

Prisoners of Parole - frankus
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/magazine/10prisons-t.html?pagewanted=all

======
rwmj
_Or_ you could regulate drugs. It's utterly stupid to put people in prison for
this, and gift billions of dollars in potential taxes to gangsters.

~~~
tptacek
That could (should) happen with marijuana, but what's the point in arguing
about methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine? There's no forseeable future in
which they're decriminalized.

~~~
earl
Mexico did it.

------
mynameishere
Had to quit reading that. It's always sad to watch the exulted elite coming to
a common-sense solution only after long and laughable failure.

 _Well, I decided to NOT let the dog shit on the rug 15 times before doing
anything about it, and that seemed to work better..._

~~~
spamizbad
The _elite_ in this case, which have been humanist intellectuals, have long
advocated for prison reform, and tend to favor phasing out prison terms for
non-violent offenders, so saying that they've _finally_ come to their senses
isn't accurate: they've been banging this drum since the enlightenment. We are
discussing this now because States can no longer afford their prison-
industrial-complexes as they are overflowing with non-violent offenders (most
people in prison atm are NVOs).

It's the intellectually lazy, "Common-sense", Joe-Sixpack politics of
3-strikes laws that got us into this mess. "Lock criminals up and throw away
the key, I say!" is what we've been hearing from our politicians, and the
electorate has been more than willing to reward those "tough on crime" with
votes and money.

~~~
w00pla
> and tend to favor phasing out prison terms for non-violent offenders,

So, white collar criminals shouldn't serve prison sentences? How should we
punish non-violent white-collar criminals? Take away their holiday homes?

> It's the intellectually lazy, "Common-sense", Joe-Sixpack politics of
> 3-strikes laws that got us into this mess. "Lock criminals up and throw away
> the key, I say!"

Most countries have laws that separate habitual criminals from society. Most
people view prison as having four purposes:

1\. Rehabilitation (i.e. change the behaviour of a convicted individual
through positive (reward) and negative (punishment) reinforcement).

2\. Punishment

3\. Protect the public by separating harmful individuals.

4\. Serve as a deterrent to potential criminals.

The “three strikes” and similar laws in other countries are clearly to protect
the public by separating habitual criminals from society. This is completely
reasonable.

The deterrent effect has two components – the severity of the punishment and
the effectivety of the prosecution. If a criminal believes he can escape
prosecution, the deterrent effect will not work.

Unfortunately the left did the most damage to the judicial system. Firstly,
prison sentences aren’t a deterrent any more. In the old days you received a
prison sentence with “hard labour” - this was removed because the left opposed
it – in most countries prisoners sits around all day doing nothing (this also
increases the cost of incarceration).

The same goes to work – it was usual practice to set prisoners to work in
their community on government property/parks. This not only reduced the cost
of their incarceration but served as a powerful deterrent to people who see
them and shows them the disappointment that society views their actions.

In my country the left started “improving” the criminal and justice system
(with almost all the suggestions leftist suggestions). Unfortunately violent
crime tripled in 15 years and all other crimes increased.

It is unfortunate that the same justice system that “Joe sixpack” likes works
so effective in countries such as Singapore or Japan.

/rant

~~~
spamizbad
I don't think you're familiar with crime and punishment in the United States.

First off, prison labor hasn't been phased-out in the United States, quite the
contrary; it's at an all-time high. For example, Microsoft's boxed software is
assembled by prison labor in the United States. The primary reason why State
governments were reluctant to permit prison labor wasn't fear from the left:
it was fear from unskilled labor voters who didn't want their jobs taken from
them by prisoners. It wasn't until our workforce became better educated that
prison labor began to be accepted, as it was no longer seen as something that
was taking jobs away from law-abiding citizens. This is also why labor is used
in many privately operated prisons: they don't have to answer to voters.

Secondly, three-strikes laws have proven to be completely effete at combating
non-violent crime. Drug possession charges, which have seen the widest
adoption of three-strike laws, have tripled since 1982. Meanwhile, violent
crime has dropped steadily and is currently at the lowest rate we've seen
since the 1960s (this despite the fact that the death penalty is applied less
and less).

Regardless, three-strike laws are unsustainable long-term, as State
governments will be forced to pour far too much cash into prisons, putting
them in a position to either raise taxes, or cut services - two very dangerous
political propositions.

~~~
w00pla
> First off, prison labor hasn't been phased-out in the United States, quite
> the contrary; it's at an all-time high.

AFAIK, all labour in USA prisons is voluntary and paid (i.e. it is not part of
punishment).

Most countries (including the USA AFAIK) also ban the use of prison labour for
non-governmental work. If this requirement is removed, the government can
recuperate much more money from prisoners (that they lose due to the cost of
their incarceration).

> Secondly, three-strikes laws have proven to be completely effete at
> combating non-violent crime. Drug possession charges, which have seen the
> widest adoption of three-strike laws, have tripled since 1982. Meanwhile,
> violent crime has dropped steadily

All types of crime are related. A reason for the drop in violent crime may be
an increase in incarceration of the number of drug users.

~~~
spamizbad
>All types of crime are related. A reason for the drop in violent crime may be
an increase in incarceration of the number of drug users.

Then please explain this relationship. I understand the connection between the
drug trade and the violent crime, pertaining to the criminal element of the
black market; but the notion that I'm buying weed today, raping/murdering
tomorrow, is nonsense.

I'm not entirely certain these 3-strike laws even work for violent crime, when
you consider they weren't widely used by prosecutors until the late 90s, at
which point we had already seen steep drops in our violent crime rate.
Regardless of whether or not a state has a 3-strike statute, you see a
downward trend starting in or around '93.

~~~
catzaa
You created a bit of a strawman in your post. But anyways, look below.

From
[http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/cri...](http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/crime/index.html):

> Past year illicit drug users were also about 16 times more likely than
> nonusers to report being arrested and booked for larceny or theft; more than
> 14 times more likely to be arrested and booked for such offenses as driving
> under the influence, drunkenness, or liquor law violations; __and more than
> 9 times more likely to be arrested and booked on an assault charge. __

You can look at that website for several statistics. You will note that that
website shows increased offenses for drug users that are not related to
traditional "drug-trafficking" or "black-market" activities (so this can’t be
blamed on the prohibition of drugs).

> I understand the connection between the drug trade and the violent crime,
> pertaining to the criminal element of the black market; but the notion that
> I'm buying weed today, raping/murdering tomorrow, is nonsense.

You should make a distinction between hard and soft drugs. Claiming that weed
is safe, therefore all drugs are safe isn’t correct – and it is a strawman.
That website clearly states that drug-users have a significantly increased
crime rate. I am not going to discuss in detail the causes of crime for drug
users (which doesn’t have anything to do with any statement I made).

From the same website:

> Another dimension of drug-related crime is committing an offense to obtain
> money (or goods to sell to get money) to support drug use. According to the
> 1991 joint survey of Federal and State prison inmates, an estimated 17
> percent of State prisoners and 10 percent of Federal prisoners reported
> committing their offense to get money to buy drugs;

And the conclusion:

> The evidence indicates that drug users are __more likely than nonusers to
> commit crimes __, that arrestees frequently were under the influence of a
> drug at the time they committed their offense, and that __drugs generate
> violence __.

------
ars
Read the first 5 paragraphs, after that it's not much more than anecdotes of
various ideas, that you've probably heard before, and probably only work in
certain circumstances.

The idea at the beginning is a very good though. I hope it would be
implemented everywhere.

