3% of US population behind bars, on parole or on probation last year

[DanS]

More like we're taking a public safety approach. Removal from law-abiding society. I think neither punishment nor rehabilitation are particularly effective.

[Berzerker]

Dan S -

That's a good argument, but its weak point is that we have prohibition and the murder rate started going down real fast when we threw more bad guys in jail. It seems to validate the proposition that indeed you can jail your way out of the problem.

That's apples and oranges, there are ~20 million drug users and only a few hundred or thousand murderers. Sure you can arrest your way to a significantly reduced murder rate because there are so few murderers. But the murder rate is still much higher than murder rates before and in between drug wars. Again, if you support a policy that doubles homicide rates, it is illogical to justify that policy by pointing to a ~%5 drop in the now higher rate.

Remember, we need to compare homicide rates for ~1900, 1925, 1950, and 2004 to see the effect of prohibition. The homicide rate doubled under alcohol prohibition, was cut in half when prohibition was repealed, then doubled again with the newer drug war. I don't have the most recent stats but I believe the homicide rate is still close to double what it was when we weren't waging drug wars. If I had my way (and you had yours), I'd want to see every murderer, rapist, robber, and terrorist behind bars and the cops needed to catch them on the payroll. But how can we want that regarding drugs? That's ~20 million people!

I don't like the results either, but I dislike the alternatives even more.

The alternative is lower taxes, fewer people in jail for exercising their freedom (certainly a moral component there), relieving the pressure on the courts/jails so fewer real criminals get plea bargains and reduced sentences, a homicide rate about half as much as we see now, a big reduction in property crime, and eliminating the financial motive for adults and minors to get involved with the illicit drug trade (there's alot more too, like using the vast law enforcement resources currently wasted chasing drug users to prevent terrorist attacks). Your side claims drug use will dramatically increase (and that's your only argument), perhaps, but that's speculative. We have plenty of history to show that consumption rates don't change much under prohibition.

Doc, do you have a link? For example, drug dealing and possession of a gun constitutes 2 felonies - the gun charge can be called the more severe of the two, but neither is a violent crime.

[Alexander's Horse]

I don't doubt the USA is a very different society and what works for us might not work for you.

The main difference with the guns here is it's hard to get sent to gaol for nonviolent crime unless it's very serious. Other penalties are used. If however you use a weapon of any kind or violence of any kind in the commission of a crime you will almost always get sent to gaol. That means the crims tend to try and do their business without weapons or violence.

We have gun control but I could go and buy a firearm today no problem and hardened crims can still get them easily. Handguns however are hard to get and violent crims tend to use shortened shotguns and rifles rather than hand guns. This helps the cops because you don't shorten a rifle to go hunting - so if you are caught with such a weapon, again, you will almost certainly go to gaol just for possessing such a weapon.

It seems to work quite well in lowering the violence in society though a large proportion of the population would prefer a US style approach.

[Sava]

forgive me... wtf is "gaol" ?

[DanS]

According to the statistics I'm looking at, the murder rates increased substantially before each of the prohibition and the War on Drugs. During prohibition and the War on Drugs, the murder rates increased even further (but not even close to doubling). After prohibition, the murder rate plummeted. We're still in the War on Drugs, and the murder rate has plumetted to lower than immediately before the War.

See attached chart. 2001 includes 9/11, so there's a blip.

[Sava]

You notice how that graph seems to rise for Republican presidents... and drops for Democratic presidents? Look at the 90's. Look at the late 30's. Roosevelt and Clinton...

Even Jimmy Carter got a drop... but he only had one term and came after Nixon/Ford.

I'd like to see 2001-2003... but I suspect, as with the later 80's, murder rates rise with Bush's.

[DanS]

Regarding 20 million drug users, the vast majority are probably dope smokers. Maybe some x too (although as I understand it, that's on the way out). Anyway, I'm not too concerned about those people, although I do note that one of the most notorious crews in DC in the 90s dealt pot.

I've heard that there is some synthetic form of cocaine that is just being introduced, but I don't know too much about that. I would be more concerned with this.

[Sava]

Originally posted by DanS
although I do note that one of the most notorious crews in DC in the 90s dealt pot.

another reason why we should take their source of income away...

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Sava
forgive me... wtf is "gaol" ?

It's the correct spelling for what you North Americans call "jail".

[Sava]

I've never heard of that.

JAIL... NOT GAOL...

[Kuciwalker]

Jail.

EDIT: this is why you should refresh after being away from the screen for ~10 minutes

[Alexander's Horse]

Australia is almost a case study on crime and punishment and what benefits society.

The place started out as a pretty grim dumping ground for criminals, most them of a petty nature like stealing bread or a handkerchief (a very common crime leading to transportation). Australia was one big prison farm.

But the early British governors were quite enlightened and quickly realised that unless a viable economy was established the colony would fail. It couldn't even feed itself in the early days.

The main potential source of productive citizens were the convicts. So they did 2 things - they set up really awful prisons like Norfolk Island and Port Arthur for the convicts that wouldn't reform and for those that would reform they gave them "tickets of leave" (parole) and grants of money or land to establish farms or businesses.

The result was that from the beginning Australian society was one that rewarded enterprise and since the real crime of most of the convicts was just a byproduct of overpopulation and poverty in Britain, the colonies thrived. Many of the wealthiest families in Australia have a convict past.

The outcome could have been very different if the convicts had not been given those opportunities.

[DaShi]

So you're saying that sending all convicts to the moon would be a good idea?

[Berzerker]

Dan S -

According to the statistics I'm looking at, the murder rates increased substantially before each of the prohibition and the War on Drugs. During prohibition and the War on Drugs, the murder rates increased even further (but not even close to doubling). After prohibition, the murder rate plummeted. We're still in the War on Drugs, and the murder rate has plumetted to lower than immediately before the War.

First, drug prohibition preceded alcohol prohibition with the Harrison Act of 1913 and various state laws before that, albeit that's hardly what we think of as a drug war. There is a big difference between the drug prohibition of the late 19th century and the drug war of the late 20th. But wrt the feds, all drugs were legal before 1913 I believe and legal in some states and illegal in others. But assuming a ~5/100,000 baseline in non-drug war years, the rate in 1910 and 1950, the rate did double by the end of alcohol prohibition and dropped back down to the baseline until ~1970 when it began climbing again. Look at the rates in 1960 and 1980-85, the latter is more than double. Why? Black market violence. Where did you see a substantial increase before Nixon's drug war? And the rate has not dropped to below the rate before the current drug war. The rate before Nixon was below 5 and it's still around 6 or 7, although I'm surprised it has dropped that much. Arresting a sizeable percent of young males in the name of fighting a drug war would logically have a significant impact on murder rates since that population group commits the most murders, but how is that moral? Arrest millions of young people for being involved with drugs and then use the declining homicide rate to justify jailing all those people regardless of whether or not they've committed murder? Sure, if we jail %5-7 of younger males, the bulk of the prison population, that'll reduce homicide rates simply because they are the most likely to commit murder.

Then there is the moral component, it is simply immoral to jail millions of people for exercising their freedom. It is immoral to jail millions of people for using drugs because a small minority of drug users commit murder, rape, robbery, etc... That is the same rationale used by white racists who wanted to jail, kill, or deport black and brown people. Because some dark person committed murder, get rid of dark people... We don't use that standard for white people, for people who don't use drugs, for "us"...

[Berzerker]

AH -

The place started out as a pretty grim dumping ground for criminals, most them of a petty nature like stealing bread or a handkerchief (a very common crime leading to transportation). Australia was one big prison farm.

I understand many were sent because they were in debt, i.e., debtor's prison. Georgia was intially a debtor's prison...