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

[Alexander's Horse]

That would be possible - though I hadn't heard of it.

We pretty much got everything from political prisoners to petty thieves and homeless people.

What we didn't get was many serious violent criminals because those went straight to public execution in merry old England.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
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"...

It's not the same rationale. One the one hand drug users are acting very reckless, using a drug that they know is addicting, dangerous and that can lead them to commit crime and neglect their families, jobs etc... On the other hand just being of a certain race isn't reckless or neglectfull.

[Shi Huangdi]

Generally, a high prison population is not nessecarily a bad thing. If it means we are caputring the dangerous people in society and keeping them locked away, it is a good thing. The purpose of prison is after all protection from those who are dangerous, and if they are kept in prison, then they aren't out in public comitting crimes. I think California has the right idea in this regard- for repeat felony offenders, people who continually show a disregard for our law and continue to violate it, those people need to be removed from society. I'd think it would also be a good idea for people who are convicted of violent felonies twice to be removed from society and placed in prison, where they cannot hurt the public.

I'm not as conservative as I used to be, and I don't object to the government trying to help out the neediest people of our society to help give them a chance. But I think they have to be willing to meet us half way, and if they continually break our laws they need to be removed from society.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
if they continually break our laws they need to be removed from society.

spoken like a true communist - bring on the Gulag

You define "continual" as twice or three times?

[Berzerker]

Kid -

It's not the same rationale. One the one hand drug users are acting very reckless, using a drug that they know is addicting, dangerous and that can lead them to commit crime and neglect their families, jobs etc... On the other hand just being of a certain race isn't reckless or neglectfull.

It is the same rationale and you just proved my point by using another generalisation to justify imprisoning the innocent because of the guilty. Being "reckless" is not a punishable offense unless the recklessness causes someone actual harm, not hurt feelings. And not everyone who uses a drug is reckless, addicted (not a crime either), or neglect their families. You're saying millions of people should be jailed because a small minority among those millions do bad things to others and that is immoral. If you don't think so, would you advocate jailing people who don't use drugs because some of them are reckless or neglect their families? Of course not, and if you did and tried to enforce such an immoral idea, you'd quickly be killed by one of your would-be victims. According to many here, poverty can cause crime. Using your logic, being poor is a crime and requires the punishment of poor people.

Dan S - I forgot to mention that the homicide rates would be even higher than 80 years ago if not for advancements in medicine. Today many people who would have died because of the violent culture spawned by the drug war are alive because they were saved by doctors. How many is a good question but I'd say 1 or 2 per 100,000 is a conservative estimate.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Generally, a high prison population is not nessecarily a bad thing. If it means we are caputring the dangerous people in society and keeping them locked away, it is a good thing.

Actually, it means the prisons are full, and we can't lock up all of the criminals. Worse, it doesn't deter crime. There are too many criminals out there who haven't been put in prison yet, and many kids who will become criminals when they become teenagers.

Prisons are not a good thing. They are a sign of very serious problems in our society.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


spoken like a true communist - bring on the Gulag

You define "continual" as twice or three times?

There's nothing wrong if that's crimes against people, but when you have people locked away forever for crimes against property or victimless crimes it gets pretty ridiculous...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kid -

It is the same rationale and you just proved my point by using another generalisation to justify imprisoning the innocent because of the guilty. Being "reckless" is not a punishable offense unless the recklessness causes someone actual harm, not hurt feelings.

Nonsense. Example reckless driving. Do you think that people should be able to drive 100mph on the sidewalk?

Originally posted by Berzerker
And not everyone who uses a drug is reckless, addicted (not a crime either), or neglect their families.

Yes they are reckless. Using drugs is a reckless act. Drug have a chemical effect on the brain. A drug user has no idea when this chemical effect is going to change his/her personality.

Originally posted by Berzerker
According to many here, poverty can cause crime. Using your logic, being poor is a crime and requires the punishment of poor people.

You can't jail someone for being poor (even though we do). That's completely unjustified. They have absolutely no control over that.

[Berzerker]

Generally, a high prison population is not nessecarily a bad thing.

It is a strong indicator of a morally bankrupt system. Virtually everyone understands the difference between a law that protects people from violence and a law that punishes personal behavior - respect for the former is widespread, respect for the latter is weak. If ~%70 of the people want a law and %30 don't, the law is very likely immoral and will result in an increased level of dis-respect for the state and those empowered to enforce the law.

If it means we are caputring the dangerous people in society and keeping them locked away, it is a good thing. The purpose of prison is after all protection from those who are dangerous, and if they are kept in prison, then they aren't out in public comitting crimes.

It's a very bad thing when we define "danger" as someone we think will commit a crime (as Kidicious has just done), not someone who has committed a crime. Then it becomes an immoral policy... The prison population would be much smaller if we believed in freedom.

I think California has the right idea in this regard- for repeat felony offenders, people who continually show a disregard for our law and continue to violate it, those people need to be removed from society. I'd think it would also be a good idea for people who are convicted of violent felonies twice to be removed from society and placed in prison, where they cannot hurt the public.

Given how politicians define "violent" felonies, that includes people who are merely exercising their freedom of association, i.e., drug dealing is now a "violent crime".
Ask these people how it can be a violent crime with no victim and they claim the buyer is the victim, the person who walked up to a dealer asking to be the victim of a violent crime , but they want to punish the victim too... That shows they don't really believe their own argument...

Sound like the excuse commies use for their ideology? Yup, it's the same... Commies justify the imposition of their ideology by claiming we the workers are the victims of capitalism and if we the workers believe we are not victims, that's too bad because they've decided we are. So the prohibitionists tell drug users they are the victims and it doesn't matter if the drug users say they are not victims, the prohibitionists have decided they are victims.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker
It's a very bad thing when we define "danger" as someone we think will commit a crime (as Kidicious has just done), not someone who has committed a crime.

There are all kinds of laws against reckless behavior. Putting people and their property at risk is a cost to those at risk just as actual damage to their body or property is.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Actually, it means the prisons are full, and we can't lock up all of the criminals. Worse, it doesn't deter crime. There are too many criminals out there who haven't been put in prison yet, and many kids who will become criminals when they become teenagers.

Prisons are not a good thing. They are a sign of very serious problems in our society.

If the prisons are full, then build more prisons. We're the world's richest nation and we can afford to incarcerate those who commit crimes. Russia isn't nearly as rich as we are and they still lock up a whole lot of people.

Whether prisons are a deterrant or not, they will always be effective in one sense. If one is in prison, then they are not comitting crimes. So the more dangerous people who commit crimes you put in there, the less crime you will have.

[Shi Huangdi]

Berzerker: You misunderstood me. I only favor punishment of people who prove themselves dangerous by actually committing a crime, nor do I believe in victimless crimes.

[Alexander's Horse]

There are big similarities between the path the US is going down now and what Britain was doing on crime in the late 18th and early 19th century.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


If the prisons are full, then build more prisons.

I'm going to tell you that many criminals haven't been caught yet and many future criminals aren't teenagers yet. Then you are going to say turn American into a police state.

[Berzerker]

Kid -

Nonsense. Example reckless driving. Do you think that people should be able to drive 100mph on the sidewalk?

If they own the sidewalk, yes. The owners get to decide how to regulate the use of that sidewalk, not people who don't own it. You're using a tangibly reckless behavior on PUBLIC property to justify punishing people you falsely accuse of reckless behavior, i.e., people sitting in their home using a drug. I've noticed how many supporters of prohibition have trouble making a distinction between public and private property, another interesting commonality with communists.

Yes they are reckless. Using drugs is a reckless act.

Prove it. And so what? People would have never left the valley and spread out across the globe if not for "reckless" behavior. People would have never walked on the moon if not for "reckless" behavior. You need something more tangible than this ambiguous and subjective "reckless behavior" to justify punishing people. Answer this: if the government did not exist, would you go around threatening people to get their money (how taxes are collected now) so you could break down the doors of other people to cage them for using drugs in the privacy of their homes?

Drug have a chemical effect on the brain.

Damn near everything has a chemical effect on the brain. Even jogging releases a drug produced by the body into the bloodstream, a drug called "endomorphine". Sound familiar? It means "the morphine within". Wanna claim exercise is reckless now?

A drug user has no idea when this chemical effect is going to change his/her personality.

Becoming religious can change your personality, but some drugs like pot have long histories and well known effects. It isn't a crime to have a change of personality... Nor is it "reckless"...

You can't jail someone for being poor (even though we do). That's completely unjustified. They have absolutely no control over that.

Sure they do, they can get educated and work their behinds off. Millions do it every generation...

Your argument: there is a link between drug use and crime, punish drug users even if they don't commit crimes.

Similar argument: there is a link between poverty and crime, punish poor people even if they don't commit crimes.

You say the latter is unjustified but not the former. Why? Because poor people can't help it? Maybe drug users can't help it. Weak argument... Immoral argument... It is immoral to punish someone because you think they might hurt someone else or because you think they might have a change of personality. It's their personality, not yours...