> It coincides with an intensifying bipartisan effort to ease the mass incarcerations that followed decades of tough sentencing for drug offenses — like dealing crack cocaine — which have taken a particularly harsh toll on minority communities.
Oh no! What will those poor minority communities do without their crack dealers?
That's true. And while it may not justify their sentences, those crack dealers also sold their deadly product to friends, fathers, sons, brothers, uncles nephews....
If this is the benchmark for harsh sentencing, we need more cases like the Peanut Corporation of America being prosecuted aggressively for knowingly distributing hazardous products.
Wish I could find it, but there was an article recently about analysing why the US appears to have 22% of the world's prisoners. The analysis determined District Attorneys used to issue prison sentences in about 1/3 of cases and this has gone up to 2/3 of cases. The implication being that DA's needed to show they were tough to progress their political careers.
I'm playing devil's advocate, but isn't it the proof that democracy is functioning?
Where I live, I believe a majority of people are for harsher sentences, or even death penalty (which was abolished a long time ago against popular opinion). I find it sad because I think it's both cruel and ineffective, but I often wonder how to reconcile this view with the idea of democracy.
If the Opulent Minority has to be sacrificed in order for the country to move forward, and the Opulent Minority is the lamb, then I guess the populous is going to have lamb for lunch. This is why king Luis XIV was "Shortened a little bit". (Apologies to Alan Sherman).
Well, we don't live in a straight democracy. The constitution declares "cruel and unusual punishment" to be forbidden. I don't think it's a stretch to consider effectively ruining the rest of someone's adult life because they sold some drugs once to be cruel. In this case, the voters' will should be overridden in favor of the limits placed by the constitution.
There is nothing particularly virtuous about democratic use of power.
It's frequently better than the alternatives, but still plenty capable of evil.
So democracy functioning is probably better than many of the alternatives, but it isn't a great end goal and shouldn't be surprising that it leaves much to be desired.
Well, at the same time most politicians are more concerns with stoking the flames of ignorance and hate as it's a tried and true method to get votes. So these people remain with their ignorance opinions because public figures are encouraging them to keep them.
> but isn't it the proof that democracy is functioning?
Oh, so you like proofs? Princeton has a document you may want to read. It proves there's no democracy in the US. Enjoy!
> The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of
Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism
>"People come out of [U.S.] prison hardened and angry and more likely to offend"
There are other prison systems, like those in Germany and Norway, which actually treat prisoners and teach them how to love a productive life on the outside.
Won't mean squat because one of the leading reason for these people to likely offend again is that government rules and regulations lock them out of some benefit programs.
Federal law passed under the Clinton Administration prevents those convicted of drug offenses from receiving welfare or food stamps unless a state specifically allows it. Really.
So on top of the onus the felony conviction gives them, on top of state regulations limiting jobs they can have (look it up, some states won't even let you do the simplest of jobs) we have laws that prevent them from receiving benefits until they can get a job, meaning they have no food or money except from family or charity.
If we are changing sentencing laws the retroactively vacate the felony convictions of non violent drug offenders. This will immediately remove them from being subject to that 1996 reform law
> While news of the early releases was widely praised, it raised some concerns among law enforcement officials across the country who are grappling with an increase in homicides. Their fear is that many of the freed convicts will be unable to get jobs and will return to crime.
This is painful to read. It implies that nobody should leave the jails, ever, because (a) it doesn't rehabilitate them and (b) they're labelled an ex-criminal and society doesn't want them back.
Yes,I was dumbstruck at reading that as well. Also mystified by the jump to "increase in homicides." They are saying unemployable ex-cons will automatically turn to murder?
It's unfortunately also true. We've convicted millions of people for nonviolent offsenses and locked them up away from society, away from employment, right alongside truly dangerous people. Now we're letting them out of the jails but they have little/no skills and will be locked out of numerous benefits programs and have a very hard time getting work, so yes, they're probably going to become homeless, criminals, or both.
Mind you as sad as this whole mess is, the authorities wringing their hands about this is infuriating to new levels. Akin to breaking someone's legs with a baseball bat before a race and then saying "Wow they're going to have a hard time winning this one, maybe they just should stay out of the race."
If their "crime" was possession of marijuana and they're turfed from jail with no support or guidance, left to fend for themselves in a difficult economic period, then there's a very good chance they might engage in "criminal" activity to take the edge off a bad situation.
It would be nice if there was a revenue-neutral or even for-profit system that helped former prisoners, the homeless, and people on welfare transition to self-sufficiency. The U.S. has a great need for healthy, organic food, as well as manufacturing. Many of these people don't have the skills (or ability given background checks) to rent apartments or get cars. They could live onsite in a rural area and work, learn job skills and life stills, while providing a valuable and profitable service.
The states hold the majority of the US prison population and the federal government releasing 6000 prisoners isn't really going to change things. The states need to do the same thing.
27 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 78.5 ms ] threadOh no! What will those poor minority communities do without their crack dealers?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10317198
Where I live, I believe a majority of people are for harsher sentences, or even death penalty (which was abolished a long time ago against popular opinion). I find it sad because I think it's both cruel and ineffective, but I often wonder how to reconcile this view with the idea of democracy.
It's frequently better than the alternatives, but still plenty capable of evil.
So democracy functioning is probably better than many of the alternatives, but it isn't a great end goal and shouldn't be surprising that it leaves much to be desired.
Oh, so you like proofs? Princeton has a document you may want to read. It proves there's no democracy in the US. Enjoy!
> The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism
http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fil...
I'm guessing (though I'm not an expert) that this is a problem with the prison system, not those in it.
There are other prison systems, like those in Germany and Norway, which actually treat prisoners and teach them how to love a productive life on the outside.
Sometimes respect and dignity for the prisoners by the prison authorities can go a long way towards reforming the prisoner.
Federal law passed under the Clinton Administration prevents those convicted of drug offenses from receiving welfare or food stamps unless a state specifically allows it. Really.
So on top of the onus the felony conviction gives them, on top of state regulations limiting jobs they can have (look it up, some states won't even let you do the simplest of jobs) we have laws that prevent them from receiving benefits until they can get a job, meaning they have no food or money except from family or charity.
If we are changing sentencing laws the retroactively vacate the felony convictions of non violent drug offenders. This will immediately remove them from being subject to that 1996 reform law
"Won't mean squat" is far too dismissive. Being let out of prison obviously means something, however great the difficulties that remain.
That's a pity because the rest of your comment is substantive.
This is painful to read. It implies that nobody should leave the jails, ever, because (a) it doesn't rehabilitate them and (b) they're labelled an ex-criminal and society doesn't want them back.
Mind you as sad as this whole mess is, the authorities wringing their hands about this is infuriating to new levels. Akin to breaking someone's legs with a baseball bat before a race and then saying "Wow they're going to have a hard time winning this one, maybe they just should stay out of the race."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_incarce...
As you can see, the southern states have the highest prison population. Any surprise there?