On The Drive Home Today

[helene_t]

"With so many of our citizens in prison compared with the rest of the world," Webb wrote in a recent Parade cover story, "there are only two possibilities: Either we are home to the most evil people on earth or we are doing something different--and vastly counterproductive. Obviously, the answer is the latter."

USA is an atypical country in many ways, one of the being the large prison population (no other Western country comes above 1/4 of the US level: New Zealand is 2nd with 160 versus USA's 715 prisoners per 100,000 people).

 

I probably agree that US prison sentences are on average too harsh, but I don't think it is "obvious". Given the income disparity, degree of immigration and domestic migration, car ownership, firearm ownership, and urbanization, it is unsurprising that US crime rates are very high. It is possible (not something I am arguing, but possible) that your crime rates would have been higher with milder prison sentences.

 

Crime statistics: http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/cri-crime

[PassedOut]

"With so many of our citizens in prison compared with the rest of the world," Webb wrote in a recent Parade cover story, "there are only two possibilities: Either we are home to the most evil people on earth or we are doing something different--and vastly counterproductive. Obviously, the answer is the latter."

Interesting that Mr. Webb assumes that the "only" possibilities are America-based. Perhaps it's the rest of the world that is underincarcerating.

To be strictly accurate, Webb should have added something like "...worth considering".

 

I've mentioned before that I use the same (inaccurate) style as Webb does here to emphasize a point. My assumption is that intelligent readers know and accept this, and unintelligent readers need the stronger statements.

[jonottawa]

I've mentioned before that I use the same (inaccurate) style as Webb does here to emphasize a point. My assumption is that intelligent readers know and accept this, and unintelligent readers need the stronger statements.

Me too.

[Lobowolf]

To be strictly accurate, Webb should have added something like "...worth considering".

 

I don't know enough about criminal law in other countries to know that it's not "worth considering" whether underincarceration exists in those countries.

 

 

 

I've mentioned before that I use the same (inaccurate) style as Webb does here to emphasize a point. My assumption is that intelligent readers know and accept this, and unintelligent readers need the stronger statements.

 

Frankly, I'd have thought a dig like this to be beneath you.

 

 

 

My own belief with respect to American criminal law is that we both underincarcerate and overincarcerate, depending on the offense. Overincarcerate with respect to so-called "victimless crimes," including drug offenses, including, in my view, distribution.

 

However, with respect to a number of other crimes, I think we certainly underincarcerate (or at least under-punish). My house was broken into last year, with a few thousand dollars' worth of things stolen (and a couple of other items destroyed, not out of malice, but in the rush to find more stuff to steal); I find it pretty disgusting that the people who did it were able to make that choice against the backdrop of possibly probation, or a setence of less than a year.

 

More strikingly, thousands of people are killed each year in drunk driving accidents, many by drivers with previous arrests & convictions who received slaps on the wrist. I'd call it "catch and release" for you fishermen out there, when a guy in his 20s with a handful of priors is still out there driving until he kills someone. "But gee...how could he have been driving? We suspended his license."

 

When your car gets stolen, or your house gets broken into, or your loved one gets killed by a drunk driver, and the person who did it has multiple prior convictions, I think it's a perfectly natural (and valid) response to say, "Geez, why was this guy walking free among members of polite (ok, rude, but not criminally so) society?!"

 

But I have no idea what they do in France, or England, or Germany with multiple offenders.

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, maybe this just shows that prison is either not doing what it's supposed to do or is just not the answer in general, rather than showing we need to put more people in it.

[Lobowolf]

Lobowolf, maybe this just shows that prison is either not doing what it's supposed to do or is just not the answer in general, rather than showing we need to put more people in it.

I agree. It might also show, as Helene suggests, that there are some atypical characteristics of the USA (large coastline and borders, wide income disparity, etc.) that may contribute. And it could also be that Mr. Webb's suggestion is correct - that we're doing something wrong, either in prison, or outside of prison. It's also partly a matter not of pragmatics, but of value judgments, i.e. having a joint in your pocket in Omaha vs. having one in your pocket in Amsterdam isn't quite seen the same way.

 

I just have issue with the "Things are different here, so obviously we're doing something wrong" spot analysis, especially with respect to incarceration rates. I mean, you could compare a country that has 0.1% of its citizenry locked up to one that has 0.5% of its citizenry locked up and say, "What's wrong with Country B? They have 5 times as many people locked up!" or you could say, "What's wrong with Country A? THey have 5 times as many criminals walking the streets!" To clarify, I think that either comment is superficial to the point of being not useful.

 

I don't think that anyone should be in jail (let alone prison) merely for drug offenses; however, I think that comparing incarceration rates of different countries is a pretty poor way to make that point.

[blackshoe]

Lobowolf, maybe this just shows that prison is either not doing what it's supposed to do or is just not the answer in general, rather than showing we need to put more people in it.

I would tend to vote for "not the answer in general" myself.

[hanp]

This is a memorable thread. I reported a post for being objectionable, a first time for me.

[Lobowolf]

I would tend to vote for "not the answer in general" myself.

It partly depends on the question, too... Prison in general? Prison for drug offenses? Prison for offenses related to drug use (e.g. stealing to pay for a drug habit)?

 

It also depends on what function you're primarily looking at prison to serve; there are many theories on punishment, and most of them are compatible. For instance, if you put someone in prison for murder, you could have different people think that that's appropriate for fundamentally different reason, e.g.

1. It's good, because he deserves to go to prison (retributivism)

2. It's good, because he won't like the experience, so if and when he's released, he'll be less likely to do it again(specific deterrence)

3. It's good, because people hearing about his sentence will be less likely to kill someone (general deterrence)

4. It's good, because he'll be separated from society and unable to kill anyone else (incapacitation).

And yes...there are others (e.g. reinforcing soicetal norms, i.e. "people shouldn't take drugs")

 

Because the rationales are largely compatible (i.e. the examples above all start with "It's good"), you don't really have to spend much time thinking about WHY people "should" get locked up (unless you're in a criminal law or moral philosophy class).

 

With respect to drug crimes, though, I think separating out the rationales is more relevant. Someone (the drug user) who is either a recreational user, or an addict who is only harming himself doesn't really "deserve" punishment. Moreover, incapacitation doesn't seem too important for someone who's only directly harming himself. IMO, not only don't we have the right to lock him up, we don't have the responsibility to do so, at the expense of taxpayers who aren't threatened by his actions.

 

So to the extent that we're talking about drug crimes, I strongly agree that it's not the answer. This doesn't include, in my view, non-drug crimes that are "drug-related" e.g. I don't really care whether the guy who broke into my house was doing it to help him buy heroin, or doing it to help him buy an X-Box.

 

With respect to "non-victimless crimes" (primarily crimes of violence and property acquisition crimes), I'm most strongly moved by the incapacitation argument. If you can't play nicely (particularly if you have a history of not playing nicely), you get a timeout. A long timeout. With respect to those types of crimes, I think prison IS, if not "the" answer then "an" answer. If prison needs to be reformed such that the recidivism rate will be drastically reduced, I'm all for it. But while you're teaching him whatever he needs to learn in the interim, I want him separated from those of us who don't steal cars or break into houses.

[jonottawa]

This is a memorable thread. I reported a post for being objectionable, a first time for me.

HAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!

 

Oh sorry, I thought this was the Star Trek thread.

[PassedOut]

I've mentioned before that I use the same (inaccurate) style as Webb does here to emphasize a point. My assumption is that intelligent readers know and accept this, and unintelligent readers need the stronger statements.

Frankly, I'd have thought a dig like this to be beneath you.

Did not mean it so, but I see now that it could be taken that way. I most certainly don't consider you or the other posters here to be unintelligent readers.

 

I'm just saying that I agree with Webb's style of making a point, because waffling conveys the (incorrect) message that one is unsure of one's ground. I use the same style.

 

Of course people are free to disagree with any part of an argument, however stated, as you've done here and elsewhere.

[kenberg]

There have been several posts along the lines of not heavily punishing drug offenses. I would like to hear more. Pot I understand. Heroin? PCP?

 

Whatever one thinks of pot, it seems to me that taking some of these other drugs is just nuts. What should be done? Are we really ready to say if someone wants to load up on PCP, which as I understand it greatly increases both the desire to be violent and the ability to do it effectively, that's fine by us we will just punish the violence?

 

I don't take drugs, I don't know anyone who takes drugs (well, there are maybe some casual pot smokers on the edge of my circle), so I am not close to this. I think of it as a lot of people doing a lot of stupid things that collectively cause a national problem. International really since if the USA drug trade dried up Mexico would have an easier time of it with their criminal element.

 

I favor solving this, I assume that if anything really worked we would have done it. Well, maybe not. Anyway, I am open to ideas.

[luke warm]

i don't believe that anyone who has been around for any length of time expected anything to actually be different

I think that the description of the government as a battleship rather than a speedboat is apt when it comes to changing directions.

oic

[blackshoe]

My view is that a drug user (whatever the drug) usually only harms himself. So I would not punish drug use at all. OTOH, a person who robs someone, or physically harms someone, is another question - and "I was on drugs" is no excuse. The question is what can society do about it. Ayn Rand (I think) suggested that a group (such as "the government" or "society") does not accrue rights not held by the individuals in the group just because they are a group. So a group cannot, by right, do something that an individual in the group has no right to do. Such as incarcerate someone, or execute him. Makes sense to me. There is also the libertarian view that justice is not about punishment, it's about reparations. Someone who harms someone else, economically or physically, should be required to repair whatever damage he did. Some have suggested that we should bring back a kind of indentured servitude to that end. For example, someone robs someone else. He gives back what he took, or he works for that someone else (at a wage set probably by the courts) until he pays back its value. Someone gets drunk, rams his car into a telephone pole (no one injured). He replaces the pole, or works for the pole's owner until the amount of work he's done equals the value of the pole. In that case, there may be other considerations (lack of power or phone service to the people the pole services, for example). An interesting idea. I'm not sure how practical it may be. Where injuries are involved it gets harder, primarily because of the cost (and the possibility of permanent injury). Where death is involved... well, how do you value someone's life? Is the life of a "street person" worse less than the life of one of the rich? I would say not - but I would expect to have a hard time trying to sell that to at least some of the rich and powerful.

[mike777]

"My view is that a drug user (whatever the drug) usually only harms himself. So I would not punish drug use at all"

 

I do not see drug use as a victimless crime. Example lets call booze a drug, if your Mom or wife is drunk/high all the time the whole family suffers and is harmed. If Dad is using crack often, it harms the whole family.

 

I would guess if you legalize all drugs it will make it easier for minors to get them. Look at the results of legal booze and cigs and minors.

[blackshoe]

If you can define specific harm, then probably reparations are appropriate. But it is not enough, IMO, to simply assert "harm was done".

[blackshoe]

It's funny. I started drinking at 17. The drinking age was 18. I started smoking at 15. Cigarettes were legal. I tried marijuana a few times in my twenties, and it was illegal then. But when I was 15, or 18, using marijuana never even came to my mind. Why? Because it was not widely used by anybody. the "rebellious youth" of the 60s popularized it - and it's that which made it easier for minors to get it. Had nothing to do with legalization.

[mike777]

http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_fam...n_of_alcoholics

 

 

http://www.righthealth.com/topic/Parents_Of_Alcoholics

[mike777]

It's funny. I started drinking at 17. The drinking age was 18. I started smoking at 15. Cigarettes were legal. I tried marijuana a few times in my twenties, and it was illegal then. But when I was 15, or 18, using marijuana never even came to my mind. Why? Because it was not widely used by anybody. the "rebellious youth" of the 60s popularized it - and it's that which made it easier for minors to get it. Had nothing to do with legalization.

I think those that advocate a position, in this case drugs use does not harm others or legal drugs will not make it easier for minors to get drugs need to prove their case.

[blackshoe]

No, I don't need to prove anything. I expressed an opinion. You want to disagree, that's your right.

[mike777]

No, I don't need to prove anything. I expressed an opinion. You want to disagree, that's your right.

ok If just an opinion no problem, I got the impression you were advocating a position. :)

[kenberg]

Those who adhere to the ideas of Ayn Rand are of course not going to be comfortable with laws against drug use. That's pretty much a given. Maybe Ron Paul thinks along those lines, but few elected politicians do, and I don't either. Right or wrong, I don't think the nation will be turning to the writings of Ayn Rand for guidance.

 

While I don't regard it as a moral wrong, as I think Rand followers would, for the government to prohibit the sale of various drugs, I do favor asking about how it's all going. I don't mind paying some taxes for an effective program to keep kids off of crack, but is it working? How much drug use is there in this country? Too damn much. I don't know the figures.

 

Ayn Rand favored selfishness, at least enlightened selfishness. Here we somewhat agree. I have limited interest in paying for cops to stop some idiot from going through life stoned and limited interest in housing and feeding the supplier when we put him in a prison. People are supposed to learn to watch out for themselves. Nonetheless, I am still quite wary of just saying anything goes in the use of drugs.

[luke warm]

i agree that drug use is not victimless and i still think it's as asinine to criminalize (most) drugs as it was to criminalize booze... the bigger problem to me is how to decide on which drugs to legalize and which to criminalize... remember, at one time cocaine was legal in the u.s., as was pot and opium

Ayn Rand favored selfishness, at least enlightened selfishness. Here we somewhat agree. I have limited interest in paying for cops to stop some idiot from going through life stoned and limited interest in housing and feeding the supplier when we put him in a prison. People are supposed to learn to watch out for themselves. Nonetheless, I am still quite wary of just saying anything goes in the use of drugs.

that's not the way i remember her writings... i remember her promoting selfishness and speaking rather harshly about the alternatives

[Lobowolf]

I do not see drug use as a victimless crime. Example lets call booze a drug, if your Mom or wife is drunk/high all the time the whole family suffers and is harmed. If Dad is using crack often, it harms the whole family.

I disagree, at least with respect to whether the "victimization" is inherent, which is the key question, IMO. Because some people drink a fifth of Jack Daniel's and beat their kids three times a week is not a sufficient justification to criminalize the people who drink alcohol in moderation.

 

Similarly, you qualify the problematic aspects of drug use by saying if Mom is drunk/high "all the time," or if Dad is using crack "often."

 

That's not to say that those excesses don't happen (often, even) and cause problems. But I don't favor criminalization of risk creation, with very few exceptions (drunk driving, making convicted pedophiles stay away from schools upon their release, etc.) Analyzing use by thinking in terms of abuse has its own problems. The next thing you know, you're banning strip clubs because some people might lose their jobs because they don't go to work, they get addicted to the strip club and hang out there all day. Or banning table salt, because it leads to heart disease, which causes financial hardship to the family when Dad has a heart attack at 50, or can't work.

[jonottawa]

The next thing you know, you're banning strip clubs because some people might lose their jobs because they don't go to work, they get addicted to the strip club and hang out there all day. Or banning table salt, because it leads to heart disease, which causes financial hardship to the family when Dad has a heart attack at 50, or can't work.

Or banning bridge because it makes people jump off bridges and stuff.