
A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what? - subsystem
https://www.aclu.org/living-death-sentenced-die-behind-bars-what
======
spodek
It's a crying shame. Normally that's an empty phrase, but it describes this.

I can't imagine reading this and not feeling tears well up.

No sense of what I would call humanity. From what perspective does this make
the world a better place?

What am I missing about being human that this fits into that I don't
understand?

~~~
rfnslyr
Does anybody else constantly live in a state of guilt? So many lives lost and
wars fought just to get us to where we are, and we reap the benefits. I feel
so guilty for having a good paying job in the city. I'm not adding any value
to the world, none at all. I tinker with a few codes every day and make silly
amounts of money, when there's people struggling to put food on the table
working 18 hour days.

I need to do something, something meaningful. Sure I send a few bucks every
month to a few charities but that just makes me feel worse, like I'm loosely
patching holes of my guilt with plaster that will fade the next day.

What can I do? I don't belong here. I'm just another waste of space.

~~~
was_hellbanned
Take some of your money and travel. Go to Cambodia and don't be shy with your
cash. Visit the landmine museum, do some crying, and see how the resilient
people are (slowly) making a comeback. Buy all the trinkets and crap off the
swarming children. Hire a guide. Stimulate their local economy, then come back
with a greater appreciation of everything in your life. Vote (I suggest
independent, since mainstream are different shades of the same color), focus
on your friendships, and find yourself a more challenging and fulfilling job,
and don't read so much bad news. Everyone plays a role in the world, and yours
doesn't have to be one of direct savior. You can and do add value in
innumerable ways that you don't even notice.

~~~
enko
> Buy all the trinkets and crap off the swarming children

Oh FFS, don't do that, it just encourages them to treat visiting whiteys as
walking ATMs, which is bad for their tourism industry long-term.

Stay at hotels, eat at restaurants, take taxis, but don't encourage the
obnoxious hawkers, no matter how young they are.

~~~
heynk
Would you advocate for the same 'top-down' approach to stimulating the economy
in the US or another developed country? I think the concept of 'hawkers' could
be easily applied to startups. Do you believe a good consumer should be
supporting big corporations or fledgling startups? I'm just genuinely curious
of your position and if you think the analogy applies in the first world.

~~~
enko
I am not so sure it is such a good analogy. The "business model" of these
hawkers in third world countries like Cambodia or Laos is to explicitly
present themselves as impoverished, and then pressure or guilt-trip you into
buying something from them as a gesture of charity. The OP seemed to encourage
such behaviour, even admitted it was "crap" they were selling (it is).

I'd suggest that any startup worth its salt is actually offering something of
real value, not explicitly a charity case, so the analogy completely breaks
down. I fully support encouraging the startup ecosystem.

And I'm not even sure about using a term like "top down". Hotels really do
employ locals, as do restaurants, and by patronising them you send a strong
signal of support to the local tourism industry. With that assurance they can
make plans, invest, advertise, expand. It's not about making the rich richer,
not at all. Giving a small regional tourism industry the confidence to plan
for the future is a wonderful thing.

~~~
was_hellbanned
> to explicitly present themselves as impoverished

That's not the least bit true, in my experience. I've watched them come over
from where their families are working and attempt to sell trinkets, then go
back to their families (or friends' families).

As for "crap", yeah, it's crap. Because you don't give children appliances and
automobiles to sell. It's no different than the stuff you'll buy from American
children going door to door, trying to raise money for their school.

I think you're really looking down your nose at people. You have a choice when
traveling in areas like this. You can either act like you have to guard your
precious money from all these street urchins trying to cheat you, or you can
simply accept it as part of the experience traveling in a very poor area, and
embrace the reality that you can make some small difference in an individual's
life.

You talk as if denying individuals some income is somehow helping their long-
term tourism. Yet Thailand, which is decades ahead of Cambodia in terms of
development and wealth, still sees foreigners as wealthy, pesters them for
sales and rides, and they have a very healthy tourism industry in spite of
this. A country can't force its way into a $500/night resort industry.
Thailand has tried for years, and it's not happening anytime soon. Cambodia
doesn't even have a reasonable highway infrastructure.

> Hotels really do employ locals

To give an interesting regional example, are you aware that the Thai island of
Koh Phi Phi is controlled by the Chinese mafia?

~~~
notahacker
Do you have a source for the Ko Phi Phi claim (reason I ask is genuine
curisoity: I had a long conversation with a Thai bar owner a couple of years
ago where he observed that one of the attractions of Phi Phi is that unlike
Phuket or Samui, it _wasn 't_ mafia run). The mafia "protected" parts of the
Thai tourist industry still employ lots of working class Thais, not to mention
the Burmese diaspora.

The wider issue with buying stuff off Cambodian street urchins is that you
really don't want to encourage a state of affairs where the most aggressive
child beggars/vendors earn far more than their parents... and then need kids
of their own once they hit their mid-teens and no longer appeal to tourists'
sympathies.

------
thaumasiotes
My thoughts on the best and the worst:

> Anthony Jackson has a sixth-grade education and worked as a cook. He was
> convicted of burglary for stealing a wallet from a Myrtle Beach hotel room
> when he was 44 years old. According to prosecutors, he woke two vacationing
> golfers as he entered the room and stole a wallet, then pretended to be a
> security guard and ran away. Police arrested him when he tried to use the
> stolen credit card at a pancake house. [...] _Because of two prior
> convictions for burglary_ , Jackson was sentenced to mandatory life without
> parole under South Carolina's three-strikes law.

Emphasis mine. I can't get too worked up about a system that sentences this
guy to life in prison. What would be the point of letting him out? He knew he
wasn't supposed to walk into other people's hotel rooms and take their
wallets. At what point does society get to tell people "you know what, knock
it off"?

> After serving two years in prison during his mid-twenties for inadvertently
> killing someone during a bar fight, Aaron Jones turned his life around. He
> earned an electrical technician degree, married, became an ordained
> reverend, and founded the Perfect Love Outreach Ministry. Years later, Aaron
> was hired to renovate a motel in Florida, and was living in an employee-
> sponsored apartment with two other workers, one of whom had a truck that was
> used as a company vehicle by all the co-workers. Jones decided to drive this
> truck home to Louisiana to visit his wife and four children. When Aaron's
> co-worker woke up to find his truck missing, he reported it stolen. Aaron
> was pulled over by police while driving the truck.

I don't understand this one at all. Shouldn't the truck owner have testified
on his behalf? Declined to press charges?

I made a cursory effort to look up the case itself, but I have no idea how to
do that.

~~~
Mithaldu
> At what point does society get to tell people "you know what, knock it off"?

You're thinking about this the wrong way.

First, ask yourself: Why is there the justice system and prisons?

The answer: To reduce occurrence of crime.

Now why are prisons meant to help reduce crime? By scaring people into not
committing crimes? That obviously doesn't work, especially when many people
live lives so bad that they can't see a way of improving their lives but by
committing crimes, which is pretty much all the people in that document.

Now how would you actually get those people to stop committing crimes? The
document actually shows that:

Educate them. Once they know enough to actually be able to meaningfully
participate in modern society they see life entirely differently.

Only problem is: These people have reached that point and are barred from
actually acting upon it.

~~~
phreanix
What is it these guys are doing right and we're doing wrong?

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/11/sweden-
closes-p...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/11/sweden-closes-
prisons-number-inmates-plummets)

~~~
Mithaldu
This is only my own opinion and theory, but:

[http://www.studyineurope.eu/study-in-sweden/tuition-
fees](http://www.studyineurope.eu/study-in-sweden/tuition-fees)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits_in_Sweden](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits_in_Sweden)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Sweden](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Sweden)

------
jmadsen
I think at the root of this is a very prevalent attitude among a many people
in America toward "not letting people get away with things"

I don't think you can look at this in a vacuum - you need to see these
punishments as simply another manifestation of this attitude. This is not a
"this group vs. that group" thing; you may find this among "fire and
brimstone" Democrats just as often as your "Limburgh Republicans".

I've often said the difference between these groups is: given 100 people
asking for a free meal, the liberal will take satisfaction in feeding 99
hungry ones; this type of conservative will fret over the one person who "got
away with" getting a free lunch he could have afforded himself.

(Side rant: these people tend to be among the loudest Bible-thumpers, and
think "the Good Lord helps those.." is an actual biblical passage.)

Rehabilitation as a way of dealing with miscreants doesn't work in the US for
the main part because there is too large a segment of the American populace
who feel that these various programs equate to giving them a reward for bad
behavior. Why should they (the convicted) get a free hand with job placement
when no one else is "being coddled"?

(The wonderful quote "born on third base and thinks he hit a triple" always
comes to mind here.)

So you see, Americans understand perfectly well all the logical and economic
aspects of this issue. The fact is, it is built into our culture to punish
people. We get satisfaction from it. We're not after what's best for the
country, we're after revenge.

It's ugly, but I've been around for many years & I stand by that statement.

~~~
bsandbox
I think people's sense of personal safety is a bigger driver than revenge. In
general, people want a hard line on anything that impacts their sense of
personal safety. In order to feel safe, people want punishment to prevent
others from committing the same crime.

(Of course the flaw in this thinking is that punishment does not always
prevent criminals from committing a crime).

~~~
rlanday
If you lock up a repeat offender, you can at least prevent that person from
committing more crimes.

~~~
summerdown2
Unless it turns out that the statistics work out otherwise?*

I tend to think the answer is evidence-based reform. Check out what works and
do more of that. As far as I can tell, the best results are had by
rehabilitation type systems.

* What I mean by this is it might be a tautology that someone locked up in prison forever can commit no more crimes, but I'm not sure it's as simple as that. If you lock someone up:

a) You deprive their community of that person. Maybe their children will now
become criminals.

b) You deprive their community of their spending power and work. Maybe it will
become poorer.

c) They have the chance inside prison to share experiences with novice
criminals and teach them how to become old hands, increasing crime when their
cell-mates get out.

Now if that person is a negative on all the above values, maybe there is a
point in not letting them out. Maybe they have broken homes, never work, and
teach others about crime anyway. But that's not the person I'm comparing them
to.

I'm saying the criminal in their community has a negative effect on society.
Putting them in jail makes it zero. Actually rehabilitating them makes it
positive.

If we could get rehabilitation to work, everything gets better. Personally, I
think evidence from round the world suggests this is possible.

------
clarky07
Am I the only one here not seeing this as propaganda with nicely worded
articles masking a lot of the reality here? Some of them seem a little
unreasonable I'll agree, but lets go through a few of these:

"taking a wallet from a hotel room" \- we blame it on the court appointed
lawyer. He's already been convicted and sent to jail twice for burglary and he
continues to break into other peoples places and steal their stuff. Poor guy
just took a wallet from those rich vacationing golfers. Screw that. If I was
there I'd be scared to death. How many times do we let him keep doing this.
Stop doing it stupid.

"stealing tools from a tool shed" \- oh he was just riding along. sure he was.
already been convicted multiple times for burglary. The fact that he
desperately misses his children does not make him less guilty of continuing to
break into other peoples places and taking their things. Stop doing that
stupid.

"borrowing a co-workers truck" \- i think there is clearly more to this story.
generally speaking, people don't normally drive other people's trucks 3 states
away without letting them know. If it really was harmless, i'd expect the
other guy to not press charges or testify on his behalf. Hey guys, it was just
a misunderstanding I thought someone else took it. Also, "inadvertently
killing someone" is a really nice way of saying he beat the shit out of
someone in a fight and the guy died.

Perhaps some of these don't deserve life, but I don't really have that much of
a problem with it. Maybe we could lower it to 20-30 years, but I have no
problems with escalating penalties. If you are a productive member of society
this isn't a problem. These mini-articles are all worded as if these people
didn't do anything wrong and just made a tiny mistake this one time and now
they are in prison forever. Not the case. Most of them made pretty big
mistakes, and they made them repeatedly.

~~~
avenger123
Incredible.

Please, please take a step back and read what you wrote. Now, for each of
those instances you described, please assume this is your uncle, brother,
cousin etc? Do you still feel the same?

No one is saying these people did nothing wrong. The main issue is that the
punishment does not fit the crime. That's it. Simple.

Where do we draw the line? Obviously for you the line is ok where it is at.
But, frankly, all these cases, I have an intuitive sense that the punishment
does not fit the crime. There are many people, I would assume that also have
this intuitive sense.

Why is this? I would make a guess that when I see someone like Martha Stewart
getting less than a year in prison for securities fraud and someone "taking a
wallet from a hotel room" getting life, well, it just doesn't jive right.
Obviously this is just one example. The unevenness of it makes it wrong.

~~~
clarky07
you clearly don't know me at all. I have a cousin that has stolen large sums
of money from and threatened bodily harm to my grandma along with several
other convictions that i'd like to stay in prison for a long time. I've got an
uncle that I have similar feelings for.

Also, you should re-read what I wrote. I also said that perhaps these don't
deserve life, but "a long time" does seem reasonable.

Finally, how is securities fraud worse than breaking and entering? How is
securities fraud worse than "inadvertently killing someone?" Really? Yes yes,
I know we hate the 1%. Terrible rich people. Insider trading is not worse than
breaking and entering or killing someone. Come on now.

~~~
avenger123
You are right, I do not know you.

Anyways, let's agree to disagree on this.

~~~
clarky07
ah quick edit there. I'll leave my response below. We can agree to disagree,
but let me make a few more points first :-) I'll be civil I promise.

He didn't get life for stealing the truck. he got life for stealing the truck
in addition to the 2 other convictions. It's also not "any severity," but
felony level severity. You can argue that the line in the sand has been drawn
in the wrong place, but the line in the sand is for bad offenses. Stealing a
chocolate bar is not a felony, it is a misdemeanor (pretty much everywhere as
far as I can tell. Generally speaking, shoplifting is not a felony until is it
several hundred dollars worth, usually $500).[1]

You can argue that the "felony" label is too broadly applied to things that
aren't "that bad." You can argue that life is too harsh of a punishment. Those
are reasonable arguments. But in general, felonies are "severe" and not
comparable to speeding tickets or chocolate bars.

>Realistically if the first two strikes were horrendous the person would
already be put in jail for life and a long time. There would be no opportunity
for a third strike. By your logic, the courts got it wrong the first two times
and now they are getting it right with the life sentence.

I'd say it's more along the lines of we'll give you a couple chances, but only
a couple. 1, go to jail for awhile and think about what you've done. 2, I told
you not to do that and you kept doing it anyways think about it longer. 3.
Dude, seriously. We warned you, and now we've had enough.

Some felonies on their own are in fact worthy of life. Murder someone and you
generally get life. They idea behind 3 strikes is that on their own maybe they
aren't worth that long of a sentence, but they are bad and we gave you several
chances.

>Also, I am sorry, personally for me 20-30 years in jail is as good as life.

perhaps. how about 10-15? I have no idea what the "right" amount of time for
any crime is. All I'm suggesting is that it isn't that unreasonable to have
that time scale for people who repeatedly prove that they aren't being
productive members of society.

[1] - [http://examples.yourdictionary.com/what-are-examples-of-
felo...](http://examples.yourdictionary.com/what-are-examples-of-felonies-
misdemeanors.html)

~~~
hmsimha
You may find it interesting that there's a guy in California who died in
prison under the three strikes law for attempting to steal a candy bar,
because a petty theft can be prosecuted as a felony for people with previous
thefts. Another guy, who was never arrested for theft _or_ violence of any
kind, has been in prison for 20 years and will likely remain there for life
after getting arrested with 13 sheets of LSD. The cost of keeping someone in
prison can be over $100,000 a year. Regardless of the seriousness of the
crimes committed by the people presented in the ACLU link (and I don't
disagree with you that they are not trivial), the fact remains that we have
the most overzealous criminal system in the world.

------
mynameishere
The three strike laws make some sense as long as people conflate "felony" with
genuinely serious crimes like rape or aggravated assault. If someone commits
three consecutive rapes...well, who would complain about locking him up
forever?

The problem is in the increasing meaninglessness of the term "felony". If they
limited it to grievous crimes, there wouldn't be much controversy.

Also, it's weird to have something presented as "news" when _The Simpsons_
covered it satirically about 15 years ago:

[http://smotri.com/video/view/?id=v1656836867c](http://smotri.com/video/view/?id=v1656836867c)

~~~
neeee
>If someone commits three consecutive rapes...well, who would complain about
locking him up forever?

I would. The primary purpose of prisons should be rehabilitation. Giving life
sentences doesn't take into account that people can change.

~~~
clarky07
So what is a reasonable punishment for a serial rapist? Seems to me that no
one should get the chance to be convicted of rape 3 times. They should have
been locked up before that 3rd one happened. I might, might let you out at
some point after 1. After 2, screw you. You clearly didn't learn and you are a
danger to society.

~~~
eropple
_> So what is a reasonable punishment for a serial rapist?_

Forced placement in a facility for treating mental illness until his doctors
determine he is sufficiently well to be reintegrated into society, followed by
a public-service program as societal (note: not personal) recompense for his
actions. That would be after the _first_ time, though, not the third. Because
this person needs help and is plainly not getting it--and he will never get
help in an American prison.

But because enough people are more interested in vengeance than justice--and
your posts pretty firmly demonstrate that you're in that camp--it will never,
ever happen.

~~~
clarky07
You are suggesting that everyone who has ever committed rape is mentally ill.
That seems like a stretch to me. I'd suggest there are a lot of people that
are simply bad people who like to have forceful sex with someone who doesn't
want to have sex with them. I also don't think all murderers are mentally ill.
Some people just have a motive and are willing to cross a line.

I'm not interested in vengeance, and nothing about my post suggested I am. I
don't want people who are a danger to society to continue to be a danger to
society. If I was one of the people interested in vengeance, I'd have said
something like they should get raped repeatedly with a broom in prison. I
didn't, I just said they should be locked up. Nothing vengeful about that at
all. I just want them to not be near my loved ones.

~~~
eropple
Being "willing to cross a line" _is_ mental illness. It's the fucking
definition of antisocial personality disorder. Get them the help they need,
train them to be productive members of society (like we should for _everyone_
), and guess what? The problem goes away. You will certainly have an incurable
segment of the population who, after actually being treated by professionals
and educated, cannot integrate with society--but it's not going to be _a third
of the population of black males_ being locked away for at least part of their
lives and being primed for further criminality by their experiences in prison.

Putting someone in a concrete box where one's safety is utterly left up to
chance is nothing _but_ vengeful and retaliatory. It is designed to inflict
misery and nothing else. It saddens me that this obvious fact escapes so many
of my fellow Americans but I've become resigned to the fact that those of us
with privilege are just kind of shitty human beings when it comes to anybody
unlike us.

~~~
clarky07
Are you suggesting that there should be no prisons at all, and just mental
hospitals?

what do we do with "You will certainly have an incurable segment of the
population who, after actually being treated by professionals and educated,
cannot integrate with society"?

Also, what do we do with those that are extremely violent and prone to escape?
It seems reasonable that a tougher layer of security is warranted in some
cases.

>"Putting someone in a concrete box where one's safety is utterly left up to
chance is nothing but vengeful and retaliatory."

First, I'm not convinced that our prison system is quite as bad as that
statement. It seems a bit of hyperbole to me. I'd agree that it certainly
isn't great, but perhaps not quite that bad.

Also, it seems that we don't really have to disagree about anything, you are
just reading too much into what I've said. I'm in favor of trying to
rehabilitate people, and I'm also in favor of improving our prisons. I'd
classify someone convicted of rape several times as "an incurable segment of
the population who, after actually being treated by professionals and
educated, cannot integrate with society."

I also think there are way too many people in prison in general, specifically
in relation to the absurd war on drugs. I suspect we agree on that.

>It is designed to inflict misery and nothing else.

I think it is designed as punishment for crime. That mostly seems reasonable.
I think while we're at it, we should work to try and rehabilitate them better
than we do, but no need to put them in a penthouse suite. Part of it is
deterrence. All crime is not mental illness. I promise you that. Much of it is
committed by highly intelligent people who just didn't expect to get caught.
Much of it is committed by not very intelligent people who just didn't expect
to get caught.

~~~
SolarNet
I think he is suggesting something like this:
[http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-
pri...](http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-
inmates-treated-like-people)

Where serious crimes like rape and murder (but not manslaughter) still come
with heavy sentences (like 15-25 years) but in a place where you can be
rehabilitated so when you get out it doesn't come to a second strike. (Also,
the fact that rapists often get sentences under 10 years in this country is
pretty ridiculous, and is what allows them to actually get around to
committing the crime 3 times. (15 year sentences 3 times starting at age 15
would make you 60. How are people committing 3 rapes in the first place?)

Basically I'm fine with the 3 strike laws as long as we fix the root problems
in the first place. (And also fix the definition of felony to not include non-
violent, non-serious crimes).

~~~
eropple
Precisely. Thank you.

------
beloch
The U.S. and Canada have very similar cultures, so comparisons here have some
meaning. The U.S.'s per capita incarceration rate is 6.28 times Canada's [1]
and the per capita number of police officers is 1.26 times higher in the
U.S.[2]. However, the intentional homicide rate of the U.S. is 2.94 times that
of Canada[3]. Certain types of offenses (e.g. drug offenses) are higher in
Canada, but the violent crime rate is lower.

It's worth asking what is going on here. I'm no expert on law and punishment,
but it seems like the U.S. is throwing more resources at the problem (perhaps
prodded by for-profit prison lobbyists) and getting poorer results. The
cultures are too similar to explain this away by saying Canadians are
inherently less violent. As Canada considers harsher prison sentences and
expanding prison capacity, it's imperative to understand if this will produce
the intended results.

[1][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarcerat...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate)

[2][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_police_officers)

[3][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate)

~~~
grecy
Many people don't appreciate how much a solid social net does to reduce crime.
Even the poorest Canadians have access to good health care and education.

In America, I have no doubt in my mind I'd steal to pay for an operation on my
kids. Hell, I'd rob a bank at gunpoint if it came down to it.

In Canada, I just walk into a Hospital.

~~~
csomar
I don't think making such a public comment is a wise idea in a surveillance
state. I also think stealing is wrong whatever is the reason[1].

[1] I don't have kids but got at some point seriously sick and broke.

~~~
zanny
If speaking my mind gets me thrown in prison, I'd rather stand by my beliefs
and be proud of them then to lie and live a hollow life of subservience.

------
whiddershins
One thing that disturbs me, after reading the comments here, and after hearing
attitudes expressed by people in general: I think normal citizens massively
underestimate how harsh these sentences are. Look around at your life and
picture how much damage might be done by just a 6 month stint in jail. You
would likely lose your job, you might lose your house, your kids. Even a month
in jail would be a serious bummer for most of the people posting here.

Now, think, really picture, what a 3 year sentence would do. How hard it would
be to recover from losing those years.

Now picture a 5 year, 7 year, 10 year, 15 year sentence. There is a reason
Norway generally restricts its sentences to 21 years for even the most heinous
crimes. The sentencing here in the US is truly draconian. It only seems
proportional because we are measuring relative to what is already going on, so
in context this stuff seems "not that bad."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Norway](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Norway)

------
joshfraser
There is so much injustice with our prison system right now. There are
countless people being locked up for their entire lives over petty crimes --
the same crimes that relatively comfortable white boys like me could easily
get away with because I can afford a decent lawyer. It's racism and wealth
discrimination disguised as justice.

The US is leading the world in incarceration and the privatization of prisons
is a big contributor to the problem. Corporations have a financial incentive
to incarcerate more people and lobby to keep strict drug laws.

Meanwhile we make jokes and laugh about things like prison rape. I believe we
will look back at prison rape the same way we look back at slavery. How
barbaric are we that we think that's somehow okay?

For things to change, we’re going to have to change public perceptions and
start demanding change. I wish we were a little less eager to deprive people
of their most basic right to freedom.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States)

~~~
jrockway
I don't think the underlying problem is privatized prisons. The underlying
problems are our unconscious biases, political pandering ("tough on crime!")
and weaknesses in our educational and healthcare systems.

~~~
joshfraser
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-carlsen/immigration-
refo...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-carlsen/immigration-reform-
privation-prisons-lobby_b_2665199.html)

~~~
jrockway
Sure, but privatized prisons would be just as happy to house rich white people
as they would be to house poor immigrants. They want their prisons full, but
that doesn't explain why people commit crimes, how people are caught,
arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced.

------
mrkmcknz
The UK in comparison:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentencing_in_England_and_Wales](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentencing_in_England_and_Wales)

I understand that we don't have the kind of problem that a8da6b0c91d mentioned
here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6743406](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6743406)
however I really don't understand the common sense of the US judicial system.

If I were to be caught breaking some computer misuse act against a UK company
it's more than likely a slap on the wrist would be handed down to me. Abuse a
US corporation and I would expect extradition and 10 years or more in one of
your comfortable prison cells.

Also compare the US and UK prisons themselves.

UK:
[https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=uk+prison+cell&espv=210&es...](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=uk+prison+cell&espv=210&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=hOeGUqbPDIaLswbktoHACg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1600&bih=798)

US:
[https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=uk+prison+cell&espv=210&es...](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=uk+prison+cell&espv=210&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=hOeGUqbPDIaLswbktoHACg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1600&bih=798#es_sm=93&espv=210&q=american%20prison%20cell&revid=1513913037&tbm=isch&imgdii=_)

------
brianbreslin
This is pathetic. What country that claims to be a leader in human rights can
justify this kind of justice? I'm American, and am continuously appalled to
hear these types of stories. these stories are sadly not isolated either, and
have come to almost be accepted. We are nearing a tipping point where we need
to stand up for a better America. Screw the prison industry, and screw
lobbyists, screw bipartisan squabbles. We need to stand up for ISSUES that
matter to us.

~~~
grecy
> _What country that claims to be a leader in human rights can justify this
> kind of justice?_

They claim to be the leader in a lot of things when it's plainly not true.
Unfortunately, the only people that believe the marketing spin are those
inside, or those in the poorest of countries. Everyone else knows it's a crock
of shit.

------
anigbrowl
This is poorly focused. I'm absolutely against 3 strikes sentencing laws and
mandatory sentencing escalations that can put petty criminals in prison for
life.

On the other hand, I'm perfectly OK with _some_ criminals dying behind bars,
such as the recently sentenced Whitey Bulger, and so are most other people. By
making the headline about the undesirability of custodial life sentences in
general, they'er losing a large chunk of their potential audience straight out
of the gate.

~~~
GuiA
So, question- if you actively support putting people behind bars with the
intent of seeing them die there, why not just kill them right away? If the
intent is for them to not cause any harm to society, then that'll get the job
done while saving money for society and making them suffer for a shorter
period of time.

Unless the goal is to make them suffer for their entire life as punishment; in
which case, why not just torture them? That seems like it would be more
efficient.

I'm legitimately curious as to why one would support prison if one does not
believe that society should aspire to transform criminals into better, law
abiding citizens.

~~~
Jach
Personally, I would support hanging them high instead of putting them in
prison for life... except I do hold certain relevant beliefs about the future
of humanity. I think there's a decent chance that before this century is out,
us humans will have mastery over our brains (which may or may not be the same
gooey brains we've always had), and I think it would be tragic if we put even
a bad man to death instead of imprisoning him for several decades then fixing
his brain when the technology comes along. If prisons become too costly for
the rest of us to support or if it's going to take a lot longer for the tech,
then mass cryogenic suspensions would be better than straight up executions,
and for free people cryonics would be better than dying of old age... Of
course if I thought humans will never gain mastery over the brain, then sure,
why not have executions for those with life sentences, who ideally are those
where "education" and rehabilitation are impossible due to the way their
brains are?

~~~
thaumasiotes
> then fixing his brain when the technology comes along.

This is not an improvement over killing him.

------
mschuster91
As an European citizen, I think such "sentences" are more resembling China,
Russia or any other dictatorship, but not a first-world country.

Do human rights actually mean something in the US?

~~~
hobs
If you are poor? Not really. Every person that I see listed was not able to
afford a decent lawyer.

~~~
aspensmonster
But... but... the public defender!

~~~
mschuster91
Ever watched an episode of Cold Case? Public defenders in the US largely seem
to be a joke

~~~
aspensmonster
Exactly.

------
zw123456
From the map it seems like all the cases are in the Southeast. Is the
Southeastern United States sort or a 3rd Word Country within the U.S. ? It
seems like every time I see something like this it is in the Southeast. It
seems to me like the rift from the Civil War has never completely been
resolved. Just an observation, does anyone else feel the same way?

~~~
GuiA
I've lived in the southeast of the US as well as the west coast, and I am from
Europe.

To my foreign eyes, infrastructures and poverty levels in the south east of
the US definitely made it feel like a 3rd world country.

~~~
pfedor
For example, Alabama is almost as poor as France or Japan, and Mississippi
(the poorest state) is almost as poor as Spain and New Zealand.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_\(PPP\)_per_capita)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP)

~~~
melvinmt
Eh, you're comparing PPP with GDP. Try this link:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomin...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_\(nominal\))
You'll find that France is richer than the richest US state (California).

~~~
pfedor
You want per capita, otherwise you'd think China is wealthier than
Switzerland. And you want PPP (though it doesn't make that much difference)
since that reflects what people can actually afford. If you made $1M a month
but the prices in your country were such that it would only buy dry bread and
water, you'd still be poor.

------
gregsq
In England, especially in the eighteenth century, we had a somewhat similar,
though harsher regime where one strike against you on a charge of petty
larceny could lead to imprisonment in HM prisons. Of course the prison
population swelled as hangings became less fashionable, and the temporary
prison ships were unmoored to sail to places like Australia. Transportation
for the theft of a loaf of bread.

Ironic that that country, along with its New World cousin the USA, claimed
ideals of freedom so strongly. Much more so in the USA. Mandatory sentencing
has it's place it can be argued. This seems antithetical to first principles
however.

------
dsjoerg
A throwaway thought: one of the (many) problems with 3-strike sentencing laws
may be that the escalation curve is too quick to have the desired curbing
effect.

It is obvious (to me) that some kind of exponentiation would be more
effective. 2x - 3x elongation _per offense_ would be plenty harsh, harsh
enough for the offender to understand it's going to be much worse each time,
without it having to be life in prison.

EDIT: On second thought, formulaic sentencing is bad. Sentencing is hard,
consistency is hard, but to remove human judgment and discretion from the
sentencing process seems obviously wrong.

~~~
skyraider
Is it really hard to make a decision on sentencing in nonviolent crimes that
you wouldn't personally lock someone in a box for?

If they're not a danger to society, they do not belong in a box.

~~~
clarky07
breaking and entering seems like something people should probably go to jail
for. That's what several of these were.

~~~
skyraider
There's a huge difference between 'going to jail' and life in prison.

~~~
clarky07
Yes, but that isn't what the comment i replied to said at all. And while
perhaps life is overkill, I think repeatedly breaking and entering does in
fact deserve a long time in jail.

~~~
whiddershins
I posted another comment to this effect, but "a long time" is a concept that I
think has become distorted in our culture.

If you or I got even 6 months in jail for stealing a wallet, I am pretty sure
it would feel like "a long time."

This business of decades or life imprisonment for property crimes is
draconian, we have just collectively lost perspective.

IMHO.

~~~
clarky07
perhaps you are right, but "stealing a wallet" is minimizing the severity of
what happened. Breaking and entering is different than being a pickpocket.
Grabbing a wallet off a table in a restaurant is different than someone
breaking into your house. That seems obvious to me.

I'd also hope that after your "long time of 6 months in jail for stealing a
wallet" you'd realize that it was a poor choice and not do it again. Certainly
after the 2nd time you were convicted and sent to jail it should sink in
right? If 3 times isn't enough, where do we draw the line?

~~~
whiddershins
I feel a man could steal 1000 wallets and not deserve 10 years in jail, much
less life in prison. even if he never, ever, ever, learned his lesson. I
personally would not send a person to prison for life for a property crime,
and a small one at that.

This phrase is repeated often in this thread, "draw the line," but some people
will not conform, some people will commit petty criminal acts, for a lifetime.
IMHO that is no justification for locking them up indefinitely.

Think of marijuana legislation, one minute you can be locked up for life, the
next minute it is legal. No matter what the crime, there is an element of
subjectivity, fashion, culture, in what punishments we apply. Yes, some people
may not rehabilitate. But that fact alone doesn't justify life in prison. Or
even a severe sentence.

Compassion is real. It is important, even when it is inconvenient, even for
people who suck.

At least, that's how I see it.

~~~
PeterisP
"I feel a man could steal 1000 wallets and not deserve 10 years in jail"

After, say, 100 wallets stolen how do you prevent the next 900 victims from
suffering? The victims have absolute rights for protection and compassion; but
a repeat offender has intentionally chosen to throw away whatever ties with
society he had. There's a social contract about things we do and don't do to
each other; we generally don't take others stuff, don't hurt each others and
we show compassion to others in our society - so if you repeatedly choose to
break the social contract, by taking others stuff and not showing compassion;
then why should others show compassion and refrain from hurting you?

If someone can go to my house and take my stuff, why should I be forcibly
prevented by police from going to his house and taking his stuff?

If someone is an unquestionably repeat offender, then preventing future crimes
is a mandatory goal; respecting the offender is important but, if we can't do
otherwise, it's optional. If there is a more humane way to solve it than
permanent isolation from society (life sentence, permanent mental institution,
execution or exile), then I'd like to hear that and would greatly support it.

~~~
drostie
I think the point is that for each wallet stolen we would send a guy to jail
for, say, two days. If we think that the guy has stolen approximately 100
wallets we prevent the next 900 from suffering by imprisoning him for the most
part of a year, and that's it.

What I haven't seen yet is a comparison of cash, not to the cost of
imprisonment, but to the cost of getting a job. That is, if someone is in
prison for 200 days, that costs a few tens of thousands of dollars to the US
taxpayer, so the arguments being advanced in these threads say "this should be
a response only to someone who is stealing $10,000 from us, otherwise the
government is taking much more from us in taxes than the guy was taking from
us in crime." That makes some amount of sense. It ignores certain problems
(like "who do the taxes come from?" and psychological damage from getting
mugged and so on), but it does have some core "thrust" to it.

On the other hand, to be an effective deterrent to crime, you'd figure that
we'd want to make the crime net-unprofitable; that is, you'd want the 9-to-5
job at $7/hour to be a more profitable way of living than stealing $100
wallets. So this would suggest that for an expected number of 100 wallets
stolen you should really incarcerate for, say, 2 years or so, so that the
original crime "really doesn't pay", in the sense that you lose job-access for
a total sum of more money than you gained. (That punishment might also have to
be increased if the chance of catching someone who steals 100 wallets is not
100%.)

~~~
PeterisP
You can't ever make crime not net-profitable for people who just cover basic
neccessities, and there are a lot of them.

You work for a month? You get a month's rent and food. You're in prison for a
month? You get a worse bed but a bit better food - the lack of freedom sucks
bigtime, but financially there's no difference.

------
brandonhsiao
I have no words. None. At all.

I'm going to be honest and say that in general I am anything but a compassion.
I have every bit of sympathy, however, for (relatively) innocent people being
victims of things like bureaucracy, human stupidity, laziness, or sheer
scumfuckery. It's hard for me to imagine what was going on in those judges'
heads, but chances are it's something I despise.

This one was the worst for me:

> When he was 22-years-old, Lance Saltzman was charged with breaking into his
> own home and taking his stepfather’s gun, which his stepfather had shot at
> his mother and repeatedly used to threaten her. He was convicted of armed
> burglary and sentenced to prison for the rest of his life.

~~~
refurb
I'm pretty sure that story is missing some important details. First, how can
you be charged with breaking into your own home?

It sounds like he broke into his stepfather's home, stole a gun and likely
because of his criminal past got the book thrown at him. Breakings law is bad
enough, but doing it while armed will get the book thrown at you.

I'm not saying mandatory minimums are right, they aren't. Why have judges if
you aren't going to let them do the judging.

However, these stories don't seem to pass the sniff test.

EDIT: A few more important details about Lance..

"In March 2006, when he was 21, Saltzman came home to find his stepfather,
Toni Minnick, and his mother, Christina Borg, were in a heated argument. His
stepfather took his gun and pointed it at his mother. He fired it near her.
His mother called the police. Police seized the gun then returned it to his
stepfather days later. There were no charges filed. Again, his stepfather
pulled the gun on his mother and threatened to kill his mother.

Saltzman decided that his stepfather should no longer have this firearm. He
was likely to shoot and kill his mother. In June, he removed the gun from his
stepfather’s bedroom and then sold the gun, according to evidence, to “feed
his drug addiction.” It was later used in a burglary.

His stepfather found the gun missing and notified the police. Police found the
gun “in the possession of the young man who had committed the burglary.”
Saltzman was then charged with “armed burglary, grand theft of a firearm, and
being a felon in possession of a firearm—all for breaking into his own home
and taking his stepfather’s gun.” Police also found cocaine in his car and he
was charged with possession of cocaine."

------
skyraider
I think an effective way to frame this issue is:

Would you consider these people so dangerous that you would personally build a
small concrete box and forcibly keep them inside for many hours a day for the
rest of their lives? Or, is that how you would treat your children if they
committed some minor, nonviolent, kinda-maybe-bad act?

No reasonable person would - the moral decision above is clear. Would you pay
for someone else to do this?

We are brothers and sisters in humanity, and we elect people who write these
laws and treat fellow people like this (and/or refuse to reform the US
Sentencing Commission). We are to blame.

------
tshile
Wait, are we actually supposed to get worked up over this? The ACLU so clearly
tip toed while writing the descriptions of these cases as to clearly walk a
line between lying about the case and giving us the context needed to
understand why these people are in jail for life.

"Patrick had no violent criminal history and had never served a single day in
a Department of Corrections facility" \- Right, but he obviously had a drug
problem since he did NA in prison and probably got in trouble previously, just
not enough to go to the Department Of Corrections facility (what his crimes
and punishments were are left as an exercise to the reader)

The other stories have similar issues. Blame it on the abusive and threatening
boyfriend, not the previous drug convictions and a three strikes law. Life in
prison for borrowing a truck from a friend that accidentally reported it
stolen?

Look, innocent people get in trouble for things they didn't do. Not innocent
people get in trouble for things they didn't do, but were just in the wrong
place at the wrong time due to the other things that they did do. It's an
unfortunate part of the system and I'm all for things that minimize
overcharging and punishing innocent people.

But anyone who can't read between the lines on these is either a sap or just
believing what they want to. They even led into it with a statistic about race
to soften you up. There are three strikes laws for a reason. There's massive
amounts of context missing from these. It's a shame, I generally like the ACLU
and what they do, but this is awful.

~~~
eaurouge
Three strikes on drug convictions is unfair - especially given the disparity
in sentencing for crack cocain vs. other drugs. Do you have any idea how many
privileged celebrities would be in jail (some for life) if drug crimes were
enforced fairly and uniformly?

~~~
tshile
So for drug convictions it's unfair? possession or distribution? what about
manufacturing? is the crime for possession change depending on amount? what
about the type of drug?

i think the way our country approaches the issue of drugs is not only
pointless but down right dumb. about as dumb as breaking the law 3 times when
you know that there's a three strikes rule on the books. i just don't have
sympathy for people that can't learn from their mistakes. these laws are in
place for a reason, these people knew they were in place, and now we're all
supposed to feel bad for them about their decisions making? sorry, i don't buy
it.

as for celebrities, i don't think we can really model the entire country
around how they're treated. i'd prefer they be treated like everyone else too,
but money buys lawyers and not all lawyers are created equally.

~~~
eaurouge
Let's stick with drug possession. Up until 2007, first time conviction on
possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine, a drug supposedly used predominantly
by blacks (supposedly, but not really), would result in a mandatory sentencing
of 5 years [1]. If you were lucky and got caught with powder cocaine instead,
you would have to have 500 grams in your possession to suffer a similar fate.
This was the 100 to 1 sentencing disparity that was reduced to 18:1 in 2010
[2].

That's not all. Roughly 80% of those convicted for possession of crack cocaine
are black, only 10% are white [3][4]. Yet crack cocaine usage within both
races is about the same [5].

If you analyse conviction rates vs use for different classes (rich vs poor), I
bet you'll find similarly outrageous numbers.

1\.
[http://famm.org/Repository/Files/FS%20Brief%20History%20of%2...](http://famm.org/Repository/Files/FS%20Brief%20History%20of%20Crack%20Laws%204.13.12.pdf)
2\.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Sentencing_Act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Sentencing_Act)
3\. [http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/08/03/data-show-
rac...](http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/08/03/data-show-racial-
disparity-in-crack-sentencing) 4\.
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/racial-disparity-
dr...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/racial-disparity-drug-
use_n_3941346.html) 5\.
[http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/quicktables/quickconfig.do?34481-...](http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/quicktables/quickconfig.do?34481-0001_all)

------
zaroth
If the judge simply orders a sentence below the minimum, what happens? While
the Government can appeal the sentence, then it comes to the next judge up the
line to stand up for justice.

For example, California's 3-strike law counts non-violent felonies, which
sweeps up a lot of criminals into 25 year sentences that they don't deserve.

"The California law originally gave judges no discretion in setting prison
terms for three strikes offenders. However, the California Supreme Court
ruled, in 1996, that judges, in the interest of justice, could ignore prior
convictions in determining whether an offender qualified for a three strikes
sentence." [1]

But these so called "mandatory" sentences are not actually that, it's just
that most judges simply don't have the guts to stand up for justice. A judge
can use their discretion in setting sentences, but then can be challenged if
Government can show the sentence is unreasonable. While following the
guidelines is presumed reasonable, simply not following the guidelines is not
presumed unreasonable.

Lois Forer was a judge in Philadelphia facing just such a decision, and he
explains the process better than I can [2]. In the end, the man he tried to
save was resentenced by another judge to serve the balance of the "mandatory
minimum" five years. This is a system which is ultimately perpetuated by the
judiciary.

I don't blame the legislature for enacting laws that get them re-elected. I do
blame the judges for letting a sentencing law unjustly destroy some peoples
lives.

[1] - [http://legal-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Three+Strikes+...](http://legal-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Three+Strikes+Laws) [2] -
[http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Justice+by+the+numbers%3B+mand...](http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Justice+by+the+numbers%3B+mandatory+sentencing+drove+me+from+the+bench.-a012129669)

~~~
skyraider
A few points:

\- Many former judges are prosecutors. Prosecutors are trained to get the
maximum 'sustainable' sentence. This means looking at what the law says and
enforcing it. Fault: legislature.

\- If the law says that sentences should or must be X long, sentences are
going to be around X long. Outside of the 3 strikes system and the California
Supreme Court's ruling, how is this the judiciary's fault? There is a severe
lack of empathy among the public, legislators, and in the judiciary for sure,
but the legislators passed the laws.

\- How much, really, does sentence length have to do with re-election? Maybe a
few really informed voters on either side will vote on the sentencing issue
only but I really doubt this.

~~~
erichocean
_How much, really, does sentence length have to do with re-election?_

If you mean, with the voters? Almost nothing.

It you mean, in the ability to get votes in the next election through adequate
funding? It means a lot.

The prison union (among others) is a heavy, heavy funder of politicians here
in CA (and I assume other places). Obviously they benefit from having more
customers^Hprisoners; hence, politicians are willing to vote for legislation
in their favor, to keep the money flowing for the next election.

This should surprise no one.

~~~
skyraider
Sure, but the crime and punishment attitude was around before private prisons.
They are more like contributors to the problem than the original cause.

It would be great to shut down the private prison industry but let's be
realistic about the extent to which lobbying dollars influence the maximum
sentence in legislation nation-wide. I would attribute long sentences mainly
to poor thinking.

------
noonespecial
Well, we seem to be going all out defending the other amendments these days. I
guess its time to add the 8th to our efforts.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

~~~
ScottBurson
Additionally, I don't understand why mandatory sentences aren't considered a
blatant violation of the Constitutional separation of powers. Was it really
the Framers' intent that the judiciary's traditional sentencing discretion
could be overruled in this way? Maximum sentences are one thing, but Draconian
minimums are quite something else. I wish some judges would simply refuse to
impose them when they are obviously unjust, even at the cost of their
judgeships. And yes, if the Eighth Amendment helps them do that, by all means
let them invoke it.

I gather that at the federal level, minimum sentences are now once again
considered recommendations; but that hasn't filtered down to the states yet.

------
mayneack
Obama is pretty stingy on pardons:

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/08/15/barack-
th...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/08/15/barack-the-
unmerciful-drug-warrior-why-doesnt-obama-pardon-more-drug-offenders/)

------
noonespecial
The takeaway? If you're considering a life of crime, be a freakin super-
villain because they're going to sentence you like one anyway.

~~~
avenger123
+1, that's another angle to it for sure.

------
drawkbox
If there are filters like archaic three strikes laws to take out human
decision making on repeat offenses, there should be sanity filters on the
other end. Laws that say noone, ever, should serve more than X amount of years
for non-violent crimes and that is probably or should be a low number, single
digit. Life for non-violence is very sad as a society.

I am against prison or jail for any non-violent offense beyond fines or
'outpatient' like corrections, they cost much less and might actually help.
They keep the individual contributing and don't subject people to a further
life of crime locking them up, especially drug offenses when it is really most
likely an illness or a non-issue.

If, when they gave a sentence, they reported the projected cost of that
sentencing maybe some of this would change?

Things to try to help this:

1) Create common sense filters for sentencing so non-violent criminals or
repeat offenses serve no more than x amount of years for a crime or remove
jail/prison for non-violence altogether.

2) When sentencing is handed down, the projected cost of that sentence should
also be read with the sentence except in extreme cases of violent sentencing.
All non-violent sentencing should have a price right next to it so people
understand what it really means. i.e. caught with a small amount of drugs = 10
years * 30k per year = 300,000 to put this person away for nothing. Right
after that it lists their projected income and loss in taxes. Then a net
benefit total which in this case is probably around 500k of economic value for
this one offense.

Stupid events like this wouldn't happen if we changed this:
[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/video-shows-man-
dyi...](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/video-shows-man-dying-jail-
cell-food-allergy-guards-article-1.1509408)

Technology changing society is another side to this. In the past, laws were
not only there to dissuade people from doing undesirable behavior but were
also more lax and harder to get caught. Nowadays everything is tracked and
aggressive laws are now problematic because it isn't just a dissuading factor
anymore it is a certainty. If there is something that probably shouldn't be
illegal but is based on this past we could be in trouble. So all laws or
things like this with non-violence being locked up and a private prison
industry run amuck, we need to change drastically soon. People are human and
they can mess up, our systems for corrections sometimes mess up the rest of
their lives for one momentary lapse of reason.

------
scottdw2
This bothers me.

I know this is a bit of a 'libertarian fantasy', but I think the constitution
ought to be amended to contain something like the following:

1) No person shall be subject to any criminal penalty exceeding one year of
incarceration or $300 in fines for any non violent offense relating solely to
the possession, sales, distribution, manufacture, or purchase of an
intoxicating substance.

2) The purpose of this article is to limit the scope of criminal penalties
that may be applied to "non violent drug offenders". It's provisions shall be
interpreted with such intent in mind.

3) This article applies to all jurisdictions with the Several States, the
United States, and any territories or possessions thereof

4) Any forfeiture of assets resulting from the conviction of a "non violent
drug crime" must be limited to:

a) The intoxicating substances constituting the "core element of the crime"

b) Any asset materially and predominantly used for the manufacture,
production, and possession of such substances.

Provided that such seized assets do not also have reasonable, fundamental,
predominant, and legally authorized uses. In such case any seizure must be
subject to the provisions of "eminent domain".

5) Congress, or the states, acting within the provisions otherwise authorized
by this constitution, may adopt measures to ensure assets actually used in the
commission of a "non violent drug crime", when not seized in accordance with
this constitution, are only used in accordance to lawfully authorized
purchases.

~~~
zanny
> for any non violent offense relating solely to the possession, sales,
> distribution, manufacture, or purchase of an intoxicating substance.

I find it somewhat ridiculous as a species we even consider writing into the
absolute law of the land anything to do with growing or selling plants that
aren't fatally toxic. And even then, you don't need to say "don't sell toxic
plants" you just need to say "don't hurt or kill other people with toxic
plants". Or in general.

And the point is the general - don't be specific to intoxicating substance.
Better yet, ask why the fuck someone is in jail without committing some
violence. Implicit to a crime being nonviolent means all parties engaged
(including those unknowingly, because committing fraud can still be a felony
because you are harming the unknowing parties you actively lie to and deceive
to benefit from).

If all parties are privy to something, you really need to sit back and ask why
the hell you are throwing people in jail for participating it. If there are no
losers without bringing police and prison sentencing into the picture, you are
probably doing it wrong.

But I really hope something like this isn't worthy of a constitutional
amendment. If anything, you should seek out and fix the direct empowerment in
said document that enables rampant abuses of the legal system like this in the
first place. Or you need to ask how the hell enough of a majority of your
citizenry support it that may call into question the functioning of democracy,
because if there is nothing wrong with the system then the people are to
blame.

------
sukuriant
It says that there is no hope for these individuals.

... Why? Why can't they be brought out of their situation? I know some have
been in there for 22 years already; but, why can't they be helped from this? I
just... it doesn't make sense to me

~~~
coldtea
It's because of what they call "law" in these there parts. It makes it nearly
impossible for them to get freed.

------
nsxwolf
ACLU doesn't understand the difference between burglary and theft, apparently.
Breaking into an occupied hotel room and stealing a wallet is hardly best
described as "taking a wallet".

Burglary is a terrifying experience that can leave the victims with life long
PTSD. This man is lucky he wasn't immediately shot to death by the occupants.
Every day he spends in prison alive is still a gift after that.

------
julesie
I would encourage anyone who hasn't already, to watch the brilliant
documentary 'The House I Live In' by Eugene Jarecki. It's available on Netflix
(in the UK at least).

It follows the War on Drugs in the USA. As an outsider (Irish living in
London) I found it genuinely eyeopening on a topic I knew next to nothing
about. For example did you know that the only difference between cocaine and
crack cocaine is the addition of baking powder and heat. Although the later
will get you 100 times the sentence of the former. There are 19 year olds
being put away for the rest of their lives for the possession of a few grams
of this stuff.

I don't care what stand you take on the legalisation/criminalisation of drugs,
that is insane!

Instead of trying to reduce the rate of reoffending once released, it seems
many states go out of their way to marginalise convicts so that virtually no
law abiding avenues of employment remain for them. Talk about a vicious
circle. That's not evening taking into account the effect of incarcerated
parents has on the generation that follows.

------
analog31
I came across a web forum thread in which the escalation of criminal
sentencing laws is compared to the Milgram experiment:

[http://www.isthmus.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=58211](http://www.isthmus.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=58211)

Of course no analogy is perfect, but this one gave me pause.

------
mercurial
It's pretty disappointing to see so many comments praising what most people
here would describe as "absurdly disproportionate sentences" and "probably
something out of North Korea". Especially when the same people were up in arms
not long ago about Aaron Schwartz.

------
BorisMelnik
this is so ridiculous. 3 strikes laws are meant for murderers who just don't
know how to stop carrying guns, not these people.

~~~
riggins
in a sane world this would be true.

sadly, in this world 3 strikes laws aren't meant just for murderers.

~~~
tshile
in a sane world murders get 3 chances?

~~~
riggins
saying that 3 strikes laws should apply to murders != murders should get 3
chances.

------
e12e
"(...) we found out that seven out of every ten black men behind jail, and
most of the men behind jail are black

Seven out of every ten black men never went to the ninth grade

Didn't have 50 dollars and hadn't had 100 for a month when they went to jail

So the poor and the ignorant go to jail while the rich go to San Clemente"

    
    
         -- We beg your pardon America, Gil Scott-Heron
            from the album The First Minute of a New Day (1975)
    

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDCfEkopryo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDCfEkopryo)

------
edvinbesic
The 3 strikes law system seems beyond ridiculous. Not being a US native, does
this mean that I can get three tickets for shoplifting and go to jail for
life? What about 3 speeding tickets?

/genuinely curious

~~~
cmccabe
Let's try wikipedia:

 _The three-strikes law significantly increases the prison sentences of
persons convicted of a felony who have been previously convicted of two or
more violent crimes or serious felonies, and limits the ability of these
offenders to receive a punishment other than a life sentence. Violent and
serious felonies are specifically listed in state laws. Violent offenses
include murder, robbery of a residence in which a deadly or dangerous weapon
is used, rape and other sex offenses; serious offenses include the same
offenses defined as violent offenses, but also include other crimes such as
burglary of a residence and assault with intent to commit a robbery or
murder._

So, since speeding is not a felony, it has no relevance here. Shoplifting
might be a felony, but it would only invoke three strikes if you already had
two prior felonies which also happened to be violent.

By the way, I'm not defending three-strikes laws, just describing them. I
think they are a bad idea. I also think the ACLU is whitewashing the records
of a lot of the people involved here.

------
pswenson
insanity. I don't understand how many of these cases aren't cruel and unusual
punishment

~~~
anigbrowl
Sadly, because it's cruel but not unusual. Oversentencing is so common in
America that you can't make the argument in absolute terms, and some
conservative judges are hostile to comparisons with extraterritorial penal
policy - eg Justice Scalia got rather annoyed about such comparisons being
made in a case about whether the death penalty could be administered to
minors.

------
electic
I actually teared up reading this. This is truly a tragedy.

------
jimmytidey
From a European perspective some of these things might not even being
custodial. European countries don't suffer higher crime rates because of their
more lenient punishments.

I think the problem is that on a manifesto a three strikes proposal looks very
good especially for those concerned about law and order, the reality is these
horrible injustices..

------
MarcusBrutus
"After serving two years in prison during his mid-twenties for inadvertently
killing someone during a bar fight, Aaron Jones turned his life around ...".
To be honest, at that point I kind of wondered whether I was reading a parody
piece or not. The 3-strikes laws are not totally irrational provided the
legislators carefully decide what counts as a "strike". Even so,
"inadvertently" killing someone during a bar fight should count as a strike in
my book. Granted, having such laws in a legal environment where almost
everything is a felony or can be charged as such, results in great many wasted
lives and a huge societal cost. But it's the felony character of some of those
underlying offences that should be questioned, not the three-strike principle
per se.

------
DominikR
If I had to choose from facing life in prison (and maybe being raped there)
and sharia punishment for stealing someones wallet I'd probably prefer having
my hand amputated.

That's how irrational and absurd this law is, the Taliban look like humanists
compared to that.

------
smegel
I'm blown away by this. I really thought three strikes laws only applied when
the earlier crimes were extremely serious (basically murder or close).

Really drives home the idea that in some ways, America really isn't like the
rest of the western world.

------
hrktb
> _He did not want to sentence her to die in prison, but his "hands [were]
> tied" because of her prior convictions for minor drug offenses three years
> earlier_

This part struck me. There was grellas' comment on the Google vs Authors Guild
thread were the judge decided to go against the 'mechanical' application of
the law and took time to come up with a sensible interpretation to handle the
case. It's crushing to think about a mother of two in prison for life for a
crime the judge itself thought wasn't worth the sentence, potentially leaving
her kids in the hands of an abusive husband (I hope they got sheltered at
least)

------
aquadrop
I don't understand how mad those judges should be to send those people in jail
for life... Life imprisonment for that... It's like the ultimate punishment
(because death penalty isn't worth it) for evilest people. Or is it mad laws?
I understand when two adults are sentenced for life because they were
torturing and killing random homeless people just for fun (real example from
my city). They are very dangerous to the society and should be kept away
forever, that I understand. But I don't see how driving a company's truck is
an immense menace for the society.

------
yetanotherphd
This really shows the unjustness of "three strikes" laws. There is nothing
magical about committing three crimes. In my opinion, sentences should reflect
the crime you actually committed an not much else.

------
agildehaus
Here's a woman who was sentenced to life in prison for having a 13 year old
touch her breast.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-xEdbEubjs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-xEdbEubjs)

------
unabridged
In an effort to be more civilized we have inadvertently come up with more
barbaric punishments than the past. Locking someone away for life for stealing
is worse than cutting off a hand or tattooing the forehead.

------
everyone
I think the interesting discussion point here is this.. In the US the prison
system is a huge, profitable and influential industry. As the pharma industry
will encourage doctors to prescribe their medicines the prison industry will
encourage and lobby the legal system to increase the amount of prisoners.

------
codezero
I felt like the title here was misleading. They weren't sentenced to "death,"
as in, given a death sentence, they were sentenced to life in prison, which in
some cases means they will die in prison, this is pretty different, though no
less a tragedy.

~~~
Mithaldu
Not some cases, all cases, as it's a life sentence without parole, meaning
they can behave all they want in prison, they are never coming out, period. I
think it's clear why this is just as good as a death sentence.

~~~
codezero
I agree but just as good as is not the same as. Death sentence is a very
specific thing.

------
siculars
I hate to say it but: Don't go to the Southern parts of the US. Don't go to
Texas. Don't go to Florida. Don't go to the Carolina's. Certainly don't go to
Mississippi, Alabama or Louisiana. If you live there now, leave.

------
marvin
Wow. This is incredibly fascinating and frightening. I didn't believe that
things were _nearly_ this bad in the US...and that's saying something, seeing
as I am very critical of lots of things that go on these days.

------
JungleGymSam
Am I understanding this right? These people have been given extreme sentences
because the law requires it? If that's true why are the judges in these cases
not being called out for not protesting these kinds of convictions?

------
brohoolio
Sounds fucking expensive.

------
m_mueller
Because of that anchors bar I first thought, watching that video is what got
someone behind bars for life - 'what, has America come this far already?'.

------
shire
This is sad, put your self in their shoe. It's hard to imagine a life like
this. I wish things could change in this world and humans cared for one
another.

------
mililani
If you guys think this is a travesty, look up felony murder. I think it's
unconstitutional, and people have been sentenced to life because of it.

~~~
mattsfrey
In general this only applies to dangerous or violent felonies. In Colorado for
instance, the applicable felonies are:

arson, robbery, burglary, kidnapping, sexual assault, or a class 3 felony
sexual assault on a child

If somebody or a group of people are participating in these activities and
somebody ends up dying, they should certainly be held liable for murder due to
the reckless and malicious nature of the crimes being committed.

------
eliben
The alternative has to be asked too. How many crimes have been avoided so far
because past felons fear of committing that 3rd crime.

------
tbarbugli
Life is undervalued in US, it is also interesting to see how these extreme
measures have no effect in crime reduction.

------
MrBra
I hope someone who has the power to change things or at least partially do so
will read this article and do something.

------
w_t_payne
Well, gerrymandering is such a common practice in the US anyway, no reason it
should not extend to this...

------
MikeTLive
three times you have been caught doing something we don't like. you will now
be banished from the planet and into this concrete and steel facility.

a facility whose operation is a business and the more residents the more the
business makes.

tell me.

why would a business ever want to not have a guaranteed permanent paying
member?

~~~
MikeTLive
if prisons were by law NEVER private entities, and instead ALWAYS funded by
and of the society from which the people interned were taken from, and that
the cost of housing a person would not end with their life, would we be so
quick to lock so many up forever?

solve the problem that led to the person doing what we do not like.

unless that problem is unique to this specific individual, removing the person
will not stop the problem manifest on another individual.

we here are all smarter than this.

------
memracom
The decline of the American empire. Things like this are nickel and diming the
taxpayers to the bone.

------
Kiro
I don't understand this. For what reason are first-time offenders sentenced to
lifetime?

------
ElComradio
This is an important issue, but HN?

~~~
w_t_payne
Why, you you rather people buried their heads in the sand?

~~~
ElComradio
I'd rather people buried their heads in Gawker for this.

