Drugs and imprisonment
- Thread starter Empty Hands
- Start date
Yes, thats an option too. Of course, if it was decided that the small timers shouldn't be released, perhaps putting them into a facility, ie: half way house, for the remainder of their time.
CoryKS
Senior Master
The easiest way to reduce crime is to reduce the number of things that are illegal. But the community in question should decide whether these things are illegal and change the laws accordingly rather than choose which laws they are going to enforce. If the community believes Chad the Pothead should be in jail, he should be in jail and accomodations should be made for more violent criminals as well. If the community believes Chad shouldn't be in jail, they need to decriminalize the behavior.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,063
- Reaction score
- 82
There was an intersting discussion on the radio program 'On Point' this morning. One of the guest was explaining how the 'mandatory minimum' sentences were put into place in the mid-eighties. I believe he used the term 'auction' when describing the activity in the Congressional debate. Each of our Representatives attempting to 'out-tough' the other.
We end up with mandatory minimum sentences which are based on nothing more than someones' desire to look tough on drugs.
He also mentioned a section of the US Code which allows significant reward for 'ratting out' other in the drug supply chain. What he described was big fish ratting out the little fish, in order for reduced sentences. The big fish gets three years in jail, the little fish get 15 years in jail; because the little fish don't have anyone left to rat out.
The United States has a higher precentage of citizen in jail than any of our peer countries. This is hardly a statistic of which we should be proud.
The United States is one of the few countries in our peer group that retains capital punishment. This too, seems to be a sad commentary on our society.
We end up with mandatory minimum sentences which are based on nothing more than someones' desire to look tough on drugs.
He also mentioned a section of the US Code which allows significant reward for 'ratting out' other in the drug supply chain. What he described was big fish ratting out the little fish, in order for reduced sentences. The big fish gets three years in jail, the little fish get 15 years in jail; because the little fish don't have anyone left to rat out.
The United States has a higher precentage of citizen in jail than any of our peer countries. This is hardly a statistic of which we should be proud.
The United States is one of the few countries in our peer group that retains capital punishment. This too, seems to be a sad commentary on our society.
OP
Empty Hands
Senior Master
- Thread Starter
- #5
While in practice this is what will happen, I disagree as a matter of principle. If what the community wants is unjust and immoral, then it should not (note, not "will not") happen. I am sure you would agree for instance that if the community wants being black or going to church to be a jailable offense then it should not be. Similarly, it is unjust and immoral to jail people for ingesting substances into their bodies that cause no harm to others. It is especially hypocritical in that we approve of some substances (alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, prescription drugs) while disapproving of others that have no essential differences with the allowed drugs.
Keeping the charade going on the War on Drugs is what is causing so much prison overcrowding, and leading to the release of violent offenders to make room. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
You aren't seriously comparing drugs to racism are you? Or going to church to smoking dope?
CoryKS
Senior Master
Now you're begging the question. Do you assume that I share your opinion about these substances, their relative potency, and their potential to contribute to social problems?
OP
Empty Hands
Senior Master
- Thread Starter
- #8
Yes, they are exactly the same thing. :hb:
Did you not comprehend the point of the analogy? Some people think you should be jailed for smoking dope, some think you should be jailed for attending church (honest, I've ran into a few). Just because the community wants something to be jailable doesn't mean it should be.
Get it now?
OP
Empty Hands
Senior Master
- Thread Starter
- #9
No, I am stating my position. Making an argument. Posting. It's fun!
Oh, I fully grasp your analogy, I just disagree with its idiocy.
OP
Empty Hands
Senior Master
- Thread Starter
- #11
Wow, now I wish I hadn't posted you that nice response in the Fast Advancement thread.
I probably shouldn't do this but...what exactly about the analogy was idiotic? The fact that it used examples you find distasteful when compared to drug use? The logic of it is that the exact examples don't matter, what matters is that you would presumably agree that the community shouldn't jail black people because they want it so, but you will allow the community to jail drug users because they want it so. When looked at apart from matters of justice or morality, this means your principles are arbitrary. IOW, community standards are a fine basis for jailing people when you agree with them. This is hardly rare, but not exactly laudable. Such a mindset justifies anything, including jailing black people because you don't like them, as long as most of the community agrees with you.
Since most people would find this result distasteful, and are cognizant of similar abuses in the past, most ethical people try to develop a consistent set of principles that says jailing drug users is OK but jailing black people is not. The will of the community clearly doesn't meet this test.
That was what the analogy was all about, and if you think it is idiotic, then it says more about you then it does me. I would simply hope then that more people like me and not more people like you would be running any society or justice system I find myself involved in.
As nice as this sounds, it is highly unlikely IMHO, that something like this'll ever happen. I say this because you will never get 100% to agree. Some will say that all drug offense should be jail time, some will say that it depends on the drug and some will say no jail time at all.
Anyone who says drug use only hurts the user, just doesn't know what they are talking about. My cousin got started on weed at 12, his use has increased in potency and cost (financial, emotional, mental and physical) every year. Now at 37 he is unemployable at any job that requires things like trustworthiness, timeliness and attention to detail. His exploits have cost my aunt and uncle hundreds of thousands of dollars and you say drugs harm none but those that use?
True. Additionally, whether something is legal or not, people (those who use it) will never get rid of that craving. Therefore, if weed was legal, its not going to be free. So you will still have people commit narcotics related crimes.
A friend of mine went to Amsterdam for two weeks this spring. Before he left he was loudly in favor of legalizing drugs. When he came back, he wasn't. Must have looked a little less like the paradise described...
Freedom does not mean you are free to do anything you like without consequences, but, sadly, that is how many interpret it.
Freedom does not mean you are free to do anything you like without consequences, but, sadly, that is how many interpret it.
OP
Empty Hands
Senior Master
Just for clarification. I'm not advocating the use of drugs or making them legal for that matter. I have no idea what "Thunderbird" is. I'm assuming its alcohol? As for the last part...sure, I suppose that can apply as well. I suppose one difference would be that drugs are illegal no matter who buys them, while alcohol is legal, except to sell to anyone underage.
Just for clarification. I'm not advocating the use of drugs or making them legal for that matter. I have no idea what "Thunderbird" is. I'm assuming its alcohol? As for the last part...sure, I suppose that can apply as well. I suppose one difference would be that drugs are illegal no matter who buys them, while alcohol is legal, except to sell to anyone underage. Then again, what're the stats on alcohol vs. narcotics related crimes? If someone had a craving for crack, there is a good chance that they're going to rob a store to get money for drugs. Do people hold up liquor stores for the sole purpose of the liquor? While some liquor may get taken in the process, I'd think the primary goal is to get the cash.
OP
Empty Hands
Senior Master
- Thread Starter
- #19
Yep.
Yes, but per your point, alcohol still costs money. No one would rob you for crack money if they already had the money.
That's what I'm getting it, this is important to answering your point of whether you would still have people being robbed for crack money if crack was legal. I didn't have the sense that robbing people for alcohol money was a common crime, but I could be wrong. Usually, panhandling is enough for that.
Thanks for the clarification.
I see your point. I guess what I was trying to get at was that I personally think that you're going to see more narc. related crime compared to crime to get booze. Someone asking for money on the street...yes, panhandling is a crime, however, compared to holding a gun to someone asking for money and just asking as they walk by are two different things IMO.
