QuoteA nation of jailbirds
Apr 2nd 2009
From The Economist print edition
Far too many Americans are behind bars
THE world's tallest building is now in Dubai rather than New York. Its largest shopping mall is in Beijing, and its biggest Ferris wheel in Singapore. Once-mighty General Motors is suspended in a limbo between bail-out and bankruptcy; and the "war on terror" has demonstrated the limits of American military might.
But in one area America is going from strength to strength—the incarceration of its population. America has less than 5% of the world's people but almost 25% of its prisoners. It imprisons 756 people per 100,000 residents, a rate nearly five times the world average. About one in every 31 adults is either in prison or on parole. Black men have a one-in-three chance of being imprisoned at some point in their lives. "A Leviathan unmatched in human history", is how Glenn Loury, professor of social studies at Brown University, characterises America's prison system.
Conditions in the Leviathan's belly can be brutal. More than 20% of inmates report that they have been sexually assaulted by guards or fellow inmates. Federal prisons are operating at more than 130% of capacity. A sixth of prisoners suffer from mental illness of one sort or another. There are four times as many mentally ill people in prison as in mental hospitals.
As well as being brutal, prisons are ineffective. They may keep offenders off the streets, but they fail to discourage them from offending. Two-thirds of ex-prisoners are re-arrested within three years of being released. The punishment extends to prisoners' families, too. America's 1.7m "prison orphans" are six times more likely than their peers to end up in prison themselves. The punishment also sometimes continues after prisoners are released. America is one of only a handful of countries that bar prisoners from voting, and in some states that ban is lifelong: 2% of American adults and 14% of black men are disfranchised because of criminal convictions.
It is possible to pick holes in these figures. Some of the world's most repressive regimes do not own up to their addiction to imprisonment (does anyone really believe that Cuba imprisons only five in every 1,000 of its citizens?). No sane person would rather be locked up in Russia or China than in America. A country as large and diverse as America boasts plenty of model prisons and exemplary training programmes. But all that said, the conclusion remains stark: America's incarceration habit is a disgrace, wasting resources at home and damaging the country abroad.
Few mainstream politicians have had the courage to denounce any of this. People who embrace prison reform usually end up in the political graveyard. There is no organised lobby for prison reform. The press ignores the subject. And those who have first-hand experience of the system's failures—prisoners and ex-prisoners—may have no right to vote.
Which makes Jim Webb all the more remarkable. Mr Webb is far from being a lion of the Senate, roaring from the comfort of a safe seat. He is a first-term senator for Virginia who barely squeaked into Congress. The state he represents also has a long history of being tough on crime: Virginia abolished parole in 1994 and is second only to Texas in the number of people it executes.
But Mr Webb is now America's leading advocate of prison reform. He has co-sponsored a bill to create a blue-ribbon commission to report on America's prisons. And he has spoken out in every possible venue, from the Senate to local political meetings. Mr Webb is not content with incremental reform. He is willing to tackle what he calls "the elephant in the bedroom"—America's willingness to imprison people for drug offences.
Does Mr Webb have any chance of diminishing America's addiction to incarceration? History is hardly on his side. For most of the 20th century America imprisoned roughly the same proportion of its population as many other countries—a hundred people for every 100,000 citizens. But while other countries stayed where they were, the American incarceration rate then took off—to 313 per 100,000 in 1985 and 648 in 1997.
Mr Webb also has some powerful forces ranged against him. The prison-industrial complex (which includes private prisons as well as public ones) employs thousands of people and armies of lobbyists. Twenty-six states plus the federal government have passed "three strikes and you're out" laws which put repeat offenders in prison for life without parole. And the war on drugs has pushed the incarceration business into overdrive. The number of people serving time for drugs has increased from 41,000 in 1980 to 500,000 today, or 55% of the population of federal prisons and 21% of those in state prisons. An astonishing three-quarters of prisoners locked up on drug-related charges are black.
Up for a fight
But Mr Webb is no ordinary politician. He packed several distinguished careers into his life before becoming a senator—as a marine in Vietnam, a lawyer, a much-published author and secretary of the navy in the Reagan administration. And he is not a man to back down from a fight: one of his best books, "Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America", celebrates the martial virtues of the clan to which he is proud to belong.
Some signs suggest that the tide is turning in Mr Webb's direction. Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act in 2003. Barack Obama's Justice Department has hinted that it wants to do something about the disparity in sentencing between blacks and whites for drug crimes. Support for both the death penalty and the war on drugs is softening: a dozen states have legalised the use of marijuana for medical purposes. If Mr Webb can transform these glimmers of discontent with America's prison-industrial complex into a fully fledged reform movement, then he will go down in history as a great senator.
www.economist.com
This seems like a colossal waste of resources. War on drugs, especially, seems to be a great example how moral panic can cause one to behave in a way that is entirely inefficient, morally wrong and wasteful at the same time.
I agree.
That's why drug offenders should be summarily executed, as should black men.
I agree.
They don't believe in rehabilitation, Marty.
I love the progression.
"Conditions in the Leviathan's belly can be brutal."
O RLY? I guess any statement of the form "X can be Y" is pretty much automatically true, if largely uninteresting....I wonder why someone would state such a tautology?
Ahhh, so we can set up this, of course...
"As well as being brutal, prisons are..."
Oh my, now we have gone straight from a "can be" right to "prisons ARE".
Some fine journalism right there.
BTW, I completely agree with the general message of the article. Too bad the author could not "stick to the facts" in his presentation, and instead went with the standard crap that makes journalism such a despised profession.
Journalists, you know, can be slimy bastards. And since journalists are all slimy bastards....:P
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 07, 2009, 06:54:12 AM
They don't believe in rehabilitation, Marty.
Why would they? You can't rehabilitate someone whose entire life is dedicated to crime.
QuotePrison Rape Elimination Act in 2003
I'm sure all those prisoners in Lucasville has read the act and are applying it in their cells.
I read this article and others in the Economist last month. It was good. We should decriminalize possession and institute the death penalty for dealers.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on April 07, 2009, 07:37:08 AMWe should decriminalize possession
:thumbsup:
Quoteand institute the death penalty for dealers.
:thumbsdown:
Ed's plan:
Form the Judges.
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 07:11:08 AM
I love the progression.
"Conditions in the Leviathan's belly can be brutal."
O RLY? I guess any statement of the form "X can be Y" is pretty much automatically true, if largely uninteresting....I wonder why someone would state such a tautology?
Ahhh, so we can set up this, of course...
"As well as being brutal, prisons are..."
Oh my, now we have gone straight from a "can be" right to "prisons ARE".
Some fine journalism right there.
:lol:
Only you would read so much into and be so enraged by a simply rhetorical flourish.
This, if true, is pretty alarming:
Quotemost of the 20th century America imprisoned roughly the same proportion of its population as many other countries—a hundred people for every 100,000 citizens. But while other countries stayed where they were, the American incarceration rate then took off—to 313 per 100,000 in 1985 and 648 in 1997.
What could possibly justify doubling the prison population in twelve years? And what is the rate now, in 2009? Have these years been cherry-picked as outliers?
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 08:03:54 AMWhat could possibly justify doubling the prison population in twelve years? And what is the rate now, in 2009? Have these years been cherry-picked as outliers?
BUSHITLER :mad:
Quote from: Warspite on April 07, 2009, 08:03:14 AM
:lol:
Only you would read so much into and be so enraged by a simply rhetorical flourish.
Only you would be enraged by and be so dismissive of simple logical reasoning.
Nice ad hom though.
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 08:03:54 AM
What could possibly justify doubling the prison population in twelve years? And what is the rate now, in 2009? Have these years been cherry-picked as outliers?
It was the war on drugs. The really bizarre thing is that during that same period the crime rate was lower...
Malthus, according to wikipedia, the rate actually seems to be increasing, so at least the 1997 rate does not seem to be an outlier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_the_United_States
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fe%2Feb%2FUSA._Prisoners_1995_to_2005.gif&hash=919e4f250d5d4859f61cc6befda8a0caa5a395b9)
""A Leviathan unmatched in human history", is how Glenn Loury, professor of social studies at Brown University, characterises America's prison system."
:lmfao:
Unmatched in human history???
Really?
If he doesn't say weird attention-grabbing shit, he doesn't make tenure. :cool:
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2009, 08:06:34 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 08:03:54 AM
What could possibly justify doubling the prison population in twelve years? And what is the rate now, in 2009? Have these years been cherry-picked as outliers?
It was the war on drugs. The really bizarre thing is that during that same period the crime rate was lower...
Of course it was lower, we sent all the criminals to jail!
And obviously, if 2/3rds just get sent back because they keep committing crime, then we are letting too many back out.
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2009, 08:10:59 AM
If he doesn't say weird attention-grabbing shit, he doesn't make tenure. :cool:
Yeah, I don't blame some dipshit from Brown University for saying something that stupid, I do blame the journo for latching onto it though.
The numbers speak for themselves, don't they? Is all the histrionic exaggeration really necessary?
Also, out of interest, here is a British Home Office publication about incarceration rates in different countries:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/r188.pdf
It seems the Western Europe average is around 100 or less (same for Canada), with Eastern Europe having the rate in the area of 200-300, and countries like Belarus etc. in their 500s.
I couldn't find which year it is from, but comparing the US rates to the wiki table I posted earlier, it seems to be some time in the early 2000s.
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 08:09:50 AM
"“A Leviathan unmatched in human history”, is how Glenn Loury, professor of social studies at Brown University, characterises America’s prison system."
:lmfao:
Unmatched in human history???
Really?
Well there really is no more serious news mag out there than the economist. If you think the writing there is juvenile or crap I suggest you only buy serious scholarly journals because it only goes downhill from there.
The rate may be unprecedented for a country where the rule of law obtains. Clearly the Nazi and Stalinist despotisms (to mention a couple) will have exceeded that rate.
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2009, 08:16:33 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 08:09:50 AM
""A Leviathan unmatched in human history", is how Glenn Loury, professor of social studies at Brown University, characterises America's prison system."
:lmfao:
Unmatched in human history???
Really?
Well there really is no more serious news mag out there than the economist. If you think the writing there is juvenile or crap I suggest you only buy serious scholarly journals because it only goes downhill from there.
Well, I just ignore Berkut's posts and advise you to do the same. He has made several posts in this thread already, however none of them is about the issue which the article deals with, and all involve rather juvenile nitpicking about a handful of rhetorical hyperboles.
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 08:11:48 AM
Of course it was lower, we sent all the criminals to jail!
That doesn't make much sense. How would we have a higher percentage of people in jail with proportionately fewer arrests? Are prosecuters just alot better now? Defense lawyers just that much worse? Our courts are becoming kangaroo courts?
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 08:12:56 AM
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2009, 08:10:59 AM
If he doesn't say weird attention-grabbing shit, he doesn't make tenure. :cool:
Yeah, I don't blame some dipshit from Brown University for saying something that stupid, I do blame the journo for latching onto it though.
The numbers speak for themselves, don't they? Is all the histrionic exaggeration really necessary?
I dunno, it does seem pretty outrageous, and the necessary qualifiers just underlie what is outrageous about it.
It is certainly not "unmatched in human history" because there are any number of dictatorships, totalitarian states and the like which are and have been far worse. But it is "unmatched" or at least odd and anomalous for a first-world democracy to imprision such a high percentage of its population, at least when not engaged in an all-out total war - is there any other free society which has done as much?
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2009, 08:24:08 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 08:11:48 AM
Of course it was lower, we sent all the criminals to jail!
That doesn't make much sense. How would we a higher percentage of people in jail with proportionately fewer arrests? Are prosecuters just alot better now? Defense lawyers just that much worse? Our courts are becoming kangaroo courts?
I suspect sentences have simply become much longer for the same crimes.
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 08:25:30 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2009, 08:24:08 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 08:11:48 AM
Of course it was lower, we sent all the criminals to jail!
That doesn't make much sense. How would we a higher percentage of people in jail with proportionately fewer arrests? Are prosecuters just alot better now? Defense lawyers just that much worse? Our courts are becoming kangaroo courts?
I suspect sentences have simply become much longer for the same crimes.
I suspect this explains some of the difference compared to other Western democracies (but not ALL of it - the 6:1 ratio is just too big to be explained away with just the fact that European courts are more lenient on criminals), however have the US courts really become more harsh in the recent years? Could any of the US lawyers cabal weigh in on that?
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 07, 2009, 08:17:53 AM
The rate may be unprecedented for a country where the rule of law obtains. Clearly the Nazi and Stalinist despotisms (to mention a couple) will have exceeded that rate.
Perhaps, but only because the use of the death penalty has disappeared for most crimes. If we start hanging thieves again, things will right themselves.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on April 07, 2009, 07:37:08 AM
I read this article and others in the Economist last month. It was good. We should decriminalize possession and institute the death penalty for dealers.
We should decriminalize possession and tax the dealers.
My take on what would be the main causes of the differences between the US on one hand and Europe and Canada on the other would be as follows (in the order of influence):
1. War on Terror
2. Longer sentences
3. Possibly (?) access to firearms and greater social/financial equalities in the populace.
QuoteA sixth of prisoners suffer from mental illness of one sort or another. There are four times as many mentally ill people in prison as in mental hospitals.
Shocker! Especially considering the great efforts that politicians have made in this country to close mental hospitals to save money and reduce budget spending. I figured the number would be much higher. :lmfao:
Quote from: Martinus on April 07, 2009, 08:27:21 AM
I suspect this explains some of the difference compared to other Western democracies (but not all of it), however have the US courts really become more harsh in the recent years? Could any of the US lawyers cabal weigh in on that?
I don't know, but I suspect that the Sentencing Guidelines (which remove a great deal of judicial discretion in federal criminal sentencing) may have something to do with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Sentencing_Guidelines
Also, I was surprised to learn about some states depriving convicts of voting rights AFTER they have served their term. Notwithstanding the fact that it seems counter-productive in terms of allowing reintegration with the society, how is it even justified? :blink:
Quote from: Strix on April 07, 2009, 08:30:20 AM
Shocker! Especially considering the great efforts that politicians have made in this country to close mental hospitals to save money and reduce budget spending. I figured the number would be much higher. :lmfao:
No shit. The 'reform' of mental health has been a total disaster.
Quote from: Martinus on April 07, 2009, 08:32:03 AM
Also, I was surprised to learn about some states depriving convicts of voting rights AFTER they have served their term. Notwithstanding the fact that it seems counter-productive in terms of allowing reintegration with the society, how is it even justified? :blink:
You get screwed in a billion ways after you get out of jail. It is virtually impossible to get a decent job also. Once you are convicted you are screwed for life and that is probably why alot of ex-cons end up right back in crime. The doors for going straight all get slammed in their faces.
Alot of them still manage though. I know there are some businesses that still take a chance by hiring ex-cons. The repair shop I take my car to has alot of them for example.
Quote from: Martinus on April 07, 2009, 08:30:09 AM
My take on what would be the main causes of the differences between the US on one hand and Europe and Canada on the other would be as follows (in the order of influence):
1. War on Terror
2. Longer sentences
3. Possibly (?) access to firearms and greater social/financial equalities in the populace.
If you were a baseball player, you would be a great hitter with the rate of accuracy in your post.
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 08:24:40 AM
I dunno, it does seem pretty outrageous, and the necessary qualifiers just underlie what is outrageous about it.
It is outrageous on the numbers - a clear indictment of the War on Drugs.
Crap like pointing out that lots of people in jail are "mentally ill" and how we are "punishing the children" is emotive bullshit, and makes the article crap. But then, the goal isn't to simply point out the problem, it is to enrage and get people like Marty all worked up. Because the numbers alone don't do it, I guess. Lord knows these numbers are well known and reported in a considerably less hysterical manner elsewhere - but then, those articles don't get the attention.
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2009, 08:24:08 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 08:11:48 AM
Of course it was lower, we sent all the criminals to jail!
That doesn't make much sense. How would we have a higher percentage of people in jail with proportionately fewer arrests? Are prosecuters just alot better now? Defense lawyers just that much worse? Our courts are becoming kangaroo courts?
If I put ten thousand homosexuals into a concentration camp one year, 9,000 the next and 8,000 the year after, the total number of homosexuals in my concentration camp has increased, even though the number of arrests has decreased.
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 08:40:48 AM
If you were a baseball player, you would be a great hitter with the rate of accuracy in your post.
Yeah how could a phenonmenon that started in the 1980s have anything to do with the war on terror or guns? We have had guns forever before then and the war on terror did not start up until this decade.
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2009, 08:33:50 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 07, 2009, 08:32:03 AM
Also, I was surprised to learn about some states depriving convicts of voting rights AFTER they have served their term. Notwithstanding the fact that it seems counter-productive in terms of allowing reintegration with the society, how is it even justified? :blink:
You get screwed in a billion ways after you get out of jail. It is virtually impossible to get a decent job also. Once you are convicted you are screwed for life and that is probably why alot of ex-cons end up right back in crime. The doors for going straight all get slammed in their faces.
Alot of them still manage though. I know there are some businesses that still take a chance by hiring ex-cons. The repair shop I take my car to has alot of them for example.
Is this different in other Western Countries?
Do convicted felons (and that is what we are talking about) have trouble getting jobs in Belgium or France or Japan or Canada?
Quote from: Neil on April 07, 2009, 08:45:04 AM
If I put ten thousand homosexuals into a concentration camp one year, 9,000 the next and 8,000 the year after, the total number of homosexuals in my concentration camp has increased, even though the number of arrests has decreased.
Yeah but after 25 years alot of the original homosexuals would start to die off...yet the number is continuing to increase despite the lower number of arrests.
Quote from: Martinus on April 07, 2009, 08:30:09 AM
My take on what would be the main causes of the differences between the US on one hand and Europe and Canada on the other would be as follows (in the order of influence):
1. War on Terror
:lol:
You've gotta be fucking kidding me.
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 08:46:12 AM
Is this different in other Western Countries?
Do convicted felons (and that is what we are talking about) have trouble getting jobs in Belgium or France or Japan or Canada?
Good question.
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2009, 08:45:06 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 08:40:48 AM
If you were a baseball player, you would be a great hitter with the rate of accuracy in your post.
Yeah how could a phenonmenon that started in the 1980s have anything to do with the war on terror or guns? We have had guns forever before then and the war on terror did not start up until this decade.
Indeed.
The explanation is not hard, and is rather well known. The War on Drugs combined with the "get tough" sentencing guidelines ahve brought us to were we are today.
And I do think this has has a positive impact on the crime rate - we really ahve thrown enough criminals and potential criminals in jail that it has reduced crime. It certainly is not worth it though, IMO. Especially since so much of the crime is a direct result of the over-criminalization of drugs.
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 08:44:59 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 08:24:40 AM
I dunno, it does seem pretty outrageous, and the necessary qualifiers just underlie what is outrageous about it.
It is outrageous on the numbers - a clear indictment of the War on Drugs.
Crap like pointing out that lots of people in jail are "mentally ill" and how we are "punishing the children" is emotive bullshit, and makes the article crap. But then, the goal isn't to simply point out the problem, it is to enrage and get people like Marty all worked up. Because the numbers alone don't do it, I guess. Lord knows these numbers are well known and reported in a considerably less hysterical manner elsewhere - but then, those articles don't get the attention.
I remember someone running the numbers on this and comming up with the figure that some 20% of the prision population was incarcerated for drug crimes - which, while huge, still doesn't add up on its own as an explaination for the massive increase.
Don't have those figures to hand, though.
Maybe in combo with other factors like sentencing guidelines for other crimes ... it just seems that the huge increase defies easy explaination.
Quote from: Martinus on April 07, 2009, 08:30:09 AM
My take on what would be the main causes of the differences between the US on one hand and Europe and Canada on the other would be as follows (in the order of influence):
1. War on Terror
2. Longer sentences
3. Possibly (?) access to firearms and greater social/financial equalities in the populace.
1) War on Terror has very little effect on the prison population in the US. Well, other than WoT prisoners make the news more.
2) Sentences in the US have been continually shortened with much of the power being taken out of the Judges hands i.e. mandatory sentence guidelines.
3) Access to firearms is a factor but not a major one.
Marty, coming from a small uncivilized country, as you do, gives you no insight into the issues and problems that face such an advanced and large country as the US. I suggest sticking to your heterophobia and Catholic Church bashing.
The three main things that create crime in America are money, drugs, and women. In our hip-hop culture you have to have these things, and people will get them regardless of what it takes. This is why there are so many blacks going through the criminal justice system in America compared to other racial groups.
The issues are easy....
1) Culture
There is a culture in America that embraces crime as a ways and means of living. People do what they must to get by, and they take justice in their own hands i.e. you stab my brother, I shoot yours, and no one tells the cops anything.
2) Social System
I would say inequality but the truth is that these people don't want to live like everyone else. They want what everyone else has without having to work, earn, or take responsibility for it. They feel entitled and so they take what they perceive as their "due".
3) Environment
These people live in such a crappy environment that prison is a step up. In prison, they get three meals a day, lights, TV, rec time, canteen ( a place to buy items), and they are usually incarcerated with a lot of people they grew up with or know.
"Wait a minute, aren't prisons dangerous?!?" Yes and no. These people come from areas where they are just as likely to get stabbed/shot walking to the store for food as getting shanked walking to the commissary for food in a prison. What a lot of people don't get is that prisons aren't dangerous, in and of themselves, rather the people IN the prison are what makes it dangerous. These same people also make the places they come from just as dangerous.
Granted, this doesn't apply to every criminal, and you will find criminals in every walk of life. What it does do is explain why the number of incarcerated people are so high in America in comparison to other places. It also explains why rehabilitation cannot work. These people choose to live the way they do, and no one can change their minds except themselves.
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 08:44:59 AM
Crap like pointing out that lots of people in jail are "mentally ill" and how we are "punishing the children" is emotive bullshit, and makes the article crap.
Regarding the mentally ill, I thought there was a pretty clear trend that every mental hospital closed resulted in a higher prison population?
Yeah, even the first free page of this paper seems to back that up: http://www.jstor.org/pss/1394108
Quote from: Grey Fox on April 07, 2009, 06:54:12 AM
They don't believe in rehabilitation, Marty.
I don't see why you don't. Rehabilitation works under the right circumstances, given the right offender.
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 07:13:49 AM
BTW, I completely agree with the general message of the article. Too bad the author could not "stick to the facts" in his presentation, and instead went with the standard crap that makes journalism such a despised profession.
Journalists, you know, can be slimy bastards. And since journalists are all slimy bastards....:P
"Lexington" isn't journalism. It is op-ed. it isn't supposed to inform, but to persuade. As such, it cherry-picks its facts exactly as every other op-ed piece does.
Quote from: Warspite on April 07, 2009, 08:03:14 AM
:lol:
Only you would read so much into and be so enraged by a simply rhetorical flourish.
True, but, to be fair, he assumed that "Lexington" was an exercise in journalism. Now that he knows better, I am sure he understands that there is no reason to be upset by the "violations of the standards of journalism" which the article engages in.
He reads into it, of course, exactly what was intended to be read into it. That you didn't get it doesn't make him unique in his ability to get it; I would argue that it is likelier that you are unique in your inability to get it.
LOL sorry the War on Terror was a Freudian slip, I guess. I meant the War on Drugs of course. :D
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2009, 08:46:40 AM
Quote from: Neil on April 07, 2009, 08:45:04 AM
If I put ten thousand homosexuals into a concentration camp one year, 9,000 the next and 8,000 the year after, the total number of homosexuals in my concentration camp has increased, even though the number of arrests has decreased.
Yeah but after 25 years alot of the original homosexuals would start to die off...yet the number is continuing to increase despite the lower number of arrests.
Most of the homosexuals being arrested are young, and can live for longer than 25 years (provided they don't get AIDS).
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2009, 08:47:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 08:46:12 AM
Is this different in other Western Countries?
Do convicted felons (and that is what we are talking about) have trouble getting jobs in Belgium or France or Japan or Canada?
Good question.
I dunno, BB is the guy to ask for a definitive answer - but I do know that Canada seems to lack many of the types of tests and checks that appear routine in the US.
In Canada it would be inconceivable that a person, once released from prision, would be denied their right to vote. Indeed, in Canada it was recently declared that prisioners actually serving time in prison have the right to vote under our Constitution:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060112/elxn_prisoners_vote_060111/20060113?s_name=election2006&no_ads
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2009, 08:33:50 AM
Alot of them still manage though. I know there are some businesses that still take a chance by hiring ex-cons. The repair shop I take my car to has alot of them for example.
A lot of employers take ex-felons because they get big Federal Tax breaks for it. It's my first major selling point when I call employers to find my parolees jobs. The tax break is based on how long they work there and how many hours.
Of course, my second major selling point is that if they don't show up for work or are tardy I will send them back to prison. :cool:
Quote from: Strix on April 07, 2009, 09:01:52 AM
A lot of employers take ex-felons because they get big Federal Tax breaks for it. It's my first major selling point when I call employers to find my parolees jobs. The tax break is based on how long they work there and how many hours.
Really, never heard of this. How long has this been on the books?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2009, 09:04:14 AM
Quote from: Strix on April 07, 2009, 09:01:52 AM
A lot of employers take ex-felons because they get big Federal Tax breaks for it. It's my first major selling point when I call employers to find my parolees jobs. The tax break is based on how long they work there and how many hours.
Really, never heard of this. How long has this been on the books?
A long time. You can get the guidelines from any local post office or your local Federal building. It tells the employer what forms must be filled out (and provides them) as well as how much the tax break will be (it's based on how long they are employed, how many hours they work a week, etc, and so on).
EDIT: Look under the IRS for Work Opportunity Tax Credit
Quote from: Strix on April 07, 2009, 08:51:39 AM
2) Sentences in the US have been continually shortened with much of the power being taken out of the Judges hands i.e. mandatory sentence guidelines.
I hope that you meant (correctly) the precise opposite.
Sentencing guidelines and uninformed hysteria like "three strikes and you are out" laws have made headlines with such cases as the D.C. man who tried to trade a broken handgun he had found in a dumpster for some drugs, and was then sent to prison for life because "using a handgun in the commission of a crime" made this his third felony (all non-violent) and thus required the judge to sent him up for life. Despite the absurdity of the results of applying the law as written, the judge had zero discretion.
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 09:01:06 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2009, 08:47:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 08:46:12 AM
Is this different in other Western Countries?
Do convicted felons (and that is what we are talking about) have trouble getting jobs in Belgium or France or Japan or Canada?
Good question.
I dunno, BB is the guy to ask for a definitive answer - but I do know that Canada seems to lack many of the types of tests and checks that appear routine in the US.
In Canada it would be inconceivable that a person, once released from prision, would be denied their right to vote. Indeed, in Canada it was recently declared that prisioners actually serving time in prison have the right to vote under our Constitution:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060112/elxn_prisoners_vote_060111/20060113?s_name=election2006&no_ads
In Poland, people during the term of their sentence usually cannot vote, and it is possible to get an additional sentence (up to 10 years) following release during which they have no right to vote, however this is all counted as part of the conviction/criminal penalty.
As for ex-convicts getting jobs, in Poland, it is illegal to ask prospective employees about their past criminal record (and likewise, it is illegal to "process" personal data about criminal records about people against their will - "processing" includes collecting the data, storing them etc.) unless the job they are applying cannot be performed by people with a conviction record (this is regulated by law, and such jobs involve certain "public trust" jobs, such as legal professions, most law enforcement jobs and jobs involving an access to firearms or controlled substances for example). The criminal records are not public, so one cannot obtain such information either, unless legally authorised to do so (there is now talk about making pedophile records public).
I don't know for sure what the situation in the rest of the EU is, however considering that most of these rules are based on EU directives and regulations, I suspect it's similar (with a possible exception of the UK, since they have a right to opt out on social/employee rights).
QuoteAs for ex-convicts getting jobs, in Poland, it is illegal to ask prospective employees about their past criminal record
Woah. Now that is a dramatic difference.
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2009, 08:59:40 AM
True, but, to be fair, he assumed that "Lexington" was an exercise in journalism. Now that he knows better, I am sure he understands that there is no reason to be upset by the "violations of the standards of journalism" which the article engages in.
He reads into it, of course, exactly what was intended to be read into it. That you didn't get it doesn't make him unique in his ability to get it; I would argue that it is likelier that you are unique in your inability to get it.
Quite.
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2009, 09:12:41 AM
QuoteAs for ex-convicts getting jobs, in Poland, it is illegal to ask prospective employees about their past criminal record
Woah. Now that is a dramatic difference.
I am not sure but in the UK, ex-cons only have to give information about their criminal past up to a point, I think beyond a certain time period you no longer have to declare a conviction or CCJ.
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2009, 09:10:32 AM
Quote from: Strix on April 07, 2009, 08:51:39 AM
2) Sentences in the US have been continually shortened with much of the power being taken out of the Judges hands i.e. mandatory sentence guidelines.
I hope that you meant (correctly) the precise opposite.
Sentencing guidelines and uninformed hysteria like "three strikes and you are out" laws have made headlines with such cases as the D.C. man who tried to trade a broken handgun he had found in a dumpster for some drugs, and was then sent to prison for life because "using a handgun in the commission of a crime" made this his third felony (all non-violent) and thus required the judge to sent him up for life. Despite the absurdity of the results of applying the law as written, the judge had zero discretion.
I can only speak for NC and NY because they are the systems I have worked in.
In NC, they went to Structured Sentencing. This change meant that criminals would serve 85% of their sentences and than would be given Post Release Supervision once that 85% was reached regardless of their behavior. It also provided Judges with strict sentencing guidelines. It reduced overall sentences lengths but required a longer minimum stay. So, basically reduced the max but increased the minimum.
Previously, NC had run under a 1/3, 1/4, and 1/5 laws which meant you served 1/3, 1/4, 1/5 of your sentence before being eligible for parole. So, a person could get 10 years but only have to serve 2 years before getting out under the 1/5 law. Whereas, now they get 10 years and they serve 8.5 before getting out.
So, I guess we could both be right. Sentences are shorter time-wise but longer actual incarceration-wise. If that makes sense.
In NY, they are in the process of gutting the Rockfellar Drug Laws. Currently, if you are serving a term for various class A and B felonies for drug crimes than you are eligible for mandatory termination of sentence after 2-3 years (2 for class B and 3 for class A) on parole without any interruptions i.e. parole getting revoked. Last year I had three individuals be granted their MTS who were serving life sentences.
Currently NY is working on further changing the Rockfellar Drug Laws so that Judges can place offenders in Alternatives to Incarceration without the OK of the local DA. It's not going over well, as you can imagine, hehehehe.
So, like I said. I can speak for NY and NC. And they aren't making longer sentences but rather shortening them and/or looking for alternatives to incarceration.
EDIT: Hmmm, I didn't explain well why it reduced overall sentence length in NC. So, I will quickly before heading to work.
Before sentencing guidelines a Judge knew he/she was faced with the 1/3,1/4, or 1/5 law. So, they sentenced people accordingly so that the minimum they served would fit the Judges idea of justice i.e. if he wanted someone to serve 10 years under the 1/5 law than he had to sentence them to 50 years so that the criminal wouldn't get out before 10 years had past. The problem was that people can screw up on prison or a parole commissioner could not like them and end up doing most of the 50 years for a crime only worth 10 years.
This is why they switched to Structured Sentencing (well, one of the more noble reasons anyways). Now, a Judge knew how long a criminal would serve, and strict guidelines could be placed on the Judges to prevent any abuse.
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 08:50:32 AM
I remember someone running the numbers on this and comming up with the figure that some 20% of the prision population was incarcerated for drug crimes - which, while huge, still doesn't add up on its own as an explaination for the massive increase.
Don't have those figures to hand, though.
Maybe in combo with other factors like sentencing guidelines for other crimes ... it just seems that the huge increase defies easy explaination.
meh, not really.
Like I said, it is a combination of the War on Drugs and the stiff sentencing guidelines. And how many of the people in jail for non-drug crimes are in jail for crimes related to drugs, like shooting the homey who was trying to move in on your corner?
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2009, 09:10:32 AM
Quote from: Strix on April 07, 2009, 08:51:39 AM
2) Sentences in the US have been continually shortened with much of the power being taken out of the Judges hands i.e. mandatory sentence guidelines.
I hope that you meant (correctly) the precise opposite.
Sentencing guidelines and uninformed hysteria like "three strikes and you are out" laws have made headlines with such cases as the D.C. man who tried to trade a broken handgun he had found in a dumpster for some drugs, and was then sent to prison for life because "using a handgun in the commission of a crime" made this his third felony (all non-violent) and thus required the judge to sent him up for life. Despite the absurdity of the results of applying the law as written, the judge had zero discretion.
Indeed. Why we decided that judges should quit all that judging bullshit and just rubber stamp legislative dictates is rather beyond me.
I would even argue that it is a violation of the spirit of the Constitution and the delegation of powers.
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2009, 09:12:41 AM
QuoteAs for ex-convicts getting jobs, in Poland, it is illegal to ask prospective employees about their past criminal record
Woah. Now that is a dramatic difference.
Insane is what that is.
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 10:01:34 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 08:50:32 AM
I remember someone running the numbers on this and comming up with the figure that some 20% of the prision population was incarcerated for drug crimes - which, while huge, still doesn't add up on its own as an explaination for the massive increase.
Don't have those figures to hand, though.
Maybe in combo with other factors like sentencing guidelines for other crimes ... it just seems that the huge increase defies easy explaination.
meh, not really.
Like I said, it is a combination of the War on Drugs and the stiff sentencing guidelines. And how many of the people in jail for non-drug crimes are in jail for crimes related to drugs, like shooting the homey who was trying to move in on your corner?
But that doesn't make all that much sense in and of itself - after all, here in Canada the courts may be softer on drugs than in the US, but we certainly still sentence people for shooting homies. Yet there is something like a sixfold higher rate of incarceration south of the border.
My HR sense is tingling.
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 09:01:06 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2009, 08:47:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 08:46:12 AM
Is this different in other Western Countries?
Do convicted felons (and that is what we are talking about) have trouble getting jobs in Belgium or France or Japan or Canada?
Good question.
I dunno, BB is the guy to ask for a definitive answer - but I do know that Canada seems to lack many of the types of tests and checks that appear routine in the US.
It depends on the type of work.
Clearly a criminal record can be devestating to get into certain kinds of work - policing, lawyers , Chartered Accountants. But most work does not even seem to require a criminal records check, and I am always surprised when some thug with a record going on 3 or 4 pages says (with honesty) "you can't send me to jail - I have to go to work tomorrow!".
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 10:21:38 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 10:01:34 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 08:50:32 AM
I remember someone running the numbers on this and comming up with the figure that some 20% of the prision population was incarcerated for drug crimes - which, while huge, still doesn't add up on its own as an explaination for the massive increase.
Don't have those figures to hand, though.
Maybe in combo with other factors like sentencing guidelines for other crimes ... it just seems that the huge increase defies easy explaination.
meh, not really.
Like I said, it is a combination of the War on Drugs and the stiff sentencing guidelines. And how many of the people in jail for non-drug crimes are in jail for crimes related to drugs, like shooting the homey who was trying to move in on your corner?
But that doesn't make all that much sense in and of itself - after all, here in Canada the courts may be softer on drugs than in the US, but we certainly still sentence people for shooting homies. Yet there is something like a sixfold higher rate of incarceration south of the border.
You don't have the drug culture that can be so lucrative though. No real reason to shoot your homey moving in on your corner, if there isn't a giant pile of cash to be made on that corner.
I find it odd that we are talking about incarceration rates completely irrespective of crime rates - we will link in mental health, but kind of skip over the 800lb gorilla of the much higher crime rate itself, especially in urban areas in the US.
I think that is at least as interesting a discussion. What is the incarceration rate for similar demographics in the US and other Western nations, such that they exist?
What is the equivalent crime rate in a European city that compares to Detroit, MI? Is there such a thing to begin with?
And before anyone just goes and writes these numbers off on just "the war on drugs":
The first stat I could find states that 20% of prisoners in the US are there for a drug offence. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm
You might think that's high, but remember the US incarceration rate is several times higher than other places. So even if you cut the US prison population by 20% the US prison population would still be extremely high.
Also consider that all other western democracies have laws against drugs as well.
Quote from: Barrister on April 07, 2009, 10:27:49 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 09:01:06 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2009, 08:47:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 08:46:12 AM
Is this different in other Western Countries?
Do convicted felons (and that is what we are talking about) have trouble getting jobs in Belgium or France or Japan or Canada?
Good question.
I dunno, BB is the guy to ask for a definitive answer - but I do know that Canada seems to lack many of the types of tests and checks that appear routine in the US.
It depends on the type of work.
Clearly a criminal record can be devestating to get into certain kinds of work - policing, lawyers , Chartered Accountants. But most work does not even seem to require a criminal records check, and I am always surprised when some thug with a record going on 3 or 4 pages says (with honesty) "you can't send me to jail - I have to go to work tomorrow!".
The question is not what is required, it is what is allowed.
There is no law saying someone cannot work at my job with a felony record. Well, actually MY particular job there probably is because of some unusual circumstances, but more in general, there is no way a company like the one I work for is going to consider a resume from someone who has a felony. Why would they? Plenty of non-felons out there.
honestly, I cannot say that I find a problem with this. There should be consequences for committing felonies, and they should extend beyond the criminal punishment meted out by the courts. We live in societies, and if you cannot follow the rules set by society, then there is a often very heavy social price to pay.
Quote from: Barrister on April 07, 2009, 10:31:46 AM
And before anyone just goes and writes these numbers off on just "the war on drugs":
A pre-emptive strawman!
Awesome!
I wonder how much the incarceration rate, as compared to other Western countries, is skewed by the huge differences in rates between demographics.
How does the US incarceration rate among middle class Americans compare to the rate among a similar group of middle class Belgians or something?
But if an employer doesn't ask specifically about a criminal record odds are they might never know (in particular about minor criminal records, like petty theft or drunk driving).
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 10:32:22 AMhonestly, I cannot say that I find a problem with this. There should be consequences for committing felonies, and they should extend beyond the criminal punishment meted out by the courts. We live in societies, and if you cannot follow the rules set by society, then there is a often very heavy social price to pay.
I think this is what I would call the biggest difference in the penal policies in the US, compared to Europe (and possibly, Canada). In Europe we believe that someone who has paid his debt to the society should not be treated worse than anyone else, unless there is an overriding public policy reason for that. In general, we try to make it easier for such people to be reintegrated into the society - after all, the society has ruled them no longer dangerous to the public by letting them out of prison, and therefore it is neither fair nor productive to continue punishing them after that.
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 10:35:21 AM
I wonder how much the incarceration rate, as compared to other Western countries, is skewed by the huge differences in rates between demographics.
How does the US incarceration rate among middle class Americans compare to the rate among a similar group of middle class Belgians or something?
So you are saying it's based on greater social inequalities in the US than in Europe, after all?
Quote from: Martinus on April 07, 2009, 10:37:49 AM
I think this is what I would call the biggest different to the penal policies in the US, compared to Europe (and possibly, Canada). In Europe we believe that someone who has paid his debt to the society should not be treated worse than anyone else, unless there is an overriding public policy reason for that. In general, we try to make it easier for such people to be reintegrated into the society - after all, the society has ruled them no longer dangerous to the public by letting them out of prison, and therefore it is neither fair nor productive to continue punishing them after that.
I think its a gross over-generalization to say that "In Europe we believe...".
Entire countries and continents cannot be generalized in that way.
Quote from: Barrister on April 07, 2009, 10:37:05 AM
But if an employer doesn't ask specifically about a criminal record odds are they might never know (in particular about minor criminal records, like petty theft or drunk driving).
But they will ask.
Quote from: Martinus on April 07, 2009, 10:37:49 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 10:32:22 AMhonestly, I cannot say that I find a problem with this. There should be consequences for committing felonies, and they should extend beyond the criminal punishment meted out by the courts. We live in societies, and if you cannot follow the rules set by society, then there is a often very heavy social price to pay.
I think this is what I would call the biggest difference in the penal policies in the US, compared to Europe (and possibly, Canada). In Europe we believe that someone who has paid his debt to the society should not be treated worse than anyone else, unless there is an overriding public policy reason for that. In general, we try to make it easier for such people to be reintegrated into the society - after all, the society has ruled them no longer dangerous to the public by letting them out of prison, and therefore it is neither fair nor productive to continue punishing them after that.
It isn't punishment though. It is the freedom for one person to make a choice about who they wish to employ.
Also, did you check with all the other Europeans before deciding you spoke for all of them?
And I still don't have an answer to my question - is it actually illegal to ask someone if they have committed a felony in the past?
I like Jim Webb from what I've read of him and this increases my regard for him. How's this playing in Virginia, grumbler? The impression I get is that he's someone who seems tough enough to not really get in trouble if he doesn't spend his time ostentatiously declaring how tough on crime he is and passing troublesome legislation to prove it.
Other than that I broadly agree with what seems to be a Languish consensus, though, this being Languish the consensus is expressed through vigorous argument, on what's caused it. Over-harsh drugs laws and judges not having as much power as they should.
Quote from: Martinus on April 07, 2009, 10:37:49 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 10:32:22 AMhonestly, I cannot say that I find a problem with this. There should be consequences for committing felonies, and they should extend beyond the criminal punishment meted out by the courts. We live in societies, and if you cannot follow the rules set by society, then there is a often very heavy social price to pay.
I think this is what I would call the biggest difference in the penal policies in the US, compared to Europe (and possibly, Canada). In Europe we believe that someone who has paid his debt to the society should not be treated worse than anyone else, unless there is an overriding public policy reason for that. In general, we try to make it easier for such people to be reintegrated into the society - after all, the society has ruled them no longer dangerous to the public by letting them out of prison, and therefore it is neither fair nor productive to continue punishing them after that.
It isn't punishment though. It is the freedom for one person to make a choice about who they wish to employ.
Also, did you check with all the other Europeans before deciding you spoke for all of them?
And I still don't have an answer to my question - is it actually illegal to ask someone if they have committed a felony in the past?
Quote from: Martinus on April 07, 2009, 10:38:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 10:35:21 AM
I wonder how much the incarceration rate, as compared to other Western countries, is skewed by the huge differences in rates between demographics.
How does the US incarceration rate among middle class Americans compare to the rate among a similar group of middle class Belgians or something?
So you are saying it's based on greater social inequalities in the US than in Europe, after all?
I guess I might be saying that if it was the case that "greater social inequality" was the only reason there might be demographic differences.
I suspect that isn't the case though.
For example, one reason there might be these differences in the US rather than some portions of Europe could be historical European insistence on maintaining relative demographic "purity".
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 10:41:37 AMIt isn't punishment though. It is the freedom for one person to make a choice about who they wish to employ.
Well, it is seen differently under EU labour law. Generally, any discrimination is prohibited in employment, unless it is justified. Discrimination based on past convictions is considered unjustified, unless the work is of the type that requires a spotless record.
QuoteAlso, did you check with all the other Europeans before deciding you spoke for all of them?
These rules are reflected in EU-wide regulations and directives. I think it is fair to say they represent the "European approach" even if every single European does not necessarily agree with them.
QuoteAnd I still don't have an answer to my question - is it actually illegal to ask someone if they have committed a felony in the past?
I posted this already an hour ago or so - yes it is illegal to ask someone about their criminal record, unless the job they are to perform requires a spotless record. In fact, the law expressly says what you are allowed to ask, and anything beyond that is likely to be considered illegal (for example you cannot ask people about their marital status, or health status, or whether they are pregnant etc.)
One factor has to be the way prison life is organized in US penitentiaries, with a flourishing gang culture, significant overcrowding in many places, and few opportunities for training (vocational, educational, etc) that would be useful outside of prison. The violence of prison life (which I think must be massively underreported since there is such a stigma associated with snitching) certainly can't be helping recidivism.
I think another issue is the way that prison interacts with communities in the US and with the disintegration of working-class community life, with the combined factors of the loss of industrial jobs, growing availability and profitability of heroin and especially crack cocaine, declining public schools in many areas, changes in family life, etc., etc. People come back from incarceration into the same marginal conditions from which they left, with the added obstacle of a fresh criminal record. Some kind of family or community support seems to be crucial.
Quote from: Martinus on April 07, 2009, 10:38:46 AM
So you are saying it's based on greater social inequalities in the US than in Europe, after all?
Exactly. As soon as the AIG bonuses are cut the crime rate will plummet.
Berkut and others, specifically under Polish law (which implements the EU law), you can ask a prospective employee the following:
- their name,
- date of birth,
- place of residence,
- education,
- previous employment (including employment certificates, which state the reasons for termination of previous employment),
- other personal data (including data about children) if this is required for the employee to be able to benefit from some special rights and privileges,
- social security number,
- other information, only to the extent this is required by other laws and regulations (example, a security guard has to present his criminal record certificate).
In terms of health, for example, the employer can only send the employee to an independent medical doctor who then issues a certificate that the employee is fit for work and/or whether he requires additional special facilities to perform the work. This certificate does not provide any other information about the employee's health.
Interesting.
So if someone was convicted of robbing his former employer at gunpoint, shooting his wife, and raping his daughter - a prospective future employer has no right to know that?
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 11:11:13 AM
Interesting.
So if someone was convicted of robbing his former employer at gunpoint, shooting his wife, and raping his daughter - a prospective future employer has no right to know that?
I guess I would question what an individual like this is doing out of prison.
As Grumbler and others have pointed out, it's practices like mandatory minimums that are causing high incarceration rates. In the past it was much more common for prisoners to be released early, but that doesn't really happen too much anymore, at least within the federal system.
On a personal note, I saw someone sent to 15 years in prison for violation of parole. The violation was a posession of a single bullet. The guy was a wife-beating thug, but still that's pretty out there. But the sentence was within the federal sentencing guidelines. Although the guidelines are no longer mandatory, many (or most if not all) judges still follow them.
No idea about EU/Polish law, but under German law, a prospective employer can certainly ask for a criminal record. You'll then have to go to the municipal authority, pay a small fee, and they'll send you one. You can then decide whether you show it your prospective employer or not. If you don't show it, that's a valid reason not to hire you. Most employers don't actually care, but the biggest of them, the state, always demands it. I know because I had to get one either when I was mustered for military service or when I applied for civilian service instead of the military service.
Furthermore you can't become a physician, a lawyer, etc. or get a PhD when you have a criminal record.
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2009, 11:13:34 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 11:11:13 AM
Interesting.
So if someone was convicted of robbing his former employer at gunpoint, shooting his wife, and raping his daughter - a prospective future employer has no right to know that?
I guess I would question what an individual like this is doing out of prison.
He has served his time of course. In Europe, that would be what - 5 years? Out in 3 for good behavior?
:P
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 10:28:56 AM
You don't have the drug culture that can be so lucrative though. No real reason to shoot your homey moving in on your corner, if there isn't a giant pile of cash to be made on that corner.
I find it odd that we are talking about incarceration rates completely irrespective of crime rates - we will link in mental health, but kind of skip over the 800lb gorilla of the much higher crime rate itself, especially in urban areas in the US.
I think that is at least as interesting a discussion. What is the incarceration rate for similar demographics in the US and other Western nations, such that they exist?
What is the equivalent crime rate in a European city that compares to Detroit, MI? Is there such a thing to begin with?
That's quite true, and an example of why I say that there is no simple one-note explaination for the difference. It isn't *just* the War on Drugs, or federal sentencing guidelines - I suspect there are lots and lots of factors, cultural and demographic, that feed into it - the existence of a Black underclass being perhaps the most significant (it is no secret that a huge percentage of prisoners are Black).
I'd disagree that the lucrative nature of the drug trade is all that different in Canada - there is piles of money being made in the drug trade here: BC Bud is the #1 cash crop in British Columbia, for example, and is often traded for cocaine for sale here in Canada.
I'm actually curious if the incarceration rate for, say, Jamaicans in Britain is comparable to that of blacks in the US. I wonder if we do somehow treat our lower classes differently (or worse). I know all the Euros will claim as much, but I'd be curious to see those figures anyway.
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2009, 11:19:38 AM
I'm actually curious if the incarceration rate for, say, Jamaicans in Britain is comparable to that of blacks in the US. I wonder if we do somehow treat our lower classes differently (or worse). I know all the Euros will claim as much, but I'd be curious to see those figures anyway.
Funny you should mention Jamacans ... :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on April 07, 2009, 10:31:46 AM
And before anyone just goes and writes these numbers off on just "the war on drugs":
The first stat I could find states that 20% of prisoners in the US are there for a drug offence. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm
You might think that's high, but remember the US incarceration rate is several times higher than other places. So even if you cut the US prison population by 20% the US prison population would still be extremely high.
Also consider that all other western democracies have laws against drugs as well.
This argument only works if few or none of the "violent" offenders were involved in the War on Drugs. If you cut the number of incarcerated people in half, then the incarceration rate would not be very remarkable.
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2009, 11:19:38 AM
I'm actually curious if the incarceration rate for, say, Jamaicans in Britain is comparable to that of blacks in the US. I wonder if we do somehow treat our lower classes differently (or worse). I know all the Euros will claim as much, but I'd be curious to see those figures anyway.
No statistics about specific subgroups, but about 9% of Germany's population are foreigners, yet about 22% of the prison population are foreigners.
About 12% of the UK's prison population is black, their share of the population is much lower, but the 2% mentioned in the piece below is almost certainly an underestimate :
http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/facts/UK/index51.aspx?ts=1
Quote from: Caliga on April 07, 2009, 11:19:38 AM
I'm actually curious if the incarceration rate for, say, Jamaicans in Britain is comparable to that of blacks in the US. I wonder if we do somehow treat our lower classes differently (or worse). I know all the Euros will claim as much, but I'd be curious to see those figures anyway.
I don't think so. The difference is Euros (of a certain ilk) seem to think that their Somali/Jamaican/Albanian immigrants are almost constitutionally more likely to commit crime. It seems obvious to me that the comparatively poorly educated and economically unsuccessful groups (which often coincide with racial groups) are more likely to commit crime and be punished: blacks in the US, Inuit in Greenland, Maoris in New Zealand. They're all to some extent socially marginalised, they're all over-represented in prison.
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2009, 11:28:53 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 07, 2009, 10:31:46 AM
And before anyone just goes and writes these numbers off on just "the war on drugs":
The first stat I could find states that 20% of prisoners in the US are there for a drug offence. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm
You might think that's high, but remember the US incarceration rate is several times higher than other places. So even if you cut the US prison population by 20% the US prison population would still be extremely high.
Also consider that all other western democracies have laws against drugs as well.
This argument only works if few or none of the "violent" offenders were involved in the War on Drugs. If you cut the number of incarcerated people in half, then the incarceration rate would not be very remarkable.
Berkut made that argument as well, and I still don't understand it.
Other countries have the drug trade as well, including violent gangsters. The authorities may not crack down as hard on your average teen caught with a spliff, but still take a pretty dim view of violent gangsterism, in spite of not engaging in the excesses of the War on Drugs.
Is the argument that the policies of the War on Drugs actually *causes* violent gangsterism? I suppose a case can be made that having drugs illegal encourages gangsters, giving them a livelihood - but drugs are sold by gangsters in Canada as well as in the US.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 07, 2009, 11:30:01 AM
About 12% of the UK's prison population is black, their share of the population is much lower, but the 2% mentioned in the piece below is almost certainly an underestimate :
http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/facts/UK/index51.aspx?ts=1
Apparently that's right according to the 2001 census. Although I do wonder at the definition of 'black British' and 'mixed race British'. Also the black British population seems to be focussed on certain cities. So about 20% of people who consider themselves black British live in London and so on.
Edit: But, yeah, it really surprised me too.
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2009, 11:28:53 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 07, 2009, 10:31:46 AM
And before anyone just goes and writes these numbers off on just "the war on drugs":
The first stat I could find states that 20% of prisoners in the US are there for a drug offence. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm
You might think that's high, but remember the US incarceration rate is several times higher than other places. So even if you cut the US prison population by 20% the US prison population would still be extremely high.
Also consider that all other western democracies have laws against drugs as well.
This argument only works if few or none of the "violent" offenders were involved in the War on Drugs. If you cut the number of incarcerated people in half, then the incarceration rate would not be very remarkable.
Not really.
The US incarceration rate is 5 to six times higher than other Western democracies. See page 3 here http://www.sentencingproject.org/Admin/Documents/publications/inc_comparative_intl.pdf
In order to blame "the war on drugs" as the primary cause you would need to find that 80% of the people in US prisons were "involved in the war on drugs".
What seems to be different in the US is the sentences that are handed out on all manner of crimes (including but not limited to drugs). Anecdotally at least sentences handed out in Canada seem dramatically lower by an order of magnitude or more than what I've seen on both US criminal records, seen reported here on Languish, and what I hear on the media. But I could be wrong since I'm relying only on anecdote.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 07, 2009, 11:38:43 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 07, 2009, 11:30:01 AM
About 12% of the UK's prison population is black, their share of the population is much lower, but the 2% mentioned in the piece below is almost certainly an underestimate :
http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/facts/UK/index51.aspx?ts=1
Apparently that's right according to the 2001 census. Although I do wonder at the definition of 'black British' and 'mixed race British'. Also the black British population seems to be focussed on certain cities. So about 20% of people who consider themselves black British live in London and so on.
Edit: But, yeah, it really surprised me too.
Of course the population becomes almost overwhelmingly white if one visits places like the NE of England; our impressions of non-white numbers are probably inflated from too many boozeups in London.
OTOH, crime is not notably lower in a place like NE England than in London; which would support your suggestion that crime is committed mainly by the socially marginalised rather than any particular race. That group being white in the NE but mainly of different ethnic origins in London.
So I guess instead of me saying what isn't the cause, I should give my guess what is:
NUmber one seems to be the range of sentences. If you hand out sentences measured in years, not months or days, you're going to wind up with a large prison population.
And number two would be demographics. While the US is no longer as exceptional as it once was in terms of its highly variable demographics, it still is much less homogenous than almost any other country out there. And we know that in country after country there are distinct groups with crime rates well out of step with the "majority" of the country.
BB, who said it was the "primary cause"? I am pretty sure I said it was a combination of the war on drugs and strict sentencing guidelines - which in themselves were developed largely in the context of the war on drugs.
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 11:49:17 AM
BB, who said it was the "primary cause"? I am pretty sure I said it was a combination of the war on drugs and strict sentencing guidelines - which in themselves were developed largely in the context of the war on drugs.
IMO, the existence of a Black underclass is also a major factor.
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 11:50:49 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 11:49:17 AM
BB, who said it was the "primary cause"? I am pretty sure I said it was a combination of the war on drugs and strict sentencing guidelines - which in themselves were developed largely in the context of the war on drugs.
IMO, the existence of a Black underclass is also a major factor.
Probably true, but we have always had those demographic issues, yet the extremely high relative incarceration rate in the US is relatively new (since the early 80s, IIRC).
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 10:05:26 AMIndeed. Why we decided that judges should quit all that judging bullshit and just rubber stamp legislative dictates is rather beyond me.
You may want to differentiate between determinate sentencing, like the federal sentencing guidelines, and just mandatory minimums.
The sentencing guidelines came about because we realized that people were getting radically different sentences in an unfair way because of which judges they drew, what class they were, etc. This still happens in some systems; in Georgia, for example, the same amount of marijuana will likely get you probation in Fulton County and 5 years in Mitchell County, which is more than a little insane.
So sentencing guidelines were an attempt to treat people like based on their offense, in a number of ways (first offense, assistance to government, acceptance of responsibility, and the converse), rather than have sentences vary on other factors.
The "European system" is a joke that hurts society. America still sucks ass though. Big time.
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 08:03:54 AM
This, if true, is pretty alarming:
Quotemost of the 20th century America imprisoned roughly the same proportion of its population as many other countries—a hundred people for every 100,000 citizens. But while other countries stayed where they were, the American incarceration rate then took off—to 313 per 100,000 in 1985 and 648 in 1997.
What could possibly justify doubling the prison population in twelve years? And what is the rate now, in 2009? Have these years been cherry-picked as outliers?
Don't remember the crack epidemic and the explosion of violence that followed it? What were you doing in the 80s Malthus? :yeahright:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2009, 01:27:03 PM
What were you doing in the 80s Fahdiz? :yeahright:
Probably incarcerated, along with the rest of the nation.
Quote from: Martinus on April 07, 2009, 08:27:21 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 08:25:30 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2009, 08:24:08 AM
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 08:11:48 AM
Of course it was lower, we sent all the criminals to jail!
That doesn't make much sense. How would we a higher percentage of people in jail with proportionately fewer arrests? Are prosecuters just alot better now? Defense lawyers just that much worse? Our courts are becoming kangaroo courts?
I suspect sentences have simply become much longer for the same crimes.
I suspect this explains some of the difference compared to other Western democracies (but not ALL of it - the 6:1 ratio is just too big to be explained away with just the fact that European courts are more lenient on criminals), however have the US courts really become more harsh in the recent years? Could any of the US lawyers cabal weigh in on that?
3 strikes laws Marty. Get convicted of 3 felonies and you get life.
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 11:11:13 AM
Interesting.
So if someone was convicted of robbing his former employer at gunpoint, shooting his wife, and raping his daughter - a prospective future employer has no right to know that?
Wouldn't that be mentioned in the cause of termination section of the resume?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2009, 01:27:03 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 08:03:54 AM
This, if true, is pretty alarming:
Quotemost of the 20th century America imprisoned roughly the same proportion of its population as many other countries—a hundred people for every 100,000 citizens. But while other countries stayed where they were, the American incarceration rate then took off—to 313 per 100,000 in 1985 and 648 in 1997.
What could possibly justify doubling the prison population in twelve years? And what is the rate now, in 2009? Have these years been cherry-picked as outliers?
Don't remember the crack epidemic and the explosion of violence that followed it? What were you doing in the 80s Fahdiz? :yeahright:
The crack epidemic doubled the US prision population in a decade but somehow totally avoided Canada? :yeahright:
Mighty selective epidemic, that. Good thing that it respected our border.
And why are you calling me "Fahdiz"?
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 01:28:38 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2009, 01:27:03 PM
What were you doing in the 80s Fahdiz? :yeahright:
Probably incarcerated, along with the rest of the nation.
54-46 was his number :)
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 01:36:33 PM
The crack epidemic doubled the US prision population in a decade but somehow totally avoided Canada? :yeahright:
Didn't it? It seems to have not hit Europe.
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 01:36:33 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2009, 01:27:03 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 08:03:54 AM
This, if true, is pretty alarming:
Quotemost of the 20th century America imprisoned roughly the same proportion of its population as many other countries—a hundred people for every 100,000 citizens. But while other countries stayed where they were, the American incarceration rate then took off—to 313 per 100,000 in 1985 and 648 in 1997.
What could possibly justify doubling the prison population in twelve years? And what is the rate now, in 2009? Have these years been cherry-picked as outliers?
Don't remember the crack epidemic and the explosion of violence that followed it? What were you doing in the 80s Fahdiz? :yeahright:
The crack epidemic doubled the US prision population in a decade but somehow totally avoided Canada? :yeahright:
Mighty selective epidemic, that. Good thing that it respected our border.
And why are you calling me "Fahdiz"?
You're avatar made me think of him for some reason. :lol:
Yes, crime exploded and sentences were made much harsher in response, especially for possession of crack cocaine.
Quote from: The Brain on April 07, 2009, 12:29:05 PM
The "European system" is a joke that hurts society. America still sucks ass though. Big time.
Jokes don't hurt society. Jokers do.
Quote from: Norgy on April 07, 2009, 01:40:45 PM
Jokes don't hurt society. Jokers do.
That's why we have Batman.
Indeed.
Gotham City is safe and has a model prison system.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 07, 2009, 01:38:50 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 01:36:33 PM
The crack epidemic doubled the US prision population in a decade but somehow totally avoided Canada? :yeahright:
Didn't it? It seems to have not hit Europe.
Nope, plenty of crack here - along with every other "hard" drug you could think of.
Particularly in downtown east side Vancouver (hi, CC! :P ).
Though it exists everywhere. Here's a recebnt example of its prevelance:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/front+line+crack+epidemic/1137471/story.html
We also have a permanently stoned and crime-ridden underclass, many of whom will do every drug there is and sniff gasoline when drugs are not available - natives on reserves (also massively disproportionately represented in prisons here - blame BB).
However, in spite of all that, in spite of close proximity to the US and its culture (and its drugs), and being very similar in many respects, the incarceration rate here is much lower on a per-capita basis - something like one-sixth.
As an explaination, "crack cocaine" alone will not do.
Crack cocaine is a huge problem here.
I don't think there is any explanation that "alone" will do it.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make Malthus.
And do you ahve any data to back up your claims here? Is the crack cocaine problem as serious in Canada overall? Is the gang warfare over drug turf as serious?
Is Canada, in fact, all that similar? I don't really think it is, at least not in the ways that influence things like crime rates, and hence incarceration rates.
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 02:09:50 PM
And do you ahve any data to back up your claims here? Is the crack cocaine problem as serious in Canada overall? Is the gang warfare over drug turf as serious?
Is Canada, in fact, all that similar? I don't really think it is, at least not in the ways that influence things like crime rates, and hence incarceration rates.
What kind of statistics would you like in discussions how "serious" crack cocaine and gang warfare is?
Quote from: Barrister on April 07, 2009, 02:16:20 PM
What kind of statistics would you like in discussions how "serious" crack cocaine and gang warfare is?
Incarceration rates! :D
Quote from: Barrister on April 07, 2009, 02:16:20 PM
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 02:09:50 PM
And do you ahve any data to back up your claims here? Is the crack cocaine problem as serious in Canada overall? Is the gang warfare over drug turf as serious?
Is Canada, in fact, all that similar? I don't really think it is, at least not in the ways that influence things like crime rates, and hence incarceration rates.
What kind of statistics would you like in discussions how "serious" crack cocaine and gang warfare is?
In the US the prison population is out of whack, I agree. Given the crime rate, we obviously need to incarcerate a lot more people! Or maybe send them to Canada to get straightened out. ;)
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 02:09:50 PM
I don't think there is any explanation that "alone" will do it.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make Malthus.
And do you ahve any data to back up your claims here? Is the crack cocaine problem as serious in Canada overall? Is the gang warfare over drug turf as serious?
Is Canada, in fact, all that similar? I don't really think it is, at least not in the ways that influence things like crime rates, and hence incarceration rates.
My point is your first sentence.
Little Timmay posted with heavy sarcasm that the crack cocaine epidemic explained the huge increase in incarceration, with the implication that this was obvious.
My point is that this explaination did not explain, because Canada experienced a similar epidemic (and indeed continues to) without experiencing a similar increase in incarceration.
I have no idea how to measure the relative seriousness of gang violence. It is certainly making the news these days, very much so. This in today's news:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/World+media+focus+Metro+gang+violence/1472363/story.html
QuoteWith under a year to go to the 2010 Winter Games, a headline like "From heaven to hell: 18 die as drugs war rages on streets of Vancouver" is not what politicians and tourism promoters want to see.
But the spate of murders, drive-by shootings and even random violence, like the Gibsons care home shooting, have drawn the inevitable attention of international media now focused on Vancouver's looming Olympics.
"I Googled 'Vancouver gang violence' last night and it's everywhere," said Vancouver Coun. Geoff Meggs. "I hope this round of violence will burn itself out, but I don't think it has been good for the city's image by any means. We all know it is a dark time in the city's history."
Although the rash of murders and shootings has generated international attention, the piece that has caused the most discussion is an article last week in The Independent, a well-regarded British newspaper.
Under the headline quoted above was the subtext "The Canadian city has been named the best place in the world to live. But those halcyon days are over."
As for evidence, I'd say that a Canadian federal prosecutor stating that crack cocaine is a "huge problem" is at least
some evidence.
And speaking of evidence - why is it that you are always making claims and then asking everyone else for evidence, while never supplying any of your own? Do some of your own work for once. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 02:22:17 PM
As for evidence, I'd say that a Canadian federal prosecutor stating that crack cocaine is a "huge problem" is at least some evidence.
Of course on the other hand we (in the Yukon) have no "gang" problem to speak of.
Lots of crime of course, but no one organizes into gangs. Why would you need to - you know all your fellow criminals on a first-name basis anyways. :canuck:
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 11:34:27 AM
Is the argument that the policies of the War on Drugs actually *causes* violent gangsterism? I suppose a case can be made that having drugs illegal encourages gangsters, giving them a livelihood - but drugs are sold by gangsters in Canada as well as in the US.
Yes, the argument is that the harder the crackdown on drugs, the more violent the drug gang wars become. I didn't even know that this was controversial, and thought that it had been seen in Canada as well as the rest of the world.
In the US, you have a larger per-capita demand for drugs, and so a larger market over which to fight, so fights might be disproportionately more bloody, but I think that the correlation in time between skyrocketing US incarceration numbers and the increase in the "war on drugs" is not coincidental. The WoD doesn't explain all of the difference between US and Canadian incarceration numbers, of course, but it probably explains more than 20% of it.
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2009, 02:37:38 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 11:34:27 AM
Is the argument that the policies of the War on Drugs actually *causes* violent gangsterism? I suppose a case can be made that having drugs illegal encourages gangsters, giving them a livelihood - but drugs are sold by gangsters in Canada as well as in the US.
Yes, the argument is that the harder the crackdown on drugs, the more violent the drug gang wars become. I didn't even know that this was controversial, and thought that it had been seen in Canada as well as the rest of the world.
In the US, you have a larger per-capita demand for drugs, and so a larger market over which to fight, so fights might be disproportionately more bloody, but I think that the correlation in time between skyrocketing US incarceration numbers and the increase in the "war on drugs" is not coincidental. The WoD doesn't explain all of the difference between US and Canadian incarceration numbers, of course, but it probably explains more than 20% of it.
Is the per-capita demand for drugs really higher in the US than in Canada? There's lot's of drug-using scum here as well.
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 02:22:17 PM
As for evidence, I'd say that a Canadian federal prosecutor stating that crack cocaine is a "huge problem" is at least some evidence.
It is great evidence that there is a subjectively "huge problem" in his experience.
Tells us nothing really about relative issues between countries though.
QuoteAnd speaking of evidence - why is it that you are always making claims and then asking everyone else for evidence, while never supplying any of your own? Do some of your own work for once.
I am happy to provide any evidence I have, or simply concede that I don't have it when I do not. Is there some data that I have mentioned in particular that you wish to challenge?
Quote from: grumbler on April 07, 2009, 02:37:38 PM
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 11:34:27 AM
Is the argument that the policies of the War on Drugs actually *causes* violent gangsterism? I suppose a case can be made that having drugs illegal encourages gangsters, giving them a livelihood - but drugs are sold by gangsters in Canada as well as in the US.
Yes, the argument is that the harder the crackdown on drugs, the more violent the drug gang wars become. I didn't even know that this was controversial, and thought that it had been seen in Canada as well as the rest of the world.
In the US, you have a larger per-capita demand for drugs, and so a larger market over which to fight, so fights might be disproportionately more bloody, but I think that the correlation in time between skyrocketing US incarceration numbers and the increase in the "war on drugs" is not coincidental. The WoD doesn't explain all of the difference between US and Canadian incarceration numbers, of course, but it probably explains more than 20% of it.
The argument I've always seen is that by making the product illegal, the authorities provide fuel for the gangs, who then engage in violent conflict to control the money.
What I do not get is that cracking down harder on druggies itself makes the gang violence worse, and I'm not sure why this would be so. It seems to me that the significant bit is that the product is illegal and thus must be bought from criminals, ensuring huge profits (and much to fight about). That wouldn't be something that is all that different in Canada.
Quote from: Barrister on April 07, 2009, 10:31:46 AM
And before anyone just goes and writes these numbers off on just "the war on drugs":
The first stat I could find states that 20% of prisoners in the US are there for a drug offence. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm
There are a couple of issues here though.
First - your table only relates to state prison population. If you look at federal prisons, in 2007, over 95,000 of the 180,000 federal prisoners were in for drug offenses. The federal prison population is still much smaller than the state prison population, but it is growing at a very fast rate. These cases are threatening to overwhelm the entire federal judicial system.
Second - grumbler's point is correct - there may be offenses not coded as drug offenses but which in fact are heavily drug-related. Weapons charges, robberies, burglaries, and homicides in particular often involve criminal situations where drug trafficking is the underlying criminal activity and the the charged crime is something that occurs ancillary to that.
It's very difficult to accurately specify the full effects of the drug laws on incarceration levels, but it is very substantial, and almost certainly more that the already very substantial 350,000 prisoners serving sentences specifcally on charged drug offenses.
I take no position on the cross-country comparisons, however - there are too many variables at play.
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 02:22:17 PM
My point is your first sentence.
Little Timmay posted with heavy sarcasm that the crack cocaine epidemic explained the huge increase in incarceration, with the implication that this was obvious.
My point is that this explaination did not explain, because Canada experienced a similar epidemic (and indeed continues to) without experiencing a similar increase in incarceration.
I have no idea how to measure the relative seriousness of gang violence. It is certainly making the news these days, very much so. This in today's news:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/World+media+focus+Metro+gang+violence/1472363/story.html
QuoteWith under a year to go to the 2010 Winter Games, a headline like "From heaven to hell: 18 die as drugs war rages on streets of Vancouver" is not what politicians and tourism promoters want to see.
But the spate of murders, drive-by shootings and even random violence, like the Gibsons care home shooting, have drawn the inevitable attention of international media now focused on Vancouver's looming Olympics.
"I Googled 'Vancouver gang violence' last night and it's everywhere," said Vancouver Coun. Geoff Meggs. "I hope this round of violence will burn itself out, but I don't think it has been good for the city's image by any means. We all know it is a dark time in the city's history."
Although the rash of murders and shootings has generated international attention, the piece that has caused the most discussion is an article last week in The Independent, a well-regarded British newspaper.
Under the headline quoted above was the subtext "The Canadian city has been named the best place in the world to live. But those halcyon days are over."
The crack cocaine epidemic and harsher sentencing go together. The harsher sentences were an American response to the crack cocaine epidemic, one that Canada did not have IIRC.
Quote from: stjaba on April 07, 2009, 11:13:56 AM
As Grumbler and others have pointed out, it's practices like mandatory minimums that are causing high incarceration rates. In the past it was much more common for prisoners to be released early, but that doesn't really happen too much anymore, at least within the federal system.
On a personal note, I saw someone sent to 15 years in prison for violation of parole. The violation was a posession of a single bullet. The guy was a wife-beating thug, but still that's pretty out there. But the sentence was within the federal sentencing guidelines. Although the guidelines are no longer mandatory, many (or most if not all) judges still follow them.
That was most likely the result of Project EXILE. A single bullet is treated the same as a firearm. Why? Common sense dictates that if a bullet is present than a firearm was at some point.
How Project EXILE works is simple. When a criminal is found with a firearm or ammunition than that agency looks at some guidelines that enable it to become a Federal case at which point the Feds are given the info to decide if they wish to pursue the case in Federal court. The Feds have tougher sentences for firearms than most States, so criminals do more time.
The key factors are required are as follows;
1) Is the person a convicted felon?
2) Was the person and/or firearm/ammunition found during a drug sale or with a large quantity of drugs?
3) Is the firearm/ammunition part of an interstate nexus?
The third one must always be present. What does it mean? The firearm or ammunition must have passed over state borders at some point in it's existence. This is what gives the Feds jurisdiction. It doesn't matter who was in possession when it did pass over state borders but rather just that it did at some point that can be proven. And since there are very few firearms manufacturers left it's almost a forgone conclusion that it has at some point.
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 02:45:58 PM
What I do not get is that cracking down harder on druggies itself makes the gang violence worse, and I'm not sure why this would be so.
One argument that I have seen is that since essentially the prison sentence for dealing drugs is going to be as long as the sentence for murder, there is no incentive for drug dealers to not be as violent as possible. I'm not sure that I buy that argument 100%, but it's not totally unreasonable.
Another argument I've seen is that cracking down on drugs puts people in the drug scene under more psychological pressure, so they're more likely to snap and become violent. While I can easily see how that could happen to individual users if their dealer is arrested and they can't get their fix, I don't see how it explains routine, more-or-less institutionalized violence by the dealers.
Well, also by making the punishment more severe, you raise the risk and thus the potential profit.
Quote from: Berkut on April 07, 2009, 08:11:48 AM
Quote from: Valmy on April 07, 2009, 08:06:34 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 08:03:54 AM
What could possibly justify doubling the prison population in twelve years? And what is the rate now, in 2009? Have these years been cherry-picked as outliers?
It was the war on drugs. The really bizarre thing is that during that same period the crime rate was lower...
Of course it was lower, we sent all the criminals to jail!
And obviously, if 2/3rds just get sent back because they keep committing crime, then we are letting too many blacks out.
Changed :P
Quote from: dps on April 08, 2009, 02:47:09 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 07, 2009, 02:45:58 PM
What I do not get is that cracking down harder on druggies itself makes the gang violence worse, and I'm not sure why this would be so.
One argument that I have seen is that since essentially the prison sentence for dealing drugs is going to be as long as the sentence for murder, there is no incentive for drug dealers to not be as violent as possible. I'm not sure that I buy that argument 100%, but it's not totally unreasonable.
Another argument I've seen is that cracking down on drugs puts people in the drug scene under more psychological pressure, so they're more likely to snap and become violent. While I can easily see how that could happen to individual users if their dealer is arrested and they can't get their fix, I don't see how it explains routine, more-or-less institutionalized violence by the dealers.
Thinking about the 3rd strike and you are out thing, once one is on a crime spree that will lead to one's 3rd strike there is really no reason to hold back at all from almost any level of violence and mayhem. (absent the moral restraint which is the primary reason for most people obeying most laws).
Quote from: Martinus on April 07, 2009, 05:52:54 AMThis seems like a colossal waste of resources. War on drugs, especially, seems to be a great example how moral panic can cause one to behave in a way that is entirely inefficient, morally wrong and wasteful at the same time.
I suppose asking people to adhere to their social contracts and NOT commit crimes would be too much to ask.
I really liked this part:
Quoteand damaging the country abroad.
because, you know, that's so important.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 07, 2009, 08:23:30 PM
The crack cocaine epidemic and harsher sentencing go together. The harsher sentences were an American response to the crack cocaine epidemic, one that Canada did not have IIRC.
Which naturally leads to the question of
why sentences became harsher in the US and not Canada.
So, as can be seen, merely saying "crack cocaine epidemic" dosen't answer the question at all. Why did sentences get harsher in the US and not Canada in response?
I suspect that the answer has something to do with a host of social and political factors - greater "moral panic", existence of a Black underclass, and something no-one has mentioned so far - the fact that the prosecutorial system in the US is more politicized than in Canada - together with the injection of politics into mandated sentencing guidelines, makes the who issue of punishment more suseptible to popular trends (i.e., "moral panics") concerning criminality.
Though even this may not be sufficient to explain a five or six-fold difference.
How is the prosecutorial system more politicized in the States?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 08, 2009, 10:53:51 AM
How is the prosecutorial system more politicized in the States?
Don't you elect your state attorneys? I guess that could lead to them demanding harsher penalties as otherwise their opponent in the next election could accuse them of coddling criminals which is probably not the quality that most voters look for in a state attorney.
Quote from: Zanza2 on April 08, 2009, 11:10:52 AM
Don't you elect your state attorneys? I guess that could lead to them demanding harsher penalties as otherwise their opponent in the next election could accuse them of coddling criminals which is probably not the quality that most voters look for in a state attorney.
The District Attorney is elected but all the staff jobs are civil service hires. DAs usually campaign on crime control priorities and conviction success - not sentencing length which they have little control over.
Besides the mandatory minimums and high guideline sentences that people have been talking about are a feature of the federal system and federal prosecutors are not elected.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 08, 2009, 11:55:27 AM
Quote from: Zanza2 on April 08, 2009, 11:10:52 AM
Don't you elect your state attorneys? I guess that could lead to them demanding harsher penalties as otherwise their opponent in the next election could accuse them of coddling criminals which is probably not the quality that most voters look for in a state attorney.
The District Attorney is elected but all the staff jobs are civil service hires. DAs usually campaign on crime control priorities and conviction success - not sentencing length which they have little control over.
Besides the mandatory minimums and high guideline sentences that people have been talking about are a feature of the federal system and federal prosecutors are not elected.
Heh, don't these guys typically campaign on a platform of "I'll be tough on crime"? Isn't that politicization?
Saying the prosecutor has "little control" over sentence lengths is a bit, well, misleading. Does the US not have plea-bargaining?
Seems to me a system in which prosecutorial authority is (sometimes) governed by the guy who can convince the man in the street that he's tougher on criminals than the next guy, is going to be one in which politics impacts prosecutorial discretion.