<i>by russell</i>
the issue of prisons in the US came up in another thread. it was discussed briefly, and I thought it might deserve a more thorough discussion.
so, here it is.
what strikes me about the prison system in the US:
- the sheer number of people in the system. somewhere between 2.2 and 2.4 million people are incarcerated, and almost another 5 million are on probation or parole. that's almost 7 million people, almost 3% of the entire adult population. that is EXTRAORDINARY.
- the number of people in the system whose most serious offense is some kind of drug offense. about half of the federal prisoners, and about 20% of state prisoners, are in this category.
- the frequently bizarre and inconsistent sentencing practices that end up putting people in prison for decades for trivial offenses, and that impose different sentences for, for example, powder cocaine vs rock.
- the use of solitary confinement for extended periods, which demonstrably makes people psychotic.
- the sheer brutality and violence that prevails in prisons. physical violence and sexual abuse and predation are an assumed part of prison life, for both men and women.
- private, for-profit prison operators, who spend millions of dollars lobbying federal and state governments to encourage and maintain incarceration programs and lengthy sentencing regimes.
IMO all of this points to a broken and dysfunctional corrections system. It seems, to me, to desparately need reform, but I have no idea where to even begin.
Sorry for the no-links no-cites post, that stuff is time-consuming, and I just wanted to get this up so folks could discuss.
Absolutely. Shameful. Some day, decades from now, when this is a historical period to be studied people will wonder what the hell we were doing maintaining such barbarism while believing ourselves to be The City on the Hill, the beacon of freedom.
Absolutely. Shameful. Some day, decades from now, when this is a historical period to be studied people will wonder what the hell we were doing maintaining such barbarism while believing ourselves to be The City on the Hill, the beacon of freedom.
State. Federal.
And of course, the invaluable wikki.
Links for all.
State. Federal.
And of course, the invaluable wikki.
Links for all.
At $30,000/year we could release a lot of these folks, pay them the $30,000/yr. for the balance of their sentence (with extensions for good behavior), and admonish them to sin no more.
The prison guards could be put to work building something other than prisons, the capital costs of which, I believe, are not captured in that number.
Socialize the profits, privatize the costs. That’s the way to go. The reverse surely is a dismal failure.
At $30,000/year we could release a lot of these folks, pay them the $30,000/yr. for the balance of their sentence (with extensions for good behavior), and admonish them to sin no more.
The prison guards could be put to work building something other than prisons, the capital costs of which, I believe, are not captured in that number.
Socialize the profits, privatize the costs. That’s the way to go. The reverse surely is a dismal failure.
The only prayer for reform is this:
– liberals hate the impact on minorities of current sentencing practices.
– conservatives hate the enormous cost of current sentencing practices.
– libertarians hate locking anybody up period.
On the other side,
– the commercial prison lobby is big and their financial lobbying clout is growing.
– most of the population thinks the crime rate is high and growing (even though it has been dropping for years).
– as a result, most politicians are extremely leary of being labeled as “soft on crime.”
Eventually, the conservative distaste for the cost of out growing-out-of-control prisons system will overcome their determination to be “tough on crime.” Eventually, but probably not real soon.
The only prayer for reform is this:
– liberals hate the impact on minorities of current sentencing practices.
– conservatives hate the enormous cost of current sentencing practices.
– libertarians hate locking anybody up period.
On the other side,
– the commercial prison lobby is big and their financial lobbying clout is growing.
– most of the population thinks the crime rate is high and growing (even though it has been dropping for years).
– as a result, most politicians are extremely leary of being labeled as “soft on crime.”
Eventually, the conservative distaste for the cost of out growing-out-of-control prisons system will overcome their determination to be “tough on crime.” Eventually, but probably not real soon.
I’m pretty much for a progressive decriminalization and legalization of drugs for philosophical reasons. So there’s that.
But practically, prison time for drug use is crushing an entire segment of the population into the cycle of poverty. It’s atrocious.
Drug crime is ubiquitous, but the prison burden rests primarily on the poor that can’t afford a decent lawyer.
Even after prison, they are saddled with restitution, have difficulty finding work, locking them into poverty. If they are a parent, their children lose parents for years, and even if returned eventually, are stuck in poverty.
If they end up in foster care…that’s not great either. I’ve only met a few people that went through foster care. Every single one of them had awful experiences.
Lost economic productivity from the prisoners. Grim obstacles for their children. All to ban drugs. Which are readily available despite the costs and encroachments of the DEA.
Drug crime is one more excuse to violate individual rights:
http://www.popehat.com/2013/11/07/what-is-the-quantum-of-proof-necessary-for-police-to-rape-and-torture-you-in-new-mexico/
On top of it all, prisons are expensive, guards are expensive. It’s money we don’t have and should be spending better.
Not to mention the ancillary crime caused by the drug trade. In the US and in other countries. We could gut the mexican cartels by making drugs legal in the US. We could remove a primary revenue source for violent gangs.
Our “war on drugs” isn’t just atrocious. It’s stupid. It’s damaging to the country. It’s a level of moral and economic masochism that defies belief.
And, sorry for the rant.
Specific suggestions:
Progressively decriminalize and than legalize drugs.
Defund the DEA
Reform the plea bargain system
I’m pretty much for a progressive decriminalization and legalization of drugs for philosophical reasons. So there’s that.
But practically, prison time for drug use is crushing an entire segment of the population into the cycle of poverty. It’s atrocious.
Drug crime is ubiquitous, but the prison burden rests primarily on the poor that can’t afford a decent lawyer.
Even after prison, they are saddled with restitution, have difficulty finding work, locking them into poverty. If they are a parent, their children lose parents for years, and even if returned eventually, are stuck in poverty.
If they end up in foster care…that’s not great either. I’ve only met a few people that went through foster care. Every single one of them had awful experiences.
Lost economic productivity from the prisoners. Grim obstacles for their children. All to ban drugs. Which are readily available despite the costs and encroachments of the DEA.
Drug crime is one more excuse to violate individual rights:
http://www.popehat.com/2013/11/07/what-is-the-quantum-of-proof-necessary-for-police-to-rape-and-torture-you-in-new-mexico/
On top of it all, prisons are expensive, guards are expensive. It’s money we don’t have and should be spending better.
Not to mention the ancillary crime caused by the drug trade. In the US and in other countries. We could gut the mexican cartels by making drugs legal in the US. We could remove a primary revenue source for violent gangs.
Our “war on drugs” isn’t just atrocious. It’s stupid. It’s damaging to the country. It’s a level of moral and economic masochism that defies belief.
And, sorry for the rant.
Specific suggestions:
Progressively decriminalize and than legalize drugs.
Defund the DEA
Reform the plea bargain system
libertarians hate locking anybody up period.
That’s not actually true though, is it?
I mean, the biggest libertarian in the House, Ron Paul, has spend decades in Congress and has produced no significant legislation on reducing incarceration. Nada. Zip. Zilch. The same is true for Rand Paul in the Senate. The biggest libertarian donors, the Koch brothers? They’ve done nothing on these issues. They’ve got billions of dollars and they’ve spent zero of them working on prison issues.
The Koch brothers spend money on things they actually care about. They’re happy to spend millions of dollars on a cancer research center at MIT because they care about cancer research. They spend zero dollars on prison reform because they don’t care about those issues.
Libertarian voters may talk about prison reform, but they don’t actually care because the libertarian politicians they keep electing don’t care.
libertarians hate locking anybody up period.
That’s not actually true though, is it?
I mean, the biggest libertarian in the House, Ron Paul, has spend decades in Congress and has produced no significant legislation on reducing incarceration. Nada. Zip. Zilch. The same is true for Rand Paul in the Senate. The biggest libertarian donors, the Koch brothers? They’ve done nothing on these issues. They’ve got billions of dollars and they’ve spent zero of them working on prison issues.
The Koch brothers spend money on things they actually care about. They’re happy to spend millions of dollars on a cancer research center at MIT because they care about cancer research. They spend zero dollars on prison reform because they don’t care about those issues.
Libertarian voters may talk about prison reform, but they don’t actually care because the libertarian politicians they keep electing don’t care.
Well we de-criminalized pot out here in the Soviet of Washington. So maybe our incarceration rate will drop. An interesting phenomenon: some of the old time pot heads are continuing to grow and sell outside the law because they have an outlaw mentality. They don’t want to go legit after all the years of feeling like outsiders. Its too much like going respectable or maybe they don’t want to deal with the bureaucracy.
,
Well we de-criminalized pot out here in the Soviet of Washington. So maybe our incarceration rate will drop. An interesting phenomenon: some of the old time pot heads are continuing to grow and sell outside the law because they have an outlaw mentality. They don’t want to go legit after all the years of feeling like outsiders. Its too much like going respectable or maybe they don’t want to deal with the bureaucracy.
,
Eventually, the conservative distaste for the cost of out growing-out-of-control prisons system will overcome their determination to be “tough on crime.”
You forget the other way out, an old favorite on the Right:
More death sentences with a heavily curtailed appeals system. It’s the appeals that drive the cost up, so it has been an old demand to get rid of them. Plus, prisons are (from that POV) still far too comfy (free food, shelter and medical care and no real coercion to hard life-shortening labor). I have heard opinions that any prison where the inmates would not prefer to get executed is far too lenient. And there are still too many restrictions on medical experiments without consent on inmates (selling their organs would also provide some extra revenue). May take some time to get rid of the surplus but it will reliably put the US in #1 place again there. White collar business and political crimes are of course to be exempted. This is a Kristian(TM) nation after all.
Eventually, the conservative distaste for the cost of out growing-out-of-control prisons system will overcome their determination to be “tough on crime.”
You forget the other way out, an old favorite on the Right:
More death sentences with a heavily curtailed appeals system. It’s the appeals that drive the cost up, so it has been an old demand to get rid of them. Plus, prisons are (from that POV) still far too comfy (free food, shelter and medical care and no real coercion to hard life-shortening labor). I have heard opinions that any prison where the inmates would not prefer to get executed is far too lenient. And there are still too many restrictions on medical experiments without consent on inmates (selling their organs would also provide some extra revenue). May take some time to get rid of the surplus but it will reliably put the US in #1 place again there. White collar business and political crimes are of course to be exempted. This is a Kristian(TM) nation after all.
Our “broken and dysfunctional corrections system” is fed by a broken and dysfunctional legal system, which enforces laws created by a broken and dysfunctional legislative/executive system. It’s broken and dysfunctional all the way down.
I would compare our government to a computer running an old OS, which hasn’t been rebooted in ages. Memory leaks have accumulated, every application you ever tried is still running in the background, and even if it was a decent OS when it came out, all it’s exploits are well known, so your computer is just lousy will viruses and malware. We’re desperately in need of a reboot. But, how to get a clean reboot, when the system is already corrupted? A difficult question.
“I mean, the biggest libertarian in the House, Ron Paul, has spend decades in Congress and has produced no significant legislation on reducing incarceration.”
Ron produced very little legislation, period. The leadership hate him so much that essentially every bill he ever introduced died in committee, without ever getting a floor vote. You ARE talking about a guy whose own party has encouraged people to run against him, after all.
Our “broken and dysfunctional corrections system” is fed by a broken and dysfunctional legal system, which enforces laws created by a broken and dysfunctional legislative/executive system. It’s broken and dysfunctional all the way down.
I would compare our government to a computer running an old OS, which hasn’t been rebooted in ages. Memory leaks have accumulated, every application you ever tried is still running in the background, and even if it was a decent OS when it came out, all it’s exploits are well known, so your computer is just lousy will viruses and malware. We’re desperately in need of a reboot. But, how to get a clean reboot, when the system is already corrupted? A difficult question.
“I mean, the biggest libertarian in the House, Ron Paul, has spend decades in Congress and has produced no significant legislation on reducing incarceration.”
Ron produced very little legislation, period. The leadership hate him so much that essentially every bill he ever introduced died in committee, without ever getting a floor vote. You ARE talking about a guy whose own party has encouraged people to run against him, after all.
Turb, I think it’s more that libertarians have higher priorities. Just because they hate locking people up doesn’t mean that reforming the sentencing system is their #1. (See also Brett’s comment just above.)
I’d generally agree with thompson. Except I would add “futile/unwinable” to the list of reasons to get rid of the War on Drugs.
And the other thing that we need to seriously re-think it the Three Strikes laws. Grant, for the sake of discussion, the desirability of removing career criminals (i.e. those who will never change) from the streets. Even so, as implemented it is way too broad a net that is being cast. For openers, what constitutes a “felony” is a pretty broad category — even after you eliminate all the drug offenses.
Turb, I think it’s more that libertarians have higher priorities. Just because they hate locking people up doesn’t mean that reforming the sentencing system is their #1. (See also Brett’s comment just above.)
I’d generally agree with thompson. Except I would add “futile/unwinable” to the list of reasons to get rid of the War on Drugs.
And the other thing that we need to seriously re-think it the Three Strikes laws. Grant, for the sake of discussion, the desirability of removing career criminals (i.e. those who will never change) from the streets. Even so, as implemented it is way too broad a net that is being cast. For openers, what constitutes a “felony” is a pretty broad category — even after you eliminate all the drug offenses.
Eventually, the conservative distaste for the cost of out growing-out-of-control prisons system will overcome their determination to be “tough on crime.”
i doubt it.
being “tough” is apparently a big part of a good “conservative’s” public personae. gotta be tough on crime, terrorist, poor people, kids, people who look at you funny, etc..
Eventually, the conservative distaste for the cost of out growing-out-of-control prisons system will overcome their determination to be “tough on crime.”
i doubt it.
being “tough” is apparently a big part of a good “conservative’s” public personae. gotta be tough on crime, terrorist, poor people, kids, people who look at you funny, etc..
Judging by behavior, another part of being a conservative is using tax dollars to fund private businesses, particularly if such funding has the effect of destroying good paying jobs. Much of the appeal of private prison is that they are non union. Supposed to be cheaper for the tax payer, but we actually get less for our investment since when you go private your taxes pay for profit, lobbying, big administrative salaries and the loss of good paying union jobs which has a negative effect on the local economy.
Judging by behavior, another part of being a conservative is using tax dollars to fund private businesses, particularly if such funding has the effect of destroying good paying jobs. Much of the appeal of private prison is that they are non union. Supposed to be cheaper for the tax payer, but we actually get less for our investment since when you go private your taxes pay for profit, lobbying, big administrative salaries and the loss of good paying union jobs which has a negative effect on the local economy.
Laura, I think you need to distinguish between fiscal conservatives and various other kinds. For fiscal conservatives, spending government money, even on private businesses, is still a bad thing. For others, there are other priorities, of course.
But fiscal conservatives, in that sense, are a significant portion. In fact I would say that, along with social conservatives (who want government to do lots of stuff, albeit mostly not stuff that involves spending money . . . except on enforcement), they make up the bulk of the conservative voters.
Laura, I think you need to distinguish between fiscal conservatives and various other kinds. For fiscal conservatives, spending government money, even on private businesses, is still a bad thing. For others, there are other priorities, of course.
But fiscal conservatives, in that sense, are a significant portion. In fact I would say that, along with social conservatives (who want government to do lots of stuff, albeit mostly not stuff that involves spending money . . . except on enforcement), they make up the bulk of the conservative voters.
Contrast Texas with a Republican governor, where prison populations have been reduced enough to close a prison, and California with a Democrat governor where the prisons are bursting at the seams.
Prison guard unions also lobby for measures that will keep prison populations high.
Contrast Texas with a Republican governor, where prison populations have been reduced enough to close a prison, and California with a Democrat governor where the prisons are bursting at the seams.
Prison guard unions also lobby for measures that will keep prison populations high.
I realize that there is a diversity of ideas. But I’m looking at actual policies that get implemented. You are correct about prison guards having a stake inkeeping prisons open. One of the sad facts out our prison economy is that prisons in some states have been built in ares as a boost tot he local economy. That’s the case in Washington where rural prisons are the main support of rural economies. They are in fact a replacement for the timber industry.
I realize that there is a diversity of ideas. But I’m looking at actual policies that get implemented. You are correct about prison guards having a stake inkeeping prisons open. One of the sad facts out our prison economy is that prisons in some states have been built in ares as a boost tot he local economy. That’s the case in Washington where rural prisons are the main support of rural economies. They are in fact a replacement for the timber industry.
@ CharlesWT, check this: http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/californias-radical-de-incarceration-experiment
@ CharlesWT, check this: http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/californias-radical-de-incarceration-experiment
Contrast Texas with a Republican governor, where prison populations have been reduced enough to close a prison, and California with a Democrat governor where the prisons are bursting at the seams.
This claim set off my bullshit meter. Sure enough, it’s bullshit.
Contrast Texas with a Republican governor, where prison populations have been reduced enough to close a prison, and California with a Democrat governor where the prisons are bursting at the seams.
This claim set off my bullshit meter. Sure enough, it’s bullshit.
“Democrat governor”
Does this thing have a spelling function?
So after stealing our precious effing tax dollars all of these decades to imprison as many Americans of certain classes as possible, while doing their best to minimize punishment for white-collar crime AND demonize faggot soft-on-crime, politically correct “Democrat” politicians, who themselves are useless in their inability to tell their opponents to STFU, the big swinging d*cks in the Republican Party, having cut taxes and revenue, discover the lying, stinking, f*cking error of their ways and now chop their own d*cks down to size to spite their straight faces.
I guess we’re all Progressives now.
“Democrat governor”
Does this thing have a spelling function?
So after stealing our precious effing tax dollars all of these decades to imprison as many Americans of certain classes as possible, while doing their best to minimize punishment for white-collar crime AND demonize faggot soft-on-crime, politically correct “Democrat” politicians, who themselves are useless in their inability to tell their opponents to STFU, the big swinging d*cks in the Republican Party, having cut taxes and revenue, discover the lying, stinking, f*cking error of their ways and now chop their own d*cks down to size to spite their straight faces.
I guess we’re all Progressives now.
This is an interesting and important discussion, IMO.
From a libertarian perspective (my own at least) I would say that a large part of the problem is that more government = more laws. I’m sure that the attorneys here would agree that there are now so many laws carrying the possibility for jail/prison for violation that almost every citizen in the country is in jeopardy of doing time. Don’t believe that? Well, I’ll bet you can’t quote all of the laws out there that are addressing your behaviors; not in this life time any how.
The fact is that there are volumes on top of volumes of these laws between the federal and local levels of government. Government rarely takes such a law off the books. The trend seems to be to make the penalties stiffer and to add new laws.
That said, I think we would really need to do a thorough breakdown of the violations for which citizens are serving time. Drugs at 20% or so, yes. And this is largely stupid. What of the other 80%? If these are largely violent offenders then the problem is not so much the penal system and law makers, but something in our culture.I don’t have time at the moment to do the research, but I’m sure someone will.
Agreed totally that prison is a brutal hellish experience to the point where being sentenced to doing time probably should fall under cruel and unusual punishment. How is getting raped and/or shanked just punishment? It’s sick.
This is an interesting and important discussion, IMO.
From a libertarian perspective (my own at least) I would say that a large part of the problem is that more government = more laws. I’m sure that the attorneys here would agree that there are now so many laws carrying the possibility for jail/prison for violation that almost every citizen in the country is in jeopardy of doing time. Don’t believe that? Well, I’ll bet you can’t quote all of the laws out there that are addressing your behaviors; not in this life time any how.
The fact is that there are volumes on top of volumes of these laws between the federal and local levels of government. Government rarely takes such a law off the books. The trend seems to be to make the penalties stiffer and to add new laws.
That said, I think we would really need to do a thorough breakdown of the violations for which citizens are serving time. Drugs at 20% or so, yes. And this is largely stupid. What of the other 80%? If these are largely violent offenders then the problem is not so much the penal system and law makers, but something in our culture.I don’t have time at the moment to do the research, but I’m sure someone will.
Agreed totally that prison is a brutal hellish experience to the point where being sentenced to doing time probably should fall under cruel and unusual punishment. How is getting raped and/or shanked just punishment? It’s sick.
Only recently a judge got sentenced to a long stay in prison for a longterm quid pro quo with a private prison company to ‘keep their beds filled’ by sending juveniles there (hundreds of them over the years). It would be an unwise bet to think that he is/was the only one in the country doing stuff like that.
Btw, how many prisons get built ‘in expectation’ and then have to justify the investment? Or shorter: what role does ‘demand creation’ play here.
Only recently a judge got sentenced to a long stay in prison for a longterm quid pro quo with a private prison company to ‘keep their beds filled’ by sending juveniles there (hundreds of them over the years). It would be an unwise bet to think that he is/was the only one in the country doing stuff like that.
Btw, how many prisons get built ‘in expectation’ and then have to justify the investment? Or shorter: what role does ‘demand creation’ play here.
If these are largely violent offenders then the problem is not so much the penal system and law makers, but something in our culture.
Lead levels aside, the more we leave those at the bottom of the economic scale to fend for themselves, as many current policy prescriptions tend to do, the more they will fend for themselves.
Beyond that, even if we assume 20% are in prison for non-violent drug offenses, how many more violent offenders are produced for the next go-around, be they the same people who went to criminal college while in prison for drugs or their less-parented children?
(And who’s this “Shirt” person, anyway? I’m watching you, pal….)
If these are largely violent offenders then the problem is not so much the penal system and law makers, but something in our culture.
Lead levels aside, the more we leave those at the bottom of the economic scale to fend for themselves, as many current policy prescriptions tend to do, the more they will fend for themselves.
Beyond that, even if we assume 20% are in prison for non-violent drug offenses, how many more violent offenders are produced for the next go-around, be they the same people who went to criminal college while in prison for drugs or their less-parented children?
(And who’s this “Shirt” person, anyway? I’m watching you, pal….)
Btw, the length of the penal code is not necessarily an indicator for the flow of incarceration. My guess is that an overwhelming majority of sentences are based on just a handful of laws.
Btw, the length of the penal code is not necessarily an indicator for the flow of incarceration. My guess is that an overwhelming majority of sentences are based on just a handful of laws.
(And who’s this “Shirt” person, anyway? I’m watching you, pal….)
Indeed. A solid drive by response to a typical ChasWT drive by comment.
(And who’s this “Shirt” person, anyway? I’m watching you, pal….)
Indeed. A solid drive by response to a typical ChasWT drive by comment.
“Lead levels aside, the more we leave those at the bottom of the economic scale to fend for themselves, as many current policy prescriptions tend to do, the more they will fend for themselves.”
I tend to agree, but there are highly complicated and much debated sociological issues at play in that stew.
I see that there was indeed a link to wikki at the beginning of the thread by bobbyp that breaks out by violent/non-violent incarcerations. I would think the immediate opportunity here lies with the non-violent class.
“Btw, the length of the penal code is not necessarily an indicator for the flow of incarceration”
Maybe, maybe not. The data would tell.
“Lead levels aside, the more we leave those at the bottom of the economic scale to fend for themselves, as many current policy prescriptions tend to do, the more they will fend for themselves.”
I tend to agree, but there are highly complicated and much debated sociological issues at play in that stew.
I see that there was indeed a link to wikki at the beginning of the thread by bobbyp that breaks out by violent/non-violent incarcerations. I would think the immediate opportunity here lies with the non-violent class.
“Btw, the length of the penal code is not necessarily an indicator for the flow of incarceration”
Maybe, maybe not. The data would tell.
I’ll bet you can’t quote all of the laws out there that are addressing your behaviors
In short, there are enough laws on the books that everybody is guilty of violating some of them. (And that’s ignoring the speed limits, which practically everybody violates routinely. The speed limit on freeways here is 70. The CHP officers I know say that their threshold for stopping someone for speeding is . . . 83 — too many tickeets otherwise.)
And what that means is, whether you get charged depends at least as much on who you irritate as on what you actually have done. Let me anticipate Brett by saying that this is an indication of something seriously wrong in our legal system.
I’ll bet you can’t quote all of the laws out there that are addressing your behaviors
In short, there are enough laws on the books that everybody is guilty of violating some of them. (And that’s ignoring the speed limits, which practically everybody violates routinely. The speed limit on freeways here is 70. The CHP officers I know say that their threshold for stopping someone for speeding is . . . 83 — too many tickeets otherwise.)
And what that means is, whether you get charged depends at least as much on who you irritate as on what you actually have done. Let me anticipate Brett by saying that this is an indication of something seriously wrong in our legal system.
Seriously wrong from the perspective of the ruled, seriously right from the perspective of the rulers. To quote Ayn Rand,
“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
The key point here, is that, while the system is broken and dysfunctional from the standpoint of the citizen, the ruled, it is getting better and better from the standpoint of the rulers. The interests of the citizen, and those running the government, are at odds, and the government is gradually, (Not so gradually anymore.) adjusting everything to be more to it’s liking.
We’re sliding into a police state, and we’re already more of a police state than most people want to face.
Seriously wrong from the perspective of the ruled, seriously right from the perspective of the rulers. To quote Ayn Rand,
“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
The key point here, is that, while the system is broken and dysfunctional from the standpoint of the citizen, the ruled, it is getting better and better from the standpoint of the rulers. The interests of the citizen, and those running the government, are at odds, and the government is gradually, (Not so gradually anymore.) adjusting everything to be more to it’s liking.
We’re sliding into a police state, and we’re already more of a police state than most people want to face.
I’m glad to see for Shirt’s link that California is making efforts to reduce prison populations. Especially that of juveniles. But they still have a federal court order hanging over their heads due to overcrowding.
I don’t see anything in bobbyp’s link to contradict what I said. Perhaps I missed it.
There would be fewer people in prisons if the local jurisdictions that put people there had to pick up part or all of the tab for keeping there.
I’m glad to see for Shirt’s link that California is making efforts to reduce prison populations. Especially that of juveniles. But they still have a federal court order hanging over their heads due to overcrowding.
I don’t see anything in bobbyp’s link to contradict what I said. Perhaps I missed it.
There would be fewer people in prisons if the local jurisdictions that put people there had to pick up part or all of the tab for keeping there.
I would think the immediate opportunity here lies with the non-violent class.
Yes. The only thing I was trying to add was that doing something today to reduce the numbers of non-violent prisoners may well also be doing something to reduce the numbers of violent criminals/prisoners tomorrow, which is above and beyond the immediate benefits.
I would think the immediate opportunity here lies with the non-violent class.
Yes. The only thing I was trying to add was that doing something today to reduce the numbers of non-violent prisoners may well also be doing something to reduce the numbers of violent criminals/prisoners tomorrow, which is above and beyond the immediate benefits.
Indeed. A solid drive by response to a typical ChasWT drive by comment.
I was thinking more about the handle, which could be seen as a shorthand for mine. I’m just protecting my brand.
Indeed. A solid drive by response to a typical ChasWT drive by comment.
I was thinking more about the handle, which could be seen as a shorthand for mine. I’m just protecting my brand.
Well, that’s true to a point, Brett, but you need to remember that we’re a representative republic, and “ruler” and “ruled” are fungible categories. And a lot of the ruled are all too keen on aligning themselves with the class of their peers who are the primary pool of rulers, and – like the zero-sum game it isn’t – view things as better for themselves simply because things have gotten worse for some Others around them. To meet your quote with another quote:
Sure, the system is broken, and sure, it hurts the citizenry at large. But pretending that it hurts everyone but some distinct and alien ruling class – let alone hurts them to the same degree – is laughable.
Well, that’s true to a point, Brett, but you need to remember that we’re a representative republic, and “ruler” and “ruled” are fungible categories. And a lot of the ruled are all too keen on aligning themselves with the class of their peers who are the primary pool of rulers, and – like the zero-sum game it isn’t – view things as better for themselves simply because things have gotten worse for some Others around them. To meet your quote with another quote:
Sure, the system is broken, and sure, it hurts the citizenry at large. But pretending that it hurts everyone but some distinct and alien ruling class – let alone hurts them to the same degree – is laughable.
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
so fucking stupid.
what part of my drive to work on public roads was made possible by cracking down on criminals?
The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
so fucking stupid.
what part of my drive to work on public roads was made possible by cracking down on criminals?
I don’t see anything in bobbyp’s link to contradict what I said. Perhaps I missed it.
I didn’t either, but didn’t look too close. I did, however, use Ctrl-F to find the part on Texas:
Some of the most substantial prison reductions have taken place in conservative states like Texas, which reduced the number of inmates in its prisons by more than 5,000 in 2012. In 2007, when the state faced a lack of 17,000 beds for inmates, the State Legislature decided to change its approach to parole violations and provide drug treatment for nonviolent offenders instead of building more prisons.
I’d contrast that with the recent reductions in CA prisons which were ordered by a federal judge. The overcrowding was so bad there were 8th amendment issues. Recent news on the issue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/us/court-gives-california-more-time-to-ease-prison-crowding.html
Shirt’s link seems to be fairly selective in the data it presents, and didn’t give me an impression of the data found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_California
I think it’s fair to say CA has a problem with prison overcrowding. I’m less familiar with Texas, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say it’s probably too high. Oh, so it is:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/08/14/162208/texas-has-nations-largest-prison.html
I am, however, not interested in getting into whether “conservatives” or “liberals” are better at reducing prison populations.
Because its silly and meaningless. As wj pointed out, there is likely *broad* support for prison reform, and I don’t just mean on this blog.
But I am struck by the number of comments that basically write off “libertarians” or “conservatives” or “liberals” as the problem, when the problem is we’re locking up a significant portion of our population.
I don’t see anything in bobbyp’s link to contradict what I said. Perhaps I missed it.
I didn’t either, but didn’t look too close. I did, however, use Ctrl-F to find the part on Texas:
Some of the most substantial prison reductions have taken place in conservative states like Texas, which reduced the number of inmates in its prisons by more than 5,000 in 2012. In 2007, when the state faced a lack of 17,000 beds for inmates, the State Legislature decided to change its approach to parole violations and provide drug treatment for nonviolent offenders instead of building more prisons.
I’d contrast that with the recent reductions in CA prisons which were ordered by a federal judge. The overcrowding was so bad there were 8th amendment issues. Recent news on the issue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/us/court-gives-california-more-time-to-ease-prison-crowding.html
Shirt’s link seems to be fairly selective in the data it presents, and didn’t give me an impression of the data found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_California
I think it’s fair to say CA has a problem with prison overcrowding. I’m less familiar with Texas, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say it’s probably too high. Oh, so it is:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/08/14/162208/texas-has-nations-largest-prison.html
I am, however, not interested in getting into whether “conservatives” or “liberals” are better at reducing prison populations.
Because its silly and meaningless. As wj pointed out, there is likely *broad* support for prison reform, and I don’t just mean on this blog.
But I am struck by the number of comments that basically write off “libertarians” or “conservatives” or “liberals” as the problem, when the problem is we’re locking up a significant portion of our population.
“And what that means is, whether you get charged depends at least as much on who you irritate as on what you actually have done.”
Yep. That’s the way it works – must work given all the laws that everyone is breaking. It’s also why AAs are disproportionally represented in the prison population. They tend to commit violent crimes, which piss off everyone (since I’m sure racism in justice is going to be a hot topic here sooner or later). Vice, small time drugs and white collar crime not so much as long it’s kept to a dull roar and behind closed doors. Bring it out onto the streets and you’re likely to have a LE reaction.
“Yes. The only thing I was trying to add was that doing something today to reduce the numbers of non-violent prisoners may well also be doing something to reduce the numbers of violent criminals/prisoners tomorrow, which is above and beyond the immediate benefits.”
Agreed to the extent that having a criminal record and associating with criminals induces a downward spiral of limited legal opportunity and a psychological habituation/acceptance of criminal activity due to immersion in that subculture. I don’t know what that extent is.
“There would be fewer people in prisons if the local jurisdictions that put people there had to pick up part or all of the tab for keeping there. ”
There is a lot of truth here. I have a business associate who is a retired detective (he used to work in a mid sized city) and a friend who is the sheriff in a semi-rural county. Both have noted to me in private conversations that federal dollars have altered the way they “police”. A couple decades ago or so they used discretion concerning who they would arrest and for what (see my first paragraph here). Now with potential federal dollars on the line, the trend is to arrest as many as possible for whatever you can. Neither is happy with the arrangement. One is retired, of course and just observing and the other is trying to navigate the politics to do a job in a manner that he feels is fair and reasonable with his constituents in mind; not to mention his own conscience (he is a pretty good guy by nature).
Federal dollars, mandatory minimum sentencing, three strikes, etc. are all the work of big government and are all increasing the incarceration rate.
“And what that means is, whether you get charged depends at least as much on who you irritate as on what you actually have done.”
Yep. That’s the way it works – must work given all the laws that everyone is breaking. It’s also why AAs are disproportionally represented in the prison population. They tend to commit violent crimes, which piss off everyone (since I’m sure racism in justice is going to be a hot topic here sooner or later). Vice, small time drugs and white collar crime not so much as long it’s kept to a dull roar and behind closed doors. Bring it out onto the streets and you’re likely to have a LE reaction.
“Yes. The only thing I was trying to add was that doing something today to reduce the numbers of non-violent prisoners may well also be doing something to reduce the numbers of violent criminals/prisoners tomorrow, which is above and beyond the immediate benefits.”
Agreed to the extent that having a criminal record and associating with criminals induces a downward spiral of limited legal opportunity and a psychological habituation/acceptance of criminal activity due to immersion in that subculture. I don’t know what that extent is.
“There would be fewer people in prisons if the local jurisdictions that put people there had to pick up part or all of the tab for keeping there. ”
There is a lot of truth here. I have a business associate who is a retired detective (he used to work in a mid sized city) and a friend who is the sheriff in a semi-rural county. Both have noted to me in private conversations that federal dollars have altered the way they “police”. A couple decades ago or so they used discretion concerning who they would arrest and for what (see my first paragraph here). Now with potential federal dollars on the line, the trend is to arrest as many as possible for whatever you can. Neither is happy with the arrangement. One is retired, of course and just observing and the other is trying to navigate the politics to do a job in a manner that he feels is fair and reasonable with his constituents in mind; not to mention his own conscience (he is a pretty good guy by nature).
Federal dollars, mandatory minimum sentencing, three strikes, etc. are all the work of big government and are all increasing the incarceration rate.
Prosecutors love mandatory minimum sentencing laws because they can use them as leverage for a plea bargain, avoiding the trouble of a trial. Also, they can use them to coerce arrestees into rolling over on someone else. Even if they have to pick them from a phonebook.
Prosecutors love mandatory minimum sentencing laws because they can use them as leverage for a plea bargain, avoiding the trouble of a trial. Also, they can use them to coerce arrestees into rolling over on someone else. Even if they have to pick them from a phonebook.
It’s true that prison reform is popular. Let’s just hope that it’s still popular even though Eric Holder has some constructive ideas about it.
An interesting fact from the first article: “Although the federal prison system is larger than that of any single state, it holds only 10% of American prisoners.”
The federal government can certainly do a lot with sentencing reform, but states governments bear much of the responsibility for prison conditions.
It’s true that prison reform is popular. Let’s just hope that it’s still popular even though Eric Holder has some constructive ideas about it.
An interesting fact from the first article: “Although the federal prison system is larger than that of any single state, it holds only 10% of American prisoners.”
The federal government can certainly do a lot with sentencing reform, but states governments bear much of the responsibility for prison conditions.
sapient:
Thanks for the links. Well worth the read. Pointing back to the concept of broad support:
The high cost of mass incarceration has attracted attention from both left and right. In March Rand Paul, a Republican senator, and Patrick Leahy, a Democratic one, introduced the Justice Safety-Valve Act of 2013, which would let judges impose sentences below the mandatory minimum. In July Mr Leahy, along with Dick Durbin and Mike Lee, a Democrat from Illinois and a Republican from Utah, introduced the Smarter Sentencing Act of 2013. It would, among other things, shorten mandatory minimums and expand the safety-valve.
I’d say Holder’s proposals are a good step but don’t go far enough. Not that that is his fault, action needs to come from congress.
sapient:
Thanks for the links. Well worth the read. Pointing back to the concept of broad support:
The high cost of mass incarceration has attracted attention from both left and right. In March Rand Paul, a Republican senator, and Patrick Leahy, a Democratic one, introduced the Justice Safety-Valve Act of 2013, which would let judges impose sentences below the mandatory minimum. In July Mr Leahy, along with Dick Durbin and Mike Lee, a Democrat from Illinois and a Republican from Utah, introduced the Smarter Sentencing Act of 2013. It would, among other things, shorten mandatory minimums and expand the safety-valve.
I’d say Holder’s proposals are a good step but don’t go far enough. Not that that is his fault, action needs to come from congress.
Three strikes and you’re out policy was not the work of big government, but rather in many cases the work of medium sized State government at the behest of grassroots militant citizenry, via initiatives to change State Constitutions.
I’ll bet if I looked into it, I’d find the initiatives were placed on the ballots for the same reason anti-gay marriage initiatives were placed on ballots — to get conservative white voters stoked to the polls to elect law and order Republicans.
Willie Horton.
Three strikes and you’re out policy was not the work of big government, but rather in many cases the work of medium sized State government at the behest of grassroots militant citizenry, via initiatives to change State Constitutions.
I’ll bet if I looked into it, I’d find the initiatives were placed on the ballots for the same reason anti-gay marriage initiatives were placed on ballots — to get conservative white voters stoked to the polls to elect law and order Republicans.
Willie Horton.
I don’t see anything in bobbyp’s link to contradict what I said. Perhaps I missed it.
Your comment clearly implies that Texas is “doing a better job” of managing and/or reforming it’s prison system and further imply it is in some way related to the party affiliation of their respective governors.
I might add there is no such thing as a “Democrat Party”, so that marks you as a bullshit partisan right there.
But I digress. California’s incarceration rate went off the charts starting in 1980 (see chart in link provided below). They spent a lot of money and built a lot of prisons. I’m sure wj can testify to that. Perhaps he could also give us some background on Prop 13 and how that hobbled state finances during that period. Also, California has reduced its prison population more than Texas has….though I’m not sure if the prisoners they have shipped to other states counts in that figure.
Texas seems to be reforming, but their incarceration rates are still quite high. See link below for a different take on the role of the Texas prison system.
Our current prison system disaster is a direct result of the conservative “War on Crimes Committed by (some) People. You know who these people are. At the same time our country decided that we should give all our money to rich people….leaving the rest of us to shoulder the burden of paying for all this stuff. That the People are highly resistant to paying higher taxes while taking home flat or reduced real wages should come as no surprise.
As everybody seems to be saying here, there are a lot of factors in play, but if you want to play the partisan blame game, well I’m more than willing.
I don’t see anything in bobbyp’s link to contradict what I said. Perhaps I missed it.
Your comment clearly implies that Texas is “doing a better job” of managing and/or reforming it’s prison system and further imply it is in some way related to the party affiliation of their respective governors.
I might add there is no such thing as a “Democrat Party”, so that marks you as a bullshit partisan right there.
But I digress. California’s incarceration rate went off the charts starting in 1980 (see chart in link provided below). They spent a lot of money and built a lot of prisons. I’m sure wj can testify to that. Perhaps he could also give us some background on Prop 13 and how that hobbled state finances during that period. Also, California has reduced its prison population more than Texas has….though I’m not sure if the prisoners they have shipped to other states counts in that figure.
Texas seems to be reforming, but their incarceration rates are still quite high. See link below for a different take on the role of the Texas prison system.
Our current prison system disaster is a direct result of the conservative “War on Crimes Committed by (some) People. You know who these people are. At the same time our country decided that we should give all our money to rich people….leaving the rest of us to shoulder the burden of paying for all this stuff. That the People are highly resistant to paying higher taxes while taking home flat or reduced real wages should come as no surprise.
As everybody seems to be saying here, there are a lot of factors in play, but if you want to play the partisan blame game, well I’m more than willing.
da’ links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_California
http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2010-08-20/1070701/
Shirt’s link seems to be fairly selective in the data it presents…
How so? I didn’t see that in the wikki link you provided.*
*two can play this game.
da’ links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_California
http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2010-08-20/1070701/
Shirt’s link seems to be fairly selective in the data it presents…
How so? I didn’t see that in the wikki link you provided.*
*two can play this game.
Countme-In, “Three strikes and you’re out policy was not the work of big government, but rather in many cases the work of medium sized State government at the behest of grassroots militant citizenry, via initiatives to change State Constitutions.”
Who says “big government” is only federal? A state can have big government to, IMO.
Big Government:
noun
1.Derogatory chiefly (US) a form of government characterized by high taxation and public spending and centralization of political power
2.Government perceived as excessively interventionist and intruding into all aspects of the lives of its citizens.
3.Any political organization or bureaucracy led by Democrats*
* I jest, I jest on this last point – mostly any how 😉
Countme-In, “Three strikes and you’re out policy was not the work of big government, but rather in many cases the work of medium sized State government at the behest of grassroots militant citizenry, via initiatives to change State Constitutions.”
Who says “big government” is only federal? A state can have big government to, IMO.
Big Government:
noun
1.Derogatory chiefly (US) a form of government characterized by high taxation and public spending and centralization of political power
2.Government perceived as excessively interventionist and intruding into all aspects of the lives of its citizens.
3.Any political organization or bureaucracy led by Democrats*
* I jest, I jest on this last point – mostly any how 😉
if big government does something at the behest of its citizens, how is the size of the government the issue?
isn’t government *supposed* to be responsive to its citizens?
if its citizens want things that aren’t such a good idea, and government *doesn’t* do it, isn’t that an unresponsive government?
and what does the size of government have to do with any of this?
my take on “three strikes” is that a lot of people wanted it, for reasons that have little to do with whether it is a useful or effective policy, and therefore we have it.
make law in haste, repent in leisure, to coin a phrase. but that doesn’t mean we can’t get rid of it now if we now consider it to be a bad policy.
if big government does something at the behest of its citizens, how is the size of the government the issue?
isn’t government *supposed* to be responsive to its citizens?
if its citizens want things that aren’t such a good idea, and government *doesn’t* do it, isn’t that an unresponsive government?
and what does the size of government have to do with any of this?
my take on “three strikes” is that a lot of people wanted it, for reasons that have little to do with whether it is a useful or effective policy, and therefore we have it.
make law in haste, repent in leisure, to coin a phrase. but that doesn’t mean we can’t get rid of it now if we now consider it to be a bad policy.
I might add there is no such thing as a “Democrat Party”, so that marks you as a bullshit partisan right there.
Mental slip. I didn’t know it was even used as an epithet until I Googled it.
I might add there is no such thing as a “Democrat Party”, so that marks you as a bullshit partisan right there.
Mental slip. I didn’t know it was even used as an epithet until I Googled it.
“if big government does something at the behest of its citizens, how is the size of the government the issue?
isn’t government *supposed* to be responsive to its citizens?”
Only within certain strict limits.
Just because a sloppy drunk wants yet another drink (for the road), the responsible bartender doesn’t get to set him up with a double and then hand him his car keys.
Nor should a lender sign off on a loan a prospective home buyer can’t afford just because the home buyer wants it.
If 51% wants a law that says they get to rape and pillage the other 49%, they don’t get to have that just because they want it.
If people want to do something about “crime” and they demand to throw their neighbors in prison for life for three relatively minor drug convictions, they shouldn’t get to have it just because they want it.
Sometimes someone needs to be the responsible adult. We don’t have a wise philosopher king filling that role, we do have, however, a Constitution. A lot of people don’t like the C because it doesn’t, by its letter, allow the government to give them all the stuff they want – it’s the bartender that cuts you off when you’ve had enough. So they pretend it’s irrelevant, not up to the needs of modern times.
They want the irresponsible barkeep that will serve them to point of fatal toxicity. So we have three strikes laws, photographers impressed into service at events that offend their convictions, senseless wars of revenge in Iraq and Afghanistan, out of control crony capitalism, the ACA, GITMO, domestic spying……….lots of useless, expensive and liberty denying BS.
“if big government does something at the behest of its citizens, how is the size of the government the issue?
isn’t government *supposed* to be responsive to its citizens?”
Only within certain strict limits.
Just because a sloppy drunk wants yet another drink (for the road), the responsible bartender doesn’t get to set him up with a double and then hand him his car keys.
Nor should a lender sign off on a loan a prospective home buyer can’t afford just because the home buyer wants it.
If 51% wants a law that says they get to rape and pillage the other 49%, they don’t get to have that just because they want it.
If people want to do something about “crime” and they demand to throw their neighbors in prison for life for three relatively minor drug convictions, they shouldn’t get to have it just because they want it.
Sometimes someone needs to be the responsible adult. We don’t have a wise philosopher king filling that role, we do have, however, a Constitution. A lot of people don’t like the C because it doesn’t, by its letter, allow the government to give them all the stuff they want – it’s the bartender that cuts you off when you’ve had enough. So they pretend it’s irrelevant, not up to the needs of modern times.
They want the irresponsible barkeep that will serve them to point of fatal toxicity. So we have three strikes laws, photographers impressed into service at events that offend their convictions, senseless wars of revenge in Iraq and Afghanistan, out of control crony capitalism, the ACA, GITMO, domestic spying……….lots of useless, expensive and liberty denying BS.
Russell, I got carried away and failed to directly answer your question; what does the size of government have to do with it?
If the government were small it would not have the capacity to interject itself into every minute aspect of every area of civil life. Nor would the people look to it for a solution to every issue that bothered them. This should be obvious.
Russell, I got carried away and failed to directly answer your question; what does the size of government have to do with it?
If the government were small it would not have the capacity to interject itself into every minute aspect of every area of civil life. Nor would the people look to it for a solution to every issue that bothered them. This should be obvious.
Ive had this pet idea for awhile: make the public defenders office the *only* form of representation available to criminal defendants. Theory being that the only way to draw the attention of the middle and upper classes to a problem with services is to make *them* clients of that service. I suspect that we would find a sudden interest in funding these services adequately.
Also, the legal equivalent to the police “blue wall” that protects DAs (and police) from consequences for their misconduct needs to end. Not sure how to do that one- when we need one DA to charge another in order to get the ball rolling, it’s almost like we need an alternative justice system to watch the watchers. Pitchforks anyone?
I mean, I do think that we incarcerate way too many people, and that this is partially a result of draconian drug laws, insane mandatory sentences + informant plea bargains, etc. But Im just as concerned about things that are real offenses eg the recent ‘affluenza’ vehicular homicide case (in normally criminal-unfriendly Texas, no less), where being connected or well-off can mean the difference between a juvie court’s slap on the wrist and a life-changing jail sentence. Where having the money to pay for treatment becomes the equivalent of ‘easy jail’.
Ive had this pet idea for awhile: make the public defenders office the *only* form of representation available to criminal defendants. Theory being that the only way to draw the attention of the middle and upper classes to a problem with services is to make *them* clients of that service. I suspect that we would find a sudden interest in funding these services adequately.
Also, the legal equivalent to the police “blue wall” that protects DAs (and police) from consequences for their misconduct needs to end. Not sure how to do that one- when we need one DA to charge another in order to get the ball rolling, it’s almost like we need an alternative justice system to watch the watchers. Pitchforks anyone?
I mean, I do think that we incarcerate way too many people, and that this is partially a result of draconian drug laws, insane mandatory sentences + informant plea bargains, etc. But Im just as concerned about things that are real offenses eg the recent ‘affluenza’ vehicular homicide case (in normally criminal-unfriendly Texas, no less), where being connected or well-off can mean the difference between a juvie court’s slap on the wrist and a life-changing jail sentence. Where having the money to pay for treatment becomes the equivalent of ‘easy jail’.
If 51% wants a law that says they get to rape and pillage the other 49%, they don’t get to have that just because they want it.
If 51% want to rape and pillage, they repeal the law preventing rape or pillage. The Constitution does nothing, in that event, to disallow rape or pillage.
In fact, this situation is an unlikely one since 51% of most populations would be uncomfortable with rampant rape and pillage. Even if they liked to rape and pillage themselves, being raped and pillaged is less amusing, so they would insist on a law against it. See how well civilization works?
If 51% wants a law that says they get to rape and pillage the other 49%, they don’t get to have that just because they want it.
If 51% want to rape and pillage, they repeal the law preventing rape or pillage. The Constitution does nothing, in that event, to disallow rape or pillage.
In fact, this situation is an unlikely one since 51% of most populations would be uncomfortable with rampant rape and pillage. Even if they liked to rape and pillage themselves, being raped and pillaged is less amusing, so they would insist on a law against it. See how well civilization works?
So we have three strikes laws, photographers impressed into service at events that offend their convictions, senseless wars of revenge in Iraq and Afghanistan, out of control crony capitalism, the ACA, GITMO, domestic spying……….lots of useless, expensive and liberty denying BS.
And I must note
Big Government:
noun
I will add a fourth definition, consistent with the most common usage I see on the net:
4)When Government does stuff that I personally wish it did not do
They tend to commit violent crimes, which piss off everyone (since I’m sure racism in justice is going to be a hot topic here sooner or later). Vice, small time drugs and white collar crime not so much as long it’s kept to a dull roar and behind closed doors.
I observe that the serial frauds perpitrated on Wall Street produced vast amounts of pissed-offedness, and yet resulted in almost zero prosecutions. That is, selective prosecution is not just a result of AAs ‘tending to commit violent crimes that piss everyone off’. Also, you may want to look into eg capital punishment as applied to white murderers v black murderers, etc.
So we have three strikes laws, photographers impressed into service at events that offend their convictions, senseless wars of revenge in Iraq and Afghanistan, out of control crony capitalism, the ACA, GITMO, domestic spying……….lots of useless, expensive and liberty denying BS.
And I must note
Big Government:
noun
I will add a fourth definition, consistent with the most common usage I see on the net:
4)When Government does stuff that I personally wish it did not do
They tend to commit violent crimes, which piss off everyone (since I’m sure racism in justice is going to be a hot topic here sooner or later). Vice, small time drugs and white collar crime not so much as long it’s kept to a dull roar and behind closed doors.
I observe that the serial frauds perpitrated on Wall Street produced vast amounts of pissed-offedness, and yet resulted in almost zero prosecutions. That is, selective prosecution is not just a result of AAs ‘tending to commit violent crimes that piss everyone off’. Also, you may want to look into eg capital punishment as applied to white murderers v black murderers, etc.
As russell’s post indicates, the “drug war” is the most serious problem contributing to the unacceptable incarceration rate. Figuring out a sane drug policy is a huge challenge. I’m an advocate of regulated legalized marijuana. That’s simple, and would solve a lot of problems and (we hope) is happening.
The more difficult issue is how to deal with dangerous addictive drugs. The current regime doesn’t work well. Treatment programs, etc., are great, but they don’t address the issue of keeping supply away from vulnerable people. Treatment doesn’t always work, and sometimes damage is irreversible. Medicine and science, rather than criminal law, is probably the answer. I’m not sure how we will ever get from here to there though. Destigmatizing hard drug use (in the short run) seems like a bad idea to me, since social stigma is one of the most powerful deterrents to destructive behavior.
As russell’s post indicates, the “drug war” is the most serious problem contributing to the unacceptable incarceration rate. Figuring out a sane drug policy is a huge challenge. I’m an advocate of regulated legalized marijuana. That’s simple, and would solve a lot of problems and (we hope) is happening.
The more difficult issue is how to deal with dangerous addictive drugs. The current regime doesn’t work well. Treatment programs, etc., are great, but they don’t address the issue of keeping supply away from vulnerable people. Treatment doesn’t always work, and sometimes damage is irreversible. Medicine and science, rather than criminal law, is probably the answer. I’m not sure how we will ever get from here to there though. Destigmatizing hard drug use (in the short run) seems like a bad idea to me, since social stigma is one of the most powerful deterrents to destructive behavior.
“From a libertarian perspective (my own at least) I would say that a large part of the problem is that more government = more laws. I’m sure that the attorneys here would agree that there are now so many laws carrying the possibility for jail/prison for violation that almost every citizen in the country is in jeopardy of doing time. Don’t believe that? Well, I’ll bet you can’t quote all of the laws out there that are addressing your behaviors; not in this life time any how…”
That doesn’t even begin to explain why the US has such a disproportionately large prison population compared to virtually anywhere else in the world.
“From a libertarian perspective (my own at least) I would say that a large part of the problem is that more government = more laws. I’m sure that the attorneys here would agree that there are now so many laws carrying the possibility for jail/prison for violation that almost every citizen in the country is in jeopardy of doing time. Don’t believe that? Well, I’ll bet you can’t quote all of the laws out there that are addressing your behaviors; not in this life time any how…”
That doesn’t even begin to explain why the US has such a disproportionately large prison population compared to virtually anywhere else in the world.
I observe that the serial frauds perpitrated on Wall Street produced vast amounts of pissed-offedness, and yet resulted in almost zero prosecutions.
Although you observe that, it turns out that most of the stuff that happened on Wall Street was not illegal.
The problem with “big government” is that sometimes it just isn’t big enough.
I observe that the serial frauds perpitrated on Wall Street produced vast amounts of pissed-offedness, and yet resulted in almost zero prosecutions.
Although you observe that, it turns out that most of the stuff that happened on Wall Street was not illegal.
The problem with “big government” is that sometimes it just isn’t big enough.
“so fucking stupid.
what part of my drive to work on public roads was made possible by cracking down on criminals?”
Well, I don’t think that’s a stupid question, as such, (Maybe unthinking.) but if you want to so characterize yourself, who am I to argue?
The public roads were built with taxes. Which is to say, they were built by the government making a criminal of anybody who doesn’t give it money.
They were built on land obtained by eminent domain, which is to say, the government obtained the land by making a criminal of anybody who refused to sell.
The government has two powers: It can make suggestions, which anyone can do, and it can issue orders, which is to say, it can make a criminal of anyone who doesn’t do as they’re told.
But, of course, it goes beyond that. Because we are all of us genuinely guilty of crimes, (Because there are too many laws to keep track of, and ignorance is no defense.) the government can, by the simple expedient of selective prosecution, jail its enemies, and even a close examination will show the outcome to be nominally justified, because the enemies get jailed over things they really were guilty of.
Hm, maybe I won’t argue with the way you characterized yourself, somebody does have to be “fucking stupid” to not grasp that point.
“so fucking stupid.
what part of my drive to work on public roads was made possible by cracking down on criminals?”
Well, I don’t think that’s a stupid question, as such, (Maybe unthinking.) but if you want to so characterize yourself, who am I to argue?
The public roads were built with taxes. Which is to say, they were built by the government making a criminal of anybody who doesn’t give it money.
They were built on land obtained by eminent domain, which is to say, the government obtained the land by making a criminal of anybody who refused to sell.
The government has two powers: It can make suggestions, which anyone can do, and it can issue orders, which is to say, it can make a criminal of anyone who doesn’t do as they’re told.
But, of course, it goes beyond that. Because we are all of us genuinely guilty of crimes, (Because there are too many laws to keep track of, and ignorance is no defense.) the government can, by the simple expedient of selective prosecution, jail its enemies, and even a close examination will show the outcome to be nominally justified, because the enemies get jailed over things they really were guilty of.
Hm, maybe I won’t argue with the way you characterized yourself, somebody does have to be “fucking stupid” to not grasp that point.
The use of hard drugs do not need to be desigmatized to have a policy that has been proven to work.
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/drug-decriminalization-portugal-lessons-creating-fair-successful-drug-policies
The use of hard drugs do not need to be desigmatized to have a policy that has been proven to work.
http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/drug-decriminalization-portugal-lessons-creating-fair-successful-drug-policies
The more difficult issue is how to deal with dangerous addictive drugs.
1. We could start by treating this particular form of addiction as a public health issue, not a criminal one.
2. Heroin could still be a controlled substance, but when addicts are identified, we could set up a system whereby they could come to a clinic and get their “fix” at no charge, no questions asked. The addict is free to try and live a semblance of a life as they see fit, or not. But at least they wouldn’t have to sell their bodies or steal stuff to maintain their habit. Plus-no “hot shots”.
3. Then we work to get them into a treatment program.
Just a napkin plan suggestion.
The more difficult issue is how to deal with dangerous addictive drugs.
1. We could start by treating this particular form of addiction as a public health issue, not a criminal one.
2. Heroin could still be a controlled substance, but when addicts are identified, we could set up a system whereby they could come to a clinic and get their “fix” at no charge, no questions asked. The addict is free to try and live a semblance of a life as they see fit, or not. But at least they wouldn’t have to sell their bodies or steal stuff to maintain their habit. Plus-no “hot shots”.
3. Then we work to get them into a treatment program.
Just a napkin plan suggestion.
Well, I won’t read Glenn Greenwald as proof of anything, jeff, but I looked at a Spiegel article, and it appears that the Portuguese model is promising.
Well, I won’t read Glenn Greenwald as proof of anything, jeff, but I looked at a Spiegel article, and it appears that the Portuguese model is promising.
“Mental slip. I didn’t know it was even used as an epithet until I Googled it.”
Svengalis is what they are, those Republicans — Atwater, Armey, Gingrich, Limbaugh etc.
I forgive you. Sometimes Tourette’s comes on gradually and the sufferer doesn’t even realize it. 😉
Read this and see if there are any other slips of the tongue you thought you were personally responsible for:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz
I keep trying to introduce the term “vermin” into the language to refer to the Republican Party, like fluoride into the water supply, but my fellow American liberals don’t seem to be as susceptible to Orwellian tongue control as the rest of the population, in fact, they rightly run in the opposite direction.
I once had a friend who used the term “Jewboy” on occasion until I called him on it, explaining that though the person he was referring to may well be Jewish and is male, if he wanted an indication of the full dreadful freight smuggled aboard the term over the centuries, I could take him to a tough Hasidic section of Brooklyn and he could address his language directly to them and see what happens.
Observed Informer:
Thanks for the reply.
Have to say, after these many years of ranting to and from from the usual suspects at OBWI about the ravages of big government, that “BIG” government can now be reduced down to mean any size of government Frank Luntz deems it to be.
Hand me the calipers. What size? It doesn’t matter.
That the planet Pluto could have been treated as well when they were disqualifying it as a planet on account of its insufficient girth. Hey, I’m Pluto and I’m big, too!
The last time I bought a box of Triscuits, the box seemed smaller and lighter than it had before, and sure enough, when I compared the number of crackers (another term that becomes confusing after frequent use) in that box with the number in an older box at home, there were fewer, and yet the price for the newer box was the same or more.
Which level of “BIG” government will look into that for me, since now they are all big, even the smallest?
I knew there something about the Citizen Initiative process misused, like the filibuster, lo these many years, that was suspect.
It’s grassroots BIG government hatched by the government closest to the citizen, his own brain!
I am pleased to hear that liberalized (that’s another term, in this context, that Luntz needs to get to work on), conceal carry laws made Constitutional by a vote of the people are actually BIG government at work.
Look, I’m carrying BIG government in my pants!
Now, as to the issue of “raping and pillaging”, I’ve always thought pillaging suffered by association with raping, so I would counsel those wishing to pass both via the citizen’s initiative process, to separate the issues on several ballots, perhaps aiming low by pushing for pillaging one election cycle, and then if that goes well and folks get used to pillaging, start an election drive for raping, perhaps in conjunction with running Republican conservative Christians who want to overturn Roe V Wade and put the birth control pills on the high shelf where only their mistresses can reach them.
Brett:
“The public roads were built with taxes. Which is to say, they were built by the government making a criminal of anybody who doesn’t give it money.
They were built on land obtained by eminent domain, which is to say, the government obtained the land by making a criminal of anybody who refused to sell.”
I feel like a criminal when I drive or walk on private roads and property without permission as well, which is why I do it, for the thrill of the chase and the inevitable opportunity to make asinine debating points.
I’ve always felt slightly criminal riding on the train too.
Me Comanche.
“Mental slip. I didn’t know it was even used as an epithet until I Googled it.”
Svengalis is what they are, those Republicans — Atwater, Armey, Gingrich, Limbaugh etc.
I forgive you. Sometimes Tourette’s comes on gradually and the sufferer doesn’t even realize it. 😉
Read this and see if there are any other slips of the tongue you thought you were personally responsible for:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz
I keep trying to introduce the term “vermin” into the language to refer to the Republican Party, like fluoride into the water supply, but my fellow American liberals don’t seem to be as susceptible to Orwellian tongue control as the rest of the population, in fact, they rightly run in the opposite direction.
I once had a friend who used the term “Jewboy” on occasion until I called him on it, explaining that though the person he was referring to may well be Jewish and is male, if he wanted an indication of the full dreadful freight smuggled aboard the term over the centuries, I could take him to a tough Hasidic section of Brooklyn and he could address his language directly to them and see what happens.
Observed Informer:
Thanks for the reply.
Have to say, after these many years of ranting to and from from the usual suspects at OBWI about the ravages of big government, that “BIG” government can now be reduced down to mean any size of government Frank Luntz deems it to be.
Hand me the calipers. What size? It doesn’t matter.
That the planet Pluto could have been treated as well when they were disqualifying it as a planet on account of its insufficient girth. Hey, I’m Pluto and I’m big, too!
The last time I bought a box of Triscuits, the box seemed smaller and lighter than it had before, and sure enough, when I compared the number of crackers (another term that becomes confusing after frequent use) in that box with the number in an older box at home, there were fewer, and yet the price for the newer box was the same or more.
Which level of “BIG” government will look into that for me, since now they are all big, even the smallest?
I knew there something about the Citizen Initiative process misused, like the filibuster, lo these many years, that was suspect.
It’s grassroots BIG government hatched by the government closest to the citizen, his own brain!
I am pleased to hear that liberalized (that’s another term, in this context, that Luntz needs to get to work on), conceal carry laws made Constitutional by a vote of the people are actually BIG government at work.
Look, I’m carrying BIG government in my pants!
Now, as to the issue of “raping and pillaging”, I’ve always thought pillaging suffered by association with raping, so I would counsel those wishing to pass both via the citizen’s initiative process, to separate the issues on several ballots, perhaps aiming low by pushing for pillaging one election cycle, and then if that goes well and folks get used to pillaging, start an election drive for raping, perhaps in conjunction with running Republican conservative Christians who want to overturn Roe V Wade and put the birth control pills on the high shelf where only their mistresses can reach them.
Brett:
“The public roads were built with taxes. Which is to say, they were built by the government making a criminal of anybody who doesn’t give it money.
They were built on land obtained by eminent domain, which is to say, the government obtained the land by making a criminal of anybody who refused to sell.”
I feel like a criminal when I drive or walk on private roads and property without permission as well, which is why I do it, for the thrill of the chase and the inevitable opportunity to make asinine debating points.
I’ve always felt slightly criminal riding on the train too.
Me Comanche.
bobbyp, there are a lot of links around the web regarding the UK and its previous policies that experimented with the suggestions on your napkin plan. Apparently the number of drug addicts doubled. The problem is hard.
bobbyp, there are a lot of links around the web regarding the UK and its previous policies that experimented with the suggestions on your napkin plan. Apparently the number of drug addicts doubled. The problem is hard.
I’m not sure that the term “epithet” really fits calling the Democratic party the “Democrat” party. If I were to call you a “Democrat”, would you feel insulted? Think I’d sworn at you?
Granted, there are people who’d feel this way, but they don’t identify with the Democratic party.
It’s not like calling your party the “Demonrat” party, which IS genuinely childish. It’s nothing more than what somebody does when they think the adjective “democratic” really doesn’t fit the party that claims it for a name.
Kind of like, if you knew somebody named “Charity”, and they were stingy, you might refer to them as “Char”, instead. Not a compliment, as such, but scarcely an epithet.
I’m not sure that the term “epithet” really fits calling the Democratic party the “Democrat” party. If I were to call you a “Democrat”, would you feel insulted? Think I’d sworn at you?
Granted, there are people who’d feel this way, but they don’t identify with the Democratic party.
It’s not like calling your party the “Demonrat” party, which IS genuinely childish. It’s nothing more than what somebody does when they think the adjective “democratic” really doesn’t fit the party that claims it for a name.
Kind of like, if you knew somebody named “Charity”, and they were stingy, you might refer to them as “Char”, instead. Not a compliment, as such, but scarcely an epithet.
“Apparently the number of drug addicts doubled. ”
So why is a problem for government to solve? If someone wants to be an addict why should it be anyone else’s business? There is no law – strangely enough given big government (oh yeah, there was that embarrassing failure of government intervention in the 1920s and early 1930s) – to stop people from becoming alcoholics.
What do I care if my neighbor is chasing the dragon?
“Apparently the number of drug addicts doubled. ”
So why is a problem for government to solve? If someone wants to be an addict why should it be anyone else’s business? There is no law – strangely enough given big government (oh yeah, there was that embarrassing failure of government intervention in the 1920s and early 1930s) – to stop people from becoming alcoholics.
What do I care if my neighbor is chasing the dragon?
“The government has two powers: It can make suggestions, which anyone can do, and it can issue orders, which is to say, it can make a criminal of anyone who doesn’t do as they’re told.”
You (and dear Ayn) are simply repackaging a banal observation about the nature of governments–that they have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence–and inserting the word “criminal.” If that gets you off, by all means continue doing so, but you’re not contributing.
“The government has two powers: It can make suggestions, which anyone can do, and it can issue orders, which is to say, it can make a criminal of anyone who doesn’t do as they’re told.”
You (and dear Ayn) are simply repackaging a banal observation about the nature of governments–that they have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence–and inserting the word “criminal.” If that gets you off, by all means continue doing so, but you’re not contributing.
What do I care if my neighbor is chasing the dragon?
I care about my neighbor’s welfare, an interest that the Constitution acknowledges and promotes. Even if I believe that my neighbor’s drug interest is his or her own business, many drug addicts have families, and the drug use affects family members. The availability of addictive drugs affects minors and other vulnerable people. People (especially adults) have a choice about whether or not to use addictive drugs in the first instance, even if later their choice is diminished by addiction.
Adults can and should be held responsible for creating a market for harmful substances, and for supporting drug traffickers. Obviously, once they become addicted, they need help.
I acknowledge that it’s a complicated problem, and that prison alone is a very poor solution.
What do I care if my neighbor is chasing the dragon?
I care about my neighbor’s welfare, an interest that the Constitution acknowledges and promotes. Even if I believe that my neighbor’s drug interest is his or her own business, many drug addicts have families, and the drug use affects family members. The availability of addictive drugs affects minors and other vulnerable people. People (especially adults) have a choice about whether or not to use addictive drugs in the first instance, even if later their choice is diminished by addiction.
Adults can and should be held responsible for creating a market for harmful substances, and for supporting drug traffickers. Obviously, once they become addicted, they need help.
I acknowledge that it’s a complicated problem, and that prison alone is a very poor solution.
That’s not so much a banal observation as a contested claim. Actually, a pretty widely disputed claim in this country, or else the Democrat(ic) party would be having a bit more success hawking gun control, and opposing “Stand your ground” laws.
The point is, pass enough laws, and everybody is subject to being convicted of SOMETHING if the government wants to go after them. Though, given that people are not made whole after acquittal, conviction is scarcely necessary to level ruinous ‘fees’. Prosecutorial discretion becomes an instrument of tyrannical power.
Couple this with the panopticon state feeding prosecutors info on enemies of the state, and you’ve got a neat little police state in a box kit. For an academic treatment of this subject, see Glenn Reynold’s Ham Sandwich Nation
That’s not so much a banal observation as a contested claim. Actually, a pretty widely disputed claim in this country, or else the Democrat(ic) party would be having a bit more success hawking gun control, and opposing “Stand your ground” laws.
The point is, pass enough laws, and everybody is subject to being convicted of SOMETHING if the government wants to go after them. Though, given that people are not made whole after acquittal, conviction is scarcely necessary to level ruinous ‘fees’. Prosecutorial discretion becomes an instrument of tyrannical power.
Couple this with the panopticon state feeding prosecutors info on enemies of the state, and you’ve got a neat little police state in a box kit. For an academic treatment of this subject, see Glenn Reynold’s Ham Sandwich Nation
The problem is hard.
Here’s something hard for you. The number of heroin addicts in the US has nearly doubled since 2007. Obviously the fault of Barack Hussein Obama? Well, perhaps not. But it tells me the addiction rate is exogenous to the legal penalties that addicts risk.
So a punitive policy is doomed to failure from the get go.
How have our draconian drug laws succeeded in any way, shape, or form? Obviously they have not. How many billions do we spend annually to stomp out the addictive personality disorder of about 1/2 million people? If we just guess a figure of $10b/yr. just for that drug, we’re talking $20,000 per addict.
I know it’s a tired refrain, but we, as a society, put up with a hell of a lot more carnage from legal alcohol, and a doubling of the number of addicts while substantially reducing social resources devoted to solving this “problem” does not scare me in the slightest unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary.
Next are you going to ask me, “Well what if it were your son or daughter?” Please don’t humiliate yourself. Thanks.
The problem is hard.
Here’s something hard for you. The number of heroin addicts in the US has nearly doubled since 2007. Obviously the fault of Barack Hussein Obama? Well, perhaps not. But it tells me the addiction rate is exogenous to the legal penalties that addicts risk.
So a punitive policy is doomed to failure from the get go.
How have our draconian drug laws succeeded in any way, shape, or form? Obviously they have not. How many billions do we spend annually to stomp out the addictive personality disorder of about 1/2 million people? If we just guess a figure of $10b/yr. just for that drug, we’re talking $20,000 per addict.
I know it’s a tired refrain, but we, as a society, put up with a hell of a lot more carnage from legal alcohol, and a doubling of the number of addicts while substantially reducing social resources devoted to solving this “problem” does not scare me in the slightest unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary.
Next are you going to ask me, “Well what if it were your son or daughter?” Please don’t humiliate yourself. Thanks.
I’ve heard the suggestion that low-concentration versions of more addictive drugs be legalized – think of people making tea from coca leaves rather than snorting powder cocaine or smoking crack – while leaving possession and use of the highly concentrated extracts subject to some sort of criminal sanction.
It got me wondering how Prohibition might have worked out had it only applied to beverages exceeding, say, 15% ABV.
The idea being that, if people had a somewhat safer legal outlet of some sort for using mind-altering substances, they would choose them over illegally using harder and more dangerous versions of the same substances – though not universally, of course.
It’s an interesting idea, anyway.
I’ve heard the suggestion that low-concentration versions of more addictive drugs be legalized – think of people making tea from coca leaves rather than snorting powder cocaine or smoking crack – while leaving possession and use of the highly concentrated extracts subject to some sort of criminal sanction.
It got me wondering how Prohibition might have worked out had it only applied to beverages exceeding, say, 15% ABV.
The idea being that, if people had a somewhat safer legal outlet of some sort for using mind-altering substances, they would choose them over illegally using harder and more dangerous versions of the same substances – though not universally, of course.
It’s an interesting idea, anyway.
Next are you going to ask me, “Well what if it were your son or daughter?” Please don’t humiliate yourself. Thanks.
Please try to refrain from insulting people. Thanks.
The number of heroin addicts in the US has nearly doubled since 2007.
Please provide a link. Thanks.
Also, please acknowledge that I have already stated my agreement that the role of the criminal justice system is questionable.
This I know, from reading, and from knowing people: The drug lords who traffic heroin and cocaine into the US are horrible gangsters. Many of the adults who buy their products are middle-class (or wealthier) folks who have the resources to know what they’re supporting. Also, using it (even without addiction) does very little for people’s character in general. I have no problem with criminalizing the support of drug trafficking gangsters. Obviously, it’s best to do what works for public health, and jailing people once they’re pathetic addicts doesn’t help anyone. But that’s why it’s complicated.
Next are you going to ask me, “Well what if it were your son or daughter?” Please don’t humiliate yourself. Thanks.
Please try to refrain from insulting people. Thanks.
The number of heroin addicts in the US has nearly doubled since 2007.
Please provide a link. Thanks.
Also, please acknowledge that I have already stated my agreement that the role of the criminal justice system is questionable.
This I know, from reading, and from knowing people: The drug lords who traffic heroin and cocaine into the US are horrible gangsters. Many of the adults who buy their products are middle-class (or wealthier) folks who have the resources to know what they’re supporting. Also, using it (even without addiction) does very little for people’s character in general. I have no problem with criminalizing the support of drug trafficking gangsters. Obviously, it’s best to do what works for public health, and jailing people once they’re pathetic addicts doesn’t help anyone. But that’s why it’s complicated.
If the government were small it would not have the capacity to interject itself into every minute aspect of every area of civil life.
I take your point, but I don’t think government interjecting itself into every area of civil life is the topic on the table.
What we were talking about was a fairly specific policy – the three strikes sentencing policies. You can have a pretty small government, that still has really draconian criminal justice policies.
The more difficult issue is how to deal with dangerous addictive drugs.
My assumption here is that by “dangerous addictive drugs”, you are equating “dangerous” with “addictive” – what makes a drug dangerous is its potential for addiction. I may be wrong about that, you may be thinking about those as orthogonal categories, i.e., there are drugs that are dangerous, and drugs that are addictive, and drugs that are both.
In any case, my thought about drugs that are dangerous and/or addictive is to address them as a medical issue rather than a criminal one.
If you’re going to arrest someone and send them to jail, it might be better to just send them to the hospital. Worst case, they stay in the hospital for years. It wouldn’t be any greater violation of their freedom, and would likely be no more expensive, than jail, and at least they’d get some kind of constructive therapy.
And some folks wouldn’t need to be locked up against their will at all.
A lot of people do actually recover. Not everybody, but a lot.
If the government were small it would not have the capacity to interject itself into every minute aspect of every area of civil life.
I take your point, but I don’t think government interjecting itself into every area of civil life is the topic on the table.
What we were talking about was a fairly specific policy – the three strikes sentencing policies. You can have a pretty small government, that still has really draconian criminal justice policies.
The more difficult issue is how to deal with dangerous addictive drugs.
My assumption here is that by “dangerous addictive drugs”, you are equating “dangerous” with “addictive” – what makes a drug dangerous is its potential for addiction. I may be wrong about that, you may be thinking about those as orthogonal categories, i.e., there are drugs that are dangerous, and drugs that are addictive, and drugs that are both.
In any case, my thought about drugs that are dangerous and/or addictive is to address them as a medical issue rather than a criminal one.
If you’re going to arrest someone and send them to jail, it might be better to just send them to the hospital. Worst case, they stay in the hospital for years. It wouldn’t be any greater violation of their freedom, and would likely be no more expensive, than jail, and at least they’d get some kind of constructive therapy.
And some folks wouldn’t need to be locked up against their will at all.
A lot of people do actually recover. Not everybody, but a lot.
“I care about my neighbor’s welfare, an interest that the Constitution acknowledges and promotes.”
That’s where it all starts. People, right, left and otherwise using government to impose their values and norms on others by broadly interpreting “promotion of the general welfare” to the point where the original intent is totally lost and then assuming that they are the wise and righteous ones who know what is best for the rest of us.
I think obesity is harmful to society – even more than drug addiction – and I want all purveyors of fattening foods arrested and convicted under my new laws which I will soon propose. Restaurant police will issue tickets to overeaters. Anyone caught making a three or more trips to the buffet counter will be charged with aggravated overeating; which will be a felony. Fat people will also be arrested. You down with that, Sapient? Why not if you care so much about your neighbor’s welfare?
“I care about my neighbor’s welfare, an interest that the Constitution acknowledges and promotes.”
That’s where it all starts. People, right, left and otherwise using government to impose their values and norms on others by broadly interpreting “promotion of the general welfare” to the point where the original intent is totally lost and then assuming that they are the wise and righteous ones who know what is best for the rest of us.
I think obesity is harmful to society – even more than drug addiction – and I want all purveyors of fattening foods arrested and convicted under my new laws which I will soon propose. Restaurant police will issue tickets to overeaters. Anyone caught making a three or more trips to the buffet counter will be charged with aggravated overeating; which will be a felony. Fat people will also be arrested. You down with that, Sapient? Why not if you care so much about your neighbor’s welfare?
The number of heroin addicts in the US has nearly doubled since 2007.
oxycontin: expensvie
heroin: cheap
I could take him to a tough Hasidic section of Brooklyn and he could address his language directly to them and see what happens.
LOL.
I had good friends who lived in Seagate, down at the end of Coney Island. On a couple of occasions I walked a young woman, a friend of theirs, home. I forget what neighborhood she lived in, but we had to walk through a Hasidic neighborhood en route.
I was tailed the whole way by a car full of body builders with earlocks.
The Hasidim are badass.
I had no problem with them, they had no problem with me.
The number of heroin addicts in the US has nearly doubled since 2007.
oxycontin: expensvie
heroin: cheap
I could take him to a tough Hasidic section of Brooklyn and he could address his language directly to them and see what happens.
LOL.
I had good friends who lived in Seagate, down at the end of Coney Island. On a couple of occasions I walked a young woman, a friend of theirs, home. I forget what neighborhood she lived in, but we had to walk through a Hasidic neighborhood en route.
I was tailed the whole way by a car full of body builders with earlocks.
The Hasidim are badass.
I had no problem with them, they had no problem with me.
To expand on my previous comments about Shirt’s (the new one, not HSH, to be clear) link:
The link included numbers for 1999 and 2013. Which neatly ignores both the large upswing starting in 1980s, as well as broad plateau in the 2000s, and manages to capture CAs federally mandated prisoner reduction over the past few years.
CAs recent progress in reducing its prison population isn’t an “experiment”, its the result of the fact that they locked up so many people “cruel and unusual” came into play and a federal judge forced them to reduce the population.
I found the selection of 2 years of data, when they aren’t particularly representative of the surrounding trend, misleading.
To expand on my previous comments about Shirt’s (the new one, not HSH, to be clear) link:
The link included numbers for 1999 and 2013. Which neatly ignores both the large upswing starting in 1980s, as well as broad plateau in the 2000s, and manages to capture CAs federally mandated prisoner reduction over the past few years.
CAs recent progress in reducing its prison population isn’t an “experiment”, its the result of the fact that they locked up so many people “cruel and unusual” came into play and a federal judge forced them to reduce the population.
I found the selection of 2 years of data, when they aren’t particularly representative of the surrounding trend, misleading.
If you’re going to arrest someone and send them to jail, it might be better to just send them to the hospital.
russell, I don’t know whether jail is ever a good solution to anything. In fact, if you’re going to arrest a pedophile and send him/her to jail, it might be better just to send him/her to the hospital. Not sure the country is ready for that though.
I guess the question is whether society has an interest in limiting drugs at all. If so, how do they do it? Is it only from the supplier, or does the demand also play a role? What about the ivory trade? Do we punish just the elephant poachers, or also the traffickers and the buyers?
Chronic drug use isn’t victimless.
If you’re going to arrest someone and send them to jail, it might be better to just send them to the hospital.
russell, I don’t know whether jail is ever a good solution to anything. In fact, if you’re going to arrest a pedophile and send him/her to jail, it might be better just to send him/her to the hospital. Not sure the country is ready for that though.
I guess the question is whether society has an interest in limiting drugs at all. If so, how do they do it? Is it only from the supplier, or does the demand also play a role? What about the ivory trade? Do we punish just the elephant poachers, or also the traffickers and the buyers?
Chronic drug use isn’t victimless.
Please try to refrain from insulting people. Thanks.
You’re welcome. Please try to refrain from making assertions that are not backed up by anything in the way of an argument (evidence can follow in due course). Asserting there are “many links” out there without providing any is equally insulting. Then we get this:
Please provide a link.
In the interests of good sportsmanship the link is provided below. Links provided so far: Bobbyp 1; Sapient 0.
http://time.com/4505/heroin-gains-popularity-as-cheap-doses-flood-the-u-s/
Also, please acknowledge that I have already stated my agreement that the role of the criminal justice system is questionable.
So noted.
The rest of your argument is, as I understand it, is as follows:
1. Drug dealers are nasty people, and should be dealt with aggressively. Agree.
2. Many people who buy drugs are relatively well off, and drug addiction does not necessarily lead to total social impairment. Agree.
3. Approaching the problem more along the lines of public heath would be a good public policy. Automatically jailing addicts doesn’t help anyone. Agree.
4. ????????????
5. Therefore it is complicated.
Please provide more in the way of an explanation of step 4.
Please try to refrain from insulting people. Thanks.
You’re welcome. Please try to refrain from making assertions that are not backed up by anything in the way of an argument (evidence can follow in due course). Asserting there are “many links” out there without providing any is equally insulting. Then we get this:
Please provide a link.
In the interests of good sportsmanship the link is provided below. Links provided so far: Bobbyp 1; Sapient 0.
http://time.com/4505/heroin-gains-popularity-as-cheap-doses-flood-the-u-s/
Also, please acknowledge that I have already stated my agreement that the role of the criminal justice system is questionable.
So noted.
The rest of your argument is, as I understand it, is as follows:
1. Drug dealers are nasty people, and should be dealt with aggressively. Agree.
2. Many people who buy drugs are relatively well off, and drug addiction does not necessarily lead to total social impairment. Agree.
3. Approaching the problem more along the lines of public heath would be a good public policy. Automatically jailing addicts doesn’t help anyone. Agree.
4. ????????????
5. Therefore it is complicated.
Please provide more in the way of an explanation of step 4.
That’s where it all starts.
OK. It can be reasonably argued that the ‘original intent’ of the founders was that ‘liberty’ would be restricted to a relatively small and ‘enlightened’ group of The People.
So a central theme running throughout US history is successive numbers of groups organizing politically to join that class in their comfortable realm of ‘unrestricted liberty’.
For some reason, those assholes have always fought back. Who could have expected that?
If you assert a moral claim to denigrate and have political power over others, well, expect pushback.
I believe Russell has already mentioned this.
That’s where it all starts.
OK. It can be reasonably argued that the ‘original intent’ of the founders was that ‘liberty’ would be restricted to a relatively small and ‘enlightened’ group of The People.
So a central theme running throughout US history is successive numbers of groups organizing politically to join that class in their comfortable realm of ‘unrestricted liberty’.
For some reason, those assholes have always fought back. Who could have expected that?
If you assert a moral claim to denigrate and have political power over others, well, expect pushback.
I believe Russell has already mentioned this.
Prosecutorial discretion becomes an instrument of tyrannical power.
This plays into it as well, although I might not phrase it quite so strongly. Federal prosecutors have massive leeway in exactly how they charge, which makes them very powerful in plea bargaining.
I don’t know if its similar at the state level, but would be surprised if it wasn’t.
A good review of how prosecutorial discretion can work, in the context of Holder’s recent memo that sapient (I think) linked:
http://www.popehat.com/2013/08/13/the-eric-holder-memorandum-on-mandatory-minimum-sentences-explained/
Unwinding the plea system at the prosecution stage seems really important to me. Even innocent people are going to consider a guilty plea if you threaten them with decades of prison…or plead out and get 6 months.
Further, mandatory minimums are another driver of the problem. From a report of the Urban Institute (just skimmed it and will read in more depth but seemed quite good: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412932-stemming-the-tide.pdf):
Before the enactment of the SRA and mandatory minimums for drugs, approximately 25 percent of all drug offenders received no prison term as a part of their sentence. They were, instead, sentenced to a term of probation or fined. Those sentenced to prison served an average of 59 percent of their sentence. Before the SRA and mandatory minimum enactment, drug offenders served on average approximately 38.5 months, almost half of what drug offenders currently serve.
Average drug sentence has doubled since the “Sentencing Reform Act” (SRA), and 25% never went to prison before.
And drug use is still higher in the US than other countries:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-leads-the-world-in-illegal-drug-use/
Seems like harsh sentences do nothing.
As a final note, I’d agree with russell on three strikes laws…they need to go.
Prosecutorial discretion becomes an instrument of tyrannical power.
This plays into it as well, although I might not phrase it quite so strongly. Federal prosecutors have massive leeway in exactly how they charge, which makes them very powerful in plea bargaining.
I don’t know if its similar at the state level, but would be surprised if it wasn’t.
A good review of how prosecutorial discretion can work, in the context of Holder’s recent memo that sapient (I think) linked:
http://www.popehat.com/2013/08/13/the-eric-holder-memorandum-on-mandatory-minimum-sentences-explained/
Unwinding the plea system at the prosecution stage seems really important to me. Even innocent people are going to consider a guilty plea if you threaten them with decades of prison…or plead out and get 6 months.
Further, mandatory minimums are another driver of the problem. From a report of the Urban Institute (just skimmed it and will read in more depth but seemed quite good: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412932-stemming-the-tide.pdf):
Before the enactment of the SRA and mandatory minimums for drugs, approximately 25 percent of all drug offenders received no prison term as a part of their sentence. They were, instead, sentenced to a term of probation or fined. Those sentenced to prison served an average of 59 percent of their sentence. Before the SRA and mandatory minimum enactment, drug offenders served on average approximately 38.5 months, almost half of what drug offenders currently serve.
Average drug sentence has doubled since the “Sentencing Reform Act” (SRA), and 25% never went to prison before.
And drug use is still higher in the US than other countries:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-leads-the-world-in-illegal-drug-use/
Seems like harsh sentences do nothing.
As a final note, I’d agree with russell on three strikes laws…they need to go.
if you’re going to arrest a pedophile and send him/her to jail, it might be better just to send him/her to the hospital.
It might. But then again, nobody here is advocating we provide a a supply of children to pedophiles. Providing heroin to an addict is pretty inexpensive.
Chronic drug use isn’t victimless.
Well, duh. Again, nobody has asserted it isn’t.
When you’re done destroying the straw men, please clean up your mess.
if you’re going to arrest a pedophile and send him/her to jail, it might be better just to send him/her to the hospital.
It might. But then again, nobody here is advocating we provide a a supply of children to pedophiles. Providing heroin to an addict is pretty inexpensive.
Chronic drug use isn’t victimless.
Well, duh. Again, nobody has asserted it isn’t.
When you’re done destroying the straw men, please clean up your mess.
Sapient,
See link below for a compendium of views on this matter. I would put you in the Kleiman camp. He’s a expert in this matter, and argues his case forcefully.
But in all fairness, I urge you to review all of them. Same for the rest of you.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/03/17/lowering-the-deadly-cost-of-drug-abuse
Regards,
Sapient,
See link below for a compendium of views on this matter. I would put you in the Kleiman camp. He’s a expert in this matter, and argues his case forcefully.
But in all fairness, I urge you to review all of them. Same for the rest of you.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/03/17/lowering-the-deadly-cost-of-drug-abuse
Regards,
The public roads were built with taxes. Which is to say, they were built by the government making a criminal of anybody who doesn’t give it money.
They were built on land obtained by eminent domain, which is to say, the government obtained the land by making a criminal of anybody who refused to sell.
So what it comes down to is this, Brett: everything that government does is done by making a criminal of anybody who refuses to obey. And if your position is that this is evil, then what you appear to be saying is that you want no government whatsoever — that is, absolute anarchy.
At least, if you are willing to accept any government functions at all, please explain how you think they happen without the coercion which so infuriates you.
The public roads were built with taxes. Which is to say, they were built by the government making a criminal of anybody who doesn’t give it money.
They were built on land obtained by eminent domain, which is to say, the government obtained the land by making a criminal of anybody who refused to sell.
So what it comes down to is this, Brett: everything that government does is done by making a criminal of anybody who refuses to obey. And if your position is that this is evil, then what you appear to be saying is that you want no government whatsoever — that is, absolute anarchy.
At least, if you are willing to accept any government functions at all, please explain how you think they happen without the coercion which so infuriates you.
Well absent any government the patriotic citizens (citizens of what, may I ask) would spontaneously form well-(self)-regulated militias to defend the citizenry, of course. Any infringement of liberty would immediately die from lethal lead poisoning (lead of course being unregulated despite its known effect of apathia induction in humans).
—
The UK had quite a ‘small government’ before the World Wars (not even a police outside London and even the latter was a small-scale affair). But those dear Brits executed more people per year for rather petty crimes than is the world yearly average these days, more than an order of magnitude more than e.g. all the German speaking police states (that actually deserved the name) of the continent put together. And Australia got colonized by those who did not meet the treshold for execution which in modern money was about 500$ (39 shillings with 12 shilling to the pound and a pound being 100-150$ late 20th century).
Well absent any government the patriotic citizens (citizens of what, may I ask) would spontaneously form well-(self)-regulated militias to defend the citizenry, of course. Any infringement of liberty would immediately die from lethal lead poisoning (lead of course being unregulated despite its known effect of apathia induction in humans).
—
The UK had quite a ‘small government’ before the World Wars (not even a police outside London and even the latter was a small-scale affair). But those dear Brits executed more people per year for rather petty crimes than is the world yearly average these days, more than an order of magnitude more than e.g. all the German speaking police states (that actually deserved the name) of the continent put together. And Australia got colonized by those who did not meet the treshold for execution which in modern money was about 500$ (39 shillings with 12 shilling to the pound and a pound being 100-150$ late 20th century).
What’s worse than a police state is an under funded and badly ran one. To hold back the tide, it’s constantly having to make examples of what happens anytime it’s resisted.
What’s worse than a police state is an under funded and badly ran one. To hold back the tide, it’s constantly having to make examples of what happens anytime it’s resisted.
“And if your position is that this is evil, then what you appear to be saying is that you want no government whatsoever — that is, absolute anarchy.”
And I get mocked for saying that liberals appear to have no concept of “necessary evil”. As soon as you decide something is necessary in even the most extreme instance, you decide it couldn’t really be evil, and just add it to your toolkit, using it for anything you feel like.
Like somebody who hotwires a car once to get a dying man to the hospital, and ever after hotwires the neighbor’s car every time they feel like going to the grocery to pick up a gallon of milk. To reject the idea of a necessary evil is to commit the evil even when it isn’t necessary.
Yes, in principle I’m an anarchist. In the same way, in principle I’m opposed to maniacs going around jabbing children with needles, but can, none the less, distinguish between my son’s pediatrician and some clown who gets his jollies torturing children.
I hate government, but am resigned to tolerating it where it’s necessary. Which is only a tiny fraction of where it’s currently used, here in America.
“And if your position is that this is evil, then what you appear to be saying is that you want no government whatsoever — that is, absolute anarchy.”
And I get mocked for saying that liberals appear to have no concept of “necessary evil”. As soon as you decide something is necessary in even the most extreme instance, you decide it couldn’t really be evil, and just add it to your toolkit, using it for anything you feel like.
Like somebody who hotwires a car once to get a dying man to the hospital, and ever after hotwires the neighbor’s car every time they feel like going to the grocery to pick up a gallon of milk. To reject the idea of a necessary evil is to commit the evil even when it isn’t necessary.
Yes, in principle I’m an anarchist. In the same way, in principle I’m opposed to maniacs going around jabbing children with needles, but can, none the less, distinguish between my son’s pediatrician and some clown who gets his jollies torturing children.
I hate government, but am resigned to tolerating it where it’s necessary. Which is only a tiny fraction of where it’s currently used, here in America.
The public roads were built with taxes. Which is to say, they were built by the government making a criminal of anybody who doesn’t give it money.
ridiculous.
the government is us.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
we. we are doing this. the govt is us. the govt is a tool of the people, by the people, for the people.
we got together and decided we needed roads, and so we built roads. if you can’t look at a banal civic function without conflating it with an Ayn Rand fever dream, the problem is not govt. the problem is you.
Yes, in principle I’m an anarchist.
finally, you admit it.
The public roads were built with taxes. Which is to say, they were built by the government making a criminal of anybody who doesn’t give it money.
ridiculous.
the government is us.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
we. we are doing this. the govt is us. the govt is a tool of the people, by the people, for the people.
we got together and decided we needed roads, and so we built roads. if you can’t look at a banal civic function without conflating it with an Ayn Rand fever dream, the problem is not govt. the problem is you.
Yes, in principle I’m an anarchist.
finally, you admit it.
“{The federal government can certainly do a lot with sentencing reform, but states governments bear much of the responsibility for prison conditions.”
Every place I have lived the Fed Pen was considered a much better place to be than the state pen. I suppose some are bad but most of the people I know who have been in both certainly would rather do fed time. Those I have visited are clearly better places to be.
“{The federal government can certainly do a lot with sentencing reform, but states governments bear much of the responsibility for prison conditions.”
Every place I have lived the Fed Pen was considered a much better place to be than the state pen. I suppose some are bad but most of the people I know who have been in both certainly would rather do fed time. Those I have visited are clearly better places to be.
I would say that a large part of the problem is that more government = more laws
just to return to this, briefly:
there are many countries in the world with much more thorough regulatory schemes, much higher involvement of government in people’s everyday lives, etc etc etc, and yet they don’t have anything like the rate of incarceration we have here.
why not?
it seems to me that ascribing our high rate of incarceration to “government is too large” is too simplistic. it ignores too many data points.
I would say that a large part of the problem is that more government = more laws
just to return to this, briefly:
there are many countries in the world with much more thorough regulatory schemes, much higher involvement of government in people’s everyday lives, etc etc etc, and yet they don’t have anything like the rate of incarceration we have here.
why not?
it seems to me that ascribing our high rate of incarceration to “government is too large” is too simplistic. it ignores too many data points.
“the government is us.”
Utter, unadulterated BS. The government, chosen by some of us, is even fewer of us. And, while in theory it may work for the common good, this is mostly just public relations, and not really true.
If a Swat team breaks into my house tomorrow, and shoots me dead, it won’t be suicide. The government isn’t “us” any more than the Mafia is.
“the government is us.”
Utter, unadulterated BS. The government, chosen by some of us, is even fewer of us. And, while in theory it may work for the common good, this is mostly just public relations, and not really true.
If a Swat team breaks into my house tomorrow, and shoots me dead, it won’t be suicide. The government isn’t “us” any more than the Mafia is.
it seems to me that ascribing our high rate of incarceration to “government is too large” is too simplistic. it ignores too many data points.
This is really not because any particular level of government is too large. It is because we have several key things that other countries don’t. A decided lack of fear of the jails, despite the comments here, and a society that thrives on revenge.
It is amazing listening to people talk at sentencing hearings, nothing anyone ever does wrong is a mistake, unless it’s your son, brother, father, (mostly men) then they are good people who made a mistake.
it seems to me that ascribing our high rate of incarceration to “government is too large” is too simplistic. it ignores too many data points.
This is really not because any particular level of government is too large. It is because we have several key things that other countries don’t. A decided lack of fear of the jails, despite the comments here, and a society that thrives on revenge.
It is amazing listening to people talk at sentencing hearings, nothing anyone ever does wrong is a mistake, unless it’s your son, brother, father, (mostly men) then they are good people who made a mistake.
Apologies if I repeat something already discussed, just a quick thought before bed.
Why is “tough on crime” so very effective? And why is it more effective in the US than elsewhere? There’s certainly no lack of “take more prisoners” rhetoric and pollies here in Australia, or the UK etc. and it doesn’t seem any less popular when it is used, but there seems to be something that reins it in at some point, which in the USA doesn’t seem to apply.
Apologies if I repeat something already discussed, just a quick thought before bed.
Why is “tough on crime” so very effective? And why is it more effective in the US than elsewhere? There’s certainly no lack of “take more prisoners” rhetoric and pollies here in Australia, or the UK etc. and it doesn’t seem any less popular when it is used, but there seems to be something that reins it in at some point, which in the USA doesn’t seem to apply.
The government, chosen by some of us, is even fewer of us.
the fact that enough of us are comfortable with not participating in the process doesn’t negate the fact that the US government is, in fact, chosen by the American citizenry.
no amount of absurd paranoid reductio will change that.
The government, chosen by some of us, is even fewer of us.
the fact that enough of us are comfortable with not participating in the process doesn’t negate the fact that the US government is, in fact, chosen by the American citizenry.
no amount of absurd paranoid reductio will change that.
“Finally”? Was there any doubt? Was I making a secret of this?
“It is because we have several key things that other countries don’t.”
I think we have two key things other countries don’t.
1. We’re running a Leviathan style government under a limited government constitution. This is a problem regardless of what size of government you think is best, because doing this requires a kind of institutionalized doublethink that countries with big government under big government constitutions don’t have to have.
Our judicial system is warped, as is our whole federal system, by the need to staff it with people who will read a limited government constitution to authorize the Leviathan. Fundamentally, we can’t have honest government, because our current government is based on lying.
2. Our government has been running uninterrupted for longer than pretty much any other government on the planet. It needs a reboot.
“Finally”? Was there any doubt? Was I making a secret of this?
“It is because we have several key things that other countries don’t.”
I think we have two key things other countries don’t.
1. We’re running a Leviathan style government under a limited government constitution. This is a problem regardless of what size of government you think is best, because doing this requires a kind of institutionalized doublethink that countries with big government under big government constitutions don’t have to have.
Our judicial system is warped, as is our whole federal system, by the need to staff it with people who will read a limited government constitution to authorize the Leviathan. Fundamentally, we can’t have honest government, because our current government is based on lying.
2. Our government has been running uninterrupted for longer than pretty much any other government on the planet. It needs a reboot.
Cleek, you are confusing resignation with consent, and (self-serving) theory with practice.
Have you looked at the latest polls on the subject of trust in government? Do they look to you like the average person regards the government as “us”, and thinks themselves well served?
Stop echoing the propaganda. Our democratic system is seriously broken, and you’re singing schoolhouse rock.
Cleek, you are confusing resignation with consent, and (self-serving) theory with practice.
Have you looked at the latest polls on the subject of trust in government? Do they look to you like the average person regards the government as “us”, and thinks themselves well served?
Stop echoing the propaganda. Our democratic system is seriously broken, and you’re singing schoolhouse rock.
more paranoia and hyperbole.
bah. who needs it.
more paranoia and hyperbole.
bah. who needs it.
and you’re singing schoolhouse rock.
“And the shot heard ’round the world was the start of the revolution!”
It needs a reboot.
We’re all singing Schoolhouse Rock, in one way or another.
and you’re singing schoolhouse rock.
“And the shot heard ’round the world was the start of the revolution!”
It needs a reboot.
We’re all singing Schoolhouse Rock, in one way or another.
I wouldn’t clip my toenails if it weren’t necessary. …Evil!
I wouldn’t clip my toenails if it weren’t necessary. …Evil!
Another reason the US has a large prison population is just because it can. When you have a lot more wealth than most others, you can burn though it doing all kinds of stupid things that they can’t afford to do.
Another reason the US has a large prison population is just because it can. When you have a lot more wealth than most others, you can burn though it doing all kinds of stupid things that they can’t afford to do.
I also find it difficult to find another country with such a strong movement to question and delegitimize the mere idea of a functioning trustworthy government that (the movement, not the country) also does its best to make the reality fit the claims. Imo a clear case of ‘you get what you deserve’. Also imo a ‘reboot’ would not bring paradise (or anything of an approximation) but another kind of boot, the one with the iron heel (or O’Brian’s as by Orwell).
I also find it difficult to find another country with such a strong movement to question and delegitimize the mere idea of a functioning trustworthy government that (the movement, not the country) also does its best to make the reality fit the claims. Imo a clear case of ‘you get what you deserve’. Also imo a ‘reboot’ would not bring paradise (or anything of an approximation) but another kind of boot, the one with the iron heel (or O’Brian’s as by Orwell).
each founding notion of the US government is either propaganda or a teleological fundamental a priori truth. yet which is which can only be decided by the truly enlightened.
each founding notion of the US government is either propaganda or a teleological fundamental a priori truth. yet which is which can only be decided by the truly enlightened.
“it seems to me that ascribing our high rate of incarceration to “government is too large” is too simplistic. it ignores too many data points.”
You’re right Russell. I am partly to blame to deflecting the conversation in the direction of “the government is too large”. That was accidental to some extent, on my part. I really just wanted to point out that there is a massive, and ever growing, number of statutes, both state and federal, that violation of can result in conviction and incarceration and that is the result of “big” government.
However, I think the incarceration rate is also higher in the US for crimes that no reasonable person would debate the need for arrest, conviction and incarceration. I am thinking about robbery, various types of thefts, homicide, assault, rape….that sort of thing. None of that can be blamed, directly, on big government. These are sociological issues.
Please, PLEASE, don’t take the following as being racist. I don’t intend it that way. A difference in the US is that we are not as homogeneous a society as those we are compared to.
It seems to me, based on experience, that when communities are populated by people that resemble each other, even just exteriorly, people tend to act more civilly toward each other. In the US we have all of these various ethnic and racial divisions, often coupled with socio-economic divisions, that create cultural sub-identities that seem to short circuit a sense of membership in the overall society.
Blacks in particular are subject to this phenomenon; in the extreme, actually, and to the point where black urban culture = prison culture. If blacks (and Hispanics) were removed from the statistics, US crime rates/incarceration rates would be much closer to other industrialized societies.
IMO, the prison problem is very closely correlated with the race relations problem. Again, not being racist, just looking at the statistics.
“it seems to me that ascribing our high rate of incarceration to “government is too large” is too simplistic. it ignores too many data points.”
You’re right Russell. I am partly to blame to deflecting the conversation in the direction of “the government is too large”. That was accidental to some extent, on my part. I really just wanted to point out that there is a massive, and ever growing, number of statutes, both state and federal, that violation of can result in conviction and incarceration and that is the result of “big” government.
However, I think the incarceration rate is also higher in the US for crimes that no reasonable person would debate the need for arrest, conviction and incarceration. I am thinking about robbery, various types of thefts, homicide, assault, rape….that sort of thing. None of that can be blamed, directly, on big government. These are sociological issues.
Please, PLEASE, don’t take the following as being racist. I don’t intend it that way. A difference in the US is that we are not as homogeneous a society as those we are compared to.
It seems to me, based on experience, that when communities are populated by people that resemble each other, even just exteriorly, people tend to act more civilly toward each other. In the US we have all of these various ethnic and racial divisions, often coupled with socio-economic divisions, that create cultural sub-identities that seem to short circuit a sense of membership in the overall society.
Blacks in particular are subject to this phenomenon; in the extreme, actually, and to the point where black urban culture = prison culture. If blacks (and Hispanics) were removed from the statistics, US crime rates/incarceration rates would be much closer to other industrialized societies.
IMO, the prison problem is very closely correlated with the race relations problem. Again, not being racist, just looking at the statistics.
“Fundamentally, we can’t have honest government, because our current government is based on lying.”
Now, see, I agree with this.
Every government is based on lying. Because Americans are liars just like everyone else.
Jerry Seinfeld said during the Clinton impeachment crap that there wouldn’t be any sex at all without lying, so what’s the big deal about his particular instance of it?
Our culture floats on a thin film of artifice, and probably necessarily so, to avoid daily bloodshed. Advertising is lying. Accounting is lying. Have a nice day is an effing lie. “The Biggest, Best Hamburger In The World” reads the lying, stinking billboard.
We have “Lie” buildup and backup and I suppose one day we’ll have to clean out the pipes.
Which gets me to this: “It needs a reboot.”
Yeah, and who is going to run that one, the same lying liars — the people – who ran the last piece of sh*t?
You? Probably not, given the passive voiced construction of “It needs …”
But I guarantee you this, the reboot will require a long period of the jackboot, because forcing your truth on the rest of us will require more violent truth than you can muster with a sorry militia.
You’ve handed out heavy weaponry to everyone and we will not go down easily because once you destroy a monopoly on force, everyone will enforce their own version of the Truth and we have roughly 320 million versions of that going and counting .. and the Founding Fathers knew that, but sort of lied about it, because they could only agree to truth expressed in broad platitudes, when they weren’t lying about their personal lives and their slave populations.
The Tutsis and the Hutus lived together under a cultural artifice for a long time before The Truth Fetishists had their way.
Eastern Europe and the Caucasus have lived a lie for centuries, punctuated by frequent outbreaks of Truth to adjust their artificial lying borders.
They prefer the artifice, at least the ones who are still alive.
The Comanche were TRUTH incarnate. Until the lying Christian cavalry imposed lying borders, fences, and the artifice of private property on them.
Have a nice day.
“Fundamentally, we can’t have honest government, because our current government is based on lying.”
Now, see, I agree with this.
Every government is based on lying. Because Americans are liars just like everyone else.
Jerry Seinfeld said during the Clinton impeachment crap that there wouldn’t be any sex at all without lying, so what’s the big deal about his particular instance of it?
Our culture floats on a thin film of artifice, and probably necessarily so, to avoid daily bloodshed. Advertising is lying. Accounting is lying. Have a nice day is an effing lie. “The Biggest, Best Hamburger In The World” reads the lying, stinking billboard.
We have “Lie” buildup and backup and I suppose one day we’ll have to clean out the pipes.
Which gets me to this: “It needs a reboot.”
Yeah, and who is going to run that one, the same lying liars — the people – who ran the last piece of sh*t?
You? Probably not, given the passive voiced construction of “It needs …”
But I guarantee you this, the reboot will require a long period of the jackboot, because forcing your truth on the rest of us will require more violent truth than you can muster with a sorry militia.
You’ve handed out heavy weaponry to everyone and we will not go down easily because once you destroy a monopoly on force, everyone will enforce their own version of the Truth and we have roughly 320 million versions of that going and counting .. and the Founding Fathers knew that, but sort of lied about it, because they could only agree to truth expressed in broad platitudes, when they weren’t lying about their personal lives and their slave populations.
The Tutsis and the Hutus lived together under a cultural artifice for a long time before The Truth Fetishists had their way.
Eastern Europe and the Caucasus have lived a lie for centuries, punctuated by frequent outbreaks of Truth to adjust their artificial lying borders.
They prefer the artifice, at least the ones who are still alive.
The Comanche were TRUTH incarnate. Until the lying Christian cavalry imposed lying borders, fences, and the artifice of private property on them.
Have a nice day.
imo a ‘reboot’ would not bring paradise (or anything of an approximation)
Ya think?
Blacks in particular are subject to this phenomenon; in the extreme, actually, and to the point where black urban culture = prison culture.
What’s interesting to me in this line of argument is that even a guy like Charles Murray is reluctantly obliged to notice that when white folks are placed in social and economic conditions similar to those of the “urban blacks”, lo and behold they demonstrate the same social dysfunction.
E tu, white man?
So, I’m not sure skin color has much to do with it.
imo a ‘reboot’ would not bring paradise (or anything of an approximation)
Ya think?
Blacks in particular are subject to this phenomenon; in the extreme, actually, and to the point where black urban culture = prison culture.
What’s interesting to me in this line of argument is that even a guy like Charles Murray is reluctantly obliged to notice that when white folks are placed in social and economic conditions similar to those of the “urban blacks”, lo and behold they demonstrate the same social dysfunction.
E tu, white man?
So, I’m not sure skin color has much to do with it.
And I get mocked for saying that liberals appear to have no concept of “necessary evil”.
. . .
I hate government, but am resigned to tolerating it where it’s necessary. Which is only a tiny fraction of where it’s currently used, here in America.
Apologies, I wasn’t trying to mock you, Brett. (Any more than I expect you intended mockery by calliung someone who is just a slightly less pure conservative and milder libertarian than yourself, a “liberal”.) Just trying to understand.
So what I guess I need to ask is: What constitutes “necessary”? Do you have a rule of thumb for deciding if something is necessary enough to warrant government action? Or what? I ask because I don’t recall hardly anything, beyond defense of the borders, where you agreed that something met that standard. (And I note that, absent government, there wouldn’t even be borders to defend.)
And I get mocked for saying that liberals appear to have no concept of “necessary evil”.
. . .
I hate government, but am resigned to tolerating it where it’s necessary. Which is only a tiny fraction of where it’s currently used, here in America.
Apologies, I wasn’t trying to mock you, Brett. (Any more than I expect you intended mockery by calliung someone who is just a slightly less pure conservative and milder libertarian than yourself, a “liberal”.) Just trying to understand.
So what I guess I need to ask is: What constitutes “necessary”? Do you have a rule of thumb for deciding if something is necessary enough to warrant government action? Or what? I ask because I don’t recall hardly anything, beyond defense of the borders, where you agreed that something met that standard. (And I note that, absent government, there wouldn’t even be borders to defend.)
If only no one had coined the phrase “necessary evil,” we’d be having an entirely different conversation. Maybe, in some alternate reality, they use “necessary unpleasantry” and Brett’s analog strains to be hyperbolic while ranting about government being unpleasant.
If only no one had coined the phrase “necessary evil,” we’d be having an entirely different conversation. Maybe, in some alternate reality, they use “necessary unpleasantry” and Brett’s analog strains to be hyperbolic while ranting about government being unpleasant.
A difference in the US is that we are not as homogeneous a society as those we are compared to.
That is not a ‘difference’ which accounts for anything. You imprison vastly more individuals as a proportion of total population than any other state on the planet, irrespective of homogeneity.
For example, crime rates have fallen in London over the last couple of decades, as diversity has increased. London is rather less ‘homogeneous’ than the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_kingdom#Demographics
Ethnic diversity varies significantly across the UK. 30.4% of London’s population[299] and 37.4% of Leicester’s[300] was estimated to be non-white in 2005, whereas less than 5% of the populations of North East England, Wales and the South West were from ethnic minorities according to the 2001 census.[301] In 2011, 26.5% of primary and 22.2% of secondary pupils at state schools in England were members of an ethnic minority…
I think you need to spend some time with Mr. Coates.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/the-secret-lives-of-inner-city-black-males/284454/
A difference in the US is that we are not as homogeneous a society as those we are compared to.
That is not a ‘difference’ which accounts for anything. You imprison vastly more individuals as a proportion of total population than any other state on the planet, irrespective of homogeneity.
For example, crime rates have fallen in London over the last couple of decades, as diversity has increased. London is rather less ‘homogeneous’ than the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_kingdom#Demographics
Ethnic diversity varies significantly across the UK. 30.4% of London’s population[299] and 37.4% of Leicester’s[300] was estimated to be non-white in 2005, whereas less than 5% of the populations of North East England, Wales and the South West were from ethnic minorities according to the 2001 census.[301] In 2011, 26.5% of primary and 22.2% of secondary pupils at state schools in England were members of an ethnic minority…
I think you need to spend some time with Mr. Coates.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/the-secret-lives-of-inner-city-black-males/284454/
Please, PLEASE, don’t take the following as being racist. I don’t intend it that way.
Introductions of this kind are terribly fraught. It might be better to apologize for making a meta-racist argument rather than asking people not to take what you’re about to write as being racist – only because, the vast majority of the time, when people ask you not to think what they’re about to say is racist, it’s because it’s racist.
Please, PLEASE, don’t take the following as being racist. I don’t intend it that way.
Introductions of this kind are terribly fraught. It might be better to apologize for making a meta-racist argument rather than asking people not to take what you’re about to write as being racist – only because, the vast majority of the time, when people ask you not to think what they’re about to say is racist, it’s because it’s racist.
And, no, I don’t have a statistical cite for that. It’s just a law of rhetoric.
And, no, I don’t have a statistical cite for that. It’s just a law of rhetoric.
That the planet Pluto could have been treated as well when they were disqualifying it as a planet on account of its insufficient girth. Hey, I’m Pluto and I’m big, too!
Count, I think the standard currently is “it has to be bigger than the Earth’s moon in order to count as a planet.” Mercury is (barely); Pluto isn’t.
It’s a very self-centered standard, obviously. After all, why not use the biggest moon in the system? answer: Because then Mercury wouldn’t quality — and no standard gets accepted which would disquality any of the planets known to the ancients. (Oh.)
That the planet Pluto could have been treated as well when they were disqualifying it as a planet on account of its insufficient girth. Hey, I’m Pluto and I’m big, too!
Count, I think the standard currently is “it has to be bigger than the Earth’s moon in order to count as a planet.” Mercury is (barely); Pluto isn’t.
It’s a very self-centered standard, obviously. After all, why not use the biggest moon in the system? answer: Because then Mercury wouldn’t quality — and no standard gets accepted which would disquality any of the planets known to the ancients. (Oh.)
“What’s interesting to me in this line of argument is that even a guy like Charles Murray is reluctantly obliged to notice that when white folks are placed in social and economic conditions similar to those of the “urban blacks”, lo and behold they demonstrate the same social dysfunction.”
Russell, I am not by any means “informed” when it comes to criminology. I just chose that handle because I started commenting here on a topic where I am relatively informed).
And, again, I am definitely not proposing an anthropological cause for minority criminal behavior. So you and Murray could be correct.
What I see is a strong correlation between urban and crime, but there are other variables at play. So we have a regression equation with all variables contributing to unknown extents; urban, economic status, social status, education, race/ethnicity, single parent, and who knows what else.
Some where in the equation one or more of the variables is significant in its difference from other industrialized societies.
Urban is one that seems obvious to me. In Europe urban environments are populated by well educated middle class to upper class working folks, whereas in the US, the same tend to work in urban environments, but live in suburban. I have to stop here because I could ramble on at book length and get no where. Indeed, books have been written on the topic.
One thing I do know is that in small town US, violent crime (the kind that gets you locked up) is much less and I am pretty sure that this is because everyone knows everyone else AND everyone feels a part of the community. It is much more difficult, psychology, to kill or otherwise criminally violate those who you know well, those you identify with even if there is economic disparity. Yet urban minorities regularly murder and violate the people on the next block over. So there goes my theory, out the window. Something is different about US. What I don’t know. I’ll shut up now and just follow a long for a while.
“What’s interesting to me in this line of argument is that even a guy like Charles Murray is reluctantly obliged to notice that when white folks are placed in social and economic conditions similar to those of the “urban blacks”, lo and behold they demonstrate the same social dysfunction.”
Russell, I am not by any means “informed” when it comes to criminology. I just chose that handle because I started commenting here on a topic where I am relatively informed).
And, again, I am definitely not proposing an anthropological cause for minority criminal behavior. So you and Murray could be correct.
What I see is a strong correlation between urban and crime, but there are other variables at play. So we have a regression equation with all variables contributing to unknown extents; urban, economic status, social status, education, race/ethnicity, single parent, and who knows what else.
Some where in the equation one or more of the variables is significant in its difference from other industrialized societies.
Urban is one that seems obvious to me. In Europe urban environments are populated by well educated middle class to upper class working folks, whereas in the US, the same tend to work in urban environments, but live in suburban. I have to stop here because I could ramble on at book length and get no where. Indeed, books have been written on the topic.
One thing I do know is that in small town US, violent crime (the kind that gets you locked up) is much less and I am pretty sure that this is because everyone knows everyone else AND everyone feels a part of the community. It is much more difficult, psychology, to kill or otherwise criminally violate those who you know well, those you identify with even if there is economic disparity. Yet urban minorities regularly murder and violate the people on the next block over. So there goes my theory, out the window. Something is different about US. What I don’t know. I’ll shut up now and just follow a long for a while.
I’m not sure that small town crime crime is deterred much by people knowing each other. I have more the impression that small town crime is caused by people knowing each other.
But, regardless, my concern about crime isn’t the mugging, rape, burglary, etc sort of crime. My concern is the sociopathy that seems to affect people who have power. (Or maybe sociopaths are better at getting power? I’m not sure of the cause/effect). The classic example is the economic collapse we went through which was caused on large part by nefarious behavior from people who got no consequences themselves and didn’t give a shit about consequences to others. But wait, their schemes weren’t illegal! Is that because the sociopaths write the laws an legalize their theft, con games, and vandalism?
I’m saying that the oil spills and fracking messes are more significant to me than graffiti. I’m saying that the foreclosures and cascade of economic dislocations seem to me to be the result of a far worse con than what any ordinary fraudster could come up with. And the looting of our treasury by companies that profited from our adventure in Iraq–why didn’t anyone from Halliburton go to jail?
The gun fans of America are all “I’ve got to have a gun to defend myself.” Defend themselves from who? Unless they are planning to shoot the Koch brothers, they are aiming at the wrong threat.
We have tons of people in jail and the illusion of a high crime rate for the same reason that there is a popular myth about high taxes being caused by people being lazy and spending their Food Stamps on salmon.
.
I’m not sure that small town crime crime is deterred much by people knowing each other. I have more the impression that small town crime is caused by people knowing each other.
But, regardless, my concern about crime isn’t the mugging, rape, burglary, etc sort of crime. My concern is the sociopathy that seems to affect people who have power. (Or maybe sociopaths are better at getting power? I’m not sure of the cause/effect). The classic example is the economic collapse we went through which was caused on large part by nefarious behavior from people who got no consequences themselves and didn’t give a shit about consequences to others. But wait, their schemes weren’t illegal! Is that because the sociopaths write the laws an legalize their theft, con games, and vandalism?
I’m saying that the oil spills and fracking messes are more significant to me than graffiti. I’m saying that the foreclosures and cascade of economic dislocations seem to me to be the result of a far worse con than what any ordinary fraudster could come up with. And the looting of our treasury by companies that profited from our adventure in Iraq–why didn’t anyone from Halliburton go to jail?
The gun fans of America are all “I’ve got to have a gun to defend myself.” Defend themselves from who? Unless they are planning to shoot the Koch brothers, they are aiming at the wrong threat.
We have tons of people in jail and the illusion of a high crime rate for the same reason that there is a popular myth about high taxes being caused by people being lazy and spending their Food Stamps on salmon.
.
How many billions do we spend annually to stomp out the addictive personality disorder of about 1/2 million people?
Here, I think, we see the core of the Drug War part of the prison issue. We don’t deal generally with addictive personality disorder. Instead, we deal with the disorder in the case of some of the ways it manifests (e.g. gambling addiction). And in other cases we just criminalize the way it manifests.
Is there really much of a difference, in terms of its ability to harm those around the addict, between being hooked on a drug and being hooked on, say, gambling or alcohol? And we know, and have demonstrated conclusively, that criminalization does nothing to eliminate the problem. All it does is 1) provide large profits from anyone willing to break the law to be a supplier, 2) create more crime, but having addicts forced to commit them in order to fund their habit — which is more expensive due to 1), and 3) prevent effective restrictions on supplying the addictive behavior of minors. #3 being why it is easier for a high school student to buy marijuana than to buy beer.
We have tried the “legistlating morality” approach. Never works. Pretty clearly time to make a serious attempt at the “public health” approach. (Not really seeing us going for the libertarian “let them deal with it on their own” approach any time soon.)
How many billions do we spend annually to stomp out the addictive personality disorder of about 1/2 million people?
Here, I think, we see the core of the Drug War part of the prison issue. We don’t deal generally with addictive personality disorder. Instead, we deal with the disorder in the case of some of the ways it manifests (e.g. gambling addiction). And in other cases we just criminalize the way it manifests.
Is there really much of a difference, in terms of its ability to harm those around the addict, between being hooked on a drug and being hooked on, say, gambling or alcohol? And we know, and have demonstrated conclusively, that criminalization does nothing to eliminate the problem. All it does is 1) provide large profits from anyone willing to break the law to be a supplier, 2) create more crime, but having addicts forced to commit them in order to fund their habit — which is more expensive due to 1), and 3) prevent effective restrictions on supplying the addictive behavior of minors. #3 being why it is easier for a high school student to buy marijuana than to buy beer.
We have tried the “legistlating morality” approach. Never works. Pretty clearly time to make a serious attempt at the “public health” approach. (Not really seeing us going for the libertarian “let them deal with it on their own” approach any time soon.)
bobbyp:
1. Drug dealers are nasty people, and should be dealt with aggressively. Agree.
2. Many people who buy drugs are relatively well off, and drug addiction does not necessarily lead to total social impairment. Agree.
3. Approaching the problem more along the lines of public heath would be a good public policy. Automatically jailing addicts doesn’t help anyone. Agree.
4. ????????????
5. Therefore it is complicated.
Please provide more in the way of an explanation of step 4.
Step 4: Buying drugs and supporting nasty people is a bad idea, just as buying ivory and supporting elephant poachers is a bad idea. In order to deter people from supporting this miserable business, some degree of criminal responsibility is appropriate.
And you’re right. I agree with Kleiman.
bobbyp:
1. Drug dealers are nasty people, and should be dealt with aggressively. Agree.
2. Many people who buy drugs are relatively well off, and drug addiction does not necessarily lead to total social impairment. Agree.
3. Approaching the problem more along the lines of public heath would be a good public policy. Automatically jailing addicts doesn’t help anyone. Agree.
4. ????????????
5. Therefore it is complicated.
Please provide more in the way of an explanation of step 4.
Step 4: Buying drugs and supporting nasty people is a bad idea, just as buying ivory and supporting elephant poachers is a bad idea. In order to deter people from supporting this miserable business, some degree of criminal responsibility is appropriate.
And you’re right. I agree with Kleiman.
Something is different about US.
I’d say a lot is different about the US. I think one of the main drivers is how much trust we put into the system (of course, the libertarian says we trust the system too much :P). And perversely, we also trust the system too little.
An example of too much: I recently served on a drug crime jury. The general feeling was (a) LEOs tell the truth (‘why would he lie?’ I heard so many times). (b) basic paperwork was just a hassle (there were ‘problems’ with the officers testimony and the prosecution was basically: yeah, nobody has time for all that stuff). and (c) if the mexican guy was accused of a drug crime, he’s probably guilty (related: http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/25/naming-and-shaming-federal-prosecutor-edition-assistant-united-states-attorney-sam-l-ponder/).
Due process is what dragged people to the courthouse and inconvenienced them, not a fundamental right that we all have a duty to participate in.
On the other side of the coin, we trust the system too little. We hear cases where people get off with a slap on the wrist (like the affluenza case) and it makes us angry, and we pass laws like 3 strikes, and mandatory minimums, and sentencing enhancements.
But people don’t get off easy because the laws are too harsh. They get off easy because they are connected, and prosecutors (and juries, and judges) have massive leeway in what to charge and convict people with. If they have a good defense team, all those sentencing enhancements go away. They won’t be charged with crimes that come with mandatory minimums, they will be charged with related crimes.
It means people who commit basically the same crime can face sentences with dramatically different amount of jail time.
And the poor, and poorly represented, get screwed.
Something is different about US.
I’d say a lot is different about the US. I think one of the main drivers is how much trust we put into the system (of course, the libertarian says we trust the system too much :P). And perversely, we also trust the system too little.
An example of too much: I recently served on a drug crime jury. The general feeling was (a) LEOs tell the truth (‘why would he lie?’ I heard so many times). (b) basic paperwork was just a hassle (there were ‘problems’ with the officers testimony and the prosecution was basically: yeah, nobody has time for all that stuff). and (c) if the mexican guy was accused of a drug crime, he’s probably guilty (related: http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/25/naming-and-shaming-federal-prosecutor-edition-assistant-united-states-attorney-sam-l-ponder/).
Due process is what dragged people to the courthouse and inconvenienced them, not a fundamental right that we all have a duty to participate in.
On the other side of the coin, we trust the system too little. We hear cases where people get off with a slap on the wrist (like the affluenza case) and it makes us angry, and we pass laws like 3 strikes, and mandatory minimums, and sentencing enhancements.
But people don’t get off easy because the laws are too harsh. They get off easy because they are connected, and prosecutors (and juries, and judges) have massive leeway in what to charge and convict people with. If they have a good defense team, all those sentencing enhancements go away. They won’t be charged with crimes that come with mandatory minimums, they will be charged with related crimes.
It means people who commit basically the same crime can face sentences with dramatically different amount of jail time.
And the poor, and poorly represented, get screwed.
This is in keeping with my (admittedly quite limited) familiarity with corrections outside of the military system, which I know first-hand (and which is generally more preferable to be in than the civie federal system, for pretty much the same reasons the federal is preferable to the states). So not really adding anything here other than setting my concurring anecdata down next to Marty’s.
This is in keeping with my (admittedly quite limited) familiarity with corrections outside of the military system, which I know first-hand (and which is generally more preferable to be in than the civie federal system, for pretty much the same reasons the federal is preferable to the states). So not really adding anything here other than setting my concurring anecdata down next to Marty’s.
I’m not sure that small town crime crime is deterred much by people knowing each other. I have more the impression that small town crime is caused by people knowing each other.
But, regardless, my concern about crime isn’t the mugging, rape, burglary, etc sort of crime. My concern is the sociopathy that seems to affect people who have power.
Having lived and worked in both large and small towns, as well as relatively high crime areas and low crime areas, I’m going to say small towns are generally safer, in my experience. And while I’ve been fortunate enough to not be the victim of violent crime, I have friends and family that have been.
Not criticizing your second concern, nor trying to argue that violent street crime is a huge problem in the US. It’s not, overall.
But it is in some areas, and those areas have people that are rightfully concerned about being mugged, murdered, and raped. I would be careful about belittling those concerns.
I’m not sure that small town crime crime is deterred much by people knowing each other. I have more the impression that small town crime is caused by people knowing each other.
But, regardless, my concern about crime isn’t the mugging, rape, burglary, etc sort of crime. My concern is the sociopathy that seems to affect people who have power.
Having lived and worked in both large and small towns, as well as relatively high crime areas and low crime areas, I’m going to say small towns are generally safer, in my experience. And while I’ve been fortunate enough to not be the victim of violent crime, I have friends and family that have been.
Not criticizing your second concern, nor trying to argue that violent street crime is a huge problem in the US. It’s not, overall.
But it is in some areas, and those areas have people that are rightfully concerned about being mugged, murdered, and raped. I would be careful about belittling those concerns.
wj:
Agree with you overall, but this always makes me wince:
#3 being why it is easier for a high school student to buy marijuana than to buy beer.
That’s not quite representative of the truth:
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2013/feb/16/edith-ajello/rhode-island-state-rep-edith-ajello-says-studies-i/
But the real point is that the massive cost (human and economic) of the drug war has really done very little to make drugs hard to get.
I mean, I live in CA and see people smoking weed all the time. Last time I was in SF I saw someone smoking crack (or maybe meth, I dunno) on the sidewalk in the middle of the day.
The Drug war, like Prohibition, has failed. We need a new approach. I say we follow Portugal’s example (in this way).
wj:
Agree with you overall, but this always makes me wince:
#3 being why it is easier for a high school student to buy marijuana than to buy beer.
That’s not quite representative of the truth:
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2013/feb/16/edith-ajello/rhode-island-state-rep-edith-ajello-says-studies-i/
But the real point is that the massive cost (human and economic) of the drug war has really done very little to make drugs hard to get.
I mean, I live in CA and see people smoking weed all the time. Last time I was in SF I saw someone smoking crack (or maybe meth, I dunno) on the sidewalk in the middle of the day.
The Drug war, like Prohibition, has failed. We need a new approach. I say we follow Portugal’s example (in this way).
Step 4: Buying drugs and supporting nasty people is a bad idea, just as buying ivory and supporting elephant poachers is a bad idea.
I have no big beef against your position, I just think you (and Kleiman) err too far on the punitive side.
Also the analogy with the ivory poaching is a poor one. The ivory market is one characterized by limited supply and high demand. Without state intervention the supply would be totally consumed, much as we consume other limited natural resources. In the heroin market the supply constriction is totally artificial, a creation of law.
They are thus in no way analogous.
A more fitting analogy is alcohol. We ran the bootleggers out of business with legalization. I hear they were pretty nasty, too. Some of them moved on to drug dealing.
Now who could have foreseen that?
Step 4: Buying drugs and supporting nasty people is a bad idea, just as buying ivory and supporting elephant poachers is a bad idea.
I have no big beef against your position, I just think you (and Kleiman) err too far on the punitive side.
Also the analogy with the ivory poaching is a poor one. The ivory market is one characterized by limited supply and high demand. Without state intervention the supply would be totally consumed, much as we consume other limited natural resources. In the heroin market the supply constriction is totally artificial, a creation of law.
They are thus in no way analogous.
A more fitting analogy is alcohol. We ran the bootleggers out of business with legalization. I hear they were pretty nasty, too. Some of them moved on to drug dealing.
Now who could have foreseen that?
As an aside on the drugs issue, it might be useful to distinguish between (for example) marijuana vs opiates.
IMVHO no good thing whatsoever comes from marijuana being against the law. Same for entheogenic plants. I can see making it against the law to operate cars or heavy equipment while using, other than that I see no point in laws against.
Opiates and drugs with very high risk of addiction, and drugs that are actually physically harmful to users (for example, bagging glue) are a different story.
As an aside on the drugs issue, it might be useful to distinguish between (for example) marijuana vs opiates.
IMVHO no good thing whatsoever comes from marijuana being against the law. Same for entheogenic plants. I can see making it against the law to operate cars or heavy equipment while using, other than that I see no point in laws against.
Opiates and drugs with very high risk of addiction, and drugs that are actually physically harmful to users (for example, bagging glue) are a different story.
A more fitting analogy is alcohol. We ran the bootleggers out of business with legalization. I hear they were pretty nasty, too. Some of them moved on to drug dealing.
Alcohol is different. It has a longstanding cultural and religious significance for many people. It’s easy to make at home, and people have done so for millenia. In small doses, it has health benefits for adults. Obviously, there are many people who become addicted to alcohol and shouldn’t use it, but prohibiting its use for everyone was a public policy bound to fail.
IMVHO no good thing whatsoever comes from marijuana being against the law.
Agreed.
A more fitting analogy is alcohol. We ran the bootleggers out of business with legalization. I hear they were pretty nasty, too. Some of them moved on to drug dealing.
Alcohol is different. It has a longstanding cultural and religious significance for many people. It’s easy to make at home, and people have done so for millenia. In small doses, it has health benefits for adults. Obviously, there are many people who become addicted to alcohol and shouldn’t use it, but prohibiting its use for everyone was a public policy bound to fail.
IMVHO no good thing whatsoever comes from marijuana being against the law.
Agreed.
Whatever the historical pattern, at this point an enormous number of people are capable of growing marijuana for personal use. And an increasing number of them are doing so. Which means that that distinction is fading.
Likewise, there seem to be health benefits, in some cases, to using it. (Personally, I’m extremely allergic. But that’s just me.) So that distinction is also doubtful.
In short, at this point we could expect prohibiting its use to everyone to fail, just as prohibition did with alcohol. Even if we didn’t already know from experience that it has failed. Massively.
And what that suggests is that not only will prohibition fail for substances with a long history of use. It will fail to keep other substances from becoming widely used. There may be a way of keeping people from doing something “for their own good”> But a simple legal prohibition, even backed up with a lot of propaganda, isn’t it.
Whatever the historical pattern, at this point an enormous number of people are capable of growing marijuana for personal use. And an increasing number of them are doing so. Which means that that distinction is fading.
Likewise, there seem to be health benefits, in some cases, to using it. (Personally, I’m extremely allergic. But that’s just me.) So that distinction is also doubtful.
In short, at this point we could expect prohibiting its use to everyone to fail, just as prohibition did with alcohol. Even if we didn’t already know from experience that it has failed. Massively.
And what that suggests is that not only will prohibition fail for substances with a long history of use. It will fail to keep other substances from becoming widely used. There may be a way of keeping people from doing something “for their own good”> But a simple legal prohibition, even backed up with a lot of propaganda, isn’t it.
My earlier comment might be appropriate now. If I could grow coca and make tea with it, would that be okay? It would probably be difficult for me to grow enough coca to refine it and produce a significant quantity of powder cocaine, I’m guessing (if I could grow it at all). What could I do with poppies?
Much of the hard stuff is hard stuff because it’s refined. Some stuff isn’t natural at all – like meth, ecstasy, and PCP. Ecstacy isn’t quite in the same category as the other two for ruining people’s lives or turning them into lunatics, though.
Make stuff legal in it’s natural form, if it has one. See what that does to the illegal trade in the refined forms.
My earlier comment might be appropriate now. If I could grow coca and make tea with it, would that be okay? It would probably be difficult for me to grow enough coca to refine it and produce a significant quantity of powder cocaine, I’m guessing (if I could grow it at all). What could I do with poppies?
Much of the hard stuff is hard stuff because it’s refined. Some stuff isn’t natural at all – like meth, ecstasy, and PCP. Ecstacy isn’t quite in the same category as the other two for ruining people’s lives or turning them into lunatics, though.
Make stuff legal in it’s natural form, if it has one. See what that does to the illegal trade in the refined forms.
Conversely, have you ever heard of wax?
It’s essentially a high-potency marijuana extract. I don’t remember where I saw a TV program about it, but there was a contest in Colorado, I think, to see who could make the most intense version of it. Smoke a bit too much and you might end up high for a couple of days or end up in the emergency room, um, freaked out, let’s say.
Conversely, have you ever heard of wax?
It’s essentially a high-potency marijuana extract. I don’t remember where I saw a TV program about it, but there was a contest in Colorado, I think, to see who could make the most intense version of it. Smoke a bit too much and you might end up high for a couple of days or end up in the emergency room, um, freaked out, let’s say.
Make stuff legal in it’s natural form, if it has one. See what that does to the illegal trade in the refined forms.
That makes sense to me. I don’t really see the point of banning the personal use of plants, especially if you grow them yourself.
Make stuff legal in it’s natural form, if it has one. See what that does to the illegal trade in the refined forms.
That makes sense to me. I don’t really see the point of banning the personal use of plants, especially if you grow them yourself.
If I could grow coca and make tea with it, would that be okay?
My opinion would be yes, that should be OK. Same with poppies.
And per sapient’s point, both are plants with many centuries of common use as basic folk medicines. As is marijuana.
If I could grow coca and make tea with it, would that be okay?
My opinion would be yes, that should be OK. Same with poppies.
And per sapient’s point, both are plants with many centuries of common use as basic folk medicines. As is marijuana.
Alcohol is different.
I do not find this persuasive. As a society we absorb billions of dollars per year of damage from alcohol. I have the dead brain cells to prove it. We accept it as a matter of course.
But a few hundred dirty addicted slobs shooting up in a park is enough to bring down a good program (Switzerland ‘failure’)?
Seriously?
Perhaps the better analogy is the growing painkiller market and its associated large and growing problems:
1. Sold by criminals? Check.
2. Highly addictive? Check.
3. Death by overdose? Check.
But no. Providing low cost heroin to a few thousand folks under sanitary conditions free of social stigma would be a calamity.
Better to criminalize it and spend billions in a futile effort to “stamp it out”, enrich the criminal class, corrode the integrity of our criminal justice system, and fill our deplorable prisons.
In a few decades we can wax eloquent about the cultural attributes of hydrocodone.
Alcohol is different.
I do not find this persuasive. As a society we absorb billions of dollars per year of damage from alcohol. I have the dead brain cells to prove it. We accept it as a matter of course.
But a few hundred dirty addicted slobs shooting up in a park is enough to bring down a good program (Switzerland ‘failure’)?
Seriously?
Perhaps the better analogy is the growing painkiller market and its associated large and growing problems:
1. Sold by criminals? Check.
2. Highly addictive? Check.
3. Death by overdose? Check.
But no. Providing low cost heroin to a few thousand folks under sanitary conditions free of social stigma would be a calamity.
Better to criminalize it and spend billions in a futile effort to “stamp it out”, enrich the criminal class, corrode the integrity of our criminal justice system, and fill our deplorable prisons.
In a few decades we can wax eloquent about the cultural attributes of hydrocodone.
Although you observe that, it turns out that most of the stuff that happened on Wall Street was not illegal.
There was the widespread use of misrepresented documents, foregeries, and perjuries during foreclosure processes. Widespread enough that I suspect a prosecutor could make a strong case that this was institutional rather than the entire department ‘going rogue’ (assuming that they couldn’t have found email trails- had they looked), and pursued the higher-ups. But certainly, a large number of underlings committed a large number of actual crimes, with basically zero prosecutions.
Or there was the libor scandal. Or the municipal bond auction rigging. I think any of these qualify for criminal prosecution, iirc the statues covering this sort of thing are very broad (since they can’t describe ahead of time every variety of fraud).
Although you observe that, it turns out that most of the stuff that happened on Wall Street was not illegal.
There was the widespread use of misrepresented documents, foregeries, and perjuries during foreclosure processes. Widespread enough that I suspect a prosecutor could make a strong case that this was institutional rather than the entire department ‘going rogue’ (assuming that they couldn’t have found email trails- had they looked), and pursued the higher-ups. But certainly, a large number of underlings committed a large number of actual crimes, with basically zero prosecutions.
Or there was the libor scandal. Or the municipal bond auction rigging. I think any of these qualify for criminal prosecution, iirc the statues covering this sort of thing are very broad (since they can’t describe ahead of time every variety of fraud).
Although you observe that, it turns out that most of the stuff that happened on Wall Street was not illegal.
Many of the mortgage loans originated during the housing boom were illegal and/or criminal in a wide variety of ways. This criminal activity was condoned all the way up the chain to the Wall Street investment banks could package them up and sell them and securities and make a variety of bets as to their financial worth.
See here, for example.
Although you observe that, it turns out that most of the stuff that happened on Wall Street was not illegal.
Many of the mortgage loans originated during the housing boom were illegal and/or criminal in a wide variety of ways. This criminal activity was condoned all the way up the chain to the Wall Street investment banks could package them up and sell them and securities and make a variety of bets as to their financial worth.
See here, for example.
I’m not sure that the term “epithet” really fits calling the Democratic party the “Democrat” party. If I were to call you a “Democrat”, would you feel insulted? Think I’d sworn at you?
The difference between nouns and adjectives, important it is. Learn it you should. Disappointed, your elementary school teacher is.
So what it comes down to is this, Brett: everything that government does is done by making a criminal of anybody who refuses to obey. And if your position is that this is evil, then what you appear to be saying is that you want no government whatsoever — that is, absolute anarchy.
And Brett prepares for phase two of Operation BaitNSwitch, wherein he describes the limited government that consists of the stuff he wants done and how it is the minimum reasonable government. Proofs from phase one (eg that the existence of any law is equivalent to tyranny) *are not available for use* in phase two.
I hate government, but am resigned to tolerating it where it’s necessary.
And we’re off. Only laws which Brett deems ‘necessary’ pass the filter of ‘necessary evil’ which liberals are mysteriously unable to see. Because we cannot see through Brett’s skull to the Secret “Necessary Evil” Consitutional Amendment contained within.
Our judicial system is warped, as is our whole federal system, by the need to staff it with people who will read a limited government constitution to authorize the Leviathan. Fundamentally, we can’t have honest government, because our current government is based on lying.
I see no evidence whatsoever that the federal- let alone state- judicial systems have a problem that originates in Constitutional interpretation (since they spend very little time on matters of Constutional interpretation). Ive go a picture in my head of a DA putting on his tie, preparing for work, and suddenly freezing in place- how can he prosecute this assault case knowing that Kelo was wrongly decided? And we all know it was, because Brett thinks so and we all secretly agree with Brett & therefore when we dispute with Brett over ‘necessary evil’ or Constitutional interpretation, we are lying.
btw, that picture in my head? It’s a cartoon.
I’m not sure that the term “epithet” really fits calling the Democratic party the “Democrat” party. If I were to call you a “Democrat”, would you feel insulted? Think I’d sworn at you?
The difference between nouns and adjectives, important it is. Learn it you should. Disappointed, your elementary school teacher is.
So what it comes down to is this, Brett: everything that government does is done by making a criminal of anybody who refuses to obey. And if your position is that this is evil, then what you appear to be saying is that you want no government whatsoever — that is, absolute anarchy.
And Brett prepares for phase two of Operation BaitNSwitch, wherein he describes the limited government that consists of the stuff he wants done and how it is the minimum reasonable government. Proofs from phase one (eg that the existence of any law is equivalent to tyranny) *are not available for use* in phase two.
I hate government, but am resigned to tolerating it where it’s necessary.
And we’re off. Only laws which Brett deems ‘necessary’ pass the filter of ‘necessary evil’ which liberals are mysteriously unable to see. Because we cannot see through Brett’s skull to the Secret “Necessary Evil” Consitutional Amendment contained within.
Our judicial system is warped, as is our whole federal system, by the need to staff it with people who will read a limited government constitution to authorize the Leviathan. Fundamentally, we can’t have honest government, because our current government is based on lying.
I see no evidence whatsoever that the federal- let alone state- judicial systems have a problem that originates in Constitutional interpretation (since they spend very little time on matters of Constutional interpretation). Ive go a picture in my head of a DA putting on his tie, preparing for work, and suddenly freezing in place- how can he prosecute this assault case knowing that Kelo was wrongly decided? And we all know it was, because Brett thinks so and we all secretly agree with Brett & therefore when we dispute with Brett over ‘necessary evil’ or Constitutional interpretation, we are lying.
btw, that picture in my head? It’s a cartoon.
I did not intend to belittle concerns about street crime. I’m sorry that my comment came off that way–I can see how it did. So rephrase: while I share concerns about street crime, I think that overall the sociopath of powerful people does more harm to more people and therefore is of more concern to me,
BTW I live in a small town and it is safe in terms of random street crime. Crime here is either drug-related (drunk driving), poverty-related (failure to pay drunk driving fines or something like that) or personal (murder). But rapes and muggings are very unusual. Even robberies tend to between acquaintances–that’s how the robber finds out what to take and when to get it.
I did not intend to belittle concerns about street crime. I’m sorry that my comment came off that way–I can see how it did. So rephrase: while I share concerns about street crime, I think that overall the sociopath of powerful people does more harm to more people and therefore is of more concern to me,
BTW I live in a small town and it is safe in terms of random street crime. Crime here is either drug-related (drunk driving), poverty-related (failure to pay drunk driving fines or something like that) or personal (murder). But rapes and muggings are very unusual. Even robberies tend to between acquaintances–that’s how the robber finds out what to take and when to get it.
Carleton, they tried to prosecute bankers and it didn’t work. They got off. Everyone loves to speak in general terms about fraud this, misrepresentation that. It takes more to prove a criminal case against a single individual in a court. The laws allowed a lot of really ridiculous business practices to happen. That’s what the late ’90’s and the early ‘2000’s was all about. It sucks, but trying to put a case together against real people involves finding evidence. You can find all kinds of people who want to pontificate about it, including Jed Rakoff, to whom the letter by Marty Robins that I linked to was responding. The letter reminds us that Rakoff himself sits on the court where one of the most important of these cases was tried (and failed). Rakoff responded to the letter (same link) complaining that the prosecutors didn’t do a good enough job.
Okay, so federal prosecutors are putzes, and if only we had superman federal prosecutor, all the bad bankers would be in jail.
But then bobbyp presents his case, linking to someone who really knows his stuff! (From the article: “Since this was a widespread practice and not the work of a few rogue agents, presumably office managers told these agents to get mortgages and that proper documentation did not matter.” Wow! Case closed!) He wants to prosecute the mortgage agents (you know, the guys who make $50,000 a year processing mortgages). Yeah, just like Abu Ghraib, spend a zillion dollars of taxpayer money putting more middle class slobs out of work.
Of course, the mortgage crisis should have been criminal. But guess why it wasn’t? It was, for the most part, legal. Why? Because despite the valor of the American people in a lot of ways, they are easily duped by “free market” b.s., and hate “big government” which provides adequate regulation.
In short, the financial crisis was a result of the libertarian love affair: let bankers be bankers.
Carleton, they tried to prosecute bankers and it didn’t work. They got off. Everyone loves to speak in general terms about fraud this, misrepresentation that. It takes more to prove a criminal case against a single individual in a court. The laws allowed a lot of really ridiculous business practices to happen. That’s what the late ’90’s and the early ‘2000’s was all about. It sucks, but trying to put a case together against real people involves finding evidence. You can find all kinds of people who want to pontificate about it, including Jed Rakoff, to whom the letter by Marty Robins that I linked to was responding. The letter reminds us that Rakoff himself sits on the court where one of the most important of these cases was tried (and failed). Rakoff responded to the letter (same link) complaining that the prosecutors didn’t do a good enough job.
Okay, so federal prosecutors are putzes, and if only we had superman federal prosecutor, all the bad bankers would be in jail.
But then bobbyp presents his case, linking to someone who really knows his stuff! (From the article: “Since this was a widespread practice and not the work of a few rogue agents, presumably office managers told these agents to get mortgages and that proper documentation did not matter.” Wow! Case closed!) He wants to prosecute the mortgage agents (you know, the guys who make $50,000 a year processing mortgages). Yeah, just like Abu Ghraib, spend a zillion dollars of taxpayer money putting more middle class slobs out of work.
Of course, the mortgage crisis should have been criminal. But guess why it wasn’t? It was, for the most part, legal. Why? Because despite the valor of the American people in a lot of ways, they are easily duped by “free market” b.s., and hate “big government” which provides adequate regulation.
In short, the financial crisis was a result of the libertarian love affair: let bankers be bankers.
Laura:
I appreciate the clarification. I also see what you are saying about small town crime, it matches my experience as well.
And, again, I agree the criminally powerful are a major problem in this society.
I imagine our solutions to the problem differ, but that’s for another thread.
HSH:
I like your idea, I would probably carry it further longterm, but a step in the right direction is still a step in the right direction.
And nothing in drug policy can be done quickly. Sapient’s raised some concerns about what happens with harder drugs. It’s not unreasonable (even if I disagree), and that’s why I’d favor progressive decriminalization and legalization.
It allows for testing the waters, building support, and informing the next policy step.
Laura:
I appreciate the clarification. I also see what you are saying about small town crime, it matches my experience as well.
And, again, I agree the criminally powerful are a major problem in this society.
I imagine our solutions to the problem differ, but that’s for another thread.
HSH:
I like your idea, I would probably carry it further longterm, but a step in the right direction is still a step in the right direction.
And nothing in drug policy can be done quickly. Sapient’s raised some concerns about what happens with harder drugs. It’s not unreasonable (even if I disagree), and that’s why I’d favor progressive decriminalization and legalization.
It allows for testing the waters, building support, and informing the next policy step.
He wants to prosecute the mortgage agents
That “he” is Dean Baker relying on Bill Black who was a regulator who took on the miscreants in the S&L scandal. Are you trying to tell me he “doesn’t know his stuff”?
As for the “poor schlubs”: They broke the law. It is not inconceivable that somebody either told to do so, or put a lot of pressure on them.
He wants to prosecute the mortgage agents
That “he” is Dean Baker relying on Bill Black who was a regulator who took on the miscreants in the S&L scandal. Are you trying to tell me he “doesn’t know his stuff”?
As for the “poor schlubs”: They broke the law. It is not inconceivable that somebody either told to do so, or put a lot of pressure on them.
Carleton, they tried to prosecute bankers and it didn’t work. They got off.
The question being asked is whether many more prosecutions could’ve been attempted, with more vigorous investigation.
Certainly, there were a large number of criminal acts: forgeries, perjuries, etc. Were these done by underlings in response to pressure or direction from above?
Likewise the Libor manipulation. Likewise the muni bond auction fixing.
So we let the underlings off because they’re just underlings, and then we let the bosses off because we can’t prove anything because the underlings aren’t lining up to testify voluntarily (and incriminate themselves in the process), and we don’t seem particularly eager to dig out incriminating emails etc. Even when we’ve got hard evidence of eg muni bond auction manipulation, no one seems to be interested in the *trivial* dot-connecting from “manipulating the rates” to “manipulating the rates for fraudulent purposes.”
I repeat: fraud statues are very broad (as the judge noted). And while not every prosecution can be expected to end in a conviction, this doesn’t mean either 1)all of them would fail or 2)there isn’t a general disinclination to pursue banksters among the DAs of the country due to their class, wealth, and political connections.
It sucks, but trying to put a case together against real people involves finding evidence.
Thanks for the law lesson. But you missed a step- it involes *looking for* evidence. Not just sitting at your desk saying “well I dont see enough in the newspaper to get a conviction, so let’s go bust some poors who can’t afford lawyers.”
Seriously, if we went after drug dealers or mafiosi with this level of zeal we would have anarchy. *Those* criminals get investigators and prosecutors *trying* to convict them, *trying* to put cases together. Sometimes with *too much* zeal.
You can find all kinds of people who want to pontificate about it…
Im not a prosector, so Im limited in my scope of actions here. I think you’re aware of this point.
Okay, so federal prosecutors are putzes, and if only we had superman federal prosecutor, all the bad bankers would be in jail.
If only there were a difference between “better” and “perfect” we would be saved from this marauding strawman.
Carleton, they tried to prosecute bankers and it didn’t work. They got off.
The question being asked is whether many more prosecutions could’ve been attempted, with more vigorous investigation.
Certainly, there were a large number of criminal acts: forgeries, perjuries, etc. Were these done by underlings in response to pressure or direction from above?
Likewise the Libor manipulation. Likewise the muni bond auction fixing.
So we let the underlings off because they’re just underlings, and then we let the bosses off because we can’t prove anything because the underlings aren’t lining up to testify voluntarily (and incriminate themselves in the process), and we don’t seem particularly eager to dig out incriminating emails etc. Even when we’ve got hard evidence of eg muni bond auction manipulation, no one seems to be interested in the *trivial* dot-connecting from “manipulating the rates” to “manipulating the rates for fraudulent purposes.”
I repeat: fraud statues are very broad (as the judge noted). And while not every prosecution can be expected to end in a conviction, this doesn’t mean either 1)all of them would fail or 2)there isn’t a general disinclination to pursue banksters among the DAs of the country due to their class, wealth, and political connections.
It sucks, but trying to put a case together against real people involves finding evidence.
Thanks for the law lesson. But you missed a step- it involes *looking for* evidence. Not just sitting at your desk saying “well I dont see enough in the newspaper to get a conviction, so let’s go bust some poors who can’t afford lawyers.”
Seriously, if we went after drug dealers or mafiosi with this level of zeal we would have anarchy. *Those* criminals get investigators and prosecutors *trying* to convict them, *trying* to put cases together. Sometimes with *too much* zeal.
You can find all kinds of people who want to pontificate about it…
Im not a prosector, so Im limited in my scope of actions here. I think you’re aware of this point.
Okay, so federal prosecutors are putzes, and if only we had superman federal prosecutor, all the bad bankers would be in jail.
If only there were a difference between “better” and “perfect” we would be saved from this marauding strawman.
Yeah, just like Abu Ghraib, spend a zillion dollars of taxpayer money putting more middle class slobs out of work.
Are you seriously suggesting that prosecuting the Soldiers who were derelict in their duty (and worse) at Abu Ghraib was a waste of time and taxpayers’ funds? Really? Look, there should have been a lot more heads rolling for that, particularly higher up the chain of command, but there is no damned way any of those “middle class slobs” should have gotten anything but prosecution. Nor was it a waste of time or money to do so. Prosecutions from Abu Ghraib had direct, positive impact on good order and discipline in the DoD correctional community that were still being felt when I worked in that arena most of a decade later. Higher-level prosecutions are certainly better for justice, but for the pragmatic end of reducing future incidents, low-level prosecutions have a noticeable impact – as does their absence. Both are necessary.
Yeah, just like Abu Ghraib, spend a zillion dollars of taxpayer money putting more middle class slobs out of work.
Are you seriously suggesting that prosecuting the Soldiers who were derelict in their duty (and worse) at Abu Ghraib was a waste of time and taxpayers’ funds? Really? Look, there should have been a lot more heads rolling for that, particularly higher up the chain of command, but there is no damned way any of those “middle class slobs” should have gotten anything but prosecution. Nor was it a waste of time or money to do so. Prosecutions from Abu Ghraib had direct, positive impact on good order and discipline in the DoD correctional community that were still being felt when I worked in that arena most of a decade later. Higher-level prosecutions are certainly better for justice, but for the pragmatic end of reducing future incidents, low-level prosecutions have a noticeable impact – as does their absence. Both are necessary.
The question being asked is whether many more prosecutions could’ve been attempted, with more vigorous investigation.
You’ll recall, perhaps, that when Obama was elected, he had huge problems staffing the executive branch, including the justice department. In fact, hiring people is still a bit of a problem for him. Yes, of course, the three lawyers there could perhaps have put on a full court press against a few lower level mortgage bankers to make a show trial for the sake of bobbyp and Dean Baker’s political sensibilities. In fact, those three lawyers could also have prosecuted the previous administration for torture, black sites, illegal wars, etc. And don’t forget about the BP disaster. But no, the feckless Obama administration chose to get the economy moving with a stimulus package, an auto industry initiative, and landmark healthcare reform. OMG, and this thread is all about too many people in prison! Because we all agree that prison is the thing that works!
It’s all about hating: just put those lower level mortgage brokers in jail! They broke the law, dammit!
The question being asked is whether many more prosecutions could’ve been attempted, with more vigorous investigation.
You’ll recall, perhaps, that when Obama was elected, he had huge problems staffing the executive branch, including the justice department. In fact, hiring people is still a bit of a problem for him. Yes, of course, the three lawyers there could perhaps have put on a full court press against a few lower level mortgage bankers to make a show trial for the sake of bobbyp and Dean Baker’s political sensibilities. In fact, those three lawyers could also have prosecuted the previous administration for torture, black sites, illegal wars, etc. And don’t forget about the BP disaster. But no, the feckless Obama administration chose to get the economy moving with a stimulus package, an auto industry initiative, and landmark healthcare reform. OMG, and this thread is all about too many people in prison! Because we all agree that prison is the thing that works!
It’s all about hating: just put those lower level mortgage brokers in jail! They broke the law, dammit!
No, I’m seriously suggesting that the fact that they were the ONLY people who got prosecuted suggests that something is seriously wrong since it was obvious to everyone that the higher levels of government were perfectly happy with torture and abuse. Those soldiers deserved punishment, but they didn’t deserve to be a show trial and scapegoats, allowing the more serious perpetrators to get off scott free.
And, no, in the mortgage crisis, a mass prosecution of mortgage brokers would be a ridiculous and unjust response to what was obviously a problem at a much higher level – a problem that was created and perpetrated by the voters, allowing this crap to happen without regulation.
No, I’m seriously suggesting that the fact that they were the ONLY people who got prosecuted suggests that something is seriously wrong since it was obvious to everyone that the higher levels of government were perfectly happy with torture and abuse. Those soldiers deserved punishment, but they didn’t deserve to be a show trial and scapegoats, allowing the more serious perpetrators to get off scott free.
And, no, in the mortgage crisis, a mass prosecution of mortgage brokers would be a ridiculous and unjust response to what was obviously a problem at a much higher level – a problem that was created and perpetrated by the voters, allowing this crap to happen without regulation.
Sorry, forgot to mention that my 7:37 pm comment was a response to the ever self-righteous Nombrilisme Vide.
Sorry, forgot to mention that my 7:37 pm comment was a response to the ever self-righteous Nombrilisme Vide.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Given a choice between incomplete justice that prevents or limits future evils, and a total absence of justice that brings about no noticeable diminution of further malfeasance, I’ll take the former, thank you. Part of the culture of impunity in the financial sector is a sense that there are no consequences for low-level actors who are carrying water for the masterminds. It’s a lot damned harder for widespread wrongdoing to occur when there are less grunts willing to do the dirty work.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Given a choice between incomplete justice that prevents or limits future evils, and a total absence of justice that brings about no noticeable diminution of further malfeasance, I’ll take the former, thank you. Part of the culture of impunity in the financial sector is a sense that there are no consequences for low-level actors who are carrying water for the masterminds. It’s a lot damned harder for widespread wrongdoing to occur when there are less grunts willing to do the dirty work.
Sorry, forgot to mention that my 7:47 pm comment was a response to the ever self-righteous sapient.
Sorry, forgot to mention that my 7:47 pm comment was a response to the ever self-righteous sapient.
I’ll take the former, thank you.
I would suggest that you make a citizen’s arrest then.
I’ll take the former, thank you.
I would suggest that you make a citizen’s arrest then.
I would suggest that you make a citizen’s arrest then.
What’s your address? 🙂
I would suggest that you make a citizen’s arrest then.
What’s your address? 🙂
What’s your address? 🙂
Ha ha. What’s my crime? Speaking the truth to my comrades?
What’s your address? 🙂
Ha ha. What’s my crime? Speaking the truth to my comrades?
the three lawyers there could perhaps have put on a full court press against a few lower level mortgage bankers to make a show trial for the sake of bobbyp and Dean Baker’s political sensibilities.
Seriously, and I say this will tremendous respect for bobbyp – f*ck the political sensibilities of bobbyp and Dean Baker. Their sensibilities aren’t the point.
The mortgage industry was thoroughly and systemically fraudulent, from top to bottom, at the end of the aughts. And by fraudulent, I mean people were freaking ruined.
Bugger all has been done about it, to this day.
That sucks. It sucks, and there is nothing to be said to mitigate that, or to excuse the feds or anyone else for their utter failure to safeguard the interests of the public.
It was a complete and thorough failure.
Next topic, please.
the three lawyers there could perhaps have put on a full court press against a few lower level mortgage bankers to make a show trial for the sake of bobbyp and Dean Baker’s political sensibilities.
Seriously, and I say this will tremendous respect for bobbyp – f*ck the political sensibilities of bobbyp and Dean Baker. Their sensibilities aren’t the point.
The mortgage industry was thoroughly and systemically fraudulent, from top to bottom, at the end of the aughts. And by fraudulent, I mean people were freaking ruined.
Bugger all has been done about it, to this day.
That sucks. It sucks, and there is nothing to be said to mitigate that, or to excuse the feds or anyone else for their utter failure to safeguard the interests of the public.
It was a complete and thorough failure.
Next topic, please.
That sucks. It sucks, and there is nothing to be said to mitigate that, or to excuse the feds or anyone else for their utter failure to safeguard the interests of the public.
Excuse me, but “the feds” R us. The fact is, the American people are unwilling to support enough “big government” to regulate financial industries. They’d much rather trust the “market” (until it goes bust) than to make the system work for ordinary people. It’s not “those people”. It’s the people who elect the folks who trust Alan Greenspan.
That sucks. It sucks, and there is nothing to be said to mitigate that, or to excuse the feds or anyone else for their utter failure to safeguard the interests of the public.
Excuse me, but “the feds” R us. The fact is, the American people are unwilling to support enough “big government” to regulate financial industries. They’d much rather trust the “market” (until it goes bust) than to make the system work for ordinary people. It’s not “those people”. It’s the people who elect the folks who trust Alan Greenspan.
Well, perhaps there is an argument to be made that there was no fraud in the whole mortgage mess because everything was disclosed between the relevant parties. Or that the underlying documentation was available for inspection and while I say it looks good to me, I’m not signing anything to that effect so if you want to be sure you better look at the documentation, but do you really want to when there is so much money to be made passing the loans off to the next party? And hey! S&P rated this tranche AAA, why do you want to waste your valuable time examining the underlying loan documentation on 10,000 loans that have already been available to the prior 8 parties in the transaction? Or, yeah all 10,000 loans are subprime, but AAA! Etc.
I find that hard to believe, given how fast things were moving at the time. But who knows. If the contract between Goldman and Investment Fund X states that Goldman will only sell Fund X securities rated AAA by S&P, and Goldman did that even though Goldman’s internal analysis rated the same securities as junk, fraud?
Well, perhaps there is an argument to be made that there was no fraud in the whole mortgage mess because everything was disclosed between the relevant parties. Or that the underlying documentation was available for inspection and while I say it looks good to me, I’m not signing anything to that effect so if you want to be sure you better look at the documentation, but do you really want to when there is so much money to be made passing the loans off to the next party? And hey! S&P rated this tranche AAA, why do you want to waste your valuable time examining the underlying loan documentation on 10,000 loans that have already been available to the prior 8 parties in the transaction? Or, yeah all 10,000 loans are subprime, but AAA! Etc.
I find that hard to believe, given how fast things were moving at the time. But who knows. If the contract between Goldman and Investment Fund X states that Goldman will only sell Fund X securities rated AAA by S&P, and Goldman did that even though Goldman’s internal analysis rated the same securities as junk, fraud?
As usual, Ugh, not sure what you’re going on about.
I’m absolutely sure that there was all kinds of fraud, abuse and bad conduct. I’ve defrauded my dog many times, telling her that the treat she has is prime rib of beef when, in fact, it’s a kibble. Unfortunately, that fraud is legal. Trouble is, she can’t have me incarcerated (because isn’t that what this thread is all about? Incarcerating more people?). Some fraud is not actionable as a crime. You have to prove stuff that wasn’t provable.
Sure, maybe every single federal prosecutor in the country is on the take. (not.) And, maybe, every state prosecutor is as well. (because, remember, banks are regulated by the feds and the states).
If you really believe that all prosecutors in the country are corrupt, then go right ahead. Instead, maybe you could be persuaded that the banks need more regulation, more oversight, more “big government.”
We need “big government”, not after-the-fact-of-laissez-faire- economics finger-pointing.
As usual, Ugh, not sure what you’re going on about.
I’m absolutely sure that there was all kinds of fraud, abuse and bad conduct. I’ve defrauded my dog many times, telling her that the treat she has is prime rib of beef when, in fact, it’s a kibble. Unfortunately, that fraud is legal. Trouble is, she can’t have me incarcerated (because isn’t that what this thread is all about? Incarcerating more people?). Some fraud is not actionable as a crime. You have to prove stuff that wasn’t provable.
Sure, maybe every single federal prosecutor in the country is on the take. (not.) And, maybe, every state prosecutor is as well. (because, remember, banks are regulated by the feds and the states).
If you really believe that all prosecutors in the country are corrupt, then go right ahead. Instead, maybe you could be persuaded that the banks need more regulation, more oversight, more “big government.”
We need “big government”, not after-the-fact-of-laissez-faire- economics finger-pointing.
So…. you’re saying that there was fraud in the mortgage mess but it was legal fraud? Could you give me an example?
So…. you’re saying that there was fraud in the mortgage mess but it was legal fraud? Could you give me an example?
No, ugh. I can’t give you an example. If you’re a prosecutor, you’re the one who has to give the example, along with all of the relevant evidence. That’s what’s missing. We can all yell and scream. I, in fact, will yell and scream. Doesn’t amount to much unless you have documents, chain of evidence, and all of that other stuff you learned about in Evidence Class.
No, ugh. I can’t give you an example. If you’re a prosecutor, you’re the one who has to give the example, along with all of the relevant evidence. That’s what’s missing. We can all yell and scream. I, in fact, will yell and scream. Doesn’t amount to much unless you have documents, chain of evidence, and all of that other stuff you learned about in Evidence Class.
Just trying to figure out what you’re positing here sapient. If it’s legal fraud then it would be of no concern to a prosecutor so there would be no example from one.
You appear to have taken the position that there was little law breaking during the lead up to the mortgage mess and/or what law breaking that did occur is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove.
My comment was an attempt to puzzle out how that might have occurred in the face of some fairly broad fraud statutes when a massive amount of AAA rated securities were going bad in short order.
Just trying to figure out what you’re positing here sapient. If it’s legal fraud then it would be of no concern to a prosecutor so there would be no example from one.
You appear to have taken the position that there was little law breaking during the lead up to the mortgage mess and/or what law breaking that did occur is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove.
My comment was an attempt to puzzle out how that might have occurred in the face of some fairly broad fraud statutes when a massive amount of AAA rated securities were going bad in short order.
Excuse me, but “the feds” R us. The fact is, the American people are unwilling to support enough “big government” to regulate financial industries. They’d much rather trust the “market” (until it goes bust) than to make the system work for ordinary people. It’s not “those people”. It’s the people who elect the folks who trust Alan Greenspan.
I’m not sure I believe this. I think that the issue is one most people know little or nothing about. That leaves them susceptible to manipulation by politicians who misrepresent the issue, and it also means they will vote without this issue being a factor at all. But I don’t think there is a pro-bankster constituency outside of some members of Congress, the Koch bros and their ilk, and the banksters themselves..
Excuse me, but “the feds” R us. The fact is, the American people are unwilling to support enough “big government” to regulate financial industries. They’d much rather trust the “market” (until it goes bust) than to make the system work for ordinary people. It’s not “those people”. It’s the people who elect the folks who trust Alan Greenspan.
I’m not sure I believe this. I think that the issue is one most people know little or nothing about. That leaves them susceptible to manipulation by politicians who misrepresent the issue, and it also means they will vote without this issue being a factor at all. But I don’t think there is a pro-bankster constituency outside of some members of Congress, the Koch bros and their ilk, and the banksters themselves..
Apologies to Russell:
From the wikki:
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in January 2011 that: “… mortgage fraud… flourished in an environment of collapsing lending standards and lax regulation. The number of suspicious activity reports – reports of possible financial crimes filed by depository banks and their affiliates – related to mortgage fraud grew 20-fold between 1996 and 2005 and then more than doubled again between 2005 and 2009. One study places the losses resulting from fraud on mortgage loans made between 2005 and 2007 at $112 billion.
The Bush administration did nothing about this. Sapient has a point about the Obama administration having other storms to address (applause). Nonetheless, they could have, and chose not to.
But then, perhaps all three (good god, how did they ever get that many?) Justice Department attorneys were too busy deporting people at a record pace.
Far better to chase down folks trying to find a better life than to actually prosecute loan criminals who offered loans on false pretenses.
Signed,
The Committee For Public Safety
aka da’ true squad 🙂
Apologies to Russell:
From the wikki:
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in January 2011 that: “… mortgage fraud… flourished in an environment of collapsing lending standards and lax regulation. The number of suspicious activity reports – reports of possible financial crimes filed by depository banks and their affiliates – related to mortgage fraud grew 20-fold between 1996 and 2005 and then more than doubled again between 2005 and 2009. One study places the losses resulting from fraud on mortgage loans made between 2005 and 2007 at $112 billion.
The Bush administration did nothing about this. Sapient has a point about the Obama administration having other storms to address (applause). Nonetheless, they could have, and chose not to.
But then, perhaps all three (good god, how did they ever get that many?) Justice Department attorneys were too busy deporting people at a record pace.
Far better to chase down folks trying to find a better life than to actually prosecute loan criminals who offered loans on false pretenses.
Signed,
The Committee For Public Safety
aka da’ true squad 🙂
There is plenty of evidence of fraud.
This sort of thing:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/the-rumored-chase-madoff-settlement-is-another-bad-joke-20131216
The deferred-prosecution deal is a hair short of a guilty plea. The bank has to acknowledge the facts of the government’s case and pay penalties, but as has become common in the Too-Big-To-Fail arena, we once again have a situation in which all sides will agree that a serious crime has taken place, but no individual has to pay for that crime.
As University of Michigan law professor David Uhlmann noted in a Times editorial at the end of last week, the use of these deferred prosecution agreements has exploded since the infamous Arthur Andersen case. In that affair, the company collapsed and 28,000 jobs were lost after Arthur Andersen was convicted on a criminal charge related to its role in the Enron scandal. As Uhlmann wrote:
From 2004 through 2012, the Justice Department entered into 242 deferred prosecution and nonprosecution agreements with corporations; there had been just 26 in the preceding 12 years…
Browse a few of Taibbi’s stories over at Rolling Stone; there’s scads of stuff.
I don’t quite share his politics, but he’s chronicled the whole failure to prosecute thing as well as anyone.
There is plenty of evidence of fraud.
This sort of thing:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/the-rumored-chase-madoff-settlement-is-another-bad-joke-20131216
The deferred-prosecution deal is a hair short of a guilty plea. The bank has to acknowledge the facts of the government’s case and pay penalties, but as has become common in the Too-Big-To-Fail arena, we once again have a situation in which all sides will agree that a serious crime has taken place, but no individual has to pay for that crime.
As University of Michigan law professor David Uhlmann noted in a Times editorial at the end of last week, the use of these deferred prosecution agreements has exploded since the infamous Arthur Andersen case. In that affair, the company collapsed and 28,000 jobs were lost after Arthur Andersen was convicted on a criminal charge related to its role in the Enron scandal. As Uhlmann wrote:
From 2004 through 2012, the Justice Department entered into 242 deferred prosecution and nonprosecution agreements with corporations; there had been just 26 in the preceding 12 years…
Browse a few of Taibbi’s stories over at Rolling Stone; there’s scads of stuff.
I don’t quite share his politics, but he’s chronicled the whole failure to prosecute thing as well as anyone.
Excuse me, but “the feds” R us. The fact is, the American people are unwilling to support enough “big government” to regulate financial industries…
I don’t think this is true.
Government is quite big enough (and has sufficient powers) to regulate; it’s just not doing so.
Whether that is will-of-the-people, or simply a result of Wall St campaign finance, I’ll leave to others.
Excuse me, but “the feds” R us. The fact is, the American people are unwilling to support enough “big government” to regulate financial industries…
I don’t think this is true.
Government is quite big enough (and has sufficient powers) to regulate; it’s just not doing so.
Whether that is will-of-the-people, or simply a result of Wall St campaign finance, I’ll leave to others.
Why wouldn’t going after low-level mortgage brokers be an effective way to get them to rat on their bosses, and get their bosses to rat on their bosses, and so on, taking it as high as possible. There’s no need to actually throw the lower-level people in jail, so long as they’re willing to cooperate in helping gather the necessary evidence.
Putting that aside, sapient, are you still of the opinion that there was very little illegal activity in what led to the financial crisis? Or is it just that America is so in love with free markets that not enough people care? Or is it both?
Why wouldn’t going after low-level mortgage brokers be an effective way to get them to rat on their bosses, and get their bosses to rat on their bosses, and so on, taking it as high as possible. There’s no need to actually throw the lower-level people in jail, so long as they’re willing to cooperate in helping gather the necessary evidence.
Putting that aside, sapient, are you still of the opinion that there was very little illegal activity in what led to the financial crisis? Or is it just that America is so in love with free markets that not enough people care? Or is it both?
(because isn’t that what this thread is all about? Incarcerating more people?)
The right people, perhaps. There’s likely fewer of them, but they’re more dangerous.
(because isn’t that what this thread is all about? Incarcerating more people?)
The right people, perhaps. There’s likely fewer of them, but they’re more dangerous.
They were built on land obtained by eminent domain, which is to say, the government obtained the land by making a criminal of anybody who refused to sell.
I think this is incorrect, technically. At least here, on the other side of the bond, the use of eminent domain is not a sale. It is a unilateral governmental act. You do not have to sign anything. Even if you are completely non-cooperative and refuse to sign anything, the process will roll and the title to the land is transferred to the government. Only if you decide to refuse to physically move from the plot when you are ordered to do so by the police, you will commit a crime (resistance of lawful authority, a misdemeanour usually resulting in a small fine), but that is completely unconnected to “refusal to sell”.
They were built on land obtained by eminent domain, which is to say, the government obtained the land by making a criminal of anybody who refused to sell.
I think this is incorrect, technically. At least here, on the other side of the bond, the use of eminent domain is not a sale. It is a unilateral governmental act. You do not have to sign anything. Even if you are completely non-cooperative and refuse to sign anything, the process will roll and the title to the land is transferred to the government. Only if you decide to refuse to physically move from the plot when you are ordered to do so by the police, you will commit a crime (resistance of lawful authority, a misdemeanour usually resulting in a small fine), but that is completely unconnected to “refusal to sell”.
Ok, then, call it “refusal to admit your property has been purchased”, rather than refusal to sell. The government still has to make something a crime to build a road, because otherwise people don’t move out of those houses it has bought over the objections of the owners.
But the big point is, in a nation where everybody is genuinely guilty of breaking some law, because there are too many obscure laws to avoid breaking one, and a nation where omnipresent digital survailance allows the government to KNOW what laws you might have violated, the government ends up with the power to jail anybody it doesn’t like.
A guy makes a movie critical of the President, gets charged with a crime. People object, and it is pointed out that he does seem to be guilty of it. That people who didn’t criticize the President didn’t get so charged, is just “prosecutorial discretion”.
Like David Gregory not getting prosecuted for violating D.C.’s gun laws on public TV, because he did it promoting the government’s policies, but somebody who opposes gun control will get nailed to the wall.
That’s the terror of too many laws. Sure, maybe the government won’t charge you with a crime over that old piano you bought off Craigslist, the one with the genuine ivory keys. But if it finds some reason to dislike you, it COULD. Too many laws hands the government a legitimate excuse to jail it’s enemies, proscutorial discretion allows it to leave it’s friends untouched as they do the same things.
We have, sadly, allowed our government to take on all the powers it needs to construct a police state. All that is lacking is the dictator to use them.
Or maybe it’s not lacking, is what the Right thinks of Obama, and the IRS abuses.
Ok, then, call it “refusal to admit your property has been purchased”, rather than refusal to sell. The government still has to make something a crime to build a road, because otherwise people don’t move out of those houses it has bought over the objections of the owners.
But the big point is, in a nation where everybody is genuinely guilty of breaking some law, because there are too many obscure laws to avoid breaking one, and a nation where omnipresent digital survailance allows the government to KNOW what laws you might have violated, the government ends up with the power to jail anybody it doesn’t like.
A guy makes a movie critical of the President, gets charged with a crime. People object, and it is pointed out that he does seem to be guilty of it. That people who didn’t criticize the President didn’t get so charged, is just “prosecutorial discretion”.
Like David Gregory not getting prosecuted for violating D.C.’s gun laws on public TV, because he did it promoting the government’s policies, but somebody who opposes gun control will get nailed to the wall.
That’s the terror of too many laws. Sure, maybe the government won’t charge you with a crime over that old piano you bought off Craigslist, the one with the genuine ivory keys. But if it finds some reason to dislike you, it COULD. Too many laws hands the government a legitimate excuse to jail it’s enemies, proscutorial discretion allows it to leave it’s friends untouched as they do the same things.
We have, sadly, allowed our government to take on all the powers it needs to construct a police state. All that is lacking is the dictator to use them.
Or maybe it’s not lacking, is what the Right thinks of Obama, and the IRS abuses.
When they decide to raid the whorehouse, they arrest the piano player and the government agent hidden inside of the piano too.
When they decide to raid the whorehouse, they arrest the piano player and the government agent hidden inside of the piano too.
My libertarian solution to get the government out of the prison business altogether, including the practice of contracting with private prison companies, is much like the Libertarian solution to education in this country: Home Imprisonment.
Citizens could voluntarily house a prisoner in their home for the adjudicated sentence, provide three squares a day, and in the states where the death penalty is extant, the homeowner and his or her family could choose (free choice being paramount) the method of execution and, in the case of death by electric chair, they could deduct their electric charges from their state tax bill, all federal taxes having been abolished.
The home owner would also be free to let the prisoner go and any time and suggest he ring the neighbors’ doorbell after skulking about in the shrubbery and looking in the windows to scout things out.
My libertarian solution to get the government out of the prison business altogether, including the practice of contracting with private prison companies, is much like the Libertarian solution to education in this country: Home Imprisonment.
Citizens could voluntarily house a prisoner in their home for the adjudicated sentence, provide three squares a day, and in the states where the death penalty is extant, the homeowner and his or her family could choose (free choice being paramount) the method of execution and, in the case of death by electric chair, they could deduct their electric charges from their state tax bill, all federal taxes having been abolished.
The home owner would also be free to let the prisoner go and any time and suggest he ring the neighbors’ doorbell after skulking about in the shrubbery and looking in the windows to scout things out.
OMG, and this thread is all about too many people in prison! Because we all agree that prison is the thing that works!
Thus my point that not only am I concerned that we put too many people in prison for things that shouldn’t be crimes, we also fail to punish people (prison or otherwise) who deserve it because of their class and/or political clout. I think those are related issues, because as I said when the higher classes don’t have to fear the mechanisms of the justice system they don’t have to concern themselves much about making sure it works properly.
It’s all about hating: just put those lower level mortgage brokers in jail! They broke the law, dammit!
First, it’s very hard to go after the bosses when you won’t pursue the underlings.
Second, if we pursue financial fraud vigorously as the criminal offense it is, I suspect it would have a great deterrent effect. The better one’s life, the worse being pursued by the criminal justice system is.
Third, I dont think your position makes sense- we *can*, but *shouldnt* go after the low level lawbreaking. But the big bosses didnt break the law because the regs werent in place to control them.
But if the big bosses knew about or directed the low-level lawbreaking, then they are already guilty. Of many, many counts. Plus whatever conspiracy/rico/etc charges could be brought. Plus the fraud charges based on selling financial products based on illegally falsified paperwork.
I would suggest that you make a citizen’s arrest then.
Remind me of this next time you suggest a change in government policy. Ill just endlessly say “why are you just talking about this, get on a &$*#ing bus to Washington and get it done or stfu”
the three lawyers there could perhaps have put on a full court press against a few lower level mortgage bankers to make a show trial for the sake of bobbyp and Dean Baker’s political sensibilities.
There are state prosecutors as well.
And there are plenty of executive branch staff to do multiple things at once.
And, now I think you’ve muddied your point even further: nothing illegal was done, but it’d be wrong to prosecute underlings for their crimes, but we don’t have the manpower.
So maybe pick a position and defend it rather than throwing mutually incompatible defenses up one after another.
“I didnt eat your sandwich and it was terrible anyway”
If you really believe that all prosecutors in the country are corrupt, then go right ahead.
You endanger the national straw reserves.
OMG, and this thread is all about too many people in prison! Because we all agree that prison is the thing that works!
Thus my point that not only am I concerned that we put too many people in prison for things that shouldn’t be crimes, we also fail to punish people (prison or otherwise) who deserve it because of their class and/or political clout. I think those are related issues, because as I said when the higher classes don’t have to fear the mechanisms of the justice system they don’t have to concern themselves much about making sure it works properly.
It’s all about hating: just put those lower level mortgage brokers in jail! They broke the law, dammit!
First, it’s very hard to go after the bosses when you won’t pursue the underlings.
Second, if we pursue financial fraud vigorously as the criminal offense it is, I suspect it would have a great deterrent effect. The better one’s life, the worse being pursued by the criminal justice system is.
Third, I dont think your position makes sense- we *can*, but *shouldnt* go after the low level lawbreaking. But the big bosses didnt break the law because the regs werent in place to control them.
But if the big bosses knew about or directed the low-level lawbreaking, then they are already guilty. Of many, many counts. Plus whatever conspiracy/rico/etc charges could be brought. Plus the fraud charges based on selling financial products based on illegally falsified paperwork.
I would suggest that you make a citizen’s arrest then.
Remind me of this next time you suggest a change in government policy. Ill just endlessly say “why are you just talking about this, get on a &$*#ing bus to Washington and get it done or stfu”
the three lawyers there could perhaps have put on a full court press against a few lower level mortgage bankers to make a show trial for the sake of bobbyp and Dean Baker’s political sensibilities.
There are state prosecutors as well.
And there are plenty of executive branch staff to do multiple things at once.
And, now I think you’ve muddied your point even further: nothing illegal was done, but it’d be wrong to prosecute underlings for their crimes, but we don’t have the manpower.
So maybe pick a position and defend it rather than throwing mutually incompatible defenses up one after another.
“I didnt eat your sandwich and it was terrible anyway”
If you really believe that all prosecutors in the country are corrupt, then go right ahead.
You endanger the national straw reserves.
Then there is the old collar of obedience idea.
Everyone has to wear one all the time and each day each citizens can distribute a fixed amount of electricity to persons he dislikes or wants to get rid of. Each collar collects the input and at midnight discharges in proportion to the collected spark votes. So, if a person gets hated enough, he or she will get fried or at least seriously inconvenienced. There would have, of course, to be some other factors built in, so one can inconvenience the unpleasant neighbour easily but not POTUS to the same degree. 100 local guys should be sufficient to get rid of one in their midst, for a high public official a higher number would have to apply (up to several ten millions for POTUS) or all offices would have to get new candidates each day. Or we would fill those positions with people from death row in the first place. The only problem I see is that the doomed POTUS could reach for the nuclear football for a first strike. A week to a month after introduction the problem should be solved and the country could get resettled by a less obnoxious breed of man.
Then there is the old collar of obedience idea.
Everyone has to wear one all the time and each day each citizens can distribute a fixed amount of electricity to persons he dislikes or wants to get rid of. Each collar collects the input and at midnight discharges in proportion to the collected spark votes. So, if a person gets hated enough, he or she will get fried or at least seriously inconvenienced. There would have, of course, to be some other factors built in, so one can inconvenience the unpleasant neighbour easily but not POTUS to the same degree. 100 local guys should be sufficient to get rid of one in their midst, for a high public official a higher number would have to apply (up to several ten millions for POTUS) or all offices would have to get new candidates each day. Or we would fill those positions with people from death row in the first place. The only problem I see is that the doomed POTUS could reach for the nuclear football for a first strike. A week to a month after introduction the problem should be solved and the country could get resettled by a less obnoxious breed of man.
Brett,
I think you’ll find that most people agree that government power is capable of being abused. Straining to prove that part of your case isn’t necessary.
It’s the ‘therefore we should limit it to what Brett wants’ part that ends up being unconvincing. Or even the more general proposition that because government power is capable of being abused, any reduction of that power will make a better world (insofar as this ignores what that power is being used for and how the world will be without the exercise of that power in it’s intended manner).
So many times Ive had conversations with libertarians where they point out the abuses of a system and then stand back as if to say “QED”. As if the solution to a poorly-run system had to be “get rid of it and anything like it”.
Parents have considerable power over their children. This power is sometimes abused to terrible ends.
But those two sentences do not make a convincing argument for limiting parental power to the minimum possible.
Brett,
I think you’ll find that most people agree that government power is capable of being abused. Straining to prove that part of your case isn’t necessary.
It’s the ‘therefore we should limit it to what Brett wants’ part that ends up being unconvincing. Or even the more general proposition that because government power is capable of being abused, any reduction of that power will make a better world (insofar as this ignores what that power is being used for and how the world will be without the exercise of that power in it’s intended manner).
So many times Ive had conversations with libertarians where they point out the abuses of a system and then stand back as if to say “QED”. As if the solution to a poorly-run system had to be “get rid of it and anything like it”.
Parents have considerable power over their children. This power is sometimes abused to terrible ends.
But those two sentences do not make a convincing argument for limiting parental power to the minimum possible.
“Everyone has to wear one all the time and each day each citizens can distribute a fixed amount of electricity to persons he dislikes or wants to get rid of.”
May my collar be solar powered so I can remain off the grid, the grid being so oppressive?
Pity the poor sod, or sodette, with three ex-spouses.
“Everyone has to wear one all the time and each day each citizens can distribute a fixed amount of electricity to persons he dislikes or wants to get rid of.”
May my collar be solar powered so I can remain off the grid, the grid being so oppressive?
Pity the poor sod, or sodette, with three ex-spouses.
Or that the underlying documentation was available for inspection and while I say it looks good to me, I’m not signing anything to that effect so if you want to be sure you better look at the documentation, but do you really want to when there is so much money to be made passing the loans off to the next party?
Im just about certain that lack of due dilligence is not a defense when we’re talking about fraud. A fraud is not decriminialized just by virtue of not being airtight against discovery.
Otherwise eg 419 frauds wouldn’t be crimes- anyone with an ounce of sense can tell that they’re bogus, but it’s still a crime to defraud someone even if it’s totally obvious with a little bit of research that you’re doing so.
[Example from real estate- typically the seller is responsible for inspecting the property and locating problems, but the seller is *still* on the hook for anything that they *intentionally* failed to disclose. Even if you could’ve found it by looking carefully. For example, if the seller did a remodel without pulling permits, you could theoretically discover this via a records search- but they are still on the hook legally for failing to disclose.]
If the contract between Goldman and Investment Fund X states that Goldman will only sell Fund X securities rated AAA by S&P, and Goldman did that even though Goldman’s internal analysis rated the same securities as junk, fraud?
That, no. Having a private assessment that an asset is worth less than the buyer is willing to pay is fine. Knowing that the paperwork about the assets has been falsified in many cases is definitely fraud. It’s the diff between selling a baseball signed by a minor leaguer for 100k versus selling a signed baseball you know to be a forgery.
Or that the underlying documentation was available for inspection and while I say it looks good to me, I’m not signing anything to that effect so if you want to be sure you better look at the documentation, but do you really want to when there is so much money to be made passing the loans off to the next party?
Im just about certain that lack of due dilligence is not a defense when we’re talking about fraud. A fraud is not decriminialized just by virtue of not being airtight against discovery.
Otherwise eg 419 frauds wouldn’t be crimes- anyone with an ounce of sense can tell that they’re bogus, but it’s still a crime to defraud someone even if it’s totally obvious with a little bit of research that you’re doing so.
[Example from real estate- typically the seller is responsible for inspecting the property and locating problems, but the seller is *still* on the hook for anything that they *intentionally* failed to disclose. Even if you could’ve found it by looking carefully. For example, if the seller did a remodel without pulling permits, you could theoretically discover this via a records search- but they are still on the hook legally for failing to disclose.]
If the contract between Goldman and Investment Fund X states that Goldman will only sell Fund X securities rated AAA by S&P, and Goldman did that even though Goldman’s internal analysis rated the same securities as junk, fraud?
That, no. Having a private assessment that an asset is worth less than the buyer is willing to pay is fine. Knowing that the paperwork about the assets has been falsified in many cases is definitely fraud. It’s the diff between selling a baseball signed by a minor leaguer for 100k versus selling a signed baseball you know to be a forgery.
18 U.S.C. § 1343:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
§ 1341 – same thing, except for ‘mail’ instead of ‘wire’.
cite
18 U.S.C. § 1343:
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
§ 1341 – same thing, except for ‘mail’ instead of ‘wire’.
cite
A new interactive website from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) highlights how many lives are derailed and billions of dollars wasted fighting a racially biased war on drugs in America.
The site, called The Uncovery, offers state-by-state statistics on U.S. marijuana arrests, emphasizing racial disparities and the cost of enforcing drug laws.
[…]
How Racist Is Your State’s War on Weed? Compare!
A new interactive website from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) highlights how many lives are derailed and billions of dollars wasted fighting a racially biased war on drugs in America.
The site, called The Uncovery, offers state-by-state statistics on U.S. marijuana arrests, emphasizing racial disparities and the cost of enforcing drug laws.
[…]
How Racist Is Your State’s War on Weed? Compare!
Related to that last point, the statue of limitations on criminal fraud is 5 years (10 years when it “affect(s) a financial institution”, a term debated in the recent case (United States v. The Bank of New York Mellon) as to whether it applied to fraud perpetrated *by* a financial institution).
cite
Related to that last point, the statue of limitations on criminal fraud is 5 years (10 years when it “affect(s) a financial institution”, a term debated in the recent case (United States v. The Bank of New York Mellon) as to whether it applied to fraud perpetrated *by* a financial institution).
cite