The cynic in me assumes that state governments are using this crisis as an opportunity to lower expenditures because of looming budget crises. Releasing tens of thousands of prisoners without sufficient support into a flailing economy is setting them up for failure.
Unfortunately “adequate support to help people reintegrate so going back to crime isn’t their best option” looks a lot like “rewarding criminals” to a good portion of the electorate. Maybe in part because social services in general are so bad that anything at all looks like a lot of aid.
Dunno if it’s still the case but I at one point a tax guy asked me if I’d been convicted of (IIRC) any drug offenses because if I had I’d have been ineligible for certain education-related tax assistance. Dafuq? Yes let’s make it even harder for people to do something other than dealing drugs, when they get out. That makes a ton of sense.
I recently tried to buy travel insurance. I had to check a box that I'd never been suspected of criminal activities, even if I was found to not be guilty (!), otherwise I wouldn't have been allowed to buy the insurance.
That’s weird. I’ve never been convicted of anything, but I was a suspect once, briefly. It’s funny to realize that could actually impact my life in any way.
Also, I wonder how the insurance company would ever know someone was a suspect, if they weren’t arrested. Sometimes, suspects don’t even realize they’re suspects.
The people advocating to release ~1 million violent criminals are least likely to suffer at their hands. Hand on heart, nobody wants to leave next to a convicted murderer or drug dealer.
Mass incarceration is a symptom, abolishing it is not a cure.
Drug dealer? Seriously? You mean those people who happened to sell a couple joints worth of marijuana to a friend while black? Or those who just happened to possess a bit too much to be considered "for personal use"?
Both you and the grandparent are making sweeping generalizations; as with everything, there's various gradations in a crime and it's not a boolean equation.
That said, I do agree that there's a large amount of people in prison that shouldn't be there, and the US prison system ensures people stay or return to prison later on.
I should probably have been clearer, but that was my point--the fact that "drug dealer" is too broad a concept. Even though some dealers are definitely career criminals, and some might also commit violent crimes, lumping a large majority of them in the same category as murderers is what got you (and other countries to varying degrees) into the whole mess in the first place. It is rhetoric only meant to scare people and shut down thinking.
you're right, the range of situations that can be considered "selling drugs" is pretty absurd. for instance, if a bunch of kids pool their money to get a better deal on a larger amount, the one who actually makes the buy and splits it up can be charged with distribution even if they don't make any money off the transaction.
that said, I don't think most people who aren't a part of that world would want to live next to an actual dealer. in some ways the "retail" folks can be the worst to live near. if they sell out of their home, it brings a lot of undesirable traffic to the area.
This study by the NYU School of Law figures that 4 in 10 (!) US prisoners are either non-violent or have already completed long sentences, and can be set free with minimal risk.
Where in the article is the release of ~1 million violent criminals advocated? The story's focus is on California:
> Newsom and the CDCR are prioritizing the 4,800 people who are within 180 days of finishing their sentences for the first round of rolling releases by the end of July, and then those with a year or less left to serve who are living in high-risk prisons like San Quentin. People in jail for violent offenses and perpetrators of domestic abuse are not eligible for release.
News: Maybe release relatively small number of non-violent offenders in California.
Fake News: "Those people" want a million violent criminals back on the street! Murders and drug dealers in your back yard! You don't want "those people" running things.
You have a bright future as a republican spin doctor.
I agree with the sentiment of your comment but let's please keep the discussion civil here on HN and refrain from personal attacks like "you have a bright future as a republican spin doctor".
> Mass incarceration is a symptom, abolishing it is not a cure.
"Let's not let the cure be worse than the disease".
The issue is not nearly as cut and dry as you express. Not all prisoners are violent criminals. Even violent criminals get released at the end of their sentence.
Mass incarceration is an efficient stick when the better solution is an effective carrot.
How about we legalize the drugs, because the drug war has helped exactly no one, and release everyone convicted of a non-violent drug offense, AND wipe the conviction from their record and offer them free educational assistance? That would be a start, would probably get rid of half the prison population, and would prevent a whole lot of future arrests, and would defund the gangs.
I always said if Walmart/Amazon could sell Pot, crime would be cut in half. The point is that "illegal" drugs still have people who want them, thus economically someone will provide, and getting arrested is part of the cost, and killing rivals part of the business. But if buying/selling/using is legal, then supply goes to the whoever can do it the easiest/cheapest, which is usually regular retailers. Thus arrests for these now legal drugs (like Nicotine and Alcohol are) are limited to misuse (like DWI) and police can focus on regular crime. Also enforcement of rules (don't sell to minors etc.) can be managed easier since it's the retailers that are being managed.
I'm a long-time fan of legalizing drugs, but it's not entirely an easy problem to solve.
Eliminating the black market is good. Having huge corporations pushing drugs is maybe not so good, or at least we should think through the consequences.
Exactly, we'd want to model it on successful systems. Like having drugs dispensed at government facilities where users were offered counseling and rehab, and an area specifically for getting high. We don't want there to be tv advertisements for heroin or meth targeting kids (or anyone).
The U.S. couldn't model its healthcare system on more successful systems, if those in power have such disregard for human life, what makes you think they'd think of drug users'.
> Like having drugs dispensed at government facilities where users were offered counseling and rehab, and an area specifically for getting high.
I've read that this approach has been pretty successful where it's been tried. the theory is that doing it in a controlled environment removes a lot of the "fun" for the users so more of them eventually quit. additionally, it makes the use of hard drugs less visible, so fewer people end up picking up the habit.
I have to suspect that there's a point where you introduce too much friction though. if it's too annoying to go to the government facility, it might become tempting to just buy illegally. for instance, there is still a market for bootleg cigarettes even though anyone 18/21 or older can buy them at any gas station or convenience store. for some people it's worth buying them illegally to either evade the tax or purchase less than a full pack at once. I've also heard from my friends in CA that there is still a thriving illicit weed market for similar reasons.
well, it helped a lot of politicians get elected, and it has sure made a pile of money for people who own/operate private prisons. Not to mention justifying who know how much in salaries for various police forces, and the business which supply said forces with various equipment, training, supplies... heck, even Palentir and Google are making money off of it.
Lots of vested interests in continued criminalization of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
But then how would the private prison companies maintain their revenue streams?
I swear if we forbade private incarceration, we'd see a major change in both total prison population, and the sort of "crimes" people are shanghaied for.
28 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 52.7 ms ] threadDunno if it’s still the case but I at one point a tax guy asked me if I’d been convicted of (IIRC) any drug offenses because if I had I’d have been ineligible for certain education-related tax assistance. Dafuq? Yes let’s make it even harder for people to do something other than dealing drugs, when they get out. That makes a ton of sense.
This was in the Netherlands, btw.
Congratulations you are now ineligible >:]
Also, I wonder how the insurance company would ever know someone was a suspect, if they weren’t arrested. Sometimes, suspects don’t even realize they’re suspects.
Mass incarceration is a symptom, abolishing it is not a cure.
That said, I do agree that there's a large amount of people in prison that shouldn't be there, and the US prison system ensures people stay or return to prison later on.
that said, I don't think most people who aren't a part of that world would want to live next to an actual dealer. in some ways the "retail" folks can be the worst to live near. if they sell out of their home, it brings a lot of undesirable traffic to the area.
https://time.com/4596081/incarceration-report/
That said, I agree that reforming drug policy in particular would also be a great way to reduce mass incarceration.
> Newsom and the CDCR are prioritizing the 4,800 people who are within 180 days of finishing their sentences for the first round of rolling releases by the end of July, and then those with a year or less left to serve who are living in high-risk prisons like San Quentin. People in jail for violent offenses and perpetrators of domestic abuse are not eligible for release.
Fake News: "Those people" want a million violent criminals back on the street! Murders and drug dealers in your back yard! You don't want "those people" running things.
You have a bright future as a republican spin doctor.
"Let's not let the cure be worse than the disease".
The issue is not nearly as cut and dry as you express. Not all prisoners are violent criminals. Even violent criminals get released at the end of their sentence.
Mass incarceration is an efficient stick when the better solution is an effective carrot.
Eliminating the black market is good. Having huge corporations pushing drugs is maybe not so good, or at least we should think through the consequences.
I've read that this approach has been pretty successful where it's been tried. the theory is that doing it in a controlled environment removes a lot of the "fun" for the users so more of them eventually quit. additionally, it makes the use of hard drugs less visible, so fewer people end up picking up the habit.
I have to suspect that there's a point where you introduce too much friction though. if it's too annoying to go to the government facility, it might become tempting to just buy illegally. for instance, there is still a market for bootleg cigarettes even though anyone 18/21 or older can buy them at any gas station or convenience store. for some people it's worth buying them illegally to either evade the tax or purchase less than a full pack at once. I've also heard from my friends in CA that there is still a thriving illicit weed market for similar reasons.
Lots of vested interests in continued criminalization of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I swear if we forbade private incarceration, we'd see a major change in both total prison population, and the sort of "crimes" people are shanghaied for.