From a 2014 cite from the Prison Policy Initiative, white non-Hispanic people made up 64% of the U.S. population in the 2010 census, but only 39% of the incarcerated population. Hispanics were 16% of the total population, and 19% of the incarcerated population; blacks made up 13% of the total population, but a whopping 40% of the incarcerated population. Blacks and Hispanics combined thus made up 59% of the incarcerated population, but were only 29% of the total population of the country.
(Strictly speaking, you asked about offenders, and I gave you data on people who are locked up. It may well be that us non-Hispanic white guys actually commit more crimes, but we just get away with it more, or at least get off with much lighter non-custodial sentences–parole or probation.)
Oh yes, it does. At this point people usually talk about gangsta rap, but look instead at any alphabet-soup show. Protocol exists only to be broken; torture is presented as normal and effective; the worst consequences for someone caught up to his elbows in planting evidence is a two-minute grumbling session from their immediate superior.
Compare with shows from the UK. Even Doctor Who has more respect for protocol than any of the US cops or pseudocops.
I would like to add on with that, I work at a semi federal job and the black male to female ration is about 5 to 1. Why? Well so many black males either cannot get a job there because of past criminal records or they fail the drug tests.
I will have to disagree with you there. I watch some British tv and I think of the show “Keeping Up Appearances” and the old by the book Hyacinth is always getting slammed by his boorish sisters family plus they laugh when her old father runs around grabbing women. Also “Mr Bean” frequently, if not actually breaking the law, does always try and break the rules of common decency like cutting in lines at the hospital or at stores.
Its almost like British tv is centered around “break the rules”.
I would like to add to this smoking mj might be cool and I’m ok with what you do in private, but it does come out in drug tests and keeps many people from employment.
Aslo on your posts about companies profiting from gang culture - I would add onto that how places like Sturgis and others profit from the aura of the motorcycle gangs.
I feel like the two of you are really broadbrushing here. Not all motorcycle clubs have criminal elements. Probably not even most of them. They aren’t all Hell’s Angels out there. Also not all, probably not even most, cannabis users glorify their usage. You’d be surprised these days to find out who smokes or ingests cannabis on a semi-regular basis…particularly in those states in which it is legal.
“Gang culture” in hip hop is barely even a thing anymore, the golden age of gangsta rap is way in the past. These people are tilting at windmills here.
Have you seen what alchohol can lead to? Because, near as I can tell, it’s not even close: the one that’s legal is so much worse that the comparison can’t and shouldn’t be taken seriously; that a system that okays one but not the other can’t and shouldn’t be taken seriously. That it’s not merely wrong, but comically wrong.
A society that makes marijuana illegal while advertising legal alcohol isn’t working under a principle that deserves a jot of respect; it deserves – what were you just saying about mindlessness? – it deserves a mindful dose of anti-authoritarianism. Literally the least bad thing I can say of it is, it’s so clearly wrong that it can be of use in helping folks realize that sometimes the authorities get stuff wrong.
You deride the folks who see that law for what it is as “idiots” and “childish”. I see them as noticing a sick joke and reacting accordingly. You say you personally don’t care one way or another whether it’s legalized? You should; caring one way, and not the other, is a sign that you’ve noticed the sick joke and reacted accordingly.
I can attest to this… marijuana usage has significantly dropped among minors here in CO in the years since it was legalized. It’s no longer “cool” and it’s no longer a major rebellion, just a minor bending of the rules like bumming a cigarette when you’re not 18.
A cannibis customer here is just as likely to be a grandma, a sick cancer patient, a housewife, or businessman as a stereotypical slacker pothead. They’re still around, but they’re pretty much the minority of those who buy.
On another note, I seem to be hearing some scorn for hip hop and rap featuring faux rebellion and glorifying senseless violence.
If you want to hear real rebellion in hip hop, and some damn good tunes, give bands like Immortal Technique and the Flobots a listen. It’s fucking poetry.
And this is coming from someone who generally can’t stand rap (or country music for that matter, but that’s another story).
You are still missing the point, I actually don’t care about MJ in and of itself - if people wish to partake then its up to them. The risks are there, I have seen them but lots of things have risk and my take on it is that that’s the choice of the informed individual.
I choose to cycle on public highways and I choose to ride motorcycles, I also trail ride on my mountain bike - I also choose to go out and drink more than is wise from time to time - but in none of those things am I trying to ‘stick it to the man’ - these are things I do and accept the risks, and the risks of riding a bicycle on the road is likely to be as significant as many other risky activities.
If cycling were to be outlawed I would become an activist against the law and would certainly break it, not because I want to be cool, but because I feel its an injustice and none of the states business. I would become involved with political campaigns and protests. I would be prepared to accept the social and legal consequencies of my protests
This is the issue with MJ ‘rebels’ its the rebellion itself that seems to be cool and is not geared the aim of changing the legislation, its just glorifying law breaking for the sake of self adornment.
The whole thrust of my own view is that in the US there seems to be a culture of interest and admiration of law breakers and law breaking merely for narcissistic purposes, that this is very deep rooted and widespread, it is very selective in which crimes and criminals are the subject of appreciation and ultimately it is harmful for US society because it inculcates detrimental values into whole swathes of US society that would be far better of treating these idols as being socially unacceptable.
I think that a change in social attitudes toward crime would go some way to laying the foundations for a reduction in offending behaviour
Well, Norway has the best welfare system in the world (partly funded by their oil wealth) so Norwegians don’t have to go to prison to avoid homelessness.
First off, your objectionable statement was that you don’t care whether it’s legalized. Saying that you “actually don’t care about MJ in and of itself” because, hey, “if people wish to partake then its up to them” – that’s a sentiment that, as far as I can tell, should be a running start to concluding And So It Should Be Legal.
Yes, because those things are, and ought to be, legal. You can’t ‘stick it to the man’ by doing them, since in those cases ‘the man’ was preemptively sensible.
As the law in question is crap, such lawbreakers should be glorified. Which hints at the real problem: the law against murder isn’t crap; the law against marijuana is.
That ‘lawbreaker’ applies to both cheapens the term; it changes ‘lawbreaker’ from a pejorative answer into a bland question: “are you referring to an unutterably stupid law that shouldn’t exist, or a sensible one? Because there’s this unutterably stupid law on the books: you know, the one that shouldn’t exist?”
Granted, we’re maybe always going to ask a related-but-different question about details – “he’s a thief, but is he the loaf-of-bread-for-hungry-family kind?” – but when the law itself is absurd and should be changed, then we should of course be selective about about which crimes and criminals are to be cheered on.
The alternative – not being selective – is merely absurd, and thus unacceptable.
If you feel that a particular law is deeply unjust, then instead of adorning yourself with a badge in order to look ‘cool’ how about forgetting the ‘coolness’ factor and commit to what you believe in, become an activist instead of merely wearing a MJ t-shirt that advertises just how cool you are and doing absolutely nothing else.
Its the self glorification and self identification with socially unacceptable values that is part of the problem in the US. Its wearing things like this as a fashion statement instead of being real, and actively trying to make a difference.
Bank robbers, gangsters etc are not acceptable but are portrayed I a far more positive light than they should be, all in order to pander to a market of the uncritical narcissistic ‘individualist’.
If the US, and indeed the UK is to address the problems of long term offending then both need to portray crime and criminals as socially unacceptable and offer a realistic alternative.
Norway seems to have a better take on this, so does Holland - revenge only gets you so far, reintegration and the prospect of a better law biding life is likely to produce better results - throwing former offenders out of prison with inadequate support leads to further crime.
I assure you, I can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time: I can esteem those who show the world that they thumb their nose at the sick joke that is said law, and I can do something else instead of “doing absolutely nothing else.”
I see no reason to refrain from one while doing the other. If someone is working to change that asinine law – as well they should! – then I certainly won’t begrudge them the ability to, as you put it glorify in their identification with the relevant values while they actively try to make a difference. And if someone else merely engages in that badge-wearing advertising to signal how they feel about the law? Well, hey, I’d be happier if they did more; but, compared to a guy who expresses indifference, as per your “I actually don’t care” and “I personally don’t care” take? Shucks, the badge-wearer who could do more at least trumps that.
Having been involved in a number of protests, and campaigns, along with being what quite a few of the posters on here would describe as something of a pinko, I personally see lots of benefits with a social collectivist view just as long as it is consensual - its one of the reasons - along with an observation of social history of working classes - that I am a trade unionist.
Socialism and collectivism are terms frequently used as labels of abuse by many in the US, yet all I see is that the individualist culture of the rebel in US society is a glorification of criminals, and somehow this is labelled as ‘freedom’.
The powers that run things are truly terrified of genuine grass roots activism, but to change things you have to work together, its hard and you get an awful lot of false propaganda against you.
So, you can imagine I take a rather jaundiced view of the fake activistas who simply wear activism as a fashion statement.
Offenders are generally from the lower levels of society, although entitlement and greed can rope in plenty from further up the food chain.
My take is that that offenders have very limited horizons, generally have limited capability, and will take the easy option. Offenders are part of the mass of the population and represent a resource that the rest of a working society cannot afford to waste.
Revenge is extremely wasteful, rehabilitation is expensive but does not provide the powerful with the stick that can be used beat down the rest of the population.
If you want a free up society and reduce the plethora of control measures by authority then reducing offending is a good start.
In a movement to appeal an unjust law, you don’t just need activists and protestors and lawyers and lobbyists. You also need those legions of people with pot leaf bumper stickers and t-shirts. How else are people going to know that something is a popular movement that everyone supports?
The protestors, the lobbyists, the activists; they can be dismissed as radicals and extremists by the establishment. But when you add in millions more who tacitly express their support every day with their words and their “fashion,” and it becomes impossible to ignore the fact: almost everyone hates your law, almost everyone thinks it’s ridiculous, and almost everyone will be happy when that law is gone, regardless of whether it personally benefits them.
Politicians don’t just repeal laws out of the kindness of their heart. They don’t repeal them because protestors and activists are demanding it. But when they see a gay pride parade with hundreds of thousands of attendees, or they see a 420 festival where millions flood into the city, it suddenly dawns on them: “Oh, the tide has turned, I’m now on the wrong side of history, continuing to support Prohibition / marijuana criminalization / oppressing gay people / whatever will cost me votes and maybe some day my job.”
You’re aware Norway is a welfare state, yes? If you can’t afford a home, you’ll get a (basic) home. No-one in Norway *has *to work a crappy job *just *to avoid homelessness. That’s how Norway stops people from choosing to live in prison.
If your job is so shitty that prison is preferable, then maybe you need to start looking into some of those working conditions, rather than worrying about the prisons being too cushy. Because you’ve got some serious problem son your hands with society in general.
Or we could always bring back the workhouse. That’d REALLY help things.