Nothing that colors my perspective since it is at the end of the day an anecdote.
+ Show Spoiler +
Ive seen NY city cops literally just call out a black guy on the 1 going up to the Bronx off the train and search him for literally no reason accept that he was moving around sloppy but generally minding his own business. Dude wasnt even high, just really sloppy. Next thing you know this 250 pound cop is calling for backup against a malnourished gentleman who still has no idea what the fuck is going on. He found a half rolled J that the dude had picked up off the street somewhere.
|
No, isn't that just a simple mathematical fact?
X amount of crimes are committed. Y amount of people are caught. Z is the amount of people successfully prosecuted and found guilty.
X is much higher than Y.
Y is higher than Z.
In any ideal country though, all crimes are caught so X should = Z:
X = Z in ideal country (roughly at least without getting overly technical)
This piss poor attempt doesn't even account for unreported crimes etc.
Correct?
Anecdotal stuff etc
+ Show Spoiler +
Your anecdotal evidence doesn't hold up. I've seen criminals with extremely long rap sheets out committing crime. There is a community actually paying known criminals with taxpayer money to not commit crime. Is that a smart move? Capitulation to lower standards for the nation? That sounds like capitulation to me.
I came from a town where if a murder happens once every 20 years give or take a decade or two. I live in Toronto now, and while Toronto likes to suppress it's true crime numbers and tries to not jail people, there was a night last fall where 4 people got stabbed in my area. And I wondered to myself.. "wait.. when did I get used to this lowering of standards for society?"
|
On May 20 2016 14:03 SK.Testie wrote:No, isn't that just a simple mathematical fact? X amount of crimes are committed. Y amount of people are caught. Z is the amount of people successfully prosecuted and found guilty. X is much higher than Y. Y is higher than Z. In any ideal country though, all crimes are caught so X should = Z: X = Z in ideal country (roughly at least without getting overly technical) This piss poor attempt doesn't even account for unreported crimes etc. Correct? Anecdotal stuff etc + Show Spoiler +
Your anecdotal evidence doesn't hold up. I've seen criminals with extremely long rap sheets out committing crime. There is a community actually paying known criminals with taxpayer money to not commit crime. Is that a smart move? Capitulation to lower standards for the nation? That sounds like capitulation to me.
I came from a town where if a murder happens once every 20 years give or take a decade or two. I live in Toronto now, and while Toronto likes to suppress it's true crime numbers and tries to not jail people, there was a night last fall where 4 people got stabbed in my area. And I wondered to myself.. "wait.. when did I get used to this lowering of standards for society?"
Do you even know how justice system works? The amount of guilty pleas that are tendered for the dumbest shit because PD's are literally spending an average of 5-7 minutes per case. Your simple math is simplistic and is turning human beings with a myriad of situations into numbers and a second grade equation. No one is saying that crime shouldnt be punished. I dont understand why you keep going back to that. Its just that the time dont fit the crime in alot of instances. And it actually costs the country more money to punish than to rehabilitate. That is fact.
Do you seriously have to ask me if your rough should attempt at math is correct?
As for the anecdote, i+ Show Spoiler +Firstly, Canada is not the United States. Secondly, ts just an anecdote, it doesnt have to hold up. Secondly Ive lived in the last 10 years in New Brunswick NJ, New York NY, New Haven CT, Hartford CT, Seattle WA. Bellevue WA, Washington DC. Toronto is spoiled with how safe it is. Especially with a City this big. Heres some evidence and funny.
|
My last post wasn't about drug crimes. It was about total crimes only. The article states that it has an under incarceration problem. I don't see how that's refutable. You went into the .. 'do you know how many people are in for drugs?!' Yes. It says so on the FBI sheet. There's a lot of people in for a laundry list of crimes as the list shows. Do you think the police are pulling in these people at random?
The people smoking crack or doing weed know that it is currently illegal where they are doing it. That's a choice. One where personal accountability comes into play. Is smoking crack worth the risk? Apparently it was. It was a really shitty decision on their part too.
I don't seem like it, but my heart really does bleed for people who started life off in fucked up situations and live a fucked up life that pretty much starts them off with PTSD. But I also think that above all else, a country has to be a nation of strict laws and law enforcement.
On the anecdote + Show Spoiler +And you're clearly not naive. What is this story? How naive are you with this story about a man 'picking up a J' but not knowing where it came from? 'oh I just saw a J. Thought I'd pick that up'. Wait, since when is picking up random joints or cigarettes even remotely a good idea or shows good judgment? You believed that? When's the last time you found a joint walking around lol. And when's the last time you wanted to pick up said cigarette butt or joint you found?
|
On May 20 2016 14:36 SK.Testie wrote:My last post wasn't about drug crimes. It was about total crimes only. The article states that it has an under incarceration problem. I don't see how that's refutable. You went into the .. 'do you know how many people are in for drugs?!' Yes. It says so on the FBI sheet. There's a lot of people in for a laundry list of crimes as the list shows. Do you think the police are pulling in these people at random? The people smoking crack or doing weed know that it is currently illegal where they are doing it. That's a choice. One where personal accountability comes into play. Is smoking crack worth the risk? Apparently it was. It was a really shitty decision on their part too. On the anecdote + Show Spoiler +And you're clearly not naive. What is this story? How naive are you with this story about a man 'picking up a J' but not knowing where it came from? 'oh I just saw a J. Thought I'd pick that up'. Wait, since when is picking up random joints or cigarettes even remotely a good idea or shows good judgment? You believed that? When's the last time you found a joint walking around lol. And when's the last time you wanted to pick up a cigarette butt or joint you found? Please.
What ? I didnt say anything about drug crimes ? The John Oliver pieces are just some evidence of why alot of drug crime is over policed and over enforced.
And finally arrests are not incarceration. People get arrested for dumb shit like bar fights all the time, pay a fine and gtfo.
+ Show Spoiler +You've never seen homeless people pick shit up off the street ? Take a trip downtown somewhere between Wellesley and Jarvis east of church. LOL.. thats some real sheltered small town naivety you are peddling calling me naive Thats like everyday shit in the projects.
|
True that was the poster above you. My mistake, sorry. But still the point stands that if the # of crimes committed are way greater than the # of people prosecuted for the crime (because they can't even find or name a suspect) then it's true that there is actually an under incarceration problem. I must be missing some very blatant element for that not to be true.
Take this site that I will link again for this instance.
http://heyjackass.com
81% of the shootings have no arrest currently. So a high number of shooters are currently not behind bars, when it is clearly illegal to shoot someone. Shooters are under incarcerated. Rape is a hard to prove crime. Rapists are under incarcerated. And it's true for smaller crimes in the FBI list as well. Property damage, theft, pimping etc.
And nah, Canada does a lot better on its homeless population than USA does. We still have homeless but I saw a lot of homeless in the USA when I visited their cities. Was pretty messed up.
Anyway: My original question which was how do they reconcile these facts? Does America over incarcerate? And then he went on the drug thing about PoC being harassed for drug related crimes. Yeah that happens. But this is a fact I find hard for people to reconcile with when they say America over incarcerates.
“The claim that too many criminals are being jailed, that there is over-incarceration, ignores an unfortunate fact: For the vast majority of crimes, a perpetrator is never identified or arrested, let alone prosecuted, convicted and jailed,” Cotton said. “Law enforcement is able to arrest or identify a likely perpetrator for only 19 percent of property crimes and 47 percent of violent crimes. If anything, we have an under-incarceration problem.”
|
On May 20 2016 14:47 SK.Testie wrote:True that was the poster above you. My mistake, sorry. But still the point stands that if the # of crimes committed are way greater than the # of people prosecuted for the crime (because they can't even find or name a suspect) then it's true that there is actually an under incarceration problem. I must be missing some very blatant element for that not to be true. Take this site that I will link again for this instance. http://heyjackass.com 81% of the shootings have no arrest currently. So a high number of shooters are currently not behind bars, when it is clearly illegal to shoot someone. Shooters are under incarcerated. Rape is a hard to prove crime. Rapists are under incarcerated. And it's true for smaller crimes in the FBI list as well. Property damage, theft, pimping etc.
Yes because cops are to busy putting people with half an ounce of weed in Jail to be bothered with shit that actually might threaten them.
Justice being miscarried isnt an excuse for more incarceration. It means the wrong people are being put in jail, and alot of them.
|
On May 20 2016 14:55 Rebs wrote:
Yes because cops are to busy putting people with half an ounce of weed in Jail to be bothered with shit that actually might threaten them.
Justice being miscarried isnt an excuse for more incarceration. It means the wrong people are being put in jail, and alot of them.
Technically you're wrong because if they have probable cause and find weed on you and weed is illegal then you're still at fault and that's where personal accountability comes into play. Is it fair? That's debatable. Is it the law? Yes, otherwise people wouldn't be imprisoned in the first place. I'm pretty certain that everyone who hides drugs on themselves knows it's illegal. So why are they breaking the law is the real question?
There's laws we may or may not agree with in our country, but.. they still have to stand so long as they are standing.
As for talking about homelessness, as hardline of a cunt I may come off I prefer this very humane method rather than a social darwinism sink or swim method. However, I also think this should be something that charities or very conscious communities should do and not the government. That communities that truly do care should sacrifice their own time and money to make success stories like this happen. So I can debase a lot of my own arguments with this much more Eri style approach. But these aren't necessarily violent offenders either. Despite it's success there, I do not know if that solution will work everywhere.
http://www.businessinsider.com/this-state-may-be-the-first-to-end-homelessness-for-good-2015-2
"Perhaps the most potent question raised by the program’s success is how safety nets, including a home to which people return each night, impact people," Utah newspaper Deseret News wrote in an editorial last year. "There are two possibilities: first, safety nets undermine personal responsibility, or, alternatively, safety nets allow for mitigated risk-taking – and which can lead to real growth."
|
+ Show Spoiler +[QUOTE]On May 20 2016 14:59 SK.Testie wrote:
[QUOTE]On May 20 2016 14:55 Rebs wrote:
Yes because cops are to busy putting people with half an ounce of weed in Jail to be bothered with shit that actually might threaten them.
Justice being miscarried isnt an excuse for more incarceration. It means the wrong people are being put in jail, and alot of them. [/QUOTE]
Technically you're wrong because if they have probably cause and find weed on you and weed is illegal then you're still at fault and that's where personal accountability comes into play. Is it fair? That's debatable. Is it the law? Yes, otherwise people wouldn't be imprisoned in the first place. I'm pretty certain that everyone who hides drugs on themselves knows it's illegal. So why are they breaking the law is the real question?
There's laws we may or may not agree with in our country, but.. they still have to stand so long as they are standing.
As for talking about homelessness, as hardline of a cunt I may come off I prefer this very humane method rather than a social darwinism sink or swim method. However, I also think this should be something that charities or very conscious communities should do and not the government. That communities that truly do care should sacrifice their own time and money to make success stories like this happen. So I can debase a lot of my own arguments with this much more Eri style approach. But these aren't necessarily violent offenders either.
[quote]"Perhaps the most potent question raised by the program’s success is how safety nets, including a home to which people return each night, impact people," Utah newspaper Deseret News wrote in an editorial last year. "There are two possibilities: first, safety nets undermine personal responsibility, or, alternatively, safety nets allow for mitigated risk-taking – and which can lead to real growth."[quote]
[url=http://www.businessinsider.com/this-state-may-be-the-first-to-end-homelessness-for-good-2015-2]http://www.businessinsider.com/this-state-may-be-the-first-to-end-homelessness-for-good-2015-2[/url][/QUOTE]
I suppose it's an interesting idea thinking that it's not that too many black people are being punished, it's that too many white people aren't. I mean it doesn't make any sense when realizing we have more people in prison than any other country, but it's an interesting thought.
|
The problem is that this just conflates two very different issues:
(1) The amount of criminals caught (A police issue)
(2) The amount of people in jail (correlates with (1), but also heavily dependent on laws and the judiciary
I doubt that anyone would argue against improving (1). It is generally better for a society if criminals get caught. A system where some people get caught and go to jail while others do not for the same crime is inherently unfair and the consequences of actions become hard to predict, and society becomes safer and more fair if there is a high chance of criminals getting caught.
People are arguing to reduce (2), not by making the police less effective at catching criminals, but by reducing the sentencing for those that get caught, and even making some things no longer a crime. The argument is not that the guy who runs around with half a gram of crack should not get caught, it is that he should not spend 15 years in jail because of that.
The ideal situation is one where everyone who violates the law gets caught, but the punishment fits the crime.
Currently both (1) and (2) are not working very well in the US. Fixing (1) is reasonable. Fixing (2) is necessary, because it destroys lifes in a very random way, especially in combination with (1) not working that well.
(1) does not lead to there being an issue with underincarceration, it means that there is an issue with police effectivity, which is utterly unrelated to the issue of oversentencing, which people want to get rid of.
The senator mentioned in the original newspiece sounds like someone who got a nice big check from the private prison lobbies. Using unrelated statistics like that to make a point that sounds kind of similar to uneducated people is an utterly dishonest way to argue. Noone argues against making the police better at their job, it is simply not that easy and costs a lot of money, especially if you also want to preserve civil liberties.
But this has absolutely nothing to do with the sentencing on criminals that do get caught. Which is unreasonably high in a lot of cases, has a very real societal cost, destroys individual lives for no reason whatsoever, and only profits the prison lobby. Increasing the sentences on crime does not effect the amount of criminals caught in any way.
|
I find absolutely fascinating that anyone could even talk about under incarceration in the US, while the country has such a gigantic problem with over incarceration. The statistics in the US are absolutely mad:
698 people in jail for 100K citizen.
In Norway where I live it's 71
In Germany 78
In France 100
In Canada 106
You have between 7 and 10 times more prisoners per inhabitant than most developed country and you think it's not enough?
Like, you would be better off with more prisoners?
Saying "oh it's about size, we are doing better than other 100M countries" is just ridiculous. Compare with other countries similar to yours, such as European countries, Canada, Australia etc., and all those countries have a LOWER crime rate than the US. Comparing the US with the other rare 100M countries such as Russia, China and India makes no sense at all. If you think you do better than Russia because you put more people in jail, you really have missed something. You are doing better than Russia because you are not a brutal dictatorship and are infinitely richer.
The problem in the US is that people go to jail for absurd amount of time for minor offenses, in particular for drug related offenses. The result is that the prison system is incredibly inefficient: 65% of US prisoners are rearrested within 2-years which is insane. And it's not only that the US system is a machine that makes people reoffend and turns one time offenders into lifetime criminals due to its sadistic harshness; in some areas (black and poor), it has completely destroyed the social tissue: kids grow without fathers, brothers go to jail, with a vivious circle which insures that today's kids will be tomorrow's offenders.
Again in Norway, where the sentences are a last resort and usually quite short while a lot of money is put into prisons, the reoffending rate is 20%. source
The difference is that Americans want their inmate to be punished (as harshly as possible), while Norwegians want their inmates to be rehabilitated.
There is a reason behind all of that: prisons are a business in the US, with a powerful industry that spends hundreds of millions lobbying all across the country to make sure their life destroying activity keeps rolling. And they fund the politicians that are then ready to say that 2+2=5 or that clearly, the US have a terrible under incarceration problem, which again, is a fucking insult to reason and facts, so that they keep getting their financial support.
Again and again, it comes down to the question, why are people ignorant, dumb or blinded enough not to have a major, major, major red light turning on in their brain when they hear something that crazy.
|
|
|
I think the biggest issue with our system is how long people go to jail. It's completely senseless. I feel like unless it is done to protect the public, even a 5 year sentence is like..insane. Think about losing 5 years of your life. It's mind blowing.
|
The issue with prison in the US is lack of commitment.
If something was so bad that the person needs to be given maximum punishment just kill him. If you believe the person can still be reformed and will be safe for society then just give him a few years with a big staff of experts to teach them to be better. But this cowardly way of punishing people with life sentences or even 10-20 year sentences is just awful. If will take 20 years to fix them just kill them already.
|
On May 20 2016 22:33 TMagpie wrote:
The issue with prison in the US is lack of commitment.
If something was so bad that the person needs to be given maximum punishment just kill him. If you believe the person can still be reformed and will be safe for society then just give him a few years with a big staff of experts to teach them to be better. But this cowardly way of punishing people with life sentences or even 10-20 year sentences is just awful. If will take 20 years to fix them just kill them already.
There is a long list of flaws with this plan, but the most evident one is that our justice system is imperfect. It is estimated that we have around a 2%-3% error rate with our current executions, which means people are executed for crimes they are not guilty of. Until that is 100% accurate, we cannot even think about increasing the number of capital punishments.
And then there are all the other flaws like lack of deterrents, abuse of the system, lacking public defense, the private prison system encouraging harsh punishments to make higher profits. And that issue that how we treat criminals relates directly the type of people we are as a whole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
