It sounds like the OP really wanted to talk about the drug war. I’m not denying that a lot of people in prison really need to be there, but does that description REALLY cover everyone who is there? For example, suppose somebody believes that marijuana is good for their arthritis and consequently possess or cultivate a small amount–or maybe they just like to get high. As long as they don’t drive while under the influence or attempt to sell it to your kids, then do you really think they need to be sent to prison for five or ten years, in order for your family to be safe?
If that is the case, there are many otherwise law-abiding and productive citizens who feel threatened–that is to say unsafe–by YOUR attitude.
Sailor- well, maybe 'force" was too strong a word- but there are ways. For instance, the former Soviet Union kept their citizens ignorant- worked for some 70 years- then came the 'information age". Folks were no longer content to live like that, once they saw how much better it really was elsewhere. You can keep them hopeless- ie there is NO way they will ever break out, as, mostly there is no “out”- this is what happens in africa, etc. You can keep them down by brutality & fear.
>> Have you been raped, mugged, burglarized and had your car stolen for a second time?
I have not been raped, nor had my car stolen but I have been mugged and had my home burglarized more then once. But when I think of crime victims I do not think about myself because I am male, in good shape and quite prudent. I think of the weaker people who have more need for society’s protection: the elderly, the very young, women, the disabled…
It is that I have known some idealistic women who were very understanding about the causes of crime and went to the inner city to work to improve conditions there thinking the criminals would be ever so grateful to them for helping them stop dealing drugs and start studying computer science. When it turned out that the criminals had no interest in studying computer science and just took advantage of them, after they were victims of crimes a few times, they began to see things differently.
The issue is not wether the US population as a whole has aged significantly (which, incidently it has) over the last 5-8 years but wether the demographic of those who are most likely to offend has aged significantly.
The birth rate has fallen in the US, is still falling, in line with most developed countries.
This has its most immediate effect on the number of young offenders whose criminal careers are far less than the average human lifespan.
If a population count falls by say one percent in total and yet people are living longer then this can only be as a result of a greater decrease in birth rate and a corresponding decrease in young people.
(since the US is a net importer of people this effect is even more pronounced)
It also means that more offenders are leaving the offending age group either through aging or mortality than are entering it, across 5-8 years this is a significant reduction.
This reduction in this age group has been noted by your bureau of population studies.
Taking out large numbers of offenders by imprisonment also also has a big effect and doubtless has been partly responsible for the reduction in recorded offences, so yes it is succesful but…
Crime and poverty are closely associated, the US economy is doing very well and one would expect a reduction in crime from that alone.
It is likely that there will be a downturn in the US economy eventually and a consequent increase in poverty, how many more will have to be incarcerated to keep crime under control ?
2 million when times are good, 4 million upwards when they are not ? Who knows.
Personally I am of the view that once in the system as a serious repeat offender, once they reach around 25 the cause is virtually lost. Society then does need to keep the individuals under control for many years.
It would be far better to spend those huge resources trying to keep them from reaching this stage in the first place.
Locking up offenders early on and keeping them there is a wasteful use of taxes when the same money could be spent on community rehab programs turning liabilities into assets.
sailor - there is a difference between excuses and explainations… i dont expect you to understand what its like… its something you have to experience first hand to understand… though i had hoped you were at least open-minded enough to atleast attempt to look at things from a different perspective… it would appear that you are not… at least in this particular case… and as such, there is no reason for continued discussion between us… as it was not my intent to change your mind… just to give you something else to consider…
I think the fundamental difference between poor immigrants who succeed and inner city people who don’t is just what sailor has said. Mentality. Most immigrants seem to arrive in the states with a work hard, never-say-die attitude. The “can do” attitude just isn’t as prevalent with Americas native poor population.
While this disparity in attitude seems to be true I don’t necessarily blame the inner city population for their lack of success. An immigrants experiences, acquaintances and perception of the world around him/her have reinforced the idea that when he/she works hard they succeed. An inner city person is more likely to have the idea that they cannot succeed reinforced from a very young age. The environment that each is raised in greatly affects their perspective. Attitudes and perceptions seem to perpetuate themselves fairly consistently within subcultures. Why do kids from a particular socio-economic class usually grow up to become members of that class? (i.e. middle class kids become middle class adults, upper class kids become upper class adults, etc.) I think it’s because of a multitude of factors which make it difficult to develop the right skills, knowledge and attitude it takes to move outside of the subculture you’re raised in. I don’t think there are any easy answers here. In regards to the inner city father:
“If you put the father in jail he won’t be able to teach his children”
“The father shouldn’t have committed a crime in the first place”
I think the truth of the matter is that either way the father is already a product of the inner city culture. The very attitude, persona, and actions of the father are more likely to reinforce “inner city thinking” then not. What’s the root of the problem? I think it’s a self perpetuating system which provides few opportunities to change the perspectives of it’s individuals.
Nearly 1 in 4 inmates is in for a drugs-related offence.
Is there a cite for this? What is a “drug-related offense”? Is it drug related if I kill somebody over drug territory? How about if I rape someone while on a cocaine high>
In my experience, people really have to try to get to prison. It is a myth that there are a lot of people in prison because of simply possessing small amounts of a controlled substance.
And what, if you plese, is “your experience”? In my experience, quite a few end up sentenced to up to 20 years in prison for “attempted possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance less than 50 grams”, and in fact were only ancillarily connected with the drug deal and the deal involved was for less than $100 (which would be a small quantity). My experience, of course, is that I’ve worked since 1977 with exoffenders coming out of the prison system. So, I’ve had contact with thousands of felons. So, I ask, what is your experience???
and as far as the assertion in the OP about percentages in prison for drug offenses heres: More numbers than you want to look at that indicate the huge climb in drug related confinements. While it doesn’t seem to specify how many of the currently incarcerated bunch are there for drugs, it does mention stuff like 75% are non violent (which answers your “drug related murder” question) etc.
The definition given by the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics indicates the the term “drug related offense” includes:
“Offenses in which a drug’s pharmacologic effects contribute; offenses motivated by the user’s need for money to support continued use; and offenses connected to drug distribution itself”
It seems to indicate that the term drug-related offense includes my examples of violent crimes committed to get drugs, or drug use by the perpetrator. That, to me, is not necessarily the fault of the drug laws, but of the prevalence of drug use in our society.
To answer your question, I’ve a prosecutor for about 8 years in two different states, and have seen first hand at how extremely rare it is that simple possessors of drugs ever end up in prison.
I have come across many prisoners who have been convicted of possession with intent to supply whilst only carrying maybe less than £100 of wraps.Yet this is an amount that could easily be for personal use.
Usually they are doing 4-8 years but then this is the UK, now compare that with a conviction for a similar offence in the US and the answer to the OP becomes apparent.
Long sentences for cannabis possession and distribution, above 4 years are fairly rare and are reserved for repeat offenders.
The vast majority of our drug offenders are in for robbery, burglary, shoplifting, various kinds of fraud.
Soon we will have prisoners inside under the tree strikes rule.
Myself I think it should be reserved for the over 25’s who have had their chances of rehab but have failed to take them.
Oh, God, not this again. Maybe immigrants do better because they came here hoping to have financial success in the first place. There is a big difference between the social performance (and treatment) of voluntary and involuntary immigrants.
Ouch, inner city kids don’t have shame or a sense of responsibilty? I’m an inner city kid. Several of my friends and relatives are and were inner city kids. I definitely have a sense of responsibility. I suppose you see constant footage of “urban” youth being arrested on the 6:00 news and assume that it must be because there’s some sort of breakdown in the family, or that the kids are just plain out of control. I know people who have gone to jail for petty, non-violent crimes and misdemeanors who were for the most part, intelligent, responsible, and had strong family ties. Contrary to popular belief, family ties are very important in the “urban” community. These people just made one fuck-up and they’re screwed for life.
Typical.
Once again, I do live in the inner city and have lived there my entire life. And it’s not that bad. The main problems are drugs and drug-related crimes (gang activity, burglary, etc.)
As a matter of fact, there is no real evidence to support the position that there’s more crime in the inner city than other places. Inner city crime just gets prosecuted more. On the same note, (and this has been repeated time and time again and in so many veins), there is no proven link between law enforcement methods and crime rates. It’s all about the economy.
At any rate, it’s true enough that Americans are sacrificing liberty for a false sense of security at an alarming rate. One portion of America is already living in a police state. It’s just a question of how long before the rest follows.
Most of the information in the OP was taken from the news magazine The Economist. I don’t know exactly how they defined drug use. I do know that although I often disagree with opinions expressed there, they are more reliable when it comes to using correct facts than almost anyone else.
Not sure what particular definition is being used by the OP - I took it to mean: 1. Possession/sales etc. of drugs
2.possibly thefts for the purpose of getting drugs. FWIW, when I was classifying crimes locally, anything that had a violent charge (armed robbery, any level of assault etc.) were seperated out and so your drug related murder charge wouldn’t have fit. The site I listed specified ‘non violent’ as well.
And, re: your 8 years as prosecutor. Well, shrug, I’ve got 20+ years, casdave is a prison guard (IIRC), so, we’ve seen quite a few, and you haven’t. Maybe depends on the area, also are you including “possession with intent to distribute”? If you’re not that may be the source of the disagreement.
I include ‘poss w/intent’ because 1. Very few people are even arrested for simple possession (there had to be a reason they were searched in the first place, for example, the guy who was on trial for Carrying Concealed Weapon, his defense was that the jacket he had one couldn’t have fit a gun in the first place, so he wore the same jacket, handed it to the judge to ‘see for himself’ and the judge found a packet of cocaine,he was charged with simple possession)
most folks who use have at some point been involved in transactions sufficiently to warrant a charge of poss w/intent - does this make them a “dealer” only in the sense that I would be a retailer if I required that you paid me 50 cents for the cup of sugar you’re getting from me.
This is no imputation of your opinions but since you work for the prosecution office then your role is to provide the legal means for conviction and to obtain incarceration.
You are more likely to have the view that all criminals should be locked up for as long as the offence allows, it is after all your job.
Once they have been locked up then it is my task to see if they can be rehabilitated, which being honest is fairly uncommon for various reasons.
One thing that is sure to make a small offender into a more serious one is to lock them up with serious and experienced offenders.
In the earlier stages of an offending career custodial sentences exarcerbate the difficulties of rehab.
This opportunity is soon lost and once it has then it is likely to be many years before the offender is ready to settle down and listen. By then it is much too late for them to build themselves a constructive and useful life.
I’d agree with you (regarding my state,anyway) if you said its rare for a **first conviction ** for simple possession to result in prison time. It’s not so rare here for a repeat offender to get prison time for felony possession ( which only requires a half-gram of cocaine).In the 7 years I’ve worked with parolees, I’d say about half of them don’t have any felony convictions other than drug possession (although there are usually some misdemeanor convictions for petty larceny ( usually shoplifting) and criminal trespass ( usually being in a city project they don’t live in))
was scanning around on a news site today, and located an interesting summary/link/interactive page. In it, you can easily find demographics for such things as Death Row (both pre 1974 and current - tho’ not complete data), and numbers incarcerated etc.
In it, there’s one interactive which shows a dramatic rise in prison population for drug offenders, from 1970 to present (tho’ it peaked a couple of years ago at over 60%).