
It’s Not Just the Drug War (2015) - e12e
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/03/mass-incarceration-war-on-drugs/
======
jMyles
OK. That was a longer read than I expected. And it had some good parts.

The premise, however, is not supported by the text, for several reasons.

The most obvious is that, other than a brief mention of prohibition as a
"proximate" cause of incarceration, there is no analysis of the degree to
which drug prohibition is an underlying cause of violent and other crime, for
which the author correctly points out sentences have become longer and
commutations more rare.

Although the exact value of the illicit drug trade in the United States is
difficult to measure with precision, most researchers agree that it's in the
neighborhood of $100 billion on in retail trades alone.

The reality of life in poverty, and especially urban black poverty, is that
there is no other market of similar size where entry-level jobs are as
available or unencumbered.

And this giant market, of course, lives almost entirely outside the civil
justice system or any other mechanism for peaceful resolution of disputes.

In addition, there are many people who, instead of rising the ranks of
criminal enterprise and eventually becoming kingpins, become addicted ("high
on their own supply") and are then in a position of constantly needing to rob
or steal to pay back debts to heavy-handed, higher-ranking drug dealers.

In short, I think that if the author accounts for the number of violent
criminals incarcerated for crimes committed as a consequence of the drug
trade, it is very likely that "it _is_ just the drug war (and yes, some
overzealousness about 'sex crimes')."

~~~
Arizhel
>And this giant market, of course, lives almost entirely outside the civil
justice system or any other mechanism for peaceful resolution of disputes.

It's not just people in the drug trade who don't have access to the civil
justice system for peaceful resolution of disputes; anyone who's lower than
upper-middle-class is priced out of the justice system by the insanely high
fees and lawyer costs involved.

~~~
bitwize
That's why small-claims court exists. You don't need a lawyer and in some
places are forbidden from retaining one to sue or defend yourself in such a
court. The drawback is that there's a cap on actual damages in order for
small-claims court to have jurisdiction, but most disputes between individuals
are likely to fall well under that cap.

------
jacobush
TLDR: even if we removed drug offenses from prison AND all the black
population from prisons, the US would STILL have a HUGE prison population
compared to any western country.

Why? Because from the 1980s all branches, police, judges and legislators have
together increased sentences for all crimes. A LOT. Probably needlessly if
going by recidivism.

~~~
bilbo0s
It was also a surprise, to me at least, that even if you released all of the
people in jail for drug offenses, it would really only affect certain black
demographics. That's something I hadn't realized. Basically a HUGE affect on
the number of blacks in prison, but almost no affect on the number of whites
and latinos in prison. And whites and latinos are overrepresented in the
prison population in a relatively draconian way compared to Europe. (Just not
as overrepresented as blacks. I'm assuming because of the asymmetry in
enforcement of drug laws.)

So we are using these sentencing laws to send EVERYONE to prison for a long
time, regardless of the crime. It makes me wonder how many crimes actually
land you in prison? Probably some things I don't even know about will put you
there.

~~~
hackermailman
Texas Tribune keeps stats on their state prisons
[https://www.texastribune.org/library/data/texas-
prisons/](https://www.texastribune.org/library/data/texas-prisons/)

Seems to be mainly robbery, drug possession and drunk driving convictions.

~~~
John23832
A drunk driving conviction is a drunk driving conviction... I'm ok with that.
Especially if it's your 3rd time.

I do wonder if there is some cause and effect in play with robberies and the
assaults. Being from a poverty stricken area, most of the robberies and
assaults I witnessed (in my area) were just from poor people arguing about
what little value they have. Or drugs.

I also would like to see the drug possessions broken down into type of drug. I
suspect marijuana possession is still a large part of that. <1G of weed is
different than heroin.

~~~
jacobush
But fuck, life in prison for drunk driving three times? How about foot chain,
mandatory visits to parole officer, or prison until convicted is of age 30 and
above? (Less recidivism above a certain age.)

~~~
John23832
This is just my opinion, but if you get two passes for drunk driving and you
do it a third time... that's your fault. Also from the data, very few inmates
get more than 10-20 for drunk driving. Those are also probably people who have
way more than 3 convictions, or have committed egregious drunk driving.

We might want to look at what is causing you to drunk drive (addiction, which
should be a medical issue and not a legal one), but _something_ should be done
after your third time.

~~~
saiya-jin
hell, I knew US is a effed up police state these days, but even a possibility
of life for 3 times driving drunk? that's not western democracy, that's 3rd
world fascist dictatorship in a hardcore flavor (FYI, I rarely drink and if
yes its max few beers/wine only, would never drive under influence)

maybe if you are living daily in such a broken environment it starts to feel
more normal, but seriously guys... get a grip and try to come up with
something that actually solves problems and not just destroys lives
permanently.

I don't want to travel to US for same reasons I don't travel to Afghanistan or
South Sudan - some good people, but messed up system and you don't want to
accidentally see the darker side of it

~~~
kefka
I've really wondered how one can be charged with Drunk Driving. Follow me out
on this.

I work in Academia. There's signs everywhere about consent. "Women can't give
consent when drunk" is the canard. In Indiana, that's not the law. But in many
states, that's true. Now, if someone cannot give consent to do something, or
sign legal documents, how can it be legal to charge someone with a drunk
driving charge?

The decision to drive was not based in consent, but instead based in
intoxication. Therefore they were not in the right state of mind, either to
decide to drive or drive.

Then again, I also think that bars with _parking lots_ are a significant issue
as well, as it encourages patrons to drive there, drink (possibly to drunk)
and then leave in their vehicle.

~~~
jaclaz
>Then again, I also think that bars with parking lots are a significant issue
as well, as it encourages patrons to drive there, drink (possibly to drunk)
and then leave in their vehicle.

I somehow have the feeling that bars WITHOUT parking lots will have less
clients ...

A solution could be bars with parking lots 1 mile away and courtesy bikes, but
I guess that cycling accidents and bycicle thefts would have an instant surge
...

More seriously, you drive to the bar parking lot, and while you are perfectly
sober, you decide to get drunk (beyond legal limits).

While you may well be right that the decision to drive is based on
intoxication, the decision to get intoxicated is taken based on consent,
knowing that you got there driving a car...

AFAICU legal limits are fairly low so you should be sober enough when you
order the "yet another" drink.

~~~
gman2345
You can get a DUI on a bicycle too. You can even get one on a horse.

------
logfromblammo
Being a prosecutor and having compassion are largely incompatible. If you
can't smother that part of yourself, you get fed up with putting people in
prison--essentially for being poor--and quit in disgust.

That creates a vicious cycle, wherein the cruelty of disproportionately severe
prosecutions drives out those who would not pursue them. When the people with
the most convictions and longest sentences for the worst offenses get
promoted, whether the criminals deserved them or not, it affects the workplace
culture.

Perhaps it would be better to force the state's criminal-court attorneys to
spend equal time as prosecutors and as public defenders, and promote based on
criteria other than win-loss ratio.

~~~
EdHominem
> Perhaps it would be better to force the state's criminal-court attorneys to
> spend equal time as prosecutors and as public defenders

That's a brilliant idea.

What better way to find systematic holes in the system than by making the same
people fight against them half the time, and making their reviews based on an
equal amount of prosecution and defense? Even if we still just went by the
numbers (which we would, it's easy) at least it wouldn't be so one-sided.

------
Callmenorm
One part that seems weird is:

>If we truly want to help people who are coming out of prison or to keep
people from going to prison, then we need a public-sector expansion with real
jobs that pay a living wage, not the contingent kind that pay a minimum wage.

What kind of jobs would these be? Construction, administration, or what? It's
not clear how the public sector creates hundreds of thousands of meaningful
jobs. I don't count the TSA as meaningful, BTW.

~~~
falcolas
We have a lot of public infrastructure which needs love (i.e. construction);
but of course the money to do this isn't there in the first place.

~~~
virmundi
I know we do, but most of it is transient. A road job constructing the
expansion of I-69 north of Indianapolis takes 6 years. That's great. People
can be employed 6 years on that job, maybe (seems to go in spurts, don't know
if they get paid for the downtime). At the end of that 6 years, construction
moves on. Money goes to another state, or another part of the state outside of
a commute. What do you do then?

If properly constructed, that 6 year road project won't need more than minor
maintenance for years. Sure 6-ish guys keep a job in the area, but the several
hundred lose theirs. This pattern of popup work repeats across the country.

Federal expansion programs are not sustainable. They can help, but ultimately
you need the private sector to create jobs by selling goods and services.

~~~
falcolas
I agree with every point. But while they _are_ employed, they have money to
spend both in the economy, and potentially to save for learning new skills.

It's not a cure in-and-of itself, but it is something which can help jumpstart
everything else (and it frankly needs to be done regardless of the side
benefits of providing employment).

------
0xcde4c3db
Gottschalk uses a term I'm unfamiliar with: "race liberals". Does anyone know
what the definition or typical usage pattern of this term is? Is it specific
to some particular academic field or political clique? I'm not finding very
good examples with Google (which thinks that "race, liberals" and "race.
Liberals" are good matches).

~~~
richmarr
> "...race liberals ran roughshod over deep concerns expressed by other
> liberals and some experts on crime and punishment that the quest for more
> proceduralism untethered to substantive goals in criminal justice would
> yield a more punitive criminal justice system"

Outside the actual meaning intended for 'race liberals' it does seem like a
case of labelling with the intent to paint a non-neutral narrative. The 'race
liberals' ran _roughshod_. The other liberals concerns were _deep_ , and
supported by _experts_ , and the proceduralism was apparently not tethered to
any goals.

This paragraph at least seems more fiction than non-fiction.

~~~
Tloewald
The sentence is a little tough to unpack but it's saying that emphasizing
procedure (rules) with a focus on race rather than improving criminal justice
more broadly could yield a more punitive system. It's describing a difference
of opinion, and this opinion seems reasonable.

I assume a "race liberal" is someone who is liberal with respect to race just
as a "social conservative" might be pro union and pro welfare but anti gay and
anti abortion.

~~~
richmarr
> ...emphasizing procedure (rules) with a focus on race rather than improving
> criminal justice more broadly could yield a more punitive system... I assume
> a "race liberal" ...

I'm not aware anyone in this thread is having difficulty 'unpacking' the
sentence, or extrapolating the broad meaning of the term 'race liberal'.

If you read the parent's comment in a more generous frame of mind you'll
realise that they were probably interested in exactly how this term has been
applied in the past.

My own comment was regarding the way the author presented a narrative, using
labels without describing who she was actually talking about, criticising
their actions without describing what they actually did.

This narrative proclaims that a group did something without evidence or even
goals, against the deep wishes of others, including experts.

Does it seem likely that they didn't have goals (after all the qualifier
'substantive' is deeply subjective)?

Does it seem likely that all the experts were opposed?

Does it seem likely that only the opposing side had deep concerns?

------
dandare
Summary: gibberish

>it’s not primarily the War on Drugs that’s driving this beast. Instead, it’s
an all-out assault that “extends a brute egalitarianism across the board.”

What that does even mean?

~~~
saint_fiasco
"Brute egalitarianism" means giving everyone the same sentence without case-
by-case consideration.

For example zero-tolerance, mandatory sentencing, not doing pardons anymore,
not releasing people on parole when they behave well and so on.

~~~
dragonwriter
That's not a real thing. Pardons and commutation still exist, parole exists
and is regularly used (not in the federal system, but the vast majority of
criminal prosecution is state-level prosecution); mandatory minimums exist, as
do some zero-tolerance policies, but those policies are selectively enforced
and mandatory minimums aren't mandatory equal sentences and don't stop
selective choice of charges. There is no brute egalitarianism in the criminal
justice and, in fact, enforcement is radically _unequal_ on both racial and
class bases.

Also, the area where the policies linked to that alleged "brute
egalitarianism" are most prominent are drug offenses and areas related to
violence against police officers sold largely by the violence in the war on
drugs, so even if they did produce a "brute egalitarianism" it wouldn't be
"across the board", it would still stem directly from the war on drugs.

~~~
shkkmo
The point is not that the criminal justice system is egalitarian, but that our
attempts to brute force egalitarianism have often lead to longer sentences and
higher incarceration rates.

> Blacks in Minnesota are about eleven times more likely to be incarcerated
> than whites, giving Minnesota the country’s highest black-white disparity in
> imprisonment. But Minnesota also has one of the lowest incarceration rates
> in the country. So overall, African Americans are less likely to be sent to
> prison in Minnesota than in the South, which is a more equal opportunity
> incarcerator

He is not disputing that the war on drugs is a proximate cause of our higher
incarceration rates. He is saying that attempts to solve the problem by
releasing non violent drug offenders can't solve the issue alone.

> Unfortunately, the issue is getting framed in a way that’s too narrowly
> focused on the War on Drugs. In fact, if we released everyone now serving
> time in state prisons whose primary charge is a drug offense, we would
> reduce the state prison population by only 20 percent

