More Than 1 in 100 Americans Are Incarcerated

[Athena]

Report: 1 in every 100 Americans behind bars
02/28/2008 @ 12:35 pm
Filed by Associated Press

By DAVID CRARY Associated Press

NEW YORK — For the first time in history, more than one in every 100 American adults is in jail or prison, according to a new report tracking the surge in inmate population and urging states to rein in corrections costs with alternative sentencing programs.

The report, released today by the Pew Center on the States, said the 50 states spent more than $49 billion on corrections last year, up from less than $11 billion 20 years earlier. The rate of increase for prison costs was six times greater than for higher education spending, the report said.

Using updated state-by-state data, the report said 2,319,258 adults were held in U.S. prisons or jails at the start of 2008 — one out of every 99.1 adults, and more than any other country in the world.

The steadily growing inmate population "is saddling cash-strapped states with soaring costs they can ill afford and failing to have a clear impact either on recidivism or overall crime," said the report.

Susan Urahn, managing director of the Pew Center on the States, said budget woes are prompting officials in many states to consider new, cost-saving corrections policies that might have been shunned in the recent past for fear of appearing soft on crime.

"We're seeing more and more states being creative because of tight budgets," she said in an interview. "They want to be tough on crime, they want to be a law-and-order state — but they also want to save money, and they want to be effective."

The report cited Kansas and Texas as states which have acted decisively to slow the growth of their inmate population. Their actions include greater use of community supervision for low-risk offenders and employing sanctions other than reimprisonment for ex-offenders who commit technical violations of parole and probation rules.

"The new approach, born of bipartisan leadership, is allowing the two states to ensure they have enough prison beds for violent offenders while helping less dangerous lawbreakers become productive, taxpaying citizens," the report said.

While many state governments have shown bipartisan interest in curbing prison growth, there also are persistent calls to proceed cautiously.

"We need to be smarter," said David Muhlhausen, a criminal justice expert with the conservative Heritage Foundation. "We're not incarcerating all the people who commit serious crimes — but we're also probably incarcerating people who don't need to be."

According to the report, the inmate population increased last year in 36 states and the federal prison system.

The largest percentage increase — 12 percent — was in Kentucky, where Gov. Steve Beshear highlighted the cost of corrections in his budget speech last month. He noted that the state's crime rate had increased only about 3 percent in the past 30 years, while the state's inmate population has increased by 600 percent.

The Pew report was compiled by the Center on the State's Public Safety Performance Project, which is working directly with 13 states on developing programs to divert offenders from prison without jeopardizing public safety.

"For all the money spent on corrections today, there hasn't been a clear and convincing return for public safety," said the project's director, Adam Gelb. "More and more states are beginning to rethink their reliance on prisons for lower-level offenders and finding strategies that are tough on crime without being so tough on taxpayers."

The report said prison growth and higher incarceration rates do not reflect a parallel increase in crime or in the nation's overall population. Instead, it said, more people are behind bars mainly because of tough sentencing measures, such as "three-strikes" laws, that result in longer prison stays.

"For some groups, the incarceration numbers are especially startling," the report said. "While one in 30 men between the ages of 20 and 34 is behind bars, for black males in that age group the figure is one in nine."

The nationwide figures, as of Jan. 1, include 1,596,127 people in state and federal prisons and 723,131 in local jails — a total 2,319,258 out of almost 230 million American adults.

The report said the United States is the world's incarceration leader, far ahead of more populous China with 1.5 million people behind bars. It said the U.S. also is the leader in inmates per capita (750 per 100,000 people), ahead of Russia (628 per 100,000) and other former Soviet bloc nations which make up the rest of the Top 10.

------------------

Say what you want about jailing victimless criminals...But it's OBVIOUSLY causing a problem.

[Athena]

No one has ANYTHING to say about the fact that the U.S. is the most severe prison state in the WORLD?!? Worst than China and Russia?

Wow.

[TXChris]

You know I have to agree with you about victimless crime. The goverment's insistence on punishing those involved is easily overcrowding our jail system.

On another note, I found a Department of Defense report (http://209.85.207.104/search?q=cache:OKd3Xmf6-jEJ:www.ojp.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pji02.pdf+number+of+inmates+in+jail+for+drug+posse ssion&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us) which profiles the jail population in 2002. The thing that REALLY got my attention was where they state that "Half of all jail inmates in 2002 were held for a violent or drug offense...." Yes, you heard that right. They basically equated violent offenses with drug offenses. The thing is they were both at about 25%, but so were property and, also, public order.

They also state that "The increase in drug offenders accounted for 37% of the growth in the nation’s jail population." Hmmm, sure sounds to me like they probably should not be jailing those who use drugs.


Two-thirds of jail inmates in 2002 said they were regular drug users; over half of the convicted inmates reported using drugs in the month before their current offense. An estimated 66% of jail inmates reported using alcohol at least once a week for a month; 33% were under the influence of alcohol at the time of the current offense. Together, 77% of convicted jail inmates were alcohol or drug-involved at the time of their current offense.
Based on that it sure does sound like they are trying to use drug and alcohol use as a causation of the crimes committed, yet they don't even qualify what "drug-involved" means. If I were to guess, from what was written, it would simply mean the person had used the drugs or alcohol at some time prior to the offense being committed. Not even necesarily that day, as the beginning of the paragraph talks about the use of drugs or alcohol during the month prior. Once again, it would seem plausible that they are trying to dupe people into believing that these things are causatory and not corollary.

[CPL CHUD]

Do you guys think that the threat of jail time significantly curbs the crime rate? Russian and Chinese jails are barely anything more than old communist gulags; breeding grounds for disease where malnutrition and accusations of prisoner abuse run rampant. I'm sure there are many factors why America has the leading incarceration rate, in the scope of human history our democracy is still an experiment at best, but to narrow it down to one or two factors would be foolhardy.

I'm sure that "coddling" prisoners, and I use the term very loosely here, isn't helping though.

[swivel]

No wonder our country is so fucking great, and everyone seems to be willing to risk their lives to get here. We keep our crazy fucks locked up!

Seriously, I see this as good news, not bad news. Most countries can't afford to keep their idiots away from the rest of the population. This is just a sign of how much wealth the country has, not how degenerate we are.

[TXChris]

Honestly, I don't really believe it does. One only has to watch an episode of "COPS" to see a criminal admitting he was just trying to get put back in jail because he couldn't "function" in the real world. Things I think might help to keep more people out of jail...victimless crimes should not be criminalized, hard time should be employed while an inmate is in prison (who wants to get put in a place where they have to bust their ass and don't get the opportunity to live with central heat and air), and most importantly working to stop the spread of crime in the first place, rather than just relying on reactionary measures. It's always far better to respond to the problem rather than the outcome.

[TXChris]

No wonder our country is so fucking great, and everyone seems to be willing to risk their lives to get here. We keep our crazy fucks locked up!

Seriously, I see this as good news, not bad news. Most countries can't afford to keep their idiots away from the rest of the population. This is just a sign of how much wealth the country has, not how degenerate we are.

Don't you think that the "wealth" would be much better spent on education instead of reactionary measures? And what about victimless crimes? Seriously, why criminalize a vice? If someone wants to adhere to a vice that hurts oneself, then let them. If they go out and hurt someone, prosecute THAT. Prisons and law should be there to protect the populace from criminals, not criminalize vices.

[swivel]

How many people in jail for "victimless" crimes made a deal? For instance, if you are arrested for reckless driving, or a hit-and-run, and you are drunk or stoned, how often are those people officially in jail for just "possession"? I know this is a very common occurrence, because the sentencing is almost automatic with drug offenses, and more confusing for other crimes.

My point is, we shouldn't look at stats for what a person is in jail for, and pretend that is the entire story. Shit is skewed DOWN, not up.

[TXChris]

That's my point exactly. If a crime such as hit and run or murder is commimted, prosecute the individual for THAT crime. Don't allow them to "make a deal" to a lesser possession charge, which, if we didn't have idiotic drug laws they wouldn't have the opportunity to plead down in the first place.

[Athena]

I don't think it's the mere threat of jail time that deters. Of course, it differs depending on the crime. But, especially with violent crime, it's been said that people commit these crimes under the pretense that they will not be caught, so potential consequence does not typically factor into the severity of their actions.

I there are two things absolutely essential to lessening the number of incarcerated AND working toward a better society.

1.) We need to be working on a better option for drug-related, victimless offenses. Fines, community service, supervision...I don't know. But simply throwing them in jail is not impacting the number of drug users, nor does it seem to affect the crime rate.

2.) Jails should not be so fucking comfortable! I watch those jail shows on MSNBC...Inmates joking with the guards, allowed private possessions, kickin' back, watching TV. I say the only time these fuckers should leave their cells is for labor of some sort. They can pay for their own stay AND develop skills that will help them reintegrate.

[Athena]

No wonder our country is so fucking great, and everyone seems to be willing to risk their lives to get here. We keep our crazy fucks locked up!

Seriously, I see this as good news, not bad news. Most countries can't afford to keep their idiots away from the rest of the population. This is just a sign of how much wealth the country has, not how degenerate we are.

Again:


The steadily growing inmate population "is saddling cash-strapped states with soaring costs they can ill afford and failing to have a clear impact either on recidivism or overall crime," said the report.

This may be a sign of our wealth, but we shouldn't spend cash just to spend cash, especially when it appears to have little or no benefit.

[TXChris]

Of course it won't work for everyone, as nothing is 100%, but one has to make the punishment worse than what the individual is risking. That has to take into consideration just how sure the person is that they are not going to get caught. So, like I said, make 'em do hard time. Get rid of the luxuries they enjoy. I happen to think what they're doing down in Arizona is pretty awesome.

[CPL CHUD]

No wonder our country is so fucking great, and everyone seems to be willing to risk their lives to get here. We keep our crazy fucks locked up!

Seriously, I see this as good news, not bad news. Most countries can't afford to keep their idiots away from the rest of the population. This is just a sign of how much wealth the country has, not how degenerate we are.
I agree with most of this. We are the wealthiest country, so of course we are going to be able to afford to enforce our laws to a greater degree than other countries. Historically on scale we are thus far a fluke; we tread uncharted territory in terms of a tolerant democratic society of mixed nationalities, so we got to tread carefully and make sure we are always adhering to an objective moral sphere.

I want people batshit scared of going to the gulag. I don't want our wealth translating to a prisoner's quality of life. I want prisons to be profitable. I want people buying shares in the penal system, then corporations pulling labor pools from the prison population for low skilled jobs. Provide a reintegrating system for the nonviolent criminals. Right now it seems like the system has gained enough steam to self perpetuate into a partial waste of manpower and time.

I really don't think being more lax on drug related crimes is going to increase public safety, which should be the bottom line. Inflating a lesser evil to decrease another evil is not really an overall long term solution to me. Short term, maybe, but we don't want to sling old problems on to future generations.

[swivel]

I want people batshit scared of going to the gulag. I don't want our wealth translating to a prisoner's quality of life. I want prisons to be profitable. I want people buying shares in the penal system, then corporations pulling labor pools from the prison population for low skilled jobs. Provide a reintegrating system for the nonviolent criminals. Right now it seems like the system has gained enough steam to self perpetuate into a partial waste of manpower and time.

I made a post about this, detailing just how we could make our prisons profitable, and work FOR the prisoners, as well as the rest of society.

Another thing I would support: People with a criminal record lose their right to vote for a certain length of time. For life, for many crimes.

[CPL CHUD]

I made a post about this, detailing just how we could make our prisons profitable, and work FOR the prisoners, as well as the rest of society.

Another thing I would support: People with a criminal record lose their right to vote for a certain length of time. For life, for many crimes.Yeah I remember a discussion about it a while back, but it still stands as a possible solution. It's better than getting more lax on nonviolent offenses.

[Athena]

I made a post about this, detailing just how we could make our prisons profitable, and work FOR the prisoners, as well as the rest of society.

Another thing I would support: People with a criminal record lose their right to vote for a certain length of time. For life, for many crimes.

You sure did, and it was fantastic.

As for the second portion - If you're feeling up to it, I'd love to hear your logic behind that sort of move. The suspension of voting rights for felons is something I've just recently begun to consider.

[swivel]

It's better than getting more lax on nonviolent offenses.

I prefer that term. I don't think there are "victimless crimes"

[impqueen]

Just out of curiosity, do any of you have family members in prison, or have any of you spent time incarcerated? I've never been in jail, but I have a brother who has spent a chunk of his life there for non-violent crimes (mostly robbery related to drug use.) I think he needs to be there. When he's incarcerated, he's clean, sober, and able to be productive. He's gotten HVAC certification. He's exceptionally intelligent and runs a facilitation group for inmates who are learning communication and coping skills - but that's after over five years in, THIS time.

Is my brother salvageable? Who the fuck knows. I don't. He has been assaulted in prison, had to join groups to keep himself from being assaulted, has probably assaulted others. At one point, he broke his wrist and it went untreated. Some people feel that because his crimes were not "violent" he was sentenced too harshly, others feel he had/has a propensity for violence that makes him dangerous. He has committed assaults for which he was never charged, so his charges don't accurately reflect the person he was some years ago and who he may still be.

Fact is, if you do the crime, you gotta do the time. I don't care if HALF our population is in prison. Judging by our front page, we aren't doing enough to deter criminals. My brother has the same sentence (15 years) as some sex offenders. That needs to change - give sex offenders life. My brother deserved his time and won't serve even half of it. I love him and hope he does well when he gets out, but I have no assurances that he will. He's gotten job skills and takes some college courses which he pays for, but whether he will function outside I dunno.

I loved Swivel's idea of a labor sentence. To me, that is far and away the best solution I've seen to a broken prison system where nonviolent offenders, in many cases, get the same sentences as those handed down for manslaughter, assault, rape, or molestation.

Also, if we legalize drugs, have people register to be drug users and in doing so undergo voluntary sterilization, we remove a large segment of incarceratable population by removal of jail time for drug offenses. Indirectly we'd remove within a generation or two a lot of child abuse, as well.

[Athena]

I really don't think being more lax on drug related crimes is going to increase public safety, which should be the bottom line. Inflating a lesser evil to decrease another evil is not really an overall long term solution to me. Short term, maybe, but we don't want to sling old problems on to future generations.

Generally, I would agree with you. However, the issue from my perspective is that being tough on these some of these crimes doesn't seem to lessen the crime rate, and when we do loosen up, it still doesn't seem to impact the crime rate. Some time ago, Seattle voted to make what used to be misdemeanor marijuana possession the lowest criminal priority. If anything, these people are generally ticketed. Marijuana-related prosecutions have plummeted, saving the city hundreds of thousands of dollars since the policy was established. Interestingly, our crime rates have continued to decrease, as has marijuana usage by teenagers.

It really has been a win-win situation for Seattle citizens.

[Athena]

I prefer that term. I don't think there are "victimless crimes"

I know we've gone rounds about that and feel no need to revisit it, necessarily. Perhaps "victimless crimes" is a less than accurate term. But I do feel that it's disingenuous to group a MIP or misdemeanor possession charge in with robbery or fraud or other more severe nonviolent crimes. If protecting the populace is the bottom line, as I agree it should be, I do believe that focusing on the direct impact an action has on that populace is necessary.

[swivel]

I know we've gone rounds about that and feel no need to revisit it, necessarily. Perhaps "victimless crimes" is a less than accurate term. But I do feel that it's disingenuous to group a MIP or misdemeanor possession charge in with robbery or fraud or other more severe nonviolent crimes. If protecting the populace is the bottom line, as I agree it should be, I do believe that focusing on the direct impact an action has on that populace is necessary.

Question, which of the two is a "worse" crime:

1) Person shooting up heroin three times a day.
2) Person robbing a convenience store with an unloaded weapon.

Gimme a number, and I understand that this is a subjective question with no right or wrong answer. I'm just curious about your opinion here.

[Athena]

Question, which of the two is a "worse" crime:

1) Person shooting up heroin three times a day.
2) Person robbing a convenience store with an unloaded weapon.

[swivel]

Question, which of the two is a "worse" crime:

1) Person shooting up heroin three times a day.
2) Person robbing a convenience store with an unloaded weapon.

Ah... the root of our disagreement. The robber is stealing money, which hurts the owner financially, and will likely cause some small psychological harm to the victims (but not for long). The drug-user is physically destroying a person. And if reformed addicts are to be trusted, there is a "future self" in each of them that regrets the abuse. That is quite a difference in the primary players.

Secondary players: The robber, if they get away with the crime, is actually helping the other people in his/her life by providing income (looking at this from the perspective of both groups getting away with the crime, and benefits to the secondary players only). The drug addict, if allowed to continue, harms those who care for him/her. Destroys relationships. Helps spread blood-born disease, and contributes to a culture which has harmful side effects for the community. The drugs often go with sex, and the former causes real harm to the product of the latter.

I'm not sure that an argument could really be made that the robbery (with an unloaded weapon) is a worse crime than the heroin addiction, but I respect your opinion.

[TXChris]

Ah... the root of our disagreement. The robber is stealing money, which hurts the owner financially, and will likely cause some small psychological harm to the victims (but not for long). The drug-user is physically destroying a person. And if reformed addicts are to be trusted, there is a "future self" in each of them that regrets the abuse. That is quite a difference in the primary players.

Secondary players: The robber, if they get away with the crime, is actually helping the other people in his/her life by providing income (looking at this from the perspective of both groups getting away with the crime, and benefits to the secondary players only). The drug addict, if allowed to continue, harms those who care for him/her. Destroys relationships. Helps spread blood-born disease, and contributes to a culture which has harmful side effects for the community. The drugs often go with sex, and the former causes real harm to the product of the latter.

I'm not sure that an argument could really be made that the robbery (with an unloaded weapon) is a worse crime than the heroin addiction, but I respect your opinion.

If you don't mind, I'd like to take a shot at this. I'm with Athena in that the robbery would be the "worst" of the two scenarios. Here's my thought on this... My thinking runs along the lines of the robber pointing, what appears to be a real weapon, at another person in an attempt to use force to take what is not their's. The problem I see with this is that the person doing the robbing could cause the store owner to pull out a gun of his own and shoot the robber, or somehow end up on the receiving end of his own weapon. Either way, there is the long-term effect you attempted to describe with the heroin user in that family members, etc., are hurt in the long-term. The difference is that the robber has forced this upon everyone involved by such a violent act. The heroin addict, on the other hand, is choosing to hurt himself. If it, somehow, indirectly affects others in his life, then they have a choice in dealing with him as they choose. The store owner is left with only one rational choice, and that is to defend himself. He is forced into that by the robber. Just my thoughts on an interesting question.

EDIT: Just thought of this, also. It seems you are comparing the multiple actions of a heroin addict with the one time robbery of a store. If it is truly a one time hit of heroin and a one time robbery, then, obviously, the robbery is much worse. If it is a continual heroin drug problem, then that must be compared, on a hit for hit basis, vs. the robbery which would put the robbery, once again, as a much worse problem.

[Athena]

Ah... the root of our disagreement. The robber is stealing money, which hurts the owner financially, and will likely cause some small psychological harm to the victims (but not for long). The drug-user is physically destroying a person. And if reformed addicts are to be trusted, there is a "future self" in each of them that regrets the abuse. That is quite a difference in the primary players.

Secondary players: The robber, if they get away with the crime, is actually helping the other people in his/her life by providing income (looking at this from the perspective of both groups getting away with the crime, and benefits to the secondary players only). The drug addict, if allowed to continue, harms those who care for him/her. Destroys relationships. Helps spread blood-born disease, and contributes to a culture which has harmful side effects for the community. The drugs often go with sex, and the former causes real harm to the product of the latter.

I'm not sure that an argument could really be made that the robbery (with an unloaded weapon) is a worse crime than the heroin addiction, but I respect your opinion.

I appreciate your argument, but consider it to contain a fair amount of assumption. Perhaps I cannot assert that the robbery is worse from a moral perspective, but I think that I can assert, if we only consider guaranteed result, that the actions are relatively equal regarding their effects on the community.

When someone commits an armed robbery, we can guarantee that:

- The victim in impacted negatively on a financial level
- The victim is impacted negatively on an emotional level (although short-lived)
- The act creates fear that negatively impacts the community (although short-lived)

When someone shoots heroin three times a day, we can guarantee that:

- The individual is compromising their health
- The individual is contributing financially to individuals involved in criminal activity

Everything else you posted, likely or not, is assumption. What about the functioning heroin addict? The one that doesn't steal or hurt anyone? The one who doesn't spread disease? Their impact on the community is limited to that which is listed above, which, while not much better, can't be considered much worse than the robbery, in my opinion.

Realistically, looking at cases the way that you did this one creates either an unfair burden in regard to what the justice system can be expected to consider, or we are punishing people for an impact they may not have even made.

Beyond that, we're not even talking about drug-addicts when we consider drug-related crime, necessarily. Narcotics will get people jail time, period. Caught with coke, crack, crank, etc.? You're getting arrested. You don't have to be an addict. You don't even have to be a user. Simple possession of these substances will commonly land your ass in jail, even if it's a first-offense. The elements that make drug possession "worse" in your mind often don't even exist, yet.

I just can't get comfortable punishing people for what they might eventually do, and determining whether they've impacted the community in such a way is too large a task to be expected of our justice system.

[swivel]

EDIT: Just thought of this, also. It seems you are comparing the multiple actions of a heroin addict with the one time robbery of a store. If it is truly a one time hit of heroin and a one time robbery, then, obviously, the robbery is much worse. If it is a continual heroin drug problem, then that must be compared, on a hit for hit basis, vs. the robbery which would put the robbery, once again, as a much worse problem.

EXACTLY! Now you are getting to the meat of the problem. The heroin addict is ruining themselves and the people around them DAILY. And the argument, mostly from other drug-users, is that this form of self-abuse should be waved away, while someone who gets caught stealing, one time, is treated far worse, when they had no intention of ever harming someone.

I just don't see the former as "victimless" and the latter as excessively destructive towards others.

As for the anecdotal nonsense of "the store-owner might pull out a grenade and kill a bus-load of nuns", I counter that this happens far less than someone dies of a drug OD, or transmits AIDS with a dirty needle. Let's leave such imaginative explorations for another time.

Athena, I haven't read your post yet. I'm not ignoring it, I just took a break after dinner and this was the only post I read.

[Athena]

Damn, swivel...Do I strike you as THAT needy?











Actually, don't answer that. @_@

[TXChris]

But, let us put it into perspective. Nobody robs a store as many times as one pumps himself full of drugs. I just think if we are going to use an example we NEED to equalize both choices. To compare a drug addict, who is injesting drug of choice 3x or 5x a day to a person who robs a store once is not being honest to the argument, in my opinion.

[swivel]

But, let us put it into perspective. Nobody robs a store as many times as one pumps himself full of drugs. I just think if we are going to use an example we NEED to equalize both choices. To compare a drug addict, who is injesting drug of choice 3x or 5x a day to a person who robs a store once is not being honest to the argument, in my opinion.

But, what do these people get put in prison for doing? This thread is about the people in prison, and what they were put in prison for. The person who is in prison for robbery couldn't have pulled 100's of jobs before he/she got caught. The person who is caught with drugs isn't caught the first time they buy, before they ever got a chance to use.

I'm not skewing things in my favor, I'm looking at what a robber must do to get in prison vs. what a drug-user must do to get in prison. In my opinion, in most cases, the drug user is more damaging to society than the robber. I don't excuse the robber, but I think the argument that drug users are harmless, and we should just ignore them is outright lunacy. What they cost us by creating slums in our cities is worse than housing them in prison for the rest of their lives.

[TXChris]

I guess my beef with what you are saying is that we're still not talking apples to apples here. In all honesty, the robber could commit as many robberies as the drug user injests drugs. Obviously, the robber could be caught the first time or the tenth or the hundreth. The drug user, on the other hand, could be caught the first time buying drugs, or the first time just carrying them, or the first time using them, or, as the robber, the tenth time or hundreth time. And, I'm sure we would agree, there are more drug users than there are robbers. One again, I really think we have to equalize both instances and then go from there to make any definite argument.

[swivel]

I guess my beef with what you are saying is that we're still not talking apples to apples here. In all honesty, the robber could commit as many robberies as the drug user injests drugs. Obviously, the robber could be caught the first time or the tenth or the hundreth. The drug user, on the other hand, could be caught the first time buying drugs, or the first time just carrying them, or the first time using them, or, as the robber, the tenth time or hundreth time. And, I'm sure we would agree, there are more drug users than there are robbers. One again, I really think we have to equalize both instances and then go from there to make any definite argument.

I'm happy that this is having to be debated. It proves my point that it isn't clear-cut that the robber deserves to rot in jail, and the addict deserves to be left to his/her own devices. For some reason, this is taken as axiomatic by most people. I can only assume the bias is due to their drug use, and the fact that they do not rob places.

As for getting off-track with the apples-to-apples business, that is a distraction. My question to Athena was an explicit hypothetical of MY CHOOSING to prove MY POINT.

One-time robber with an unloaded weapon vs. longtime heroin addict. This isn't even argumentum absurdium, it is a completely reasonable comparison, NOT between two "equal crimes" as you seem to be wanting me to do, but between one crime where there is a self-committed act, and another with "victims". The point that I make with this comparison is that the pro-drug fucks make an enormous mistake when they innocuously claim that all the druggies in prison are A) There for drug use only and B) Better people (less grievous offenders) than other inmates.

If the distinction fails with my realistic hypothetical (which I think it does), then it calls into question this tactic used by the pro-drug fuck-ups.

Simple as that.

[TXChris]

I get what you're saying. I just can't agree to the comparison. Damnit, the word I have been looking for is "normalize." That's what it was. Sorry, about that. It just hit me. :)

I just don't see drug use as a reason for incarceration. In all honesty, I just can't see it. And, this, is a strong thing for me to say after being raised so anti-drug. But, this will forever be the difference between you and me. Whereas you feel society, and therefore government, should intervene to keep one from hurting one's self I feel that if a person wants to, or inadvertantly, hurts oneself they should be left to do so. It's called personal responsibility. And anyone within their life that is "hurt" by whatever it is they do has a choice of whether they want to "deal" with it or not. But vice should not equate to crime.

[Athena]

My turn! My turn! Swivel...you promised! :p

Goddamn, I've gotten whiny with you as of late.

For the record, if anything tints my perspective, it's my experience being acquainted with heroin addicts and my experience being robbed. I've never done heroin or robbed anyone.

[TXChris]

Haha! Sorry about that. Didn't mean to horde him.

[swivel]

I appreciate your argument, but consider it to contain a fair amount of assumption. Perhaps I cannot assert that the robbery is worse from a moral perspective, but I think that I can assert, if we only consider guaranteed result, that the actions are relatively equal regarding their effects on the community.

When someone commits an armed robbery, we can guarantee that:

- The victim in impacted negatively on a financial level
- The victim is impacted negatively on an emotional level (although short-lived)
- The act creates fear that negatively impacts the community (although short-lived)

When someone shoots heroin three times a day, we can guarantee that:

- The individual is compromising their health
- The individual is contributing financially to individuals involved in criminal activity

Everything else you posted, likely or not, is assumption. What about the functioning heroin addict? The one that doesn't steal or hurt anyone? The one who doesn't spread disease? Their impact on the community is limited to that which is listed above, which, while not much better, can't be considered much worse than the robbery, in my opinion.

Realistically, looking at cases the way that you did this one creates either an unfair burden in regard to what the justice system can be expected to consider, or we are punishing people for an impact they may not have even made.

Beyond that, we're not even talking about drug-addicts when we consider drug-related crime, necessarily. Narcotics will get people jail time, period. Caught with coke, crack, crank, etc.? You're getting arrested. You don't have to be an addict. You don't even have to be a user. Simple possession of these substances will commonly land your ass in jail, even if it's a first-offense. The elements that make drug possession "worse" in your mind often don't even exist, yet.

I just can't get comfortable punishing people for what they might eventually do, and determining whether they've impacted the community in such a way is too large a task to be expected of our justice system.

There are two other levels on which I gauge harm. They make ethical dilemmas even more complex, but I believe they arrive at a solution more closely approximating the Objective Moral Truth.

First, there are the delayed harms. Delayed harms are the reason that you can't pollute your own land, even if you ensure the pollution never spreads. There is a finite amount of land, and it lasts longer than any single life, which means that the well-being of the land needs to be protected for future owners. There are many examples of delayed harms, like unhealthy lifestyle choices (smoking, excessive drinking, addiction to gambling) wherein the cumulative harm is what must be examined, and not the single instances.

Second, there are the unwitting harms. I think of these as the regrettable actions (or inactions) that are easily preventable, but carried out due to lack of information or control on the part of the victim. An example here would be harm done to a fetus. At the moment of being victimized, the fetus can not possibly know of any harm being done to it (on a conscious level), it can not speak for itself, it can not defend itself, it can not remove itself from harm. However, if you allow some time to transpire, you will find that the entity, which the fetus becomes, will unanimously express its desire to have been protected. Thus a "regrettable harm". In many cases, children need to be protected from their parents from regrettable harms. In the rare case, people need to be protected from themselves from regrettable harms (suicide due to depression, drug addiction, excessive drinking, cigarette smoking, addiction to gambling, compulsive shopper/hoarder). What we find is that these people, looking back on their conditions, think of themselves as prisoners to their vice, and see themselves as having victimized themselves. We owe these potential people the same care as we owe the potential human that every fetus (so long as it is going to be birthed) may become.


What I do not find compelling is the argument that a person should be allowed their "liberty" to be enslaved by a vice. It is a fanatical view of personal liberty, not one couched in moral reasoning and love for mankind. If we can demand that we not harm each other, we can demand that we do not harm ourselves. The golden rule covers this, it just bears spelling out:

Quick example - Let's say that I engage in a behavior called Chemming. I enjoy Chemming. You stumble upon some research that proves that Chemming is going to result in my life expectancy cut in half. Are you obliged to tell me about this research? Or do you preserve my liberties best by allowing me to do what I enjoy, and do it in ignorance? Clear answer here.

It gets trickier when we ask this: Now that you have told me, do we allow my Chemming to continue since I understand and assume the risks? What if we know that every person who has stopped Chemming has expressed a very strong feeling of having been rescued from themselves, and that they would very much have regretted not been coerced into a more self-beneficial lifestyle? What is our moral obligation then? Seems ambiguous at first, and either side could be debated...

...but, let's look at it from the perspective of the anti-Chemmers. Their desire is to help people stop Chemming because it halves their life expectancy. They use their liberty to attempt good, while the Chemmer uses their liberty to do bad. Is this perspective not equally valid? And less ambiguous? Why do we protect the liberty of the Chemmer to destroy a human being, and stifle the liberty of the anti-Chemmer to save the human being?

You can see why I bring up delayed harm and regrettable harm. Without these, we could appeal to Chris' "personal responsibility" plea, and move right along. But that would leave the fetus, the child, and the prisoner of vice uncared for by those of us that know better.

Liberty is something I cherish. I wish every human being had it as fully as I do. Because I love it, I can not stand to see it wasted on harmful deeds. Even if these harms are delayed or unwitting. If we are going to fight for these institutions, let us also fight to understand and appreciate what should be expected of those that have them. Because Liberty without Morality is anarchy. Liberty WITH morality is democracy and capitalism. Why waste our time as fanatics, arguing for the former, when we can be reasoning moderates, pleading for the latter?

[TXChris]

But you are talking about what "might be" over the importance of "what is." That's my problem with your argument. Don't get me wrong. I truly appreciate your argument, and definitely understand where you come from, but we are not both of the same extreme, you and I. I believe "what is" takes precedence over what "might be." Why? Because what is already is. What "might be" has the chance to be, but is not guaranteed. The thing is, no matter what happens, what "might be" just might never happen. There is not guarantee. And that's life. It is what it is.

See, the truth is, Swivel, a lot of your moral endings I, too, believe in, but I don't believe in the same means to get there that you espouse. Whereas I feel, as you do, that we must do what we can do to help other individuals, I feel that we do not have the right ot use government to force that. It should be a personal decision agreed upon by each person.

[swivel]

But you are talking about what "might be" over the importance of "what is." That's my problem with your argument. Don't get me wrong. I truly appreciate your argument, and definitely understand where you come from, but we are not both of the same extreme, you and I. I believe "what is" takes precedence over what "might be." Why? Because what is already is. What "might be" has the chance to be, but is not guaranteed. The thing is, no matter what happens, what "might be" just might never happen. There is not guarantee. And that's life. It is what it is.

I understand your point. If I were trying to prove the drug use, in general, is worse than robbery, in general, I would be failing miserably.

But that was never my goal. I was explicitly looking for reasonable cases where the "violent" crime was, in my opinion, a lesser offense than a "victimeless" crime. I'm not trying to generalize from there. I just want to cast doubt on the idea that we have too many people in jail, most of them are for doing drugs, nobody is hurt through drug use, we should decriminalize drugs.

My point is proven in two ways: First, we have had to debate my hypothetical, rather than all three of us seeing some massive flaw in the reasoning all at once. When Athena tries to take away some of my hypothetical details, what she is admitting is that I am correct in THAT scenario, now, if she is only allowed to modify it a bit, by giving the shop-owner a shotgun, and make this heroin fiend a first-time user. Implicit in this maneuver is an admission that HER general stance is not correct.

Which is the second way that my doubt over this issue is proven to exist. The major complaint with my scenario is the "unknowns". Both you and Athena have attempted to modify my particular into your own particulars, and THEN generalize your own conclusions from there. I believe you two are doing what you are accusing me of. You form an image in your head of a high-functioning drug user, and a gun-totting maniac, and then drug-use becomes victimless by comparison, and should be decriminalized. Since your position is based on the generalization of unlikely particulars, it is cast into doubt.


I'm still trying to find a way of knowing how many people in jail for drug offenses bargained down from something worse. Unfortunately, they do not advertise what you were accused of, only what you were sentenced for. I think you would have to follow several hundred cases in-progress to get an adequate sample size to extrapolate from, and I don't care quite enough to do this. But, between these two ideas, I think there is tons of room for debate here over an issue that most people think is open-and-shut.

[TXChris]

Most definitely agreed. There is a lot of room for debate on this particular subject. And, I appreciate your hypothetical.

Just so everyone knows where I stand on this particular subject:

1.) I definitely think we have too much of our population in jail and it is becoming a huge drain on our resources. A lot of that would be solved by decriminalizing vices.
2.) I don't believe that most inmates are in on drug-related offenses. There is definitely a good number of them, however.
3.) It's not that drugs don't hurt others, rather that directly, they hurt the user, and, occasionally, hurt others indirectly. The indirect hurt is by others who choose to allow it to hurt them. Driving can be seen as hurting others directly and indirectly by sheer number of accidents, yet we are allowed to do it, within a framework of laws. Smoking and drinking are the same way.
4.) Vices should be decriminalized.

Personally, I've been speaking of the massive flaw in your argument from the beginning, and that is your refusal to normalize the variables. To me, that IS a massive flaw. It's easy to use some non-functioning, hopelessly-addicted heroin addict vs. a chump who robs a store once, and have your desired result. But, the law cannot be applied to such thinking. In order for the law to be "fair" it must be equal across all boards. So, when creating law, if the variables taken into consideration are not equalized then the law will end up hurting instead of helping. That is the problem we, as a country, have been facing for such a long time now. Almost every law created is a result of lobbying by a particular group. Anti-gun laws, equality laws, abortion laws, campaign reform laws, and a whole plethora of ridiculousness that now clogs up our legal system. The laws passed are based upon the outcome the lobbying group is looking for, not the best interest for the country. Meh, it is what it is...for now.