There are too many people in prison. Drugs should be legal.
With that said, I think the pure “keeping people out of society” rationale for multiple-time, violent offenders is sound. Most (real) crime is committed by criminals. There’s not some smooth bell curve of how many rapes or murders or armed robberies the average person commits – you’re either the type of person who makes a career out of it, or you never do it. Keeping the people who were destroying society in the 60s and 70s off the streets is something anyone who lived through that time will understand the value of. If people can be rehabbed or actually need mental health treatment, they should get it, but those who just like rapin’ need to be in prison and I don’t have any qualms about saying so.
As an aside, I’d really prefer that OPs in GD consist of more than just a link. Such is very poor debate practice. If you just want opinions send it to IMHO. In GD it’s better that you choose a position and make your case.
From the article:
Mueller-Smith clearly doesn’t understand the cost of crime: let’s take rape. Rape causes massive emotional effects on its victims, and the fear of rape is damaging to the rest of the population. Yet this guy says anything less than 1 rape prevented for 2 1/2 years in prison for a rapist is not worth it.
While there definitely are people in prison who would be better sanctioned by alternative methods, there are also young predators who should be locked up much more–who are given too many second chances.
I have to take issue with this statement. Is there any evidence we are actually giving second chances to anybody? Most of the people who end up in prison don’t even get first chances. They learn at a young age to distrust authority figures, receive next to no influence from good role models, are discouraged by peers and neighbours from trying to better themselves or improve their own circumstances, and at the first sign of trouble, are legally excluded from ever being a fully participating member of society for life. (Unless their family’s rich, in which case, the previous paragraph doesn’t apply.)
Instead of giving these people a reason to become a productive member of our society, the overwhelming message they hear, from birth, is “we don’t want you here.” If that’s the message we intend to send, we’re doing a fantastic job. Let’s keep telling kids there’s no way out of poverty. But we can’t keep acting surprised when they believe us.
Isn’t all crime committed by criminals?
The reporter seems to be making a lot of assumptions about things that might be true and then using those assumptions as evidence to support her argument.
For example, “Time in prison also lowers the odds you’ll get or stay married.” Really? Did Mueller-Smith establish the cause and effect? Did he consider the possibility that some people have anti-social behavior that causes both imprisonment and marriage problems?
Same thing with the claim that people who get sent to prison have a higher future crime rate than people who get placed on probation. Mueller-Smith’s conclusion is that going to prison causes people to commit more crimes in the future. Perhaps. But another possibility is that the more serious criminals are the ones who get sent to prison and the ones who have greater potential for changing their lives are the ones who get probation.
The reporter dismisses deterrence - despite offering evidence that it works. In her article; she says that most people aren’t deterred from committing crimes because the possibility of being imprisoned is uncertain. And she notes that in places where there is mandatory imprisonment for third strike crimes and imprisonment is therefore likely, people avoid committing crimes after a second strike. That’s evidence that the threat of imprisonment does deter crimes - as long as it’s a realistic threat rather than an empty one.
The reporter also has a bizarre theory that while the fear of imprisonment has no deterrent effect the fear of arrest does. She says that we could reduce crime rates by arresting more people but reducing the rate of imprisonment. She does not explain why criminals would remain afraid of being arrested if the arrests were not backed up by punishments afterwards.
The reporter acknowledges that the crime rate has gone down during the same period when more criminals are being sent to prison. She attributes this to other causes - which I will concede is possible. But it’s also possible that imprisoning criminals reduces crime.
You’re wrong. People rarely get sent to prison for a first offense. The exception is when they commit a serious crime like murder.
People that commit minor crimes like theft or drug dealing don’t get sent to prison for their first offense - or second or third or fourth. You’ve got to commit a lot of crime to go to prison. It’s pretty much the last resort a judge will use.
Eh, with some mandatory minimums stuff that most people would consider minor crimes (like for example selling a bottle of prescription painkillers you were prescribed but didn’t use), you can actually end up getting multiple year prison sentences on a first offense.
That being said, it’s true–most people who end up incarcerated have had a lot of minor offenses that didn’t result in them being incarcerated. Often times they’ll also have juvenile records, which are sealed and are much more about rehabilitation than the adult criminal system–and which employers are not allowed to ask about and have no legal way to know about.
I’m all for rehabilitation for many crimes, and no criminalization of drug possession at all. But I don’t really see a societal interest in rehabilitating rapists, murderers, or anyone who commits an assault so violent that it results in life long injuries/disabilities to their victims.
The justice system actually does not exist for rehabilitation, it exists to create equitable results in lieu of rampant vendettaism and “settling things on the streets.” That’s why governments instituted these systems, to avoid mob justice and families fighting each other in miniature wars. Some crimes the only just punishment is permanent removal from society–in those cases rehabilitation should be of little concern.
I know you know that mandatory minimum sentencing is a thing. The existence of mandatory sentencing laws eliminates exactly this kind of judicial discretion you’re talking about.
Maybe we can debate the exact definition of “serious crime.” I can point to lots of absolutely ridiculous cases of first-time offenders stuck in prison for absoutely minor crimes.
And while we recognize that children are unable to make rational decisions because of incomplete brain development, we still insist on trying cihldren as young as twelve as adults – barring them from ever re-joining society – for short-term political gain.
Mass incarceration is probably a failure of the goal to reduce crime in a cost effective way. It will be difficult to judge that with certainty since crime did go down, but most of the people who’ve tried to untangle the reasons say that mass incarceration is responsible for 5-10% of that decrease, at a cost wildly disproportionate to achieving that same percentage in other ways.
Mass incarceration, and in particular the war on drugs, is indisputably a success at the goal of winning elections for Republicans by putting millions of black people in prison.
From the article: “Mueller-Smith observed that in Harris County people charged with similar crimes received totally different sentences depending on the judge to whom they were randomly assigned. Mueller-Smith then tracked what happened to these prisoners. He estimated that each year in prison increases the odds that a prisoner would reoffend by 5.6% a quarter.”
The conclusion is common sense. If someone gets put in prison, it has a big effect on his life, and it’s a negative effect. It makes it difficult for him to get a job or be productive after leaving prison. It cuts off his ties to any social network outside of prison, and essentially forces him to join a new social network made up of criminals. It virtually eliminates any connection to anything that’s uplifting and joyful, and surrounds him with things that are grim and unpleasant. How could it not lead to more crime?
If it were up to me I’d establish a separate tier of prisons exclusively for non-violent first time offenders; the people most likely to actually come out saying “ok, I made a mistake, I want to go straight now”. Our present system of dumping fresh meat into the snake pit makes a mockery of attempt at reformation.
Another change I’d make is giving inmates some choice over whom they have to associate with, at least as to cell mates. Throw a bunch of primates into a cage and they end up killing each other until a rigid pecking order is brutally established.
Finally, as a purely libertarian ideal, drugs shouldn’t be illegal at all- with the proviso that the penalties for criminal behavior caused by drugs should be draconian.
I see ITR champion already addressed this. Disparity among judges allowed the researcher to do a “controlled experiment.” This seems complicated, but here’s the paper (pdf).
[QUOTE=Michael Mueller-Smith]
For defendants charged with driving while intoxicated, I find that being sentenced to incarceration increases the likelihood of being charged with a new crime within one year by 32 percentage points, which is significant at the five percentage point level. The effect for those charged with drug possession is even larger at 51 percentage points although only significant at the 10 percentage point level. Given that each subgroup shows significant and positive impacts of incarceration on recidivism, it is surprising that the results from the overall sample were negative and insignificant. What explains this pattern is the fact that the judges’ rank ordering changes when looking at the incarceration rates for specific subgroups.
[/QUOTE]
This assumes judges’ caseloads are large enough for statistical significance. I lack the time, training, and motive to try to confirm that.)
Caseloads vary widely. A typical federal judge will issue 5-10 sentences per month. State judges usually do (many) more.
So even a year’s worth of sentences would easily be statistically significant for a single judge, much less a thirty-year study like the linked one.
Yes, but the study was comparing judges’ behavior for specific types of crime. Some judges were lenient on drunk drivers, harsh on marijuana offenders; other judges were vice versa. I skimmed the paper only very briefly, but at one point he seemed to work with a judge behavior difference of only 1%.
I’d ask whether paper had been peer-reviewed, but I’m not sure even peer review can be trusted.
There is a popular notion among some circles that it isn’t – that everyone might commit a murder or a kidnapping if the circumstances are there, or that crime is largely a function of poverty. Reality doesn’t match this notion. Crime rates continued to go down even during the recent economic downturn. It seems that the better explanation is “childhood environment” writ large – those who avoid things like lead poisoning, which alters the impulse control centers of the brain, and childhood physical or sexual abuse, don’t become criminals; those who are subject to such factors do.
The notion that “crime is committed by criminals” rather than by everybody is something that the US learned by hard knocks after refusing to incarcerate multiple-time losers in the past. It would be a mistake to let go of the tremendous social benefits of incarcerating the violent to keep them away from the regular people, even as we realize that imprisoning drug offenders and debtors is not a great idea.
Here’s a study from the Brennan Center for Justice that looks at a bunch of different crime-fighting techniques and their effectiveness. Their conclusion is that the increased incarceration rate is “negligible”. The Brennan Center seems to have some decent academic standing.
This is pretty much how I feel too. No one should go to jail for using drugs as their only offense. Now, if they used drugs and committed armed robbery to support their habit, or they used drugs and then let their kids starve to death, that’s a different kettle of fish. But just using drugs? Either fine them, make them do community service, or in the case of minor drugs like pot legalize it. Don’t put them in prison.
But rapists, murderers, people who are violent to the point of causing permanent injury, and arsonists, they should actually go to jail due to their threat to the public. People heavily involved in organized crime or criminally negligent in their business practices (like those people who knowingly distributed peanut products positive for salmonella here in the US, and poisoned baby formula in China) should be serving time too for similar reasons.