NYC Leads the WORLD in Marijuana Arrests...and it gets better

[Athena]

Thanks to that brilliant man over at TheAgitator.com for bring this gem to our attention. Talk about some snarky writing...This man is my hero:

“You Bet I Did, and I Enjoyed It, and I’ll Slap Cuffs on Anyone Who Enjoyed It as Much as I Did.”
Wednesday, April 30th, 2008

New York City, home to admitted pot smoker (and pot enjoyer) Mayor Michael Bloomberg leads the world in marijuana arrests. Over 370,000 in the last decade for the lowest possible level marijuana offense. More than half were black, despite the fact that just 25 percent of the city is black, and that according to survey data, a higher percentage of white people actually use the drug.

The New York City ACLU says the discrepancy comes from the fact that minorities are much more likely than whites to be stopped and frisked. The end result is a much higher percentage of blacks than whites with a pot-related arrest record–and all that comes with that (including the loss of ever getting federal loans to go to college)–even though white people are more likely to actually use the drug.

More here.

__________________

So, not only is NYC, a violent crime-ridden city by any measure, wasting a ridiculous amount of time and resource popping small time pot smokers, they're being really fucking disproportionate about the application. Not only do they target blacks even though the demographics don't support it (big surprise), they target men far more than they do women even though demographics don't support it(also not surprising). 90% of those arrested were men, even though studies show that the rate of usage between men and women is pretty much the same.

So, although I could pee clean with confidence this very moment, I won't let that stop me from labeling Bloomberg as a superdouche.

Does anyone BUT the NYC police chief really think that pursuing personal pot possession decreases crime???

[swivel]

How many of these busts were plea-bargains down from the worser shit that the possessor was doing at the time?

Drug sentencing is so cut-and-dry, and chemical tests remove all doubt of guilt, that a lot of our anti-drug crime stats come from deals made by the offender to take a known sentence, rather than clog our dockets with the dangerous driving, assault and battery, spousal abuse, car wreck, gun possession, etc...

If you fail to keep this process in mind, the numbers will fool you. Badly.

[Athena]

The studied reviewed arrests, not convictions.

A study released Tuesday reported that between 1998 and 2007, the police arrested 374,900 people whose most serious crime was the lowest-level misdemeanor marijuana offense.

[swivel]

Their most serious crime was the thing they were accused of, or convicted of? It would baffle me to discover that we kept statistics on things we accuse people of, but fail to convict them of. Such data is normally expunged if it is ever recorded in the first place.

I'm not accusing you of making the mistake I detail above, I am accusing the writers of the original piece, the data-miners who don't know what they are looking at, the policy-makers, and the media. You are just passing along their mistake, further hidden behind their confusing (and incorrect) semantics.


Edit: I highly recommend reading this study by the RAND corporation: http://rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG288.sum.pdf

[w8ng4msrgt]

Nothing really gets expunged anymore in the digital age. The most glaring thing to me about that report was 'Hey Dumbasses' NYC is the biggest city in the nation.

[Athena]

Am I misunderstanding you?

It would baffle me to discover that we kept statistics on things we accuse people of, but fail to convict them of. Such data is normally expunged if it is ever recorded in the first place.

CA arrests statistics

FBI data collection methods, arrest statistics

FBI - What do arrest statistics count?

Under the UCR Program, the FBI requires law enforcement agencies to classify an arrest by the most serious offense charged in that arrest. For example, the arrest of a youth charged with aggravated assault and possession of a controlled substance would be reported to the FBI as an arrest for aggravated assault. Therefore, when arrest statistics show that law enforcement agencies made an estimated 220,700 arrests of young people for drug abuse violations in 1997, it means that a drug abuse violation was the most serious charge in these 220,700 arrests. An unknown number of additional arrests in 1997 included a drug charge as a lesser offense.

I'm not going to assume that the NYT is making a mistake. Arrests are tabulated and are entirely separate from convictions. Could the NYT be confusing the two? Perhaps, but given the way it was phrased, I don't think so.

[swivel]

I stand corrected. If I am reading your links correctly, our criminal justice data is based on the whim of our officers, and not on the results of our judicial system.

Your story should be about how many New Yorkers were accused of smoking pot, even though we can't know for sure how many of them actually were guilty, were convicted, or were innocent?

Your point is made, and your case is more flimsy for it.

The RAND report found that most people convicted for "minor drug offenses" had priors, including non-drug related convictions. That the users were more likely to be guilty of violent past crimes than were the dealers and distributors, and that plea-bargaining distorts our view of the number of true offenses.

What is strange is considering that I have no criminal record, yet I have added 3 "arrests" to our general crime statistics. You can see why the FBI leads the charge in tallying how efficient our crime-fighting dollars are used, while the judicial system only cares about the results.

[Athena]

I stand corrected. If I am reading your links correctly, our criminal justice data is based on the whim of our officers, and not on the results of our judicial system.

Well, not necessarily. You can get statistics based on convictions. These charts compare conviction rates by offense between the U.S. and England, for example.

However, when you're talking general crime rates, they are determined by a combination of arrests and victimization rates.

The measures are:

Total serious violent crime
The estimated number of homicides of persons age 12 and older recorded by police plus the number of rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults from the victimization survey whether or not they were reported to the police.

Victimizations reported to the police
The estimated number of homicides of persons age 12 and older recorded by police plus the number of rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults from the victimization survey that victims said were reported to the police.

Crimes recorded by the police
The number of homicides, forcible rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults included in the Uniform Crime Reports of the FBI excluding commercial robberies and crimes that involved victims under age 12.

Arrests for violent crimes
The number of persons arrested for homicide, forcible rape, robbery or aggravated assault as reported by law enforcement agencies to the FBI.

Victimization Survey (household survey)
Uniform Crime Report

This link provides an overview of the measures and how they are compared

Your story should be about how many New Yorkers were accused of smoking pot, even though we can't know for sure how many of them actually were guilty, were convicted, or were innocent?

Your point is made, and your case is more flimsy for it.

The RAND report found that most people convicted for "minor drug offenses" had priors, including non-drug related convictions. That the users were more likely to be guilty of violent past crimes than were the dealers and distributors, and that plea-bargaining distorts our view of the number of true offenses.

What is strange is considering that I have no criminal record, yet I have added 3 "arrests" to our general crime statistics. You can see why the FBI leads the charge in tallying how efficient our crime-fighting dollars are used, while the judicial system only cares about the results.

I'm not sure what you think my case is, here. I suppose I should have made it more clear. I am disturbed by two things:

1.) The resources devoted to this particular cause are staggering. When other major cities (and the rest of NY State's laws) are getting progressively lax on minor possession charges (and are the better for it), NYC, a city that's resources could be more efficiently focused, is moving in the opposite direction. Why? The police chief *claims* it contributes greatly to a decreased crime rate. Studies suggest otherwise.

2.) We all know that the law is inaccurately applied. Actually, that's too delicate a phrase. Profiling. This is a clear illustration of how one police agency is unjustly targeting certain demographics. White people smoke more than blacks, yet blacks account for a disproportionately large percentage of arrests. Men and women smoke at the same rate, yet men account for a whopping 90% of arrests. It's not saying anything we don't already know, but damn - it's a little disappointing.

Incidentally, not in the least surprised that drug users are more likely to have priors, even violent ones.

[Raq me darkly]

And the ironic thing is that one of NYC's most famous mayors, Laguardia, did a monumental report:

Marijuana Timeline
1944: New York Mayor LaGuardia's Marijuana Commission concludes that there is no link between cannabis and violence, instead citing beneficial effects of marijuana.

Harry Anslinger goes berserk, denouncing Mayor LaGuardia and threatening doctors with prison terms should they dare to carry out independent research on cannabis.

(I first heard about this on the History Channel. Very interesting.)

I agree that the police can better spend their time, going after more violent criminals rather than someone with a joint.

[Death Angel]

Goddamn setup ... I'll be goddamn. Bitch set me up.