http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/the-leader-of-the-unfree-world/374348/
QuoteThe Leader of the Unfree World
Mass incarceration, perhaps the greatest social crisis in modern American history, is without parallel on a global scale.
On Friday, the U.S. Sentencing Commission voted unanimously to allow nearly 50,000 nonviolent federal drug offenders to seek lower sentences. The commission's decision retroactively applied an earlier change in sentencing guidelines to now cover roughly half of those serving federal drug sentences. Endorsed by both the Department of Justice and prison-reform advocates, the move is a significant step forward in reversing decades of mass incarceration—though in a global context, still modest—step forward in reversing decades of mass incarceration.
How large is America's prison problem? More than 2.4 million people are behind bars in the United States today, either awaiting trial or serving a sentence. That's more than the combined population of 15 states, all but three U.S. cities, and the U.S. armed forces. They're scattered throughout a constellation of 102 federal prisons, 1,719 state prisons, 2,259 juvenile facilities, 3,283 local jails, and many more military, immigration, territorial, and Indian Country facilities.
Compared to the rest of the world, these numbers are staggering. Here's how the United States' incarceration rate compares with those of other modern liberal democracies like Britain and Canada:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fnewsroom%2Fimg%2Fposts%2F2014%2F07%2Fincarceration_rates_nato%2Fab3424b4a.png&hash=7792369ceaeb11a758388d938120ce2cf75e727f)
That graph is from a recent report by Prison Policy Initiative, an invaluable resource on mass incarceration. (PPI also has a disturbing graph comparing state incarceration rates with those of other countries around the world, which I highly recommend looking at here.) "Although our level of crime is comparable to those of other stable, internally secure, industrialized nations," the report says, "the United States has an incarceration rate far higher than any other country."
Some individual states like Louisiana contribute disproportionately, but no state is free from mass incarceration. Disturbingly, many states' prison populations outrank even those of dictatorships and illiberal democracies around the world. New York jails more people per capita than Rwanda, where tens of thousands await trial for their roles in the 1994 genocide. California, Illinois, and Ohio each have a higher incarceration rate than Cuba and Russia. Even Maine and Vermont imprison a greater share of people than Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, or Egypt.
But mass incarceration is more than just an international anomaly; it's also a relatively recent phenomenon in American criminal justice. Starting in the 1970s with the rise of tough-on-crime politicians and the War on Drugs, America's prison population jumped eightfold between 1970 and 2010. (The graph below does not include local or territorial prisons.)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.theatlantic.com%2Fnewsroom%2Fimg%2Fposts%2F2014%2F07%2FScreen_Shot_2014_07_13_at_4.01.55_PM%2F5f33c7ef5.png&hash=71a93fa0af9c8b5755f67d1722b44281ad5aa6e2)
These two metrics—the international and the historical—have to be seen together to understand how aberrant mass incarceration is. In time or in space, the warehousing of millions of Americans knows no parallels. In keeping with American history, however, it also disproportionately harms the non-white and the non-wealthy. "For a great many poor people in America, particularly poor black men, prison is a destination that braids through an ordinary life, much as high school and college do for rich white ones," wrote Adam Gopnik in his seminal 2012 article.
QuoteMass incarceration on a scale almost unexampled in human history is a fundamental fact of our country today—perhaps the fundamental fact, as slavery was the fundamental fact of 1850. In truth, there are more black men in the grip of the criminal-justice system—in prison, on probation, or on parole—than were in slavery then. Over all, there are now more people under "correctional supervision" in America—more than six million—than were in the Gulag Archipelago under Stalin at its height.
Mass incarceration's effects are not confined to the cell block. Through the inescapable stigma it imposes, a brush with the criminal-justice system can hamstring a former inmate's employment and financial opportunities for life. The effect is magnified for those who already come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Black men, for example, made substantial economic progress between 1940 and 1980 thanks to the post-war economic boom and the dismantling of de jure racial segregation. But mass incarceration has all but ground that progress to a halt: A new University of Chicago study found that black men are no better off in 2014 than they were when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act 50 years earlier.
The common retort is that people of color statistically commit more crimes, although criminologists and scholars like Michelle Alexander have consistently found no correlation between the incarceration rate and the crime rate. Claims about a "black pathology" also fall short. But police scrutiny often falls most heavily on people of color nonetheless. In New York City alone, officers carried out nearly 700,000 stop-and-frisk searches in 2011. Eighty-five percent of those stops targeted black and Hispanic individuals, although they constitute only half the city's population. Overall, NYPD officers stopped and frisked more young black men in New York than actually live there. Similar patterns of discrimination can be found nationwide, especially on drug-related charges. Black and white Americans use marijuana at an almost-equal rate, but blacks are 3.7 times more likely to be arrested for possession nationally. In Pennsylvania, Illinois, and other Midwestern states, that arrest disparity jumps to a factor of five.
The collective impact of these policies is as rarely discussed as it is far-reaching. Mass incarceration touches almost every corner of modern American society. Any meaningful discourse on racism, poverty, immigration, the drug wars, gun violence, the mental-health crisis, or income inequality is incomplete without addressing the societal ramifications of imprisoning Americans by the millions for long stretches of time with little hope for rehabilitation.
None of this is new information for the activists and scholars who've worked on prison and criminal-justice reform for years. But everyone else has to start somewhere. For the general public, mass incarceration is like the wind: You can't see it, but you can feel it as you hear the leaves rustle. A crucial first step is to denormalize it. This is not the way it has always been—and this is not the way it has to be.
I have no problem with locking violent criminals up. But locking people up for victimless crimes like drug possession does seem counterproductive.
Decriminalising/legalising drugs does make so much sense from so many angles.
It really seems though that conservatives make a point of being against it because dirty drug taking lefty hippies are so for it.
QuoteIn New York City alone, officers carried out nearly 700,000 stop-and-frisk searches in 2011. Eighty-five percent of those stops targeted black and Hispanic individuals, although they constitute only half the city's population. Overall, NYPD officers stopped and frisked more young black men in New York than actually live there.
I really hate seeing this bullshit use of poor statistics constantly brought up over and over.
Surprised it's so high in Portugal, given the liberal and/or lax policies there (drugs for the former, max time is 25 for the latter). France is stricter generally (life still exists along with minimum 20 years), or used to be before the Taubira lax reforms so I am bit skeptical.
Something I feel is crazily never mentioned is:
1. When our high incarceration rate started, we had pretty much the unparalleled highest violent crime rate in the OECD, and by far the highest homicide rate.
2. Now our overall violent crime rate for non-homicides is lower than many other first world countries, while our homicide rate is still higher it has dropped tremendously.
3. No one ever really investigates if maybe all those "non-violent" offenders that got locked up in harsher sentences in fact, maybe were never able to become violent criminals and that's at least part of the decrease in crime rates.
4. Almost all the crimes for which you can be incarcerated in the United States are illegal acts across the OECD, we've just chosen to punish them more harshly. Those punished have all received trials under our legal system. The idea that a high incarceration rate is intrinsically a threat to general liberty does not actually follow, at least for me. Not if the crimes themselves are not some form of intrinsic political freedom. People aren't going to prison for writing controversial articles, or exercising various liberties. Maybe a guy who runs a Ponzi scheme doesn't deserve prison because he's totally non-violent, but no one can seriously argue what he was doing was a valid form of exercising his rights as a citizen and thus it's somehow inherently unjust for society to punish him for it.
Now, just from a cost perspective I've always advocated that anyone but habitual or very severe (big Ponzi scheme) white collar criminals should be punished by fines/community service before prison. Most of those guys it doesn't make sense to spend $35k/year to house them. I've also long been an advocate of making most drugs legal, although entirely synthetic drugs like meth or drugs frequently sold in powder form like cocaine/heroin would need some regulatory infrastructure in place to make sure people aren't selling something that will kill people because it's adulterated (I guess that's theoretically a concern even with stuff like marijuana although it's rare to hear of people contaminated it.)
However under our current laws which lead to a black market, I will say that while locking up people on simple possession is nonsensical, locking up dealers always makes sense. All drug dealers are either intrinsically capable of doing a violent crime, and even likely to do so, or they will not long be drug dealers. At least any dealer beyond the level of someone's "friend" in college who moves a very small amount of stuff. It's similar to the serious booze smuggling types during prohibition, with the money and competition involved those were going to be violent men and it wasn't a real great thing for them to be out on the streets.
As to point #2, the reason that seems at least like part of it to me is there are a lot of studies showing that violent criminals predominantly are males between a certain age range. If guys get sent away for a long stretch because of an initial drug conviction, then are found with a weapon on them and more drugs while on probation and basically end up incarcerated until their 30s, they've basically "aged out" of that period in which they are most likely to be violent inside of the walls of a prison, where they aren't a threat to society.
Obviously that's not the ideal way to handle the situation if you could find some way to get these people out of the cycle of poverty/crime/gang affiliation that likely started back when they were 10-11 years old on their first brush with the law, but if you can't do that I'm not sure locking them up is a terrible option either.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 24, 2014, 06:53:43 AM
3. No one ever really investigates if maybe all those "non-violent" offenders that got locked up in harsher sentences in fact, maybe were never able to become violent criminals and that's at least part of the decrease in crime rates.
If we also preemptively locked up all those who drive recklessly or pay their bills late, or all members of the infamously violent 18-25 demographic, crime would fall even further. :yes:
A few stats:
http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004339
Percentage of State and Federal Prisoners
Offense 1974 1986 1997 2000 2008 2010
Violent 52.5% 64.2% 46.4% 47.2% 47.3% 47.7%
Property 33.3% 22.9% 14% 19.1% 17.0% 16.7%
Drug 10.4% 8.8% 26.9% 25.3% 22.4% 21.7%
Public-order 1.9% 3.3% 8.9% 7.8% 11.9% 13.4%
Other/unspecified 2.0% 0.9% 3.7% 0.4% 1.2% 0.6%
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 24, 2014, 06:56:37 AM
As to point #2, the reason that seems at least like part of it to me is there are a lot of studies showing that violent criminals predominantly are males between a certain age range. If guys get sent away for a long stretch because of an initial drug conviction, then are found with a weapon on them and more drugs while on probation and basically end up incarcerated until their 30s, they've basically "aged out" of that period in which they are most likely to be violent inside of the walls of a prison, where they aren't a threat to society.
Obviously that's not the ideal way to handle the situation if you could find some way to get these people out of the cycle of poverty/crime/gang affiliation that likely started back when they were 10-11 years old on their first brush with the law, but if you can't do that I'm not sure locking them up is a terrible option either.
They are also "aged out" of the part of their life where they could easily develop a non-violent and socially responsible way of living outside of prison. If it's a matter of risking violent behavior from someone who hasn't previously had any and giving them a chance to be productive in society why would you presume the worst?
Quote from: Syt on July 24, 2014, 07:05:54 AM
A few stats:
http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004339
Percentage of State and Federal Prisoners
Offense 1974 1986 1997 2000 2008 2010
Violent 52.5% 64.2% 46.4% 47.2% 47.3% 47.7%
Property 33.3% 22.9% 14% 19.1% 17.0% 16.7%
Drug 10.4% 8.8% 26.9% 25.3% 22.4% 21.7%
Public-order 1.9% 3.3% 8.9% 7.8% 11.9% 13.4%
Other/unspecified 2.0% 0.9% 3.7% 0.4% 1.2% 0.6%
That's interesting. It seems that the growth fields have been drugs, and not being properly respectful of the police.
Still, you can't put the genie back in the bottle.
It's all about the War on Drugs.
To be fair, you can't really conclude that our incarceration rates are excessive solely because other civilized countries have similar crime rates can get away with far lower incarceration rates. Maybe if we release that excess 80% of the prison population, our crime rates aren't going to be that low anymore. And other countries don't have the problem of needing to find socially acceptable substitutes to segregation.
That said, we really do have a problem, and to an extent it perpetuates itself because there are so few prohibitions on treating ex-cons as pariahs in the economy. Well, what alternatives does that leave them? It's hard to see how we find a solution, though. It's hard enough these days to find a politician that will be soft on crime; it's even harder to find his replacement once he's voted out of office because some cute white girl got kidnapped and murdered by the guy that was released due to his policies.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 08:14:11 AM
It's all about the War on Drugs.
Illicit drugs kill people. From production to trafficking to use.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2014, 08:38:43 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 08:14:11 AM
It's all about the War on Drugs.
Illicit drugs kill people. From production to trafficking to use.
Yeah the streets around here are covered with the rotting corpses of dead stoners.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2014, 06:03:01 AM
I really hate seeing this bullshit use of poor statistics constantly brought up over and over.
Agreed. I read that as more likely that the same people received stop-and-frisk searches repeatedly, which is a whole other problem.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 08:42:23 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2014, 08:38:43 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 08:14:11 AM
It's all about the War on Drugs.
Illicit drugs kill people. From production to trafficking to use.
Yeah the streets around here are covered with the rotting corpses of dead stoners.
I wish. :(
Quote from: DGuller on July 24, 2014, 08:34:43 AM
That said, we really do have a problem, and to an extent it perpetuates itself because there are so few prohibitions on treating ex-cons as pariahs in the economy. Well, what alternatives does that leave them? It's hard to see how we find a solution, though. It's hard enough these days to find a politician that will be soft on crime; it's even harder to find his replacement once he's voted out of office because some cute white girl got kidnapped and murdered by the guy that was released due to his policies.
So much this. At our local college, business law and business management classes are heavily stocked by inmates taking classes toward setting up (I know I'm going to catch a raft of shit for generalizing here) landscaping businesses. Parolees in NJ generally have to have employment prospects as a condition for parole, but employers won't touch them, so they usually form a micro-corporation for landscaping with family members to satisfy the requirement.
Inmates are also heavily taken advantage of when it comes to the workplace. When I was working telemarketing, we found out after a while that my employer was running what bordered on an employment scam. While the products and sales techniques were in grey enough areas to be considered legal for general purposes, what they were doing was deliberately hiring inmates and firing them a few weeks later to claim an exorbitant amount of tax credits offered by the state. So employers will take inmates/parolees for the money, but there's very little incentive to actually give them meaningful employment.
Do convictions and prison terms ever disappear from your record in the U.S.?
In Germany, there's terms, depending on the severity of the crime for when items get wiped off your slate and you can go back to calling yourself "not previously convicted."
Otto, it appears that violent crime is falling everywhere in the Western World. It also seems that nobody has a particularly good explanation for why this is occuring across all Western societies.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2014, 09:17:18 AM
Otto, it appears that violent crime is falling everywhere in the Western World. It also seems that nobody has a particularly good explanation for why this is occuring across all Western societies.
This.
Someone made a case that the key was lower levels of lead ingested by kids. I'm not convinced, I think probably it is a number of different factors.
Quote from: Syt on July 24, 2014, 09:15:50 AM
Do convictions and prison terms ever disappear from your record in the U.S.?
In Germany, there's terms, depending on the severity of the crime for when items get wiped off your slate and you can go back to calling yourself "not previously convicted."
Nothing centralized. There are regulations on how long an applicant can be required to self-report certain types of convictions, but I'm not even sure if those are codified in law or just de facto HR standards. There is always the option of expungement, which is not necessarily guaranteed and not automatic (the convict has to request the expungement), but I have no idea what judges' criteria are on granting or denying expungement or how centralized those criteria may be.
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2014, 09:25:55 AM
This.
Someone made a case that the key was lower levels of lead ingested by kids. I'm not convinced, I think probably it is a number of different factors.
Agreed. There are many ways in which quality of life has improved across the board within the past 100 years or so. A general decrease in lead and other pollutants, a crackdown on child labor, increased availability of public education, etc.
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2014, 09:25:55 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2014, 09:17:18 AM
Otto, it appears that violent crime is falling everywhere in the Western World. It also seems that nobody has a particularly good explanation for why this is occuring across all Western societies.
This.
Someone made a case that the key was lower levels of lead ingested by kids. I'm not convinced, I think probably it is a number of different factors.
The "Freakonomics" book made a case that it is due to the legalization of abortions, which I guess is not a popular position for US republicans... :P
I'd like to beat people with a tire iron who post "this".
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 24, 2014, 09:29:27 AM
I'd like to beat people with a tire iron who post "this".
This.
:P Someone was going to do it ...
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 24, 2014, 09:29:27 AM
I'd like to beat people with a tire iron who post "this".
+1
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 24, 2014, 09:29:27 AM
I'd like to beat people with a tire iron who post "this".
ditto.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2014, 08:38:43 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 08:14:11 AM
It's all about the War on Drugs.
Illicit drugs kill people. From production to trafficking to use.
The first two only because they are illicit. The third, the government should not be concerned about people who want to slowly poison themselves.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 24, 2014, 09:29:27 AM
I'd like to beat people with a tire iron who post "this".
No shit.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 08:42:23 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2014, 08:38:43 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 08:14:11 AM
It's all about the War on Drugs.
Illicit drugs kill people. From production to trafficking to use.
Yeah the streets around here are covered with the rotting corpses of dead stoners.
Well I think that ignores all the criminal activity earlier in the chain that gets the stoners access to said weed (as I could be wrong but I don't think most weed that available is local with no ties to criminal organizations).
That said, I agree that really all of this says that government should step in as a regulator as a lot of the associated crime doesn't have to be part of the production chain.
He said "Illicit drugs kill people". He is right.
Solution: Make the drugs licit.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 09:50:01 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2014, 09:48:24 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 24, 2014, 09:29:27 AM
I'd like to beat people with a tire iron who post "this".
No shit.
This
One day, a RV is going to pull up next to you and I'm going to jump out and hit you in the knee. Hook 'em Horns.
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2014, 10:07:14 AM
He said "Illicit drugs kill people". He is right.
Solution: Make the drugs licit.
I was just speaking the production and trafficking. Clearly we then need to think about the use piece. I mean it isn't like we don't have legal drugs that kill people.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 09:50:01 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2014, 09:48:24 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 24, 2014, 09:29:27 AM
I'd like to beat people with a tire iron who post "this".
No shit.
This
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m8nl8vxXyV1r0xdmr.jpg&hash=a2bad62872a9020e6aa6f8423ec2d9252c4ece10)
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 24, 2014, 10:10:19 AM
One day, a RV is going to pull up next to you and I'm going to jump out and hit you in the knee. Hook 'em Horns.
Best Languish meet ever!
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2014, 10:07:14 AM
He said "Illicit drugs kill people". He is right.
Solution: Make the drugs licit.
The solution certainly isn't letting stoners that don't grow their own shit off the hook simply because suburban white teens don't see the violence farther up the supply chain trying to get it to their Honey Bear bongs.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2014, 10:57:19 AM
The solution certainly isn't letting stoners that don't grow their own shit off the hook simply because suburban white teens don't see the violence farther up the supply chain trying to get it to their Honey Bear bongs.
There won't be violence farther up the chain once Phillip Morris and R. J. Reynolds can diversify into grass and coca.
I don't know about that, see the "chokehold" thread. Man died in custody selling illegal cigarettes. BIG TOBACC-OW MAH NECK
:lol:
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2014, 09:25:55 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2014, 09:17:18 AM
Otto, it appears that violent crime is falling everywhere in the Western World. It also seems that nobody has a particularly good explanation for why this is occuring across all Western societies.
This.
Someone made a case that the key was lower levels of lead ingested by kids. I'm not convinced, I think probably it is a number of different factors.
I thinkthe lead argument (considered favourably in a Stephen Pinker book) is very convincing. The correlation for both the rise in violent crime and its decline was very strong over numerous countries.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F74298000%2Fgif%2F_74298891_lead_crime_gra624.gif&hash=f0a3bd40630bc3a3d2e210f983a9a9b39d41551b)
It also might explain the Romans' love of gladiatorial combat.
Did you eat a lot of paint chips when you were a kid?
Quote from: derspiess on July 24, 2014, 11:28:05 AM
Did you eat a lot of paint chips when you were a kid?
Not a sufficient amount to turn me into a violent football player unfortunately :(
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2014, 10:14:12 AM
I was just speaking the production and trafficking. Clearly we then need to think about the use piece. I mean it isn't like we don't have legal drugs that kill people.
Tylenol (paracetamol) is one of the most common drugs that people overdose on.
The Guardian did a piece on 6 reasons which have been proposed for the drop in crime rates in the UK.
Quote1. We removed the lead from petrol
The theory: Exposure to lead in the womb causes headaches, inhibits IQ and can lead to aggressive or dysfunctional behaviour in later life.
Says who? Scientists including Oxford physiologist Dr Bernard Gesch, who has studied the effect of diet and other environmental factors on criminals.
Are they right? The posited time lag of about two decades between rising lead levels and purportedly linked rises in crime levels makes the theory plausible – only now, perhaps, are we beginning to benefit crime-wise from going lead-free. That said, in France, violent crime has risen recently even though most of their cars ditched lead decades ago.
2. We can't afford to get drunk any more
The theory: After decades of being cheap, alcohol has become less affordable since 2008. And a reduction in disposable income for the people most likely to be involved in violence – those aged 18 to 30 – makes them less likely to be alcohol-fuelled and thus violent.
Says who? Professor Jonathan Shepherd, director of Cardiff University's violence and society research group.
Is he right? Perhaps. Younger teenagers are less likely to drink alcohol, use drugs or smoke than previous generations. But you can still buy a 15-pack of Foster's lager for 67p a can, so let's not get too complacent.
3. Fighting's just not cool these days
The theory: Culture has shifted and violence has now become less acceptable.
Says who? The idea has been floated by the BBC home editor Mark Easton.
Is he right? A sceptic might counter that the glut of TV documentaries devoted to cops wrangling Friday-night boozers into vans en route to the drunk tank punches holes in this theory. That said, there is at least a possibility of a new causal factor: if you've seen yourself on telly drunk and offloading air punches shortly before fit, stone-cold-sober bouncers put you on your back, you might become doubtful about the fighting is cool thesis.
4. We're too busy playing games
The theory: There is an "incapacitation effect" – if you're inside playing games, you're not outside commiting crimes.
Says who? Researchers at the University of Texas and the Centre for European Economic Research.
Are they right? Maybe. One objection is that some video games are so violent that they surely create impulses that spill over into real life, but the Texas research suggests that such aggression is short-lived and thus unlikely to prompt one to go Titanfall on anyone's ass, least of all in Yeovil on a Friday night.
5. We legalised abortion
The theory: Unwanted babies are more likely to grow up to be criminals. So more abortions equals fewer future troublemakers.
Says who? Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago and John Donohue of Yale University, back in 2001. Levitt is co-author, with Stephen J Dubner, of the bestseller Freakonomics.
Are they right? The theory has been disputed, not least because Levitt and Donohue made statistical errors that, once corrected, suggested that legalising abortion in the US had no effect on violent crime.
6. Crime is harder than ever
The theory: CCTV and other new technologies have made committing almost all crimes harder.
Says who? Various people. The Economist has floated the theory, while futurologists at Fox News predict a policing future that makes Judge Dredd seem positively retro.
Are they right? Probably, to an extent, but one would be hard pressed to argue this could account for the full drop.
Quote from: Zanza on July 24, 2014, 11:42:30 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2014, 10:14:12 AM
I was just speaking the production and trafficking. Clearly we then need to think about the use piece. I mean it isn't like we don't have legal drugs that kill people.
Tylenol (paracetamol) is one of the most common drugs that people overdose on...
Yeah, I was also thinking of alcohol and its societal ills. That doesn't even have a stated medical purpose.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on July 24, 2014, 07:03:30 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 24, 2014, 06:53:43 AM
3. No one ever really investigates if maybe all those "non-violent" offenders that got locked up in harsher sentences in fact, maybe were never able to become violent criminals and that's at least part of the decrease in crime rates.
If we also preemptively locked up all those who drive recklessly or pay their bills late, or all members of the infamously violent 18-25 demographic, crime would fall even further. :yes:
Except this point fails to miss the mark--we're locking them up for things that are crimes in basically the entire civilized world: dealing drugs, theft, white collar frauds, confidence schemes etc. The difference between American approach to those non-violent (but internationally recognized criminal acts) is that in America the punishment is harsher. You're speculating locking up people who have not actually committed crimes, although reckless driving is actually a misdemeanor (and not a traffic offense) in most States.
Quote from: Gups on July 24, 2014, 11:24:05 AM
I thinkthe lead argument (considered favourably in a Stephen Pinker book) is very convincing. The correlation for both the rise in violent crime and its decline was very strong over numerous countries.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.bbcimg.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F74298000%2Fgif%2F_74298891_lead_crime_gra624.gif&hash=f0a3bd40630bc3a3d2e210f983a9a9b39d41551b)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3xfjx6d.png&hash=b5d3a536c17941ff356e5d950a11803a8aacf496) (http://imgur.com/3xfjx6d)
Quote from: frunk on July 24, 2014, 07:10:50 AMThey are also "aged out" of the part of their life where they could easily develop a non-violent and socially responsible way of living outside of prison. If it's a matter of risking violent behavior from someone who hasn't previously had any and giving them a chance to be productive in society why would you presume the worst?
Like I said, if you can find a way to get that kid who at age of first offense is anywhere from 18-30 or so (first non-juvenile offense), but who has been in poverty/drugs/gang since the age of 10-11, and find a way to fix his life so he doesn't go to crime then I'm all for that instead of incarceration. I'm interested to hear how you do that, I understand places like Sweden have an approach that believes it solves this, but Swedes aren't dealing with the population groups I'm talking about. They aren't dealing with people who live in a huge swathe of some American city where everyone is very poor, where crime is the only real way to guarantee making big money, where drug uses is a behavior passed on from mother to child etc. I think the obvious rehabilitative approach works good for broken/damaged goods who are otherwise products of a functional society, but that's not the problem cases in America. The problem cases here are societal subgroups that in their own social group, their criminality is not the problem we see it as from the outside.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 08:42:23 AMYeah the streets around here are covered with the rotting corpses of dead stoners.
What percentage of the sub-30% of the prison population in for drug crimes do you believe are simple stoners on a possession (or even distribution charge) for pot, versus the percent in for harder drug possession/distribution?
Dguller, an even better example is this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frachelnator.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F03%2F7r876ia1.jpg%253Fw%253D600%2526h%253D338&hash=98b405b8b6aae9a2a692c4c2957f0ccc9dd86a39)
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2014, 09:17:18 AM
Otto, it appears that violent crime is falling everywhere in the Western World. It also seems that nobody has a particularly good explanation for why this is occuring across all Western societies.
Since it was massively higher in the United States than anywhere else in the late 70s-1990s (especially homicide rate, which in the U.S. has spiked far more than anywhere else in the OECD0, whatever general affects you allude to I find it likely there are specific affects unique to the United States.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 24, 2014, 11:48:12 AM
Like I said, if you can find a way to get that kid who at age of first offense is anywhere from 18-30 or so (first non-juvenile offense), but who has been in poverty/drugs/gang since the age of 10-11, and find a way to fix his life so he doesn't go to crime then I'm all for that instead of incarceration. I'm interested to hear how you do that, I understand places like Sweden have an approach that believes it solves this, but Swedes aren't dealing with the population groups I'm talking about. They aren't dealing with people who live in a huge swathe of some American city where everyone is very poor, where crime is the only real way to guarantee making big money, where drug uses is a behavior passed on from mother to child etc. I think the obvious rehabilitative approach works good for broken/damaged goods who are otherwise products of a functional society, but that's not the problem cases in America. The problem cases here are societal subgroups that in their own social group, their criminality is not the problem we see it as from the outside.
So you don't see it as a problem to "preemptively" punish people who might be violent offenders in the future by locking them away for less serious crimes now? Isn't that convicting them for a crime they haven't committed?
Quote from: frunk on July 24, 2014, 11:54:07 AMSo you don't see it as a problem to "preemptively" punish people who might be violent offenders in the future by locking them away for less serious crimes now? Isn't that convicting them for a crime they haven't committed?
Do you see it as a problem to punish someone for DUI even though DUI isn't in itself a violent crime? DUI is the same way, States punish you for a first offense, and usually a second offense is mandatory incarceration time (in many States first offense is now, as well.) It's under the logic that someone doing this is starting a pattern of behavior that is likely to lead to something violent and bad for society down the road, so we're punishing them harshly now.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 24, 2014, 12:17:14 PM
Do you see it as a problem to punish someone for DUI even though DUI isn't in itself a violent crime? DUI is the same way, States punish you for a first offense, and usually a second offense is mandatory incarceration time (in many States first offense is now, as well.) It's under the logic that someone doing this is starting a pattern of behavior that is likely to lead to something violent and bad for society down the road, so we're punishing them harshly now.
Except you are comparing a reckless, irresponsible act that endangers others with a reckless, irresponsible act that endangers themselves. The DUI is intrinsically a dangerous act to other people and property. There's nothing intrinsically dangerous to other people or property in drug use.
Quote from: Zanza on July 24, 2014, 11:50:00 AM
Dguller, an even better example is this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frachelnator.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F03%2F7r876ia1.jpg%253Fw%253D600%2526h%253D338&hash=98b405b8b6aae9a2a692c4c2957f0ccc9dd86a39)
Except that neither your "example" nor DG's are examples of anything. The lead hypothesis is based on both correlation and causation, whereas you and DGuller seem to think that random correlations are examples of something or other.
Quote from: frunk on July 24, 2014, 12:28:15 PMExcept you are comparing a reckless, irresponsible act that endangers others with a reckless, irresponsible act that endangers themselves. The DUI is intrinsically a dangerous act to other people and property. There's nothing intrinsically dangerous to other people or property in drug use.
I'm actually talking about non-violent crimes in general. If you look at the previous statistics on what portion of our incarcerated population are in there for non-violent crimes that have no victims it's actually relatively small. Especially since you can presume most of the percentage of drug incarcerations are not simple users of the drugs.
I prefer the European sentencing model, particularly if I'm interested in murdering someone or raping a teenager as a movie director.
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2014, 12:31:31 PM
Except that neither your "example" nor DG's are examples of anything. The lead hypothesis is based on both correlation and causation, whereas you and DGuller seem to think that random correlations are examples of something or other.
Spurious connections are more fun, though. :)
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2014, 12:31:31 PM
Quote from: Zanza on July 24, 2014, 11:50:00 AM
Dguller, an even better example is this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frachelnator.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F03%2F7r876ia1.jpg%253Fw%253D600%2526h%253D338&hash=98b405b8b6aae9a2a692c4c2957f0ccc9dd86a39)
Except that neither your "example" nor DG's are examples of anything. The lead hypothesis is based on both correlation and causation, whereas you and DGuller seem to think that random correlations are examples of something or other.
What's the causation? And did it come before or after correlation was found?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 24, 2014, 12:36:29 PM
I'm actually talking about non-violent crimes in general. If you look at the previous statistics on what portion of our incarcerated population are in there for non-violent crimes that have no victims it's actually relatively small. Especially since you can presume most of the percentage of drug incarcerations are not simple users of the drugs.
What non-violent crimes that have no victims are there other than drug related?
Illegal gambling?
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2014, 12:31:31 PM
Quote from: Zanza on July 24, 2014, 11:50:00 AM
Dguller, an even better example is this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Frachelnator.files.wordpress.com%2F2013%2F03%2F7r876ia1.jpg%253Fw%253D600%2526h%253D338&hash=98b405b8b6aae9a2a692c4c2957f0ccc9dd86a39)
Except that neither your "example" nor DG's are examples of anything. The lead hypothesis is based on both correlation and causation, whereas you and DGuller seem to think that random correlations are examples of something or other.
The Internet Explorer hypothesis is also based on both correlation and causation. Have you used the Internet Explorer in the mid 2000s? That piece of shit could trigger a murderous rage in the calmest person imaginable. :P
More serious, the lead hypothesis conflicts with some other trends that make it questionable whether there was really widespread brain damage from lead poisoning in the Western world during the 20th century. IQs rose considerably and constantly for example.
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2014, 09:25:55 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2014, 09:17:18 AM
Otto, it appears that violent crime is falling everywhere in the Western World. It also seems that nobody has a particularly good explanation for why this is occuring across all Western societies.
This.
Someone made a case that the key was lower levels of lead ingested by kids. I'm not convinced, I think probably it is a number of different factors.
I dunno; in what other way do we warehouse 18-22 year old males? I think it coincides quite nicely with the rise of student lending, don't you? HMMM.
I actually suspect that college attendance is a
huge driver in the decrease in violent crime.
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2014, 01:44:58 PM
Illegal gambling?
Prostitution (in theory, often not in practice).
Both true, but I'm willing to bet they are a small fraction compared to those incarcerated because of drugs.
Quote from: frunk on July 24, 2014, 01:42:53 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 24, 2014, 12:36:29 PM
I'm actually talking about non-violent crimes in general. If you look at the previous statistics on what portion of our incarcerated population are in there for non-violent crimes that have no victims it's actually relatively small. Especially since you can presume most of the percentage of drug incarcerations are not simple users of the drugs.
What non-violent crimes that have no victims are there other than drug related?
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying, "almost none of our incarcerated population are there for non-violent crimes that have no victims, for example drug users, who have no victims and are a small proportion of incarcerated inmates." I'm differentiating between drug
users, who I define as persons convicted of simple possession, and not any form of drug distribution/dealing, who I believe are committing a mostly victimless* crime, and drug
traffickers and
dealers who in fact have many victims--namely the population to which they peddle intrinsically harmful, addicting, and destructive substances for high profit margin.
If you dig into the statistics I suspect the overwhelming majority of persons incarcerated for drug offenses are persons who were dealing/distributing/trafficking. Simple possession is rarely punished with a lengthy prison sentence, unless it's a case where someone's parole is revoked over it (but that's really more sending you back for violating the terms of your release.) While there are laws on the books that would allow some persons who are just users to get put away, a lot of times prosecutors only utilize those when they believe it's someone who may actually know how to flip a dealer or a bigger fish. Most people who are found with baggies of weed or such don't go to prison but jail and usually only briefly.
Quote from: DGuller on July 24, 2014, 01:25:00 PM
What's the causation? And did it come before or after correlation was found?
The causation is that high lead levels in childhood have negative physical effects on children into adulthood (that's why they passed laws regarding paint manufacturing and gasoline additives). The potential impact on crime rates wasn't studied, insofar as I know, until the late 1990s. Those studies were certainly spurred by the apparent correlation. That's how science works.
Now, it certainly is just a hypothesis at this point; no controlled experiments could ethically be conducted. But the evidence is certainly very compelling. No contrary cases have been observed, as far as I know.
There was a Mother Jones article on this about 18 months ago: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline) It is summarized in a Forbes article here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/01/03/how-lead-caused-americas-violent-crime-epidemic/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2013/01/03/how-lead-caused-americas-violent-crime-epidemic/) The money quote:
QuoteThere are three basic reasons why this theory should be believed. First, as Drum points out, the numbers correlate almost perfectly. "If you add a lag time of 23 years," he writes. "Lead emissions from automobiles explain 90 percent of the variation in violent crime in America. Toddlers who ingested high levels of lead in the '40s and '50s really were more likely to become violent criminals in the '60s, '70s, and '80s."
Second, this correlation holds true with no exceptions. Every country studied has shown this same strong correlation between leaded gasoline and violent crime rates. Within the United States, you can see the data at the state level. Where lead concentrations declined quickly, crime declined quickly. Where it declined slowly, crime declined slowly. The data even holds true at the neighborhood level – high lead concentrations correlate so well that you can overlay maps of crime rates over maps of lead concentrations and get an almost perfect fit.
Third, and probably most important, the data goes beyond just these models. As Drum himself points out, "if econometric studies were all there were to the story of lead, you'd be justified in remaining skeptical no matter how good the statistics look." But the chemistry and neuroscience of lead gives us good reason to believe the connection. Decades of research has shown that lead poisoning causes significant and probably irreversible damage to the brain. Not only does lead degrade cognitive abilities and lower intelligence, it also degrades a person's ability to make decisions by damaging areas of the brain responsible for "emotional regulation, impulse control, attention, verbal reasoning, and mental flexibility."
:hmm: As far as correlation-explaining stories go, it sounds pretty convincing.
Quote from: DGuller on July 24, 2014, 03:17:00 PM
:hmm: As far as correlation-explaining stories go, it sounds pretty convincing.
Yep. Welcome to the world of science.
If lead causes an increase in violent crime essentially because it reduces intelligence, what about the Flynn Effect? Is that correlated with decrease in lead usage?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 24, 2014, 03:03:07 PM
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying, "almost none of our incarcerated population are there for non-violent crimes that have no victims, for example drug users, who have no victims and are a small proportion of incarcerated inmates." I'm differentiating between drug users, who I define as persons convicted of simple possession, and not any form of drug distribution/dealing, who I believe are committing a mostly victimless* crime, and drug traffickers and dealers who in fact have many victims--namely the population to which they peddle intrinsically harmful, addicting, and destructive substances for high profit margin.
Like people who sell alcohol?
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2014, 03:57:08 PM
If lead causes an increase in violent crime essentially because it reduces intelligence, what about the Flynn Effect? Is that correlated with decrease in lead usage?
I think it's quite likely that the general damage that lead caused to intelligence was more than balanced by increases in nutrition and improvements in schooling etc., hence the "Flynn Effect".
However, the specific damage to the brain that probably lead to the increase in violent crime was probably the damage caused to the parts of the brain involved in "emotional regulation, impulse control" (to quote the article.) I doubt that IQ tests reflect this aspect of the brain's functions.
Does anyone know if there was a "bump"/abnormal increase in intelligence when the first lead-free generation took the IQ tests?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 24, 2014, 09:00:05 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 24, 2014, 06:03:01 AM
I really hate seeing this bullshit use of poor statistics constantly brought up over and over.
Agreed. I read that as more likely that the same people received stop-and-frisk searches repeatedly, which is a whole other problem.
It's called "effective policing."
Quote from: frunk on July 24, 2014, 04:01:38 PMLike people who sell alcohol?
Or people who sell cigarettes, yes. You can victimize someone without it being a crime. There are probably ethical ways to sell intrinsically harmful substances but not many tobacco companies for example really seem to do that, and continue to do things like advertise to children, come up with new products they try to sneakily make people think are "less" harmful and etc. Likewise the street dealer who probably crushes his shit with various straight up industrial solvents / poisons and slings on the street, or even at best just slings a product he has no idea the provenance of falls into the unethical side of that sort of thing. Maybe a medical marijuana dispensary or a controlled compounding pharmacy that say, dispensed legalized heroin/methamphetamine would be an ethical model.
Quote from: Syt on July 24, 2014, 09:15:50 AM
Do convictions and prison terms ever disappear from your record in the U.S.?
In Germany, there's terms, depending on the severity of the crime for when items get wiped off your slate and you can go back to calling yourself "not previously convicted."
We really need this in north america. At least then our prosecutors can go to sleep at night without having lives ruined for eternity on their conscience.
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2014, 09:25:55 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2014, 09:17:18 AM
Otto, it appears that violent crime is falling everywhere in the Western World. It also seems that nobody has a particularly good explanation for why this is occuring across all Western societies.
This.
Someone made a case that the key was lower levels of lead ingested by kids. I'm not convinced, I think probably it is a number of different factors.
Me!
Science don't lie! :nerd:
Quote from: grumbler on July 24, 2014, 03:47:52 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 24, 2014, 03:17:00 PM
:hmm: As far as correlation-explaining stories go, it sounds pretty convincing.
Yep. Welcome to the world of science.
Well, non-climate science at least.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 24, 2014, 09:47:26 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 24, 2014, 09:17:18 AM
Otto, it appears that violent crime is falling everywhere in the Western World. It also seems that nobody has a particularly good explanation for why this is occuring across all Western societies.
Me!
Pretty sure you can't credibly take the credit here.
;)