Over a third of new admissions are drug offenders.
Are those new admissions for FIRST TIME drug offenders, or are those new admissions for REPEATED drug offenders? I believe that is wring’s point.
If I understand correctly, you’re saying that people are getting locked up because they’re likely to commit crimes? Not for crimes they’ve actually committed, but for the ones they might commit.
No, not a good rationale. We aren’t supposed to do that.
beagledave’s got my point correct.
What I will concede is that:
-
Her father’s position and (relative) wealth probably made it easier for her to avoid the typical criminal behavior that many drug addicts fall into to feed their habits (w/relative ease at gettng caught) such as credit card fraud, shoplifting, bad checks, prositution, etc.
-
That it’s likely that she’s been in drug treatment before this, at JB’s expense.
However, it remains that apparently the January 2002 event is her first **criminal ** conviction, and that these subsequent events have been (thus far) treated as violation of the original sentence (ie probation violation) vs. criminal convictions.
From my experience, this is very much the norm. It is typical that w/a drug abuser that they have slips during and immediately after treatment. That from a clinical standpoint, these ‘slips’ are not necessarily taken as evidence that ‘treatment isn’t working’.
Now, if it can be shown that it is typical in Florida that probation violations such as these are routinely treated as new criminal behaviors and not violations of the primary charge, then I’d agree that she’s being treated differently.
After the last one, she spent a few days in jail and was returned to treatment. I won’t be surprised if either of the following occur:
- additional (and longer) jail time, back to treatment.
or
2. a much longer jail time w/o treatment afterward (resentenced on the original charge to jail vs. treatment)
I’m not wading into a “should drugs be legalized?” debate, but two points:
-
If the only problem is that there’s a double standard going on, then as a matter of logic it would be just as effective a solution to that problem to toss lil’ Noelle in jail with the rest of the drug offenders. Not disregarding WRING’s point, but merely pointing out that if the problem is that some get A and some get B, “give all B” is as legitimate an answer as “give all A.”
-
I don’t think any political party has any business telling anyone what their “moral obligations” are.
I agree wholeheartedly with the OP and the statement by the Libertarian party. Governor Bush is a hypocrite, and this kind of behavior is sickening.
which behavior would that be, Joe - allowing his child to be prosecuted for her criminal behavior or stating to the public, that even tho their daughter is flawed and has problems, that they still love her?
(what kind of hugely horribley mixed up world has this become wherein I’m defending a politician named Bush?)
Yes, WRING, that’s it . . . come over to the dark side . . . . 
No!! NO!! I won’t give up my Brie & White wine!
::whimper::
Wring (through Beagledave)
Gah. I’m sorry, Wring. I should have read more carefully.
Jodi
Right. I’ll remember that you said that. Got it bookmarked.
Wring (through Beagledave)
Gah. I’m sorry, Wring. I should have read more carefully.
Jodi
Right. I’ll remember that you said that. Got it bookmarked.
(I’ve no idea why either of my posts posted twice. One submit only. I’ve reported the problem before. Sorry.)
If she’s been getting all that warm, fuzzy family support to control her problem, why is this her third arrest already? And where are the facile “Strike three, you’re out” comments from the usual sources? That’s an interesting argument Apos put forth, though.
The Libertarians are mistaken on many, many things, but not this. Good thing they’re speaking out, too - for Democrats, pointing out the endless stream of GOP hypocrisies can too often look like politicking, but it’s hard to criticize well-meaning people who aren’t ever going to come close to winning anything anyway.
Elvis - “three strikes” laws refer to 3 distinct felony (usually) convictions.
In this case, as I have pointed out, she was arrested and convicted for one felony. Her next court gig was handled as a probation violation, which isn’t generally considered to be a ‘second’ count. She violated the terms/conditions of her original sentence. (one of the articles said this was treated as a ‘contempt of court’ violation).
and this one, she’s been arrested, but it’s not clear that charges will be filed.
criminey. here I am a good little liberal and I have to continually point out that there’s no evidence that she’s being treated any differently than any other person w/similar offense.
And re: the dig about caring parents etc. That pisses me off. Substance abuse is a recognized mental illness. It can occur in the most loving of homes to the best of people. It also makes the person quite susceptible to criminal charges (depending on their drug of choice), but digs at the family being responsible for her continuing on the same course of her illness as millions of others - would you make the same sort of insensative crack IRT parents of a cancer victim who relapsed?
Well, wring, if the cancer victim had, say, lung cancer from smoking, yes, I would. No one is going around forcing drugs into people. Heck, they don’t even advertise.
Wring, chill out and reflect that you’re agreeing with me. You’ve pointed out what the term “three strikes” specifically means in California’s implementation of it, not necessarily everywhere, and certainly not in common political “lawnorder” usage. I was more generally declaiming its facileness, and its users’ hypocrisy.
Don’t worry about the “caring parents” stuff - that was debunking an albeit-interesting argument supporting apparent hypocrisy. We’re left with just the bare hypocrisy, though.
I trust you’re not defending hypocrites now.
gritting teeth remembering it’s GD.
Please note, that the question was IRT: A. chastizing the family of the patient, and B. Speaking of a relapse of the illness itself, not a continuation of behaviors which may negatively impact the illness.
C. You’re absolutely wrong about “drugs don’t advertise”. Yes, correct IRT heroin, cocaine, but prescription drugs (which apparently is this Ms. Bush’s problem) and alcohol (which if memory serves has been a problem for GWB and both of his daughters - not suggesting that the young ones are addicted, merely they’ve had legal problems w/it), certainly both advertise.
still gritting teeth.
Elvis = then what you were doing was a drive by of unrelated stuff? how was that helpful?
Nope, don’t think I’m supporting hypocracy in the least, thank you.
To your knowledge, is there any jurisdiction in the country in which the facts in Ms. Bush’s case would constitute three “strikes” under a three-strikes law?
- Rick
IIRC, a baseball ground gets built in the end.
That’s one of the biggest problems (and common misconceptions) with drug laws. Whereas a normal person would define a drug dealer as one who actually sells drugs, the law sees it as “any person with x amount of drugs.” Sometimes, depending on the state, the drug in question, and how heavily the “criminal” uses, x can be as little as a two-day supply of drugs. Mandatory minimum sentences make matters even more sickening.
To be sure, there are plenty of people sitting in Florida prisons, and prisons everywhere in the U.S., that are first time, non-violent offenders, and are only dealers in the eyes of the law. There are people rotting away under mandatory minimum laws whose only mistake was to buy a two-week supply of their drug of choice rather than a two-day supply. Penalties tend to be even worse for those that try to avoid the drug dealer element altogether and grow their own personal stash of pot.
An extreme case is that of Will Foster, an Oklahoma man who grew a small amount of pot for medical reasons. Despite the fact that he was a first-time offender and not selling his pot, he was sentenced to a whopping 93 years in prison.
Now, back to the Florida issue. According to this press release, the FL Supreme Court gave approval to a citizen initiated ballot issue designed to place non-violent drug offenders in treatment rather than prison. The article wasn’t specific as to whether this included all non-violent offenders, but this article was. First time offenders only.
According to the release, Jeb Bush is “slashing treatment budgets and jailing nonviolent drug users” and the proposed ballot has the “stubborn opposition of Gov. Bush and his lieutenants.”
Bush’s reasoning for the opposition? In an address to Florida’s first graduating drug court class, he said “This amendment would destroy the best drug court system in the country.” He also went on to say that “I’m proud to have been part of this movement, to really create a comprehensive strategy to deal with the problems of drug and alcohol abuse in our state.”
Jeb Bush would have us believe that he’s a compassionate governor, committed to treating drug abuse rather than locking offenders away.
The reality, according to Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly, 1/28/02 is that :
Wow, a Bush saying one think and doing the complete opposite. Whodathunkit?
The worst part is that treatment actually costs the state less than imprisonment. By several accounts, the drug courts have saved Florida over $50 million. Why Bush would want to cut funding to services that not only help people get their lives back on track, but actually save money, is beyond me.