1% of America's adult population is in prison

[ForumBot]

God damnit. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/28/us/28cnd-prison.html?ei=5124&en=9f78e91a7de6aabc&ex=1361941200&partner=facebook&exprod=facebook&pagewanted=print)

Don't you think this is a hint that we need to stop putting fucking potheads in jail? Doesn't it strike you a bit odd that 1% of the population is so dangerous that they need to be physically separated from society?

Jesus Haploid Christ. This pisses me off to no end.

[The Understander]

But... but... the CHILDREN!!!

The land of the free.

[Odesio]

That includes the 723,000 people who are in local jails. I wonder if that number is the average or whether they meant there was 723,000 on a particular day or month.

What percentage of the prison population is made up of pot heads who are there for non violent crimes or theft?


Marc

[Airman Doors, USAF]

What percentage of the prison population is made up of pot heads who are there for non violent crimes or theft?

Well, let's not equate toking up or possession of personal quantities of marijuana with theft. If someone is capable of stealing, they don't lose that capability, and theft is not a victimless crime. Those people deserve some sort of punishment, if only short-term incarceration for the first offense so they get a taste of what they stand to lose. Perhaps that will dissuade the small-timers. Habitual thieves should be put away for progressively longer periods proportional to the number of offenses.

[Absolute]

While I agree with people who say that pot is harmless, and that it's a waste of money to imprison pot smokers, I have no sympathy for people who are actually imprisoned for pot-related crimes.

It's fucking illegal. You don't want to go to jail, don't do it. Smoking pot is not a requirement for living. It's, I don't know, a hobby or something. You're the dumbass who chose an illegal hobby, you can face the consequences.

You're making a regular, conscious decision to break the law, and you deserve whatever punishment comes out of that.

[nikonikosuru]

Jesus Haploid Christ. This pisses me off to no end.

Sweet. I was always wondering what the H stood for.

[ForumBot]

While I agree with people who say that pot is harmless, and that it's a waste of money to imprison pot smokers, I have no sympathy for people who are actually imprisoned for pot-related crimes.
Really? You have no sympathy for people who are incarcerated for not harming anyone? Let's pretend that pianos are banned--would you feel equally as heartless towards people who just want to play music?

[Loach]

I am sure that it varies greatly from state to state but for the most part people do not go to prison for smoking pot. Mostly it is a fine. For multiple repeat offenders maybe they might get a few days in county jail. Not prison. Not long term. Most drug offenders in prison are there because they are dealers.

[The Understander]

While I agree with people who say that pot is harmless, and that it's a waste of money to imprison pot smokers, I have no sympathy for people who are actually imprisoned for pot-related crimes.

It's fucking illegal. You don't want to go to jail, don't do it. Smoking pot is not a requirement for living. It's, I don't know, a hobby or something. You're the dumbass who chose an illegal hobby, you can face the consequences.

You're making a regular, conscious decision to break the law, and you deserve whatever punishment comes out of that.

How do you feel about laws making sodomy illegal?

To cease the slightjack (mine! 'cause no one else wants it...) you have to figure something is wrong when a 'free' country leads the world in imprisoning its own citizens.

[ForumBot]

Most drug offenders in prison are there because they are dealers.
Let the people who sell marijuana out, too. They're not hurting anyone.

[Absolute]

Really? You have no sympathy for people who are incarcerated for not harming anyone? Let's pretend that pianos are banned--would you feel equally as heartless towards people who just want to play music?
Yes, I would. No one needs to play the piano. It might be a stupid law, but if you willingly choose to break it, I won't feel sorry for you if you get put in jail. Fight to get the law changed, but don't expect to break it and not suffer the consequences.


How do you feel about laws making sodomy illegal?

I don't know what the penalties are, but I feel the same way. Fight to get the law changed, but until then, you are responsible for your actions and deserve whatever punishment the law provides for.

[Richard Parker]

I am sure that it varies greatly from state to state but for the most part people do not go to prison for smoking pot. Mostly it is a fine. For multiple repeat offenders maybe they might get a few days in county jail. Not prison. Not long term. Most drug offenders in prison are there because they are dealers.


Approximately 30% of those in prison for drug crimes (which is about 25% of the total inmate population) are there for possession only, according to the DOJ's 2004 statistics.

[lobotomyboy63]

What's the breakdown? What percentage is there for pot-smoking or possession of a small amount? I've heard there are big penalties for it but I admit my ignorance on the number of people who are there for recreational MJ.

[Richard Parker]

Fight to get the law changed, but until then, you are responsible for your actions and deserve whatever punishment the law provides for.


One of two things is true. You never make exceptions to this principle, in which case you would have been obligated to do all manner of deeply immoral things in times not long past (report fugitive slaves, say). Or you do make exceptions, you're just not willing to do so for drug use. I suspect it is the latter, in which case you'll have to provide more reason than your just your bare principle to support your position.

[Absolute]

One of two things is true. You never make exceptions to this principle, in which case you would have been obligated to do all manner of deeply immoral things in times not long past (report fugitive slaves, say). Or you do make exceptions, you're just not willing to do so for drug use. I suspect it is the latter, in which case you'll have to provide more reason than your just your bare principle to support your position.
I make exceptions for things that are essential for life. Smoking pot is not essential for life. Outlawing it is stupid, but so is getting yourself sent to prison because you were bored and couldn't think of something else to do on a Friday evening.

[Richard Parker]

What's the breakdown? What percentage is there for pot-smoking or possession of a small amount? I've heard there are big penalties for it but I admit my ignorance on the number of people who are there for recreational MJ.

It turns out to be a very complicated question. What you are really asking is who is in prison for those offenses and only those (e.g. didn't commit offense while on parole, didn't plead to those to avoid other charges, and a dozen other scenarios). Since these sorts of things are usually tracked by the charge, not the facts (i.e. possession of a controlled substance, not possession of MJ), there isn't much in the way of statistics. And what there is tends not to control for the factors I mentioned

[ForumBot]

Fight to get the law changed, but until then, you are responsible for your actions and deserve whatever punishment the law provides for.
Deserve is an awfully strong word. If I work for five hours, I deserve compensation. If I don't hurt anyone, I deserve to be left the hell alone. If not hurting anyone is against the law, I shouldn't be surprised when I'm punished. But I still deserve to be left alone.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

How do you feel about laws making sodomy illegal?

Those laws haven't been enforceable for years. See Lawrence v. Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v_texas) for more information about that.

[Richard Parker]

I make exceptions for things that are essential for life. Smoking pot is not essential for life. Outlawing it is stupid, but so is getting yourself sent to prison because you were bored and couldn't think of something else to do on a Friday evening.

Ok, so your principle requires you to make judgments about the content of the law. That's my point. It isn't just that it is the law, it's that you think the law is not wrong in some fundamental-threat-to-liberty way.

I would guess that you actually would get even more fine-grained than that. Presumably you would further distinguish personal autonomy when it comes to drugs from personal autonomy when it comes to, say, reading books. If the government banned books, do you think the people that went to prison for reading would deserve the punishment?

[Triskadecamus]

Just to put things into a conservative friendly frame of reference, imprisoning pot smokers confers no long standing benefit to society, and it is really expensive.

Think of the corporate taxes, man!

Tris

[wring]

Approximately 30% of those in prison for drug crimes (which is about 25% of the total inmate population) are there for possession only, according to the DOJ's 2004 statistics.
which proves his point of 'most drug incarceration is for dealing'. which also misses the point IME. Drug "dealing" can (and often is) stuff like selling a small amount of your personal stash at a slight profit and/or telling some one who to ask for drugs.

the issue of percentage of folks incarcerated isn't a simple analysis/conclusion. folks who have a criminal history have great difficulty (generaly,imE) getting work that supports them (Employers often screen out for offenders), getting places to live, etc, etc etc. if you can[t legally earn a living, find a place to live, what exactly do you expect will happen?

[Absolute]

Just to put things into a conservative friendly frame of reference, imprisoning pot smokers confers no long standing benefit to society, and it is really expensive.

Think of the corporate taxes, man!

Tris
I agree. Repeal the law. I'm all for it. I'm just saying I have no sympathy for people who broke it.


Ok, so your principle requires you to make judgments about the content of the law. That's my point. It isn't just that it is the law, it's that you think the law is not wrong in some fundamental-threat-to-liberty way.

I would guess that you actually would get even more fine-grained than that. Presumably you would further distinguish personal autonomy when it comes to drugs from personal autonomy when it comes to, say, reading books. If the government banned books, do you think the people that went to prison for reading would deserve the punishment?
I freely admit that I am making a personal judgement on the value of marijuana use. I don't think it should be illegal, but I don't think it is such a valuable or stimulating pursuit that I should feel sorry for someone who willfully broke the law and is suffering the consequences.

If someone were put in prison because they broke a hypothetical "No reading!" law, I would feel sorry for them, yes.

I suppose, upon further review, that I would have to say the same thing for sodomy laws. But pot? No way.

[ForumBot]

Let's re-segregate city buses, then. Is it really such a big fucking deal where you sit? I don't feel sorry for anyone who gets hosed because they got a bit uppity and had to sit three rows closer to the driver.*

*sarcasm, for the easily whooshed

[ForumBot]

My point is basic human freedom is basic human freedom, regardless of how mundane it may be.

[Starving Artist]

If I don't hurt anyone, I deserve to be left the hell alone. If not hurting anyone is against the law, I shouldn't be surprised when I'm punished. But I still deserve to be left alone.No, you don't.

How is it that you've arrived at this odd belief that jail/prison time is only for "dangerous" people who have "hurt" someone?

What if someone habitually speeds and runs red lights? What if they refuse to pay their taxes? What if they ignore lawful orders by the police or a judge? What if they have sex with willing but underage people? No one is 'hurt' by these offenses nor countless others.

Prison/jail is to punish people who break the law (and to serve as an example of what happens when you break the law so that everyone doesn't start doing it).

It's just that simple.

[Mellivora capensis]

... No one needs to play the piano. ...

Hey, HEY! Now that's fighting talk. You'll have to pry my piano from my cold, dead fingers.

[Richard Parker]

If someone were put in prison because they broke a hypothetical "No reading!" law, I would feel sorry for them, yes.

I suppose, upon further review, that I would have to say the same thing for sodomy laws. But pot? No way.

What if it wasn't all books, but just comic books? What if the government banned caffeine? Would you feel sorry for the coffee-drinkers who end up in jail?

[ForumBot]

Prison/jail is to punish people who break the law (and to serve as an example of what happens when you break the law so that everyone doesn't start doing it).

It's just that simple.
It's my belief that actions that don't harm anyone should not be illegal. I'm well aware that we currently put people in jail for simply breaking the law, regardless of how morally sound that law may be. It's just simple logic that if I disagree with a law, then I will disapprove of any resulting punishment as well.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Does the 1% figure include just people actually incarcerated, or does it also include those on parole or probation? My understanding is that those on parole are, in a way, still "in prison". They're under the supervision of the state prison, as if they are really just on extended furlough.

1% actually doesn't seem all that high, although I think a lot of people are there who don't deserve to be. And undoubtedly there are many others walking free who should be behind bars.

With regard to pot smokers, I can see Absolute's point that, while one can sympathize, it's still their responsibility for choosing to break the law, and instead of doing so, they should work to change it. That's well and good, but it seems that the prospects of doing so are virtually nil, and that there will always be a clear majority who disapprove of it and want to keep it illegal. Yes, we are a nation of laws and are obligated to obey them. On the other hand should there be laws that dictate against (mostly) harmless private behavior? Generally speaking (again in my opinion), a thing should be illegal because it is inherently wrong, and not wrong just because the body politic has made it illegal.

[Richard Parker]

Does the 1% figure include just people actually incarcerated, or does it also include those on parole or probation?

It is those actually in prison or jail. It does not include probation or parole.

[Cat Whisperer]

Draconian marijuana laws are archaic and need to go the way of laws against rolling barrels down the street or having someone walking in front of your horseless carriage. I can see the point of people saying the law is the law, and don't break it if you don't want to get punished, but the governments also need to see that their population is doing this all the time (my rough estimate is every single person in North America has smoked pot), it hurts virtually no one, and the laws are not useful. The opposite - as people have pointed out, you can wreck a life with a pot conviction, and there's the cost of locking up all those nasty potheads (like they're going to get off the couch for anything other than a 7-11 run!)

Of course, this is my Canadian perspective, where I've seen people smoking a jay out in public on a sunny afternoon. :D

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Approximately 30% of those in prison for drug crimes (which is about 25% of the total inmate population) are there for possession only, according to the DOJ's 2004 statistics.
I assume that "possession only" doesn't include those convicted of growing their own. Though an obvious stratagem for avoiding the risks of the underground market, if they catch you with the plants don't they charge you with manufacture?

Regarding pianos and other musical instruments, isn't there a consensus that accordion playing should be banned? :D

[Absolute]

Let's re-segregate city buses, then. Is it really such a big fucking deal where you sit? I don't feel sorry for anyone who gets hosed because they got a bit uppity and had to sit three rows closer to the driver.*

*sarcasm, for the easily whooshed
First of all, I didn't say I think marijuana should be illegal. Just that, while it is, I have no sympathy for you if you decide to gamble you won't get caught, and lose.

Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat was a symbolic gesture, protesting the violation of freedom that all blacks were subjected to. Smoking some weed is not symbolic.

I find it amusing that you're drawing a parallel between the civil rights struggle of the 1960's, and pot smoking. You can't legally get high. I can't legally drive my car on deserted highways in New Mexico at 120 mph. Yeah, it sucks. Big fucking deal. This is about three orders of magnitude lower than what blacks had to put up with the 1950's. They were harassed for existing. Pot smokers are harassed because they're too stupid not to smoke pot.

[Absolute]

It's my belief that actions that don't harm anyone should not be illegal. I'm well aware that we currently put people in jail for simply breaking the law, regardless of how morally sound that law may be. It's just simple logic that if I disagree with a law, then I will disapprove of any resulting punishment as well.
I disapprove of the punishment also. I don't think pot smokers should be put in jail.

However, I think people who break the law should expect to suffer the consequences. If you decide smoking pot is worth the risk, and then get caught, tough shit, dumbass. It wasn't really worth it, was it?

[Collaborator]

1% are in jail.

The other 99% haven't been caught yet. :)

[Mellivora capensis]

...
Regarding pianos and other musical instruments, isn't there a consensus that accordion playing should be banned? :D

I vote for the banning of the fucking vuvuzela.

http://www.southafrica.info/2010/vuvuzela.htm

Jesus, the term "noise" is an underfuckingstatement.

[Absolute]

What if it wasn't all books, but just comic books? What if the government banned caffeine? Would you feel sorry for the coffee-drinkers who end up in jail?
Comic books? I'd feel sorry that the government has gone to hell, but no, I wouldn't feel sorry for someone who thought that reading a Superman comic was worth a jail sentence. Your decision, your loss.

Ditto coffee-drinkers. No one needs coffee. If they were to make coffee illegal, you put up with the headaches for a week and move on. Unless you're an idiot. Then you go to jail. With no sympathy from me.

[Little Nemo]

I am sure that it varies greatly from state to state but for the most part people do not go to prison for smoking pot. Mostly it is a fine. For multiple repeat offenders maybe they might get a few days in county jail. Not prison. Not long term. Most drug offenders in prison are there because they are dealers.Very few people are in prison just for marijuana use. I've worked in prisons for over 25 years and I've reviewed literally thousands of prisoner records - and I don't remember ever seeing a single prisoner who was serving time for just marijuana use. And this is in New York, a state that was noted for its draconian drug laws.

[BellRungBookShut-CandleSnuffed]

Comic books? I'd feel sorry that the government has gone to hell, but no, I wouldn't feel sorry for someone who thought that reading a Superman comic was worth a jail sentence. Your decision, your loss.

Ditto coffee-drinkers. No one needs coffee. If they were to make coffee illegal, you put up with the headaches for a week and move on. Unless you're an idiot. Then you go to jail. With no sympathy from me.
So what can get banned that you care enough about to fight for? You don't think caffeine and pot are worth the fight, and I guess pianos, but you do think books are. Glad you've enlightened us all with your amazing powers to let us know which things are worth standing up to the government about.

I agree that you take the risk when things are against the law. But what recourse do we have? There aren't enough people who are going to stand up for pot for things to change anytime soon.

It just seems odd that you are annoyed by the stupid people who smoke pot more than the stupid people who made the laws.

[marshmallow]

Doesn't it strike you a bit odd that 1% of the population is so dangerous that they need to be physically separated from society?
It is rather odd. Definitely way too low.

[amarinth]

Really? You have no sympathy for people who are incarcerated for not harming anyone? Let's pretend that pianos are banned--would you feel equally as heartless towards people who just want to play music?Yes.
I would think "really? pianos are banned. That's kind of dumb." I might even help them try to change the law to un-ban pianos.

But in the meantime, until the day the law changes, anyone who pounds out Heart & Soul is saying that dah-dah-di-di-dah-dah-di-di-dah-dah-di-di-dah-dah-di-di is more important to them than staying out of jail.

[The Them]

Absolute, you shock and disturb me. What else could be outlawed and you'd feel fine with the offenders going to prison? Go to a movie, get 20-to-life? What do you expect people to do on a Friday night, hold still and stare at the wall?

Sometimes, "working to change the law" involves the masses breaking it. Slavery being the most noble example, but what about the disaster of Prohibition? Countless people have been working to remove the worse-than-useless ban on weed, and so far, the shitheads who want criminal penalties have won the day. Perhaps some of us do not acknowledge their legitimacy. Yeah, they have the guns. We got the numbers.

[Terrifel]

Perhaps I

[Mellivora capensis]

Perhaps I

...could be so bold as to...

[psychonaut]

Approximately 30% of those in prison for drug crimes (which is about 25% of the total inmate population) are there for possession only, according to the DOJ's 2004 statistics.I suspect this is a rather disingenuous (on the DOJ's and lawmakers' parts, not on yours). Many, if not most, jurisdictions have "possession with intent to distribute" laws, which automatically presume that if you are carrying more than a certain amount of drugs on you, you plan to distribute it. The amounts in question can be laughably small, such that casual drug users who happen to buy a few doses at a time, or who grow their own marijuana, for their own personal use are convicted as "dealers".

[ArizonaTeach]

Yes, Absolute, can't you see the fascist undertones of you daring to suggest that smoking weed isn't comparable to the civil rights movement? What could be more American...nay, human, than toking up? That this basic human freedom wasn't mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, quite frankly, shocks the hell out of me, and is probably Bush's fault. No, the true criminals are those who don't regularly smoke pot, and if you don't believe that, you not only hate America, freedom, and your mom, but it will undoubtedly lead to the government banning the letter "E," because that's exactly the same thing. Do you support banning the letter "E"? Do you, Absolute?

Nazi.

[wring]

Absolute - you know, (I assume), that it's against the law to drive drunk. Do you ever drink at all, then drive? How do you know your BAL unless you have used a breathalyzer?
Have you ever 'borrowed' a prescription pain killer from a friend? that's a 7 year felony in my state. And, actually, pain killers are prescribed for a specific event (like getting in a car accident or some other injury), so keeping them around to take the next time you get hurt may also be using them w/o a legal prescription.

how about mail order/ internet purchases? do you keep track of those so you can pay the required sales/use taxes for your jurisdiction? if not, that's against the law, too.

In my jurisdiction, there's a law against 'seduction', defined as the 'seduction or debauching of an unmarried female'. ever done that one?

[F. U. Shakespeare]

No, you don't.

How is it that you've arrived at this odd belief that jail/prison time is only for "dangerous" people who have "hurt" someone?

What if someone habitually speeds and runs red lights? What if they refuse to pay their taxes? What if they ignore lawful orders by the police or a judge? What if they have sex with willing but underage people? No one is 'hurt' by these offenses nor countless others.

Prison/jail is to punish people who break the law (and to serve as an example of what happens when you break the law so that everyone doesn't start doing it).

It's just that simple.SA, do you extend this attitude to, say, gun owners who are not in compliance with gun possession laws, but are otherwise law-abiding?

If so, you're one of the few conservatives I know who think "it's just that simple". While 'law and order' is a tenet of modern conservatism, another is the desire to reduce intrusive government.

E.g., Randy Weaver broke the law, but I can't remember any of my conservative friends saying that he got what he deserved.

[Jayn_Newell]

Ditto coffee-drinkers. No one needs coffee. If they were to make coffee illegal, you put up with the headaches for a week and move on. Unless you're an idiot. Then you go to jail. With no sympathy from me.
Banning caffeine would do more harm than good, IMHO. In addition to coffee-addicts in withdrawal, you'll have hordes of PMSing women with no chocolate. That's just dangerous man :D

[Airman Doors, USAF]

E.g., Randy Weaver broke the law, but I can't remember any of my conservative friends saying that he got what he deserved.

And what's more, gun advocates frequently beat Bill Clinton and Janet Reno up over that and Waco, so not only do they not say that Randy Weaver got what he deserved, they back him to the hilt!

That said, there has to be some means of enforcement. If you have no teeth in the tax law, I can guarantee you that I'm never paying taxes again. With regard to your example, I don't go out of my way to turn anybody in (not a particular bias towards gun owners, just a general "mind my own business" philosophy), but were someone to be doing something blatantly illegal or unsafe with a gun, I would turn them in, and I wouldn't be overly concerned about what happened to them as a result. You do not make mistakes with weapons. Period.

[Autolycus]

What if the government outlawed freedom of speech? Would there be no sympathy for people jailed for expressing personal views? I can't understand this "if it's illegal and you go to jail because you do it, I have no sympathy" type of thinking.

[Sophistry and Illusion]

...could be so bold as to...
...proclaim that if sodomizing goats is wrong, I don't want to be right!

[Blalron]

Comic books? I'd feel sorry that the government has gone to hell, but no, I wouldn't feel sorry for someone who thought that reading a Superman comic was worth a jail sentence. Your decision, your loss.

So if you were on a parole board, and the comic book reader wanted to be let out early, would you look at him sternly and say "Son, I know it may seem silly that comic books are banned, but you made your bed and now you can lie in it. PAROLE DENIED!" If the answer is no, then you must have SOME level of sympathy going on for the lawbreakers. Just a teensy weensy little bit. Or maybe you're just completely heartless.

[aerodave]

Absolute - you know, (I assume), that it's against the law to drive drunk. Do you ever drink at all, then drive?

<snip>

how about mail order/ internet purchases? do you keep track of those so you can pay the required sales/use taxes for your jurisdiction? if not, that's against the law, too.

<snip>

I don't mean to speak for Absolute, but since I tend to agree with him on this issue, I'll give my input.

I do illegal things all the time. Nothing big, mind you. But, for example, I speed...a lot...all the fucking time. I make an illegal turn on red every day on my way to work. I buy things from Amazon and don't pay the sales tax to the state at the end of the year. I tear the tags off mattresses!!! (Oh wait...nevermind that last one.)

I do these things because I don't like the laws that forbid them. HOWEVER...I fully expect that if I get bustedfor any of these things, I'll have to pay the consequences. I wouldn't even feel sorry for myself if I were punished for willfully breaking a law which I knew existed.

I don't smoke pot. But if I did, I'd expect to be punished if I were caught, and I'd have no one to blame but myself. That's because I'd know it was fucking illegal when I did it.

[Merijeek]

Yes, Absolute, can't you see the fascist undertones of you daring to suggest that smoking weed isn't comparable to the civil rights movement? What could be more American...nay, human, than toking up? That this basic human freedom wasn't mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, quite frankly, shocks the hell out of me, and is probably Bush's fault. No, the true criminals are those who don't regularly smoke pot, and if you don't believe that, you not only hate America, freedom, and your mom, but it will undoubtedly lead to the government banning the letter "E," because that's exactly the same thing. Do you support banning the letter "E"? Do you, Absolute?

Nazi.

Maybe they could ban guns instead. Would that be okay with you?

Less Pit postings about "OMG someone I knew almost shot the super bowl!!".

-Joe

[ArizonaTeach]

Absolute - you know, (I assume), that it's against the law to drive drunk. Do you ever drink at all, then drive? How do you know your BAL unless you have used a breathalyzer? :confused: Where does Absolute say that he never ever breaks the law? Furthermore, are you seriously saying that driving drunk shouldn't be against the law??

In my jurisdiction, there's a law against 'seduction', defined as the 'seduction or debauching of an unmarried female'. ever done that one?Does he live in your jurisdiction? If not, what does it matter? In any case, you're missing Absolute's point entirely. He's saying that if you intentionally break the law, you shouldn't be surprised by the consequences of that law.

Now, sure, the criminality of pot is one of the best kept secrets in today's world :rolleyes: , so it wouldn't surprise me that nobody at all ever realized there might possibly be consequences for it. But I tell you what. You grow, smoke, and sell all the weed you want and provide evidence of that to the police. I'll nail as many unmarried women as I can in your jurisdiction (with my wife's permission of course - in the name of progress, I'm sure she'd allow it), and I'll go brag...I mean confess...to the local police, and we'll see what consequences arise from both.

Maybe they could ban guns instead. Would that be okay with you?

Less Pit postings about "OMG someone I knew almost shot the super bowl!!". Stalkers on the left, please. With the strawmen.

[Merijeek]

Stalkers on the left, please. With the strawmen.

Stalkers? For remembering a histrionic OP from a couple weeks ago? Sorry, don't want people to potentially remember something, don't post it.

So, guns are banned. How'd you feel about people being arrested for that? "Got what they deserved" or "Righteously fighting the system"?

-Joe

[ArizonaTeach]

Stalkers? For remembering a histrionic OP from a couple weeks ago? Sorry, don't want people to potentially remember something, don't post it.

So, guns are banned. How'd you feel about people being arrested for that? "Got what they deserved" or "Righteously fighting the system"?

-JoeThis OP? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=454757) Hell, I'll link to it. I still stand by it, and got some comforting words from some non-dickhead posters. Not sure it has fuck-all to do with this, but whatever turns you on, cowboy. You got a problem with my post, pit it.

How would I feel if guns were banned? Then I'd expect people who illegally had guns to be arrested. That wasn't so hard. I'd also sit back and wait for the courts to overturn a sweeping gun ban, and if that didn't happen I'd work towards legislation that would repeal those laws, including supporting candidates, donating money and time to the cause, and making my voice heard.

What I wouldn't do is buy a fucking gun, and since I don't own a gun now (or use drugs, or drink and drive, or sleep with unmarried women), I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove.

Next question, sunshine.

[Cluricaun]

There are some good posts here already about the oddity of sending pot smokers to prison, however there are plenty of other people in prison for drug sentances that don't belong in there either. There used to be something that's commonly referred to as the "carrier weight law (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-14536893.html) " wherein someone charged with selling LSD wouldn't be charged with selling the actual amount of the drug, but the combined weight of the medium used for delivery, ie they would weigh the paper or the sugar cube or what have you and charge them with selling thousands of times more of the drug than they had transferred. This resulted in felony convictions as opposed to misdemenor sentances and placed plenty more non-violent drug offenders into prison.

I'm not even going to get into the differance in sentancing guidelines between rock cocaine and powederd cocaine (hint, the one that poorer people are more likely to posess carries a much harsher sentance than the one that richer people tend to possess).

The point is that the War on Drugs has wrongly incarcerated thousands of Americans for things other than just marijuana, but many of these convicts are no more a danger to society than your average Cheech and Chong fan.

[Dinsdale]

What's the problem? Incarceration is big business. I view this as an unqualified success of our "service economy"!

Besides, it isn't as tho there are any pressing issues that are more important than legislators grandstanding that they are "tough on crime" (as sure a vote-getter as there is.)

[ForumBot]

I disapprove of the punishment also. I don't think pot smokers should be put in jail.
Where the fuck were you when we all said this exact same thing?
I shouldn't be surprised when I'm punished
Yes, Absolute, can't you see the fascist undertones of you daring to suggest that smoking weed isn't comparable to the civil rights movement?
:rolleyes:

I drew the comparison because Absolute seems to have a problem with protesting a law if it's only not directly related to preserving your own life. His/Her entire basis for deciding if a law should be acted against is how big of a hassle it seems. Riding in the back of the bus strikes me as completely mundane--even more than banning comic books or pianos, yet we celebrate its protestation as a hallmark of American freedom.

Yes, Absolute and others have embraced fascism in their hearts. They're willing to sell their freedom for convenience, and scorn anyone who thinks differently. I can't call it anything else.

[WILLASS]

I've never really understood the American governments stance on personal drug abuse to be honest, my brother in law lived in Texas (he is from Spain and had lived in Europe until he was 21) and swiftly went from harmless pot smoking yet productive member of society to criminalised loser in about a year after a string of totally ridiculous arrests: having an open beer container in public, having rolling papers about his person when his friend was busted for a couple of grams of weed and some other ludicrous charge, he had to leave the states as he was unable to get work due to his record and came back to the UK. What, I ask, was the fucking point of that? He's basically done nothing wrong but wound up doing jail time and was unable to work for the rest of his time there. What happens to these criminals once they are released from jail when they realise they will probably never work in anything other than the most basic of jobs? I can't even understand why the most ultra conservative people over there would [I]want[I] this to happen purely for economic reasons. From an outsiders point of view this seems beyond ridiculous on so many levels that it hurts to think about it.

[Absolute]

Where the fuck were you when we all said this exact same thing?


:rolleyes:

I drew the comparison because Absolute seems to have a problem with protesting a law if it's only not directly related to preserving your own life. His/Her entire basis for deciding if a law should be acted against is how big of a hassle it seems. Riding in the back of the bus strikes me as completely mundane--even more than banning comic books or pianos, yet we celebrate its protestation as a hallmark of American freedom.

Yes, Absolute and others have embraced fascism in their hearts. They're willing to sell their freedom for convenience, and scorn anyone who thinks differently. I can't call it anything else.
You are misunderstanding my position. I stated multiple times that I disagreed with the pot prohibition. In every single one of my posts, in fact.


While I agree with people who say that pot is harmless, and that it's a waste of money to imprison pot smokers...

It might be a stupid law, but if you willingly choose to break it, I won't feel sorry for you if you get put in jail. Fight to get the law changed, but don't expect to break it and not suffer the consequences.


Smoking pot is not essential for life. Outlawing it is stupid, but...


I agree. Repeal the law. I'm all for it. I'm just saying I have no sympathy for people who broke it.


First of all, I didn't say I think marijuana should be illegal. Just that, while it is, I have no sympathy for you if you decide to gamble you won't get caught, and lose.


I disapprove of the punishment also. I don't think pot smokers should be put in jail.

I mean, how many times do I have to say it? I think pot smoking should be legal. I'll sign a petition, write a letter to my Congressman, whatever. Get the law overturned.

But I am not sympathetic to people who willingly choose to break the law because they want to get high, however stupid the law may be.

And like I said, I freely admit that I am making a judgement on the value of drug use.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Look, the issue here isn't so much whether smoking pot ought to be illegal. Gateway drug, etc. etc., I think banning it is frankly silly, but you have to start somewhere.

The real question is why are recreational pot smokers being put in jail? Drunk and disorderly, meaning you a) drank too much, and b) did something stupid like little a policeman's forehead, gets you a fine, and maybe a night in the drunk tank at worst.

Merely being in the same car as a couple grams of reefer can get you a prison term.

The real problem is the ridiculous mandatory minimum sentences for the most trivial drug crimes. I'm more likely to do time for smoking pot (should I take up the habit) than for beating my girlfriend (again, if I get into the habit). THAT is pit-worthy.

[Zebra]

I wonder if "Private Prisions" has anything to do with us locking people up. After all it is good for business.

[John Mace]

which proves his point of 'most drug incarceration is for dealing'. which also misses the point IME. Drug "dealing" can (and often is) stuff like selling a small amount of your personal stash at a slight profit and/or telling some one who to ask for drugs.
It should be noted, though, that the law is often written that if you have more than X amount, you are assume to be in possession with the intent to sell.

Also, people seem to be assuming that pot is the main reason people are in prison on drug related charges. I wouldn't be surprised if cocaine/crack was at least as common. Anyway, we need much better statistics than I've seen in this thread so far. I'm pretty much against drug laws in general, though, so whether it's pot. crack or meth is all the same to me.

[control-z]

I heard today that not only are 1 out of 100 American adults in prison, but 1 out of 38(?) Hispanics and 1 out of 15 blacks are in prison! That's fucked up. Problem with justice system or cultural problems?

[Starving Artist]

[/QUOTE]SA, do you extend this attitude to, say, gun owners who are not in compliance with gun possession laws, but are otherwise law-abiding?Of course I do!

People don't get to choose which laws they're going to abide by. Anarchy would be the result.

If I'm behind the wheel and I've had too much to drink or if I'm illegally in possession of a firearm, I would expect to suffer the consequences should I be caught.

And why the assumption that I would only favor legal penalties for 'leftie' offenses?

[neutron star]

It should be noted, though, that the law is often written that if you have more than X amount, you are assume to be in possession with the intent to sell.
And sometimes that amount is small enough as to be absurd. In most states, it's 30 grams of pot. I was never a dealer, but I used to smoke a lot of weed and I can't tell you how many times I had more than thirty grams stashed away. If you're talking about low-quality pot, 30g can very easily amount to only $80-100 worth of the stuff.

Ever hear of someone who had $80 worth of beer in their house for their own use getting arrested for being an unlicensed liquor distributor?

[D_Odds]

I heard today that not only are 1 out of 100 American adults in prison, but 1 out of 38(?) Hispanics and 1 out of 15 blacks are in prison! That's fucked up. Problem with justice system or cultural problems?
It's in the third paragraph of the article linked in the OP. Seven sentences in. It also states that one in nine black men between the ages of 20 and 34 are incarcerated. That number struck me as a bit absurd, and I'm wondering if they meant that one in nine black men between the ages of 20 and 34 will have spent time in prison and just got the statement wrong. (Still absurdly high though)

There are likely lots of socio-economic factors at work. It would be impossible to simply say that black men commit more crimes, or that police target black men more, or that black men are more likely to get prison sentences. It's likely a mix of all three, with a half-dozen other factors also factoring into the causes for these horrific numbers.

[John Mace]

And sometimes that amount is small enough as to be absurd.
Yes. That's exactly what I was thinking, and maybe I should have been more explicit in that post. Someone in prison for selling may very well not have been selling at all.

[WILLASS]

If I'm behind the wheel and I've had too much to drink or if I'm illegally in possession of a firearm, I would expect to suffer the consequences should I be caught.

But both of those examples are much more likely to affect other people, drunk drivers kill people, people with illegal guns are probably more likely to use them for illegal purposes.

I think the criminalisation of cannabis is much more akin to homosexuality being illegal or perhaps prohibition. I think that if enough people get arrested for the 'crime' of having a few fatty boom batties then eventually maybe people will begin to think 'hey, it's costing us an awful lot of money to keep these dangerously sedate hippies in prison' and a change in law will come about.

Let's face it, it's probably the only form of 'protest' that a load of stoners are going to be able to get behind, I can't see them marching anywhere!

[Starving Artist]

Also, people seem to be assuming that pot is the main reason people are in prison on drug related charges. I wouldn't be surprised if cocaine/crack was at least as common. And I wouldn't be surprised if they are only imprisoned after second or third convictions.

I knew a guy once who was cooking and distributing meth. His live-in girlfriend (also an addict) and her two small children were in the house while this was going on, and he only went to prison after his second arrest and conviction.

His girlfriend, who was as bad if not worse than he was in terms of drug use and miscreant behavior, was arrested multiple times for use and never did get sentenced to prison, though she did eventually lose her children and only got them back once she got clean.

[WILLASS]

Sorry, ballsed up my qouting - that was in reply to Starving Artist

[neutron star]

Yes. That's exactly what I was thinking, and maybe I should have been more explicit in that post.
I understood what you meant. I was just elaborating a bit.

[XT]

I'm all for the legalization of most if not all drugs...and making people responsible for their actions (i.e. if you smoke, shoot up, drink or other wise incapacitate yourself and then drive it's your ass). That said, the right way to go about doing this is to get the laws changed. Because, you know, it IS the law of the land atm. So...if you do something knowingly illegal and are stupid enough to get caught doing it then, well, you have to take responsibility for being stupid...and that means you go to jail. Got to hate that.

Sorry, my sympathy level is pretty low on this one. Also, there seems to be an assumption here that there is a large percentage of people locked up for using MJ. While I'm sure that there is a non-zero percentage locked up at any given time for simple possession of MJ, I have serious doubts it is THAT significant a number of the total prison population...and (assuming that is the ONLY charge :dubious: ) this would represent a pretty transitory number, sort of like drunk drivers.

-XT

[gonzomax]

Mo0ney should be spent in cleaning up drug users not jailing them. It just delays the problem a while.
Privatizing prisons and a growing jail population?: Not a coincidence.

[Starving Artist]

If I'm behind the wheel and I've had too much to drink or if I'm illegally in possession of a firearm, I would expect to suffer the consequences should I be caught.

But both of those examples are much more likely to affect other people, drunk drivers kill people, people with illegal guns are probably more likely to use them for illegal purposes.My point was that if I'm in violation of the law - any law - and I get caught, I would expect to suffer the consequences. As I said, people don't get to choose which laws they're going to obey.

Now, if you want to consider pot smoking to be akin to the civil rights movement in terms of civil disobedience, perhaps if enough marches are held and enough people are willing to be arrested to publicize their plight, and enough public sentiment can be swung in their favor, then perhaps pot smoking can be decriminalized. Most people however, saw the basic inhumanity involved in racial inequality, and I don't think they're anywhere close to getting as het up over pot smoking.

[Little Nemo]

The problem is that so many people act like prisons are the cause of these problems. It's like they think we build a prison and then go out and grab random people of the street in our need to fill it. That's like believing that if you build a new cemetary in your town, the death rate will increase in order to use up the new space.

Prisons are the very end result of the process. We just take in the people society chose to send us. We have no control over how many people go to prison or how long they stay here. That's all determined by the courts, the police, and the laws.

And I will say this - by the time anyone ends up in prison, they've really screwed up their life. Nobody just happens to end up in prison. You have to either make a really big mistake or make a lot of smaller mistakes. There's no easy fixes in prison.

So the question you should be asking is "Our prisons are full; so what's wrong with our schools? What's wrong with our community centers and medical clinics and churches? Why are we sending so many people to prison and what should we be doing to stop today's children from turning into tomorrow's prisoners?"

[ForumBot]

Mo0ney should be spent in cleaning up drug users not jailing them. It just delays the problem a while.
Privatizing prisons and a growing jail population?: Not a coincidence.
I'm not entirely sure I get the link. The police force isn't privatized. The judge isn't privatized. How does that result in more people being put into jail?

[ArizonaTeach]

Yes, Absolute and others have embraced fascism in their hearts. They're willing to sell their freedom for convenience, and scorn anyone who thinks differently. I can't call it anything else.I think that the fundamental disagreement here is that I can't see pot smoking as an expression of either freedom or of basic civil liberties. I don't buy that argument for cigarette smokers, and I don't buy that argument for pot smokers.

[ForumBot]

Now, if you want to consider pot smoking to be akin to the civil rights movement in terms of civil disobedience, perhaps if enough marches are held and enough people are willing to be arrested to publicize their plight, and enough public sentiment can be swung in their favor, then perhaps pot smoking can be decriminalized. Most people however, saw the basic inhumanity involved in racial inequality, and I don't think they're anywhere close to getting as het up over pot smoking.
I don't think that would work. I drew a comparison between smoking pot and bug segregation to point out that even mundane things can be representative of repressed human freedom. Pot smoking and segregation are of course very very far apart, but they sit on the same scale.
I think that the fundamental disagreement here is that I can't see pot smoking as an expression of either freedom or of basic civil liberties. I don't buy that argument for cigarette smokers, and I don't buy that argument for pot smokers.
You don't think it's a basic human right to do what you want, provided it doesn't harm anyone else? What other activities that don't concern you do you favor banning?

[BwanaBob]

Absolute, you shock and disturb me. What else could be outlawed and you'd feel fine with the offenders going to prison? Go to a movie, get 20-to-life? What do you expect people to do on a Friday night, hold still and stare at the wall?

Sometimes, "working to change the law" involves the masses breaking it. Slavery being the most noble example, but what about the disaster of Prohibition? Countless people have been working to remove the worse-than-useless ban on weed, and so far, the shitheads who want criminal penalties have won the day. Perhaps some of us do not acknowledge their legitimacy. Yeah, they have the guns. We got the numbers.


Right, and during prohibition there were people put in jail because they ran stills, made homebrew etc. If you were alive then you would have been railing against their incarceration as well. The difference is that, unlike pot, nearly everyone liked alcohol and made the laws get repealed. Today, there are not enough organized pot advocates to make that difference. Until that number changes you're shit outta luck.

[BwanaBob]

I've never really understood the American governments stance on personal drug abuse to be honest, my brother in law lived in Texas (he is from Spain and had lived in Europe until he was 21) and swiftly went from harmless pot smoking yet productive member of society to criminalised loser in about a year after a string of totally ridiculous arrests: having an open beer container in public, having rolling papers about his person when his friend was busted for a couple of grams of weed and some other ludicrous charge, he had to leave the states as he was unable to get work due to his record and came back to the UK. What, I ask, was the fucking point of that? He's basically done nothing wrong but wound up doing jail time and was unable to work for the rest of his time there. What happens to these criminals once they are released from jail when they realise they will probably never work in anything other than the most basic of jobs? I can't even understand why the most ultra conservative people over there would [I]want[I] this to happen purely for economic reasons. From an outsiders point of view this seems beyond ridiculous on so many levels that it hurts to think about it.


Why must this be said over and over? Because we want people to follow the laws, and yes, even the bad laws. Those get changed/repealed if enough people want it. End of story.

[BwanaBob]

I heard today that not only are 1 out of 100 American adults in prison, but 1 out of 38(?) Hispanics and 1 out of 15 blacks are in prison! That's fucked up. Problem with justice system or cultural problems?

Bit of both.

Since many minorities often get/feel short changed on opportunities to legally succeed in society, a disproportionate number of them try to succeed via "shortcuts" that are illegal (dealing, gang activity, etc.).

Law enforcement tends to concentrate on that type of crime rather than "corporate" crimes (tax evasion, insider trading, etc) more likely committed by the majorities in power.

This will certainly lead to disproportionate incarceration.

[Loach]

Very few people are in prison just for marijuana use. I've worked in prisons for over 25 years and I've reviewed literally thousands of prisoner records - and I don't remember ever seeing a single prisoner who was serving time for just marijuana use. And this is in New York, a state that was noted for its draconian drug laws.

Don't bother, I tried saying the same thing but it just bounced off.

[saoirse]

Today, there are not enough organized pot advocates to make that difference. Until that number changes you're shit outta luck.

And how long can it take for large numbers of pot advocates to get organized?

[D_Odds]

You don't think it's a basic human right to do what you want, provided it doesn't harm anyone else? What other activities that don't concern you do you favor banning?By this thinking, if my wife and I were to throw a blanket on our front lawn and start having hot monkey sex, it would be OK. We're not harming anyone, after all.

Society does need to enact penalties for certain "harmless pleasures". I'm not going to say pot, or having sex with your wife on your front lawn, are things that need to be forbidden, but the people to whom our democratic republic have ceded the power to make these decisions think differently.

Little Nemo, I don't see anyone here saying the prison is the problem. I see complaints that the laws which send so many into the prisons are part of the problem. I would add that the way the laws are not evenly applied are yet another part of the problem.

[XT]

And how long can it take for large numbers of pot advocates to get organized?

Who knows? Maybe a few years...maybe never. Who would have though in, say, the 50's (or even the 80's) that gay rights/marriage would become a main stream issue? Civil rights laws are another good case in point...think about how people in the 30's would have felt about some of the far reaching laws in, say, the 60's. What would have been fringe then became mainstream later. Then again, if the majority of American's don't feel pot smoking is important enough to re-evaluate the laws it might remain a fringe issue forever.

TODAY it is illegal...so, if you do it and are stupid enough to get caught doing it you have to take responsibility for your own actions. I have a friend who firmly believes that he shouldn't have to pay federal income tax. He is convinced that the Government shouldn't legally be able to require him to pay...and so a few years ago (convinced by one of those weird ass fringe web sites) he decided he wasn't going to pay anymore. Guess what happened to him? He is out of jail these days but he is STILL paying for his own actions and will continue to do so for a while yet.

What is or is not a 'stupid law' is in the eyes of the beholder. If it IS a stupid law, and you can convince enough citizens that this is the case, then it will become a mainstream issue...and eventually it will probably be changed, modified or gotten rid of. Or maybe not. In the mean time however it IS the law...so, break it at your own risk.

-XT

[CapnPitt]

Sometimes, "working to change the law" involves the masses breaking it. Slavery being the most noble example, but what about the disaster of Prohibition? Countless people have been working to remove the worse-than-useless ban on weed, and so far, the shitheads who want criminal penalties have won the day. Perhaps some of us do not acknowledge their legitimacy. Yeah, they have the guns. We got the numbers.

You know, I think pot should be legalized. You know, I think the marijuana laws are bad. I don't smoke pot, never have, don't care to. I really don't have a dog in the fight, but I'd like to see this changed.

However, I can't fucking stand it when people compare anti-marijuana laws to slavery or the civil rights movement. These types of arguments make me want to have even thinking about marijuana be a summary capital offense. Do not belittle the horrors of slavery and the evils of Jim Crow by comparing it to your precious weed. There is no comparison and you just look like a jackass.

[ForumBot]

However, I can't fucking stand it when people compare anti-marijuana laws to slavery or the civil rights movement. These types of arguments make me want to have even thinking about marijuana be a summary capital offense. Do not belittle the horrors of slavery and the evils of Jim Crow by comparing it to your precious weed. There is no comparison and you just look like a jackass.
One is clearly a whole lot fucking worse than the other, but to say there is "no comparison" is seriously exaggerating your emotional appeal. Slavery and pot smoking both contain within the element of the basic human right to be left the hell alone if you're not hurting anyone. Both are on a continuum, and yes, slavery is way way way the hell up there and pot smoking is way down. It's the difference between stealing a candy bar and stealing hundreds of millions of dollars of employees' pensions. I'm not going to get all worked up over someone stealing a candy bar, but I'm not going to pretend it's not wrong, either.

[BwanaBob]

And how long can it take for large numbers of pot advocates to get organized?


Obviously it's taking longer than it took for the alcohol prohibition laws to be rescinded. This speaks volumes as to what the majority care about.

[ForumBot]

Obviously it's taking longer than it took for the alcohol prohibition laws to be rescinded. This speaks volumes as to what the majority care about.
Alcohol also had the advantage of being legal and consumed in large quantities before prohibition, so people knew what they were missing. The vast majority of people who are in favor of marijuana prohibition are completely ignorant of its effects.

[control-z]

Obviously it's taking longer than it took for the alcohol prohibition laws to be rescinded. This speaks volumes as to what the majority care about.

I would think the very nature of the habit in question would preclude a great deal of motivation and organization... :rolleyes:

[saoirse]

I would think the very nature of the habit in question would preclude a great deal of motivation and organization... :rolleyes:

Yeah. I was really just going for a little lame drug humor.

I also can't see any reason for it to be illegal, aside from the fact that it would be difficult to make money off of it, so it would be difficult to get tax revenues out of it. Not too compelling, but that's how the game is played.

[XT]

Alcohol also had the advantage of being legal and consumed in large quantities before prohibition, so people knew what they were missing. The vast majority of people who are in favor of marijuana prohibition are completely ignorant of its effects.

Most of the drugs currently illegal were legal and widely used before prohibition as well. You could buy opium based products over the counter at one point...and they were VERY widely in use. Cocaine was used widely as well...and yeah, MJ was legal.

-XT

[Indistinguishable]

By this thinking, if my wife and I were to throw a blanket on our front lawn and start having hot monkey sex, it would be OK. We're not harming anyone, after all.
Well, the idea here is that you were probably "harming" the neighbors who had to put up with the sight. Its effects weren't limited to the consenting participants.

Supposing we criminalized having hot monkey sex on Sundays, even in the comfort of your own home. After all, there's no human need to have sex on Sunday, of all days; if you were stupid enough to know the law, disobey it, and get caught, would you deserve whatever you got?

I have sympathy for those who are thrown in jail as a result of laws I find offensive; this is, after all, tandem to my finding those laws offensive.

[CapnPitt]

One is clearly a whole lot fucking worse than the other, but to say there is "no comparison" is seriously exaggerating your emotional appeal. Slavery and pot smoking both contain within the element of the basic human right to be left the hell alone if you're not hurting anyone. Both are on a continuum, and yes, slavery is way way way the hell up there and pot smoking is way down. It's the difference between stealing a candy bar and stealing hundreds of millions of dollars of employees' pensions. I'm not going to get all worked up over someone stealing a candy bar, but I'm not going to pretend it's not wrong, either.

Ok, there is a comparison. But it's more like comparing an plant to a human corpse.

[Jodi]

I don't give a good goddam about the legality of marijuana. I think arguing about it distracts from the Pew report's main point, which is that nonviolent crimes can be dealt with more effectively -- and, not incidentally, more cheaply -- by alternative penalties other than sending nonviolent offenders to prison or jail. Community-based corrections, for example.
You don't have to de-criminalize pot in order to stop sending people to prison for having it.

The problem is that measures that would ultimately reduce the prison and jail populace and save money in the long run, cost money up front. Drug courts, diversion programs, mental health services, increased substance abuse services . . . all that stuff costs money, and none of it plays to constituents as "hard on crime." The question therefore becomes whether we as a society want to reduce the instance of crime (recidivism) or whether we only want to look like that's the goal.

The Pew report makes this point a hell of a lot better that you all are doing, frankly.

[Duckster]

For those who want to read the actual report, you can find the PDF here ---> http://stage.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/One%20in%20100.pdf

The report does not address as to why people are in prison or in jail. In looking at the Bureau of Justice Prison Statistics (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm), the 2004 data shows:


52 percent are in prison for violent crime (up from 47% in 1995)
21 percent are in prison for property crime (down from 23% in 1995)
20 percent are in prison for drug crimes (down from 22% in 1995)
7 percent are in prison for public-order crimes (down from 9% in 1995)


I want to see the Pew Report combined with BJS statistics to find out why people are in prison and not just total numbers in prison. Just using the above numbers, America is becoming more violent, while drug crimes have gone down.

[neutron star]

Don't bother, I tried saying the same thing but it just bounced off.
Actually, we pointed out that the amount at which possession becomes dealing in the eyes of the law is set so low that many people who are actually only guilty of possession are wrongly convicted of being dealers, so off to jail they go.

For someone to be convicted of selling drugs, absolutely zero evidence is needed that they ever sold a thing. Somehow people think that there's nothing wrong with this. :confused:

[Indistinguishable]

You don't have to de-criminalize pot in order to stop sending people to prison for having it.
Completely true. However, the disagreement in this thread seems to not be on the issue "Should pot be legal or illegal?" (there seems wide agreement that it should not be illegal, or at least decriminalized, whatever the subtle distinction, which always evades me), but rather on the issue "Given that certain pot-related activities are currently legally punished by incarceration, should we feel sympathy for those who go to jail as a result?".

[Liberal]

Completely true. However, the disagreement in this thread seems to not be on the issue "Should pot be legal or illegal?" (there seems wide agreement that it should not be illegal, or at least decriminalized, whatever the subtle distinction, which always evades me), but rather on the issue "Given that certain pot-related activities are currently legally punished by incarceration, should we feel sympathy for those who go to jail as a result?".Which itself raises the larger ethics question of whether there is a threshold at which these people would say, "Enough! The law has become an ass." Despite his foibles and enigmaticisms (like the LA purchase), I like Thomas Jefferson's take on this matter: "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."

[buttonjockey308]

Really? You have no sympathy for people who are incarcerated for not harming anyone? Let's pretend that pianos are banned--would you feel equally as heartless towards people who just want to play music?

Danger! Falling Strawman!

[buttonjockey308]

So, guns are banned. How'd you feel about people being arrested for that? "Got what they deserved" or "Righteously fighting the system"?

-Joe

If there was a constitutional amendment that even tried to MENTION the sweet mary jane, then righteously fighting the system is the deal! 'Til then, just because a law is stupid doesn't mean you don't have to follow it and just because you don't follow it BECAUSE it's stupid doesn't mean that you should be exempt from the consequences arising therefrom.

[F. U. Shakespeare]

And what's more, gun advocates frequently beat Bill Clinton and Janet Reno up over that and Waco, so not only do they not say that Randy Weaver got what he deserved, they back him to the hilt!Slight nitpick: although the aftermath occurred under Clinton, George H. W. Bush was president when the actual arrest and botched raid took place.

That said, there has to be some means of enforcement. If you have no teeth in the tax law, I can guarantee you that I'm never paying taxes again. With regard to your example, I don't go out of my way to turn anybody in (not a particular bias towards gun owners, just a general "mind my own business" philosophy), but were someone to be doing something blatantly illegal or unsafe with a gun, I would turn them in, and I wouldn't be overly concerned about what happened to them as a result. You do not make mistakes with weapons. Period.Agree 100%.

And why the assumption that I would only favor legal penalties for 'leftie' offenses?Because a lot conservatives that I know think of tacet violation of gun laws as minor/victimless crimes (similarly to the way a lot of my liberal friends feel about law-abiding marijuana smokers). If you don't share this sentiment, you place a higher value on the 'law and order' tenet of conservative thought than you do on the 'anti-government intrusion' tenet which became more pronouncd in the years since the Reagan revolution.

If you believed Randy Weaver's arrest was justified, you are the first self-identified conservative I've ever met who did so. And I'm talking here about the intial arrest on a weapons charge -- the ATF overkill in response to Weaver's failure to appear in court is a different matter.

[Dumbguy]

I think that the fundamental disagreement here is that I can't see pot smoking as an expression of either freedom or of basic civil liberties. I don't buy that argument for cigarette smokers, and I don't buy that argument for pot smokers.The trick with freedom is that for it to really mean anything you have to be in favor of it even in situations you don’t like or understand. Everyone is an advocate for their own freedom. The hard part is being an advocate for everyone else’s.

[Great Dave]

1% actually doesn't seem all that high, although I think a lot of people are there who don't deserve to be. And undoubtedly there are many others walking free who should be behind bars.



It might not seem that high at first glance, but it is the highest rate in the world.

The only remnant of our society that will society that will last as long as the Pyramids are our prisons.

[Great Dave]

Yeah. I was really just going for a little lame drug humor.

I also can't see any reason for it to be illegal, aside from the fact that it would be difficult to make money off of it, so it would be difficult to get tax revenues out of it. Not too compelling, but that's how the game is played.

The difficulty in taxing an herb that is easily grown by anyone might have a lot to do with its illegality. After all, there is no "Big Fat Doobie" lobby working the halls of Congress to ensure the American public their unfettered access to marijuana. Instead, we're stuck with either legally enjoying dangerous substances that can be sold at great profit and easily taxed, or run the risk of the consequences of deciding what mood alterant we prefer.

[wring]

:confused: Where does Absolute say that he never ever breaks the law? Furthermore, are you seriously saying that driving drunk shouldn't be against the law??
[/b] Oh, yes, of course that's exactly what I said, isn't it. No, wait, it's nothing of the sort. His contention was (essentially) you knew what you were doing was against the law, therefore, don't expect sympathy when you get the consequences. And I am suggesting that while most folks do seem to know that driving under the influence is against the law, most wouldn't have a fucking clue what their blood alcohol is on any occasion, unless they've routinely done breathalyzers on themselves.

I often see business folk out in the bars/restaurants drinking, and believe they're "ok" to drive. I believe that they would, indeed test out over the 0.08 bal. Additionally, even for those who will designate a driver before they tie one on, don't think twice about their BAL the next morning. FME, (supervised a boatload of drug/alochol tests), their BAL would test out higher than accepted levels.

[quote]
Does he live in your jurisdiction? If not, what does it matter? In any case, you're missing Absolute's point entirely. He's saying that if you intentionally break the law, you shouldn't be surprised by the consequences of that law. don't know, don't care where he lives. Again, his contention is that knowingly breaking a law = no right for compassion from him. And, again, most citizens where I live don't know about the law on seduction, therefore, they couldn't 'knowingly' break it. In court, it won't be a defense. Indeed even if your date swears she's 16 and you believe her, if she's under 16, you're still guilty of a crime in my jurisdiction.

There's any number of cases I can think of where some one could knowingly commit an act w/o knowing that it was criminal in nature.

Now, sure, the criminality of pot is one of the best kept secrets in today's world :rolleyes: , so it wouldn't surprise me that nobody at all ever realized there might possibly be consequences for it. But I tell you what. You grow, smoke, and sell all the weed you want and provide evidence of that to the police. I'll nail as many unmarried women as I can in your jurisdiction (with my wife's permission of course - in the name of progress, I'm sure she'd allow it), and I'll go brag...I mean confess...to the local police, and we'll see what consequences arise from both.

Stalkers on the left, please. With the strawmen.hope you're including your strawmen on the side. I've not commented on if I think pot should be illegal, let alone growing, selling it. Not my point at all.

[wring]

:confused: Where does Absolute say that he never ever breaks the law? Furthermore, are you seriously saying that driving drunk shouldn't be against the law??
Oh, yes, of course that's exactly what I said, isn't it. No, wait, it's nothing of the sort. His contention was (essentially) you knew what you were doing was against the law, therefore, don't expect sympathy when you get the consequences. And I am suggesting that while most folks do seem to know that driving under the influence is against the law, most wouldn't have a fucking clue what their blood alcohol is on any occasion, unless they've routinely done breathalyzers on themselves.

I often see business folk out in the bars/restaurants drinking, and believe they're "ok" to drive. I believe that they would, indeed test out over the 0.08 bal. Additionally, even for those who will designate a driver before they tie one on, don't think twice about their BAL the next morning. FME, (supervised a boatload of drug/alochol tests), their BAL would test out higher than accepted levels.


Does he live in your jurisdiction? If not, what does it matter? In any case, you're missing Absolute's point entirely. He's saying that if you intentionally break the law, you shouldn't be surprised by the consequences of that law. don't know, don't care where he lives. Again, his contention is that knowingly breaking a law = no right for compassion from him. And, again, most citizens where I live don't know about the law on seduction, therefore, they couldn't 'knowingly' break it. In court, it won't be a defense. Indeed even if your date swears she's 16 and you believe her, if she's under 16, you're still guilty of a crime in my jurisdiction.

There's any number of cases I can think of where some one could knowingly commit an act w/o knowing that it was criminal in nature.

Now, sure, the criminality of pot is one of the best kept secrets in today's world :rolleyes: , so it wouldn't surprise me that nobody at all ever realized there might possibly be consequences for it. But I tell you what. You grow, smoke, and sell all the weed you want and provide evidence of that to the police. I'll nail as many unmarried women as I can in your jurisdiction (with my wife's permission of course - in the name of progress, I'm sure she'd allow it), and I'll go brag...I mean confess...to the local police, and we'll see what consequences arise from both.

Stalkers on the left, please. With the strawmen.hope you're including your strawmen on the side. I've not commented on if I think pot should be illegal, let alone growing, selling it. Not my point at all.

[Sailboat]

While I agree with people who say that pot is harmless

Nonsense. THC may be harmless, I'll grant you. Smoke from burning carcinogens isn't just harmful, it's harmful to bystanders.

Sailboat

[ArizonaTeach]

You don't think it's a basic human right to do what you want, provided it doesn't harm anyone else? What other activities that don't concern you do you favor banning?Three things wrong with that.

First, I disagree with your definition of a basic human right.

Second, I am in no way convinced that smoking pot in no way harms anyone else (let alone to the smoker).

Third, there are a number of criminal activities that could reasonably be stated to be "victimless." Off the top of my head, there's a whole slew of "attempted" crimes. But aside from that, polygomy, many cases of statutory rape, 99% of all drunk driving violations, 99.999999999999% of all speeding, stop sign, and red light running violations, parole violations (leaving the city without checking in - did that really hurth anyone?), not showing up to jury duty, tax evasion (do you really think the government is going to change the budget in the slightest because the average guy didn't pay taxes?), cockfighting (hey, did Michael Vick actually hurt anyone?), violating restraining orders (did coming within 100 feet actually hurt anyone?)...the list goes on and on.

I've not commented on if I think pot should be illegal, let alone growing, selling it. Not my point at all.Fair enough. Looks like we both don't have a clue what each other's point is, because you missed mine and Absolute's entirely. But yes, I didn't get that out of your post, and for that I apologize.

[wring]

Fair enough. Looks like we both don't have a clue what each other's point is, because you missed mine and Absolute's entirely. But yes, I didn't get that out of your post, and for that I apologize.
your point isn't (essentially) 'no sympathy from me if you knowingly break the law"?

Thought I addressed that in my most recent post.

[ArizonaTeach]

your point isn't (essentially) 'no sympathy from me if you knowingly break the law"?

Thought I addressed that in my most recent post.Only partly. It's you have to be prepared to accept the consequences if you intentionally break the law. You spoke about unknowingly breaking the law, which is maybe murkier...

Someone else mentioned, and I agree with, that I know that speeding is wrong, and if I'm caught speeding, I'm fully prepared to pay the price. I try not to speed (and I honestly try not to, which is a bane to my wife when we're running late to her parents'...again...well, if she'd just take less time in the bathroom...hmmm...wrong time, wrong place here) but I have been pulled over, and it's a fair cop. I don't complain about how it's a victimless crime and an unjust law.

[chique]

That includes the 723,000 people who are in local jails. I wonder if that number is the average or whether they meant there was 723,000 on a particular day or month. That single stat is very interesting to me.

My county's jail is online. 78% (yes, I counted) of this week's inmates are there on alcohol-related charges (DUI, mostly). The second largest population is there on domestic violence charges; the 3rd largest is everything else, including drugs.

[Starving Artist]

You don't think it's a basic human right to do what you want, provided it doesn't harm anyone else? What other activities that don't concern you do you favor banning?Depends on what you mean by 'not harming' someone else. In your OP you indicated (or seemed to indicate) that prison should only house "dangerous" criminals who "hurt" other people, and that it was inappropriate for any crime that didn't hurt someone else.

So, how do you define hurt?

Again, you appear to be saying no one should go to prison unless they physically harm someone, and that everyone else who commits a crime should be "ignored". Is this the case? And if so, what do you think should happen to someone who picks your pocket and makes off with your cash and credit cards? What if they break into your house when you aren't home and make off with your possessions? What if they are fifty years old and have sex with a willing twelve-year-old? What if someone rents you a house they don't actually own and makes off with your deposit and leaves you with nowhere to live? Etc., etc., ad infinitum.

On the other hand, if you are simply talking about so-called victimless crimes such as prostitution, gambling, pot-smoking, etc., why don't you just come out and say so without all this talk about how no one deserves prison if they're not hurting anyone?


Because a lot conservatives that I know think of tacet violation of gun laws as minor/victimless crimes (similarly to the way a lot of my liberal friends feel about law-abiding marijuana smokers). If you don't share this sentiment, you place a higher value on the 'law and order' tenet of conservative thought than you do on the 'anti-government intrusion' tenet which became more pronouncd in the years since the Reagan revolution.

If you believed Randy Weaver's arrest was justified, you are the first self-identified conservative I've ever met who did so. And I'm talking here about the intial arrest on a weapons charge -- the ATF overkill in response to Weaver's failure to appear in court is a different matter.As I recall, there was some disagreement as to just what laws Weaver violated and whether or not he was set up by the ATF or FBI. If he was truly guilty as charged, then yes, I would view his arrest as being justified.

Having said that, I despise the things that were done by law enforcement agencies with regard to both Weaver and David Koresh. In each instance, I feel the federal authorities deliberately chose to provoke an unnecessary confrontation solely to crush people they viewed as unlawful upstarts who dared to challenge their authority and firepower. In other words, they just decided that they were gonna kick some ass, and many people died unnecessarily as a result. The people responsible for these atrocious assaults will never get what they deserve...not in this lifetime anyway.

However, I disagree with your assessment that this means I hew to the law-and-order segment of conservatism rather than to the less-government-intrusion segment. The one does not necessarily exclude the other and I view myself as a proponent of both.

[alterego]

Well, let's not equate toking up or possession of personal quantities of marijuana with theft. If someone is capable of stealing, they don't lose that capability, and theft is not a victimless crime. Those people deserve some sort of punishment, if only short-term incarceration for the first offense so they get a taste of what they stand to lose. Perhaps that will dissuade the small-timers. Habitual thieves should be put away for progressively longer periods proportional to the number of offenses.

"should" is a strong word. I don't suppose you have any studies to cite which show this to be an effective method of modifying someone's behavior, do you?

[Ocean Annie]

I believe recreational drug use, particularly marijuana, should be legal, but it isn’t, so the question is what punishment is appropriate for MJ smokers/possessors, and is the punishment justice. The War on Drugs and mandatory sentencing remove a basic concept valued in American society, the individual. What is the point of having a judge to impose a sentence when the law predetermines the sentence and doesn’t consider mitigating circumstances? Mandatory sentencing is frequently a miscarriage of justice and a massive expense to tax payers.
I have known many pot smokers. A shortage of potato chips and Block Buster rentals seems to be the only serious risk to society. Surly there is an alternative to prison for potheads/drug users. I am sure there is also a better way to responsibly respond to substance abuse and mental illness.

[Great Dave]

If there's no harm, how can there be any crime? How does Homer J Stoner lighting up inhis living room harm anyone, besides, perhaps, himself?

[XT]

How often do the Homer J Stoner's of the world get busted in their own house when they are just occasionally lighting up? I'd say that's pretty damn rare as the cops don't usually bother. It's only if Homer has a few largish bundles (say 3 or 4 trash bags full) or when he and his buds (no pun intended) are out and about and decide to light up in public.

-XT

[ForumBot]

Third, there are a number of criminal activities that could reasonably be stated to be "victimless." Off the top of my head, there's a whole slew of "attempted" crimes. But aside from that, polygomy, many cases of statutory rape, 99% of all drunk driving violations, 99.999999999999% of all speeding, stop sign, and red light running violations, parole violations (leaving the city without checking in - did that really hurth anyone?), not showing up to jury duty, tax evasion (do you really think the government is going to change the budget in the slightest because the average guy didn't pay taxes?), cockfighting (hey, did Michael Vick actually hurt anyone?), violating restraining orders (did coming within 100 feet actually hurt anyone?)...the list goes on and on
Perhaps I was limited in only using the word "hurt." I'll elaborate by saying a real possibility of harm to another person (or, in the case of animals, beings with limited rights, too).

[wring]

How often do the Homer J Stoner's of the world get busted in their own house when they are just occasionally lighting up? I'd say that's pretty damn rare as the cops don't usually bother. It's only if Homer has a few largish bundles (say 3 or 4 trash bags full) or when he and his buds (no pun intended) are out and about and decide to light up in public.

-XT
don't know about busts in home, however, state of MI now has 'driving under influence of drugs' law, result is, if cop 'suspects' you're under influence of drugs, they can order a blood test. mj stays in the system for significant length of time, great exceeding the length of time you're high. positive blood test = potential jail sentence (for which you'll receive a bill, in one case I know of was about a grand per month), fines (about $500), plus mandatory 'booting' of any car you own (another $500 charge), and at least a $1000 'driver responsabiilty fee'. Odds are pretty good that persons of a certain age, 'look', etc probably would have some measurable amount of thc or other stuff in their blood. So, it's not at all the case that some one just smoking dope occasionally at home as low risk of getting caught for it.

[DrDeth]

How is it that you've arrived at this odd belief that jail/prison time is only for "dangerous" people who have "hurt" someone?

What if someone habitually speeds and runs red lights?
What if they refuse to pay their taxes?
...
What if they have sex with willing but underage people?
No one is 'hurt' by these offenses nor countless others..

1. Dangerous. Few ever go to jail for just traffic offenses, howver.
2. Stealing from everyone. Few go to jail for it, either.
3. Having sex with someone who can't give informed consent is rape.

[Starving Artist]

But in each of these instances no one was physically injured, and the OP seems to be of the belief that people should be able to do anything they want as long as no one is "hurt", and that prison is right only for "dangerous" people who hurt others.

I've asked him twice to clarify his position (i.e., "victimless" crimes vs. any non-violent crime) and so far he's avoided it.

With regard to your response to my questions, each of those offenses carry penalties of some sort, and I was using them to challenge his contention that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt someone.

[Clothahump]

1% of America's adult population is in prison


And there's a very real case to be made that the figure should be higher.

[DrDeth]

But in each of these instances no one was physically injured, and the OP seems to be of the belief that people should be able to do anything they want as long as no one is "hurt", and that prison is right only for "dangerous" people who hurt others.


Speeding and running red lights carries a very real risk of someone getting hurt or dying. Try looking at the stats for Vehicular Manslaughter.

Rape is considered a crime where someone gets "hurt". It's considered one of the most horrible and violent crimes out there, even if the woman isn't actually left maimed or something.

[Starving Artist]

Speeding and running red lights carries a very real risk of someone getting hurt or dying. Try looking at the stats for Vehicular Manslaughter.

Rape is considered a crime where someone gets "hurt". It's considered one of the most horrible and violent crimes out there, even if the woman isn't actually left maimed or something.I don't know what you're on about. The instance of rape that I described was statutory rape with a willing participant. No violence or unwillingness on the part of the minor was involved. Speeding and running red lights are penalized on their own with no harm to anyone being a prerequisite.

Again (and again and again), my question is whether the OP is of the belief that no one should be in prison unless they've physically harmed someone, and that barring that, they should be "left alone" and/or "ignored" and allowed to do "anything they want".

That's it. That's all I'm asking. Why is it that you seem so determined to argue the obvious with me? Have you actually read my posts to this thread or just skimmed them and responded to a line or two? It appears that you don't get what I'm driving at and that you're looking at my comments in the wrong context.

[DrDeth]

I don't know what you're on about. The instance of rape that I described was statutory rape with a willing participant. No violence or unwillingness on the part of the minor was involved. .

If the person involved is unable to give INFORMED CONSENT then that person has been raped. I don't see why you can't understand that. Sure, a 5yo child will likely say "whatever you want daddy" and thus be "willing", but that's rape, and that is a violent crime where the victim has been very very hurt indeed.

Your examples were crappy, that's my point. Your strawman doesn't even hold straw. You were trying to start a hijack with the OP with poorly construed strawman arguments, taking what he said out of context. And, you know it.

So, let's cut the crap and get back to the OP. The OP makes a very valid point- we have criminalized a fairly large % of our population that have harmed no one and whose acts aren't dangerous. And although there are other crimes that are such, they rarely carry the huge prison sentences that Marijauna does. Speeding is dangerous but even so, you face modest fines- not five fucking year in the pen.

So, pull the straw back out of your scarecrow there and stop the hijack, eh?

[ForumBot]

The OP makes a very valid point- we have criminalized a fairly large % of our population that have harmed no one and whose acts aren't dangerous
Thanks. I was hoping to avoid this getting into "pick apart what ForumBot believes" and stay within "wow, that's not right."

Something is seriously messed up if 1% of the population is in jail. We need to seriously reexamine our laws and punishments.

[kidchameleon]

Something is seriously messed up if 1% of the population is in jail. We need to seriously reexamine our laws and punishments.

Or maybe our society? America has a whole different mentality from other cultures. Perhaps in order to have such a diverse group of cultures in one area necessitates a large amount of incarceration. I wonder if the incarceration rates in Western Europe have increased in the past few decades as immigration has shot up.

[Starving Artist]

Your examples were crappy, that's my point. Your strawman doesn't even hold straw. You were trying to start a hijack with the OP with poorly construed strawman arguments, taking what he said out of context. And, you know it.Perhaps you could explain just which of the following posts by ForumBot I have taken out of context. And while you're at it, perhaps you could explain how asking someone to clarify their comments is a hijack.

Doesn't it strike you a bit odd that 1% of the population is so dangerous that they need to be physically separated from society? Really? You have no sympathy for people who are incarcerated for not harming anyone? Let the people who sell marijuana out, too. They're not hurting anyone. If I don't hurt anyone, I deserve to be left the hell alone. If not hurting anyone is against the law, I shouldn't be surprised when I'm punished. But I still deserve to be left alone. It's my belief that actions that don't harm anyone should not be illegal. You don't think it's a basic human right to do what you want, provided it doesn't harm anyone else? What other activities that don't concern you do you favor banning? So, pull the straw back out of your scarecrow there and stop the hijack, eh?No, I want to know whether he means what he says...and since he apparently doesn't, given the fact that he's chosen not to answer my perfectly reasonable questions, I would then like to know just what crimes that don't harm someone he would feel would justify a prison sentence. Then I'd like to see if he doesn't eventually come around to admitting the same thing everyone else in the world knows, which is that almost every crime someone is in jail for is a crime that in some way harms someone.

And on preview:

Thanks. I was hoping to avoid this getting into "pick apart what ForumBot believes" and stay within "wow, that's not right."What makes you think your answer would lead to picking apart"what you say? I even gave you the answer I thought you were striving for ("victimless crimes, etc.") and you still ignored it. We're supposed to be at least attempting to fight ignorance here and I'm called upon all the time to explain my comments. I've done so in this very thread. If you don't want to have to explain your comments, you might try to be more precise in what you say and/or be more willing to clarify what you mean if it's not understood.

And finally:

So, let's cut the crap and get back to the OP. The OP makes a very valid point- we have criminalized a fairly large % of our population that have harmed no one and whose acts aren't dangerous. Something is seriously messed up if 1% of the population is in jail. We need to seriously reexamine our laws and punishments.And I'd like to make an equally if not more valid complaint that a fairly large number of our population is running around the streets with rap sheets a mile long and committing even more crime. I'd trade you ten pot-smokers (who, as has already been acknowledged in this thread, don't really go to prison anyway) for every rapist, shooter, kidnapper and armed robber who was either allowed to go free to begin with or who served only a fraction of his sentence.

[F. U. Shakespeare]

As I recall, there was some disagreement as to just what laws Weaver violated and whether or not he was set up by the ATF or FBI. If he was truly guilty as charged, then yes, I would view his arrest as being justified.As I said, you're the first conservative I've heard express this sentiment.

[aerodave]

If the person involved is unable to give INFORMED CONSENT then that person has been raped. I don't see why you can't understand that. Sure, a 5yo child
I think when Starving Artist is describing a "harmless" case of statutory rape, he was talking more about a situation where the victim is 17 years old, and in a place where the age of consent is 18. That's a lot different than child abuse, and I suspect you knew that before you brought up the kindergartener.

In the case of the 17 year-old, the crime may well be harmless. The law is based on the fact that the day you turn 18, you are magically and suddenly able to reason as an adult, and that you completely lacked this capability the day before. But that's not true...some 16 year-olds are certainly better able to reason like an adult than some 18 year-olds. Do you think the 17 year-old must certainly suffer lifelong harm by having consensual sex with her 20 year-old boyfriend?

I still think that someone caught for breaking this law should face the punishment...because that's the law, and they knew it going in. But I also think it's true many cases of statutory rape are victimless, not unlike how smoking marijuana is often victimless. That's the point SA was making. And even if I think the law must be upheld, I'd hope the judge would see the circumstances and make the punishment minor.

[wring]

I think when Starving Artist is describing a "harmless" case of statutory rape, he was talking more about a situation where the victim is 17 years old, and in a place where the age of consent is 18. (snip) kindergartener.


I still think that someone caught for breaking this law should face the punishment...because that's the law, and they knew it going in. But I also think it's true many cases of statutory rape are victimless, not unlike how smoking marijuana is often victimless. (snip) And even if I think the law must be upheld, I'd hope the judge would see the circumstances and make the punishment minor.the judge is restricted by the laws, and in these cases, the person then has to (in most cases) register as a sex offender.

[Starving Artist]

Actually aerodave, the crime I described was more grievous than that. It was sex between a fifty-year-old man and a willing twelve-year-old girl (not that such would be likely). I was trying to describe crimes that I thought the OP would have to acknowledge were crimes where the perpetrator deserved prison time even though no one was physically harmed in the process.

Sometimes a person can hear things around here that are hard to believe. I thought for a while that the OP truly felt no one should go to jail unless they caused physical harm to someone and I was trying to illustrate the error in that kind of thought.

It appears now that what he's really talking about are what is usually referred to as victimless crimes, so I'm willing to let it go.

Thanks for the support though. As it turns out, DrDeth was being deliberately obtuse because he disagreed with my attempts to get the OP to explain himself.

[ForumBot]

Starving Artist, you're absolutely right that I've asked others to clarify their positions while not doing the same for my own. It's a double standard and one I didn't realize until you called me on it. I was hypocritical and didn't examine my own posts thoroughly enough.

That said, neither of us want to hop onto the Crazy Express and explore my personal beliefs. I'm like Liberal on LSD. So let's try to find common ground:

(1) As a general rule of thumb, a person should be able to do what they want. (autonomy)
(2) Everybody can't always do what they want, because that would interfere with everyone else's right to autonomy.
(3) A compromise has to be sought balancing each person's right to do what they want with not taking that ability from others.

I think everyone understands and agrees with these principles. We may make different value judgments on what is an acceptable amount of give or take, but surely we can agree on the general principle.

To get more specific to the thread:

(1) Prison serves a few roles. In order of most to least important, IMHO:
(1a) To isolate dangerous members of society.
(1b) To serve as a crime deterrent.
(1c) To give society at large a feeling that justice has been done, that wrongs have been righted. Simply punishment.
(2) All actions operate on a continuum of how much they affect other people.
(2a) Some, like smoking marijuana or walking from my bed to my couch, can take place in a way that affects not a single person other than the myself.
(2b) Some, like speeding, present a potential danger but are not themselves violent.
(2c) Some, like murder, are at the end of the continuum, representing things that have the most effect on others.

Now, between all of these is a lot of grey area with lots of room for debate. I can't address them all and it would be distracting to try. But this sounds like common sense, as well.

What we should consider in respect to the thread, purely my opinion: prison is too severe a punishment for many crimes it is currently used for. Prison should serve primarily as a way for society to protect itself from dangerous individuals. It may also serve the other roles I listed above, but the absurdly high number of Americans in jail provides strong evidence that locking non-violent criminals away from world and taking all their natural freedom should require much stronger justification than is currently required.

[Starving Artist]

I'm like Liberal on LSD. :eek:

;) (Just kidding, Lib's one of my favorite posters)

So let's try to find common ground:

(1) As a general rule of thumb, a person should be able to do what they want. (autonomy)
(2) Everybody can't always do what they want, because that would interfere with everyone else's right to autonomy.
(3) A compromise has to be sought balancing each person's right to do what they want with not taking that ability from others.

I think everyone understands and agrees with these principles. We may make different value judgments on what is an acceptable amount of give or take, but surely we can agree on the general principle.

To get more specific to the thread:

(1) Prison serves a few roles. In order of most to least important, IMHO:
(1a) To isolate dangerous members of society.
(1b) To serve as a crime deterrent.
(1c) To give society at large a feeling that justice has been done, that wrongs have been righted. Simply punishment.
(2) All actions operate on a continuum of how much they affect other people.
(2a) Some, like smoking marijuana or walking from my bed to my couch, can take place in a way that affects not a single person other than the myself.
(2b) Some, like speeding, present a potential danger but are not themselves violent.
(2c) Some, like murder, are at the end of the continuum, representing things that have the most effect on others.

Now, between all of these is a lot of grey area with lots of room for debate. I can't address them all and it would be distracting to try. But this sounds like common sense, as well.

What we should consider in respect to the thread, purely my opinion: prison is too severe a punishment for many crimes it is currently used for. Prison should serve primarily as a way for society to protect itself from dangerous individuals. It may also serve the other roles I listed above, but the absurdly high number of Americans in jail provides strong evidence that locking non-violent criminals away from world and taking all their natural freedom should require much stronger justification than is currently required.Nice post and very well said. Thank you.

[ForumBot]

Lib's one of my favorite posters
This makes me think he might get his feelings hurt from what I wrote. If Liberal is reading this, don't take what I wrote as any sign of disrespect! Exactly the opposite, in fact.

[Starving Artist]

Lib marches to his own drummer and I think that's a point of pride with him. I imagine he'd be more likely to just get a chuckle out of what you said.

[ForumBot]

I think so, too, but I sure don't want anyone thinking "man, that ForumBot guy sure is a jerk, picking on Lib out of nowhere like that...." You never know how people might interpret what gets said around here.

[Starving Artist]

You never know how people might interpret what gets said around here.You know, I was just thinking of a former poster. Her name was Oh, Snappity.

I wonder why that is?

[Little Nemo]

Here's something different; some actual facts. I had a little spare time at work today and I pulled up the files on ten prisoners. To keep it random, I pulled up the first ten men sent to prison in New York State in 2008. I won't give their names obviously but these are actual prisoners who are in prison at this moment.

"A" - Burglary 3rd - 2 to 4 year sentence - maximum security - 40 years old. Burglarized a gas station and stole two cars from the parking lot. Criminal history began at 17. Has ten prior convictions and three previous prison terms.

"B" - Criminal Mischief 3rd, Criminal Contempt 1st - 1 to 3 years - medium - 19. Broke up with his girlfriend and vandalized her car. An Order of Protection was issued. He violated it, followed her into a parking lot, punched her, and then had three (female) friends beat her up. One previous conviction (burglary) from when he was 17 and for which he was on probation at the time of this crime. First prison term.

"C" - Criminal Sale Controlled Substance 3rd, Criminal Possession Controlled Substance 3rd - 0 to 1 year - medium - 27. Admits to use of alcohol, cocaine, heroin, marijuana. Three previous convictions (drugs and petit larceny). Sold crack to an undercover police officer. First prison term.

"D" - Burglary 2nd and 3rd - 2 1/2 to 3 years - medium - 55. Criminal history going back to 1967. 19 previous convictions (mostly larceny and drugs). Admits use of alcohol, cocaine, heroin. Broke into and robbed a church. Fourth prison term.

"E" - Robbery 2nd - 0 to 3 1/2 years - medium - 22. Criminal history began at 16. Five youthful offender adjudications (which is the equivalent of a conviction) and four prior convictions (larceny and drugs). Admits use of alcohol, cocaine, heroin, marijuana. Mugged a man, punched him, stole his wallet and wedding ring. First prison term.

"F" - Robbery 2nd - 0 to 10 years - maximum - 24. Criminal history began at 15. YO adjudication and three previous convictions. This conviction was for three armed muggings. Second prison term.

"G" - Sexual Contact with a Child 1st - 0 to 5 years - medium - 46. Had intercourse and oral sex with two nieces while babysitting them, starting when they were six and continuing over a four year period. No past criminal history.

"H" - Criminal Possession Weapon 3rd - 2 to 4 years - medium - 25. Criminal history began at 18. Two prior convictions. Shoplifted a video game. When the alarm went off, he threatened the employees with a knife to get away. Second prison term.

"I" - Rape 1st, Sexual Abuse 1st, Criminal Sexual Act 1st - 0 to 15 years - maximum - 53. Criminal history began at 23. Six prior convictions (mostly larceny). Uses alcohol, cocaine, crack, heroin. Raped woman at knifepoint. Second prison term.

"J" - Criminal Possession Weapon 3rd, Robbery 1st - 6 to 8 years - maximum - 30. Criminal history began at 16. Two YO adjudications and seven prior convictions (drugs and weapon possession). Mugged a man using a gun. Later arrested for open container violation and found to be in possession of an illegal gravity knife and a gun. Third prison term.

So we have ten "typical" prisoners. Nobody is in prison for using marijuana. ("D" was convicted of marijuana use once in the past and paid a $29 fine.) Nine of the ten have past criminal histories, including a total of 55 previous convictions and eleven prison terms between them (not including the ten current ones). None of these guys is in prison for committing just one crime (even "G" committed numerous counts of the crime he was convicted of). These are the kind of people who are actually in prison - real criminals who have chosen to commit real crimes over a period of years.

[fisha]

I agree with you Little Nemo, I have yet to hear of anyone sent to prison for personal marijuana. Typically it takes most people a while to make it big.

But look at how many had prior substance problems. From your list, 50%.

[wring]

I agree with you Little Nemo, I have yet to hear of anyone sent to prison for personal marijuana. Typically it takes most people a while to make it big. the article cited is "incarcerated", though, no? and I can assure you plenty of folk end up incarcerated (in jail) for personal mj.

[kidchameleon]

the article cited is "incarcerated", though, no? and I can assure you plenty of folk end up incarcerated (in jail) for personal mj.

Could you assure us...with a cite?

[fisha]

It used to be in MN that a small amount- less than .25 of an ounce, if my long term memory serves me correctly, was about a $25 fine. Like a parking ticket. Typically it was just confiscated. This was after the start of the WAR ON DRUGS, and when everyone was really clamping down on coke and crack. I find it very hard to believe that anyone is doing jail time for a small amount of pot if that's their only offense. If they have a record, all bets are off.

Just like Nemo's examples, criminals rarely stick to just one thing, but there's definitely a theme with most.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

"should" is a strong word. I don't suppose you have any studies to cite which show this to be an effective method of modifying someone's behavior, do you?

In my example the people in question are habitual offenders, and since the shorter terms (something even as short as an overnight to start) will have demonstrated that their behavior cannot be modified, that ceases to be a concern and it tips over into punishment.

We can't stop everybody from being criminals. The ones that we can't stop need to go away.

[Little Nemo]

But look at how many had prior substance problems. From your list, 50%.I agree. The reasons people commit crimes are often drug related. But the crimes they commit are still crimes. If somebody steals my car I don't care if he sold it to buy heroin or to buy opera tickets.

[DrDeth]

It appears now that what he's really talking about are what is usually referred to as victimless crimes, so I'm willing to let it go.

Thanks for the support though. As it turns out, DrDeth was being deliberately obtuse because he disagreed with my attempts to get the OP to explain himself.

You didn't want him to explain himself, you had to have know all along he was talking about victimless crime. Hell, my cat figuered that one out. You just wanted to bust his chops. The OP brings up a good debating point, one that for some reason you don't want to debate, wanting instead to just give him a hard time. :rolleyes:

[Leaper]

The OP brings up a good debating point, one that for some reason you don't want to debate, wanting instead to just give him a hard time. :rolleyes:

Well, this IS the Pit. :D

[wring]

Could you assure us...with a cite?
Jail data isn't collected the same way prison data is, published, etc. Hell, even theprison data isn't colleced that way (category is drugs', often not noting type).

I've worked with hundreds of offenders annually for the past 30 years, and have run thousands of background checks. yes, I've seen it. don't believe me? fine.

[Jolly Roger]

Yes, I would. No one needs to play the piano. It might be a stupid law, but if you willingly choose to break it, I won't feel sorry for you if you get put in jail. Fight to get the law changed, but don't expect to break it and not suffer the consequences.


I don't know what the penalties are, but I feel the same way. Fight to get the law changed, but until then, you are responsible for your actions and deserve whatever punishment the law provides for.

I don't think getting caught with a joint is going to land you in prison unless you live in one fucked up place. Isnm't it just a misdemeanor? I guess someone with more legal experience otr a person thats actually been busted for it can answer that question.

Should pot be illegal? I don't know. Considering the stupid crap people do when they drink i'm a bit wary of what they might do if they're both drunk and HIGH. How would you regulate it? If pot were legal I'd imagine it would be against the law to drive while under its influence. There are many people who'd have to be drug tested regularly that aren't now. doctors? Hell yeah. You ain't operating on me unless i know you haven't been tokin' on the icky of the sticky. Plus, cops and military personnel who are tested would now have to be watched even more closely. you don't want a cop that might have smoked a joint or two on his lunch break or an artillery man that s a bit off of his game.

Phillip morris would be pumping out packs of 20 unfiltered Marlboro Mary Janes. Heck, the marlboro man would have a new partner, Mary Jane Man, standing majestically next to him on billboards wearing torn jeans and a tie dyed shirt sporting those white guy dreadlocks. At least the sales on snack food would skyrocket when many more people have the munchies every day.

Contrary to what I'd heard before going, Pot isn't legal in amsterdam. the authorities just don't bother enforce any non-pot laws, especially near the red light district. I suppose the dutch can handle it, the question is, can people in the US? (I'm not seeing it...i think Americans have less impulse control, but YMMV)

[Jolly Roger]

What if it wasn't all books, but just comic books? What if the government banned caffeine? Would you feel sorry for the coffee-drinkers who end up in jail?

Hey...HEY!

I love comic books...ban them and Hulk smash.

I try to not drink more than 2 cups of coffee a day. I've even pretty much quit drinking beer. maybe one or 2 every ten or so days now. But start prohibition on comics, caffiene or alcohol and i'm Robin Hood, Al Capone and the guy from Farenhiet 451.

[Jolly Roger]

I don't mean to speak for Absolute, but since I tend to agree with him on this issue, I'll give my input.

I do illegal things all the time. Nothing big, mind you. But, for example, I speed...a lot...all the fucking time. I make an illegal turn on red every day on my way to work. I buy things from Amazon and don't pay the sales tax to the state at the end of the year. I tear the tags off mattresses!!! (Oh wait...nevermind that last one.)

I do these things because I don't like the laws that forbid them. HOWEVER...I fully expect that if I get bustedfor any of these things, I'll have to pay the consequences. I wouldn't even feel sorry for myself if I were punished for willfully breaking a law which I knew existed.

I don't smoke pot. But if I did, I'd expect to be punished if I were caught, and I'd have no one to blame but myself. That's because I'd know it was fucking illegal when I did it.

and thats all Absolute is saying. but alluva sudden everyone's jumping on him with stuff like "so you'd throw a guy in jail for reading Daredevil, huh?" and such, as if he were supporting the taliban.

Its not like people are being tarred and feathered, horsewhipped or put in the stocks for smoking pot. If there was some kind of cruel or unusual punishment involved, Absolute would sound like a jerk, but theres not. No one is being stoned for smoking pot....oh, sh**....i didn't realize how that sounds until I had typed it. :smack:

[Jolly Roger]

You don't think it's a basic human right to do what you want, provided it doesn't harm anyone else? What other activities that don't concern you do you favor banning?


I wish you had asked me that. You want a list?
Men shouldn't get their ears pierced. I'm not a homophobe, i just think it looks stupid. for that matter men shouldn't wear sandals unless they're at the beach or something. most guys have ugly, hairy feet anyway.
If you have your car stereo on so loud it can be heard from 20 feet away you get a week in jail. If theres a lot of bass, you get a week in jail on bread and water.
If you haven't mastered basic math or english by the time you graduate High School your parents get fined $1000. Also your teachers lose a months pay.

Littering should carry a mandatory 24 hours sitting in the stocks where people can throw rotten tomatoes at you. You'll have to clean up the tomatoes when your punishment is done, also.

If you're caught sending spam emails you'll be caned in the public square.

Having a loud conversation on one of those ear thingie phone doohickeys in public will get you tarred and feathered....


these laws can be enforced once you elect me Dictator...oh, what was this thread about? ;)

[Little Nemo]

We seem to be talking about a bunch of different issues here and people are getting them confused. Let's keep one thing straight; going to jail and going to prison are two different things.

A lot of people have gone to jail. You can get locked up in jail for all kinds of minor offenses like traffic violations, DUI's, smoking marijuana, fighting with your neighbours, shoplifting candy bars, etc. You might get locked up for a few hours or overnight. Or you might get locked up for thirty or even ninety days. You probably know people who've been to jail. Maybe you've been to jail.

Prison, on the other hand, is the big leagues. At a bare miniumum, you have to have been convicted of a felony. Even then it's rare. Most people who are convicted are given fines or probation or a short jail sentence. The ones who go to prison are either career criminals who have been repeatedly convicted or are people who have committed a serious crime like rape or murder.

[ForumBot]

I don't think getting caught with a joint is going to land you in prison unless you live in one fucked up place. Isnm't it just a misdemeanor? I guess someone with more legal experience otr a person thats actually been busted for it can answer that question.
My freshman year of college, I was arrested for minor possession.

All told, I spent $3000 on court costs, drug classes, laywer fees, fines, car impound, and gas to travel to community service. About fifty hours of my life were taken up by the experience and my family's opinion of me was lowered considerably for having a criminal record. They didn't care that I smoked, they cared that I got caught.

I got the lightest sentence anyone can possibly get in Alabama, and my record was sealed under "youthful offender" laws. I could have lost financial aid and scholarships for hurting no one. This is all a far cry from the $30 ticket and "have a nice day" you might get in Denver. Did I take it like a man? Absolutely. I knew the risks and I took them anyway. But am I still pissed off for all the trouble these ignorant, puritanical laws have caused me? You betcha.
If pot were legal I'd imagine it would be against the law to drive while under its influence.
FWIW, it's already illegal to drive while high. Making the drug legal won't change that.
There are many people who'd have to be drug tested regularly that aren't now. doctors? Hell yeah.
People take drugs regardless of their legality. We test crane operators for drugs in their system, but we don't issue sobriety tests before letting them come to work. Why not? Alcohol is a significantly stronger impediment to muscle coordination than marijuana or cocaine, and its legality does not prevent it from being abused. Remember the pilots who were convicted of flying a commercial plane drunk?

It's more dangerous to others to drink than to smoke marijuana, so I'm not understanding why you're so freaked out about the possibility that someone might be stoned and haven't considered what would happen if they had been drinking. I would think the chances that your doctor has been drinking is significantly higher, since alcohol is addictive.

Drug testing says nothing about your performance on the job, either. It provides an easy way for insurance companies to back out of paying. If I smoke on Sunday and come to work sober on Tuesday, I'm perfectly competent to handle my job, but still I fail a drug test.

Furthermore, there is a push from within and outside the medical indsutry to start drug testing medical professionals. bit of further reading. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CEED71339F933A25754C0A961958260&sec=health&spon=) It's hard to push drug testing on anyone but low skill jobs, as people with high skills are in high demand and will prefer not to have their privacy invaded.

You ain't operating on me unless i know you haven't been tokin' on the icky of the sticky. Plus, cops and military personnel who are tested would now have to be watched even more closely. you don't want a cop that might have smoked a joint or two on his lunch break or an artillery man that s a bit off of his game.
See above. Drug tests don't tell you if someone is affected at that moment. If we let cops and servicemen go out for a beer when off-duty, I see even less danger in letting them smoke a joint.

Contrary to what I'd heard before going, Pot isn't legal in amsterdam
You're half close. The specific amounts I'm going to cite are from memory, but the general rules are fact.

An individual is allowed to possess up to 10g of marijuana. A business may possess no more than 300g of marijuana. There are also restrictions on how much marijuana anyone is allowed to grow. Since businesses sell more than they're allowed to keep in stock (bad legislation), most of them are technically in violation of the law. And they buy in quantities from people who aren't technically allowed to grow as much as they do. These are minor quibbles that are ignored unless the owner pisses off someone important or some politician is trying to rank favor with America.

What the Dutch consider to be "soft drugs" are 100% legal. Marijuana, psylocybin mushrooms, mescaline, and a number of other weird "smart drugs" like salvia and guarana. But miraculously, despite how easy it is to buy marijuana in The Netherlands, American marijuana use is double theirs. (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3925)

[wring]

We seem to be talking about a bunch of different issues here and people are getting them confused. Let's keep one thing straight; going to jail and going to prison are two different things. exactly. and the article from the OP mixes the two together, hence much of the confusion. Hell, an old boyfriend of mine in college went to jail for unpaid parking tickets (quite a few of them, but still, it was unpaid parking tickets).


Prison, on the other hand, is the big leagues. At a bare miniumum, you have to have been convicted of a felony. Even then it's rare. Most people who are convicted are given fines or probation or a short jail sentence. The ones who go to prison are either career criminals who have been repeatedly convicted or are people who have committed a serious crime like rape or murder.
I would agree with this if you added a disclaimer like "generally". I worked w/a guy whose entire criminal history consisted of a 1988 single dope deal to an undercover narc, total $60 combination of cocaine and pot. He served something like 4 years inside, another year on tether and two more years on parole. And because it was two different crimes, he can't get a set aside. Had he just sold the cop the coke, he'd have been able to get his record cleared years ago. As it is, he still has to answer "yes" I've been convicted of a felony. (to those who would ask for proof, I won't link to proof 'cause that'd be linking to his name etc)

[Little Nemo]

I would agree with this if you added a disclaimer like "generally". I worked w/a guy whose entire criminal history consisted of a 1988 single dope deal to an undercover narc, total $60 combination of cocaine and pot. He served something like 4 years inside, another year on tether and two more years on parole. And because it was two different crimes, he can't get a set aside. Had he just sold the cop the coke, he'd have been able to get his record cleared years ago. As it is, he still has to answer "yes" I've been convicted of a felony. (to those who would ask for proof, I won't link to proof 'cause that'd be linking to his name etc)I concede that. When we're talking about hundreds of thousands of people, there are going to be some of them who are statistical flukes. But I'll bet that 99% of people in prison fall into one of the two categories I described.

[D_Odds]

If you haven't mastered basic math or english by the time you graduate High School your parents get fined $1000. Also your teachers lose a months pay. Can I be your vice dictator? This is the only one I disagreed with, as the penalty doesn't target the offender. Heck, I could see 12 kids conspiring not to learn a damned thing just to cause a teacher to lose a year's salary. Personally, I would deny the student ever receive any sort of public welfare.

[wring]

I concede that. When we're talking about hundreds of thousands of people, there are going to be some of them who are statistical flukes. But I'll bet that 99% of people in prison fall into one of the two categories I described.
Don't know that I'd want to get into an actually number, but would agree that it's realtively rare.

[Voyager]

I wonder how the people who say just deal with it feel about medical marijuana. In California this is legal, by a vote of the population in a referendum, but the DoJ is very upset, and is sending threatening letters to clinics and doctors. Should a cancer patient arrested for using marijuana to ease the pain and increase appetite who gets arrested by the feds just deal with it? Is he wrong for violating federal law (while not violating state law?)

That might be closer to the civil rights example.

[XT]

Can you give some examples of that actually happening? Are we talking about hundreds of such cases...or a handful. Or none?

I find it incredibly hard to believe that someone would be arrested for using MJ medically (i.e. they have a valid prescription)...especially if they are using it in their own house. In my own, um, experiences (I never inhaled) the folks most likely to get harassed by the police are those who partake in open, public places...or flaunt the fact they are using the stuff in the cops faces. About the same as those who feel the need to drink to excess in public, or drive about with a 6 pack on the front seat and a beer in their hands (and can't understand why the police are harassing them!).

-XT

[Nava]

Thanks. I was hoping to avoid this getting into "pick apart what ForumBot believes" and stay within "wow, that's not right."

Something is seriously messed up if 1% of the population is in jail. We need to seriously reexamine our laws and punishments.

Maybe not the punishments but the reasons why those people "steered wrong" in the first place?

Threat of punishment always sounds very distant, it's not a very good motivator. What's needed is better positive motivation for "doing things right" - and clearer definitions of "what's right".