[TETENAL]

Well, it doesn't surprise you after seeing this:

http://www.cnn.com/video/player/play...e.sentence.cnn

Absolutely unbelievable.

The ironic thing is, that it doesn't even do anything good. As discussed in the SLC shooting thread in the lounge, the US also have the highest violent crimes rate in the first world. So why do they like doing this?

[faragbre967]

Why is the bottom left scribbled out?

But to answer your question the US has a high incarceration rate because it's a very free country, and yet a very restricted country in many ways. People are allowed to own all sorts of weapons here. There are also pretty strict drug laws also. Another reason would have to be the sheer population compared to a lot of places on that list. We also fight crime with a higher budget than, say, Russia. Russia is too economically strapped at this time to jail people for things like possession of marijuana. And how about the obsession with money in the US? People here are willing to do bad things for money, so crime is a natural alternative.

It's no real surprise that the US has the highest rate of incarceration in the free (or semi-free) world. I would, however, like to see the true stats on incarceration under the Soviet Union, China, Iran, ex-Iraq, North Korea, and ex-South Africa all equalized out to a balanced population.

[torsoboy]

A low incarceration rate does not mean low crime rate. That chart just shows that the cops in America actually arrest people for doing things that they shouldn't be doing.

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Well, it doesn't surprise you after seeing this:

CNN.com Video

Absolutely unbelievable.

In this case, and so many others like it it is clear that the state becomes the bigger criminal. I would rather see real criminals go unpunished than the (relatively) innocent have to endure unjust punishment. But it seems we have a system here that happily combines the worse of both worlds, and we're paying for it all.

[macintologist]

The war on drugs

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

http://www.cnn.com/video/player/play...e.sentence.cnn

Absolutely unbelievable.

Told ya'

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...ally-scumbags/

[Doofy]

Perhaps?

A convicted paedophile walked free from court because a judge who wanted to lock him up was told all the local prisons were full.

Robert Wilby, 61, was found guilty of five counts of indecency with a child and two of indecent assault at Liverpool Crown Court last week, and is due to be sentenced today.

Judge Sean Duncan told Wilby a prison term was 'inevitable' and wanted to keep him in jail over the weekend.

But officials told him that jails in Liverpool and Manchester had no spaces, and the nearest available cell was 100 miles away in Doncaster.

Granting Wilby bail until today's hearing, the judge voiced his frustration, saying: "The prisons are full. That is the state of our prison system in this country. It is quite ridiculous.

[OldManMac]

We have the highest incarceration rate in the world because we don't really want to solve our problems, so we simply lock up anybody who does anything wrong. The mentally ill don't belong in prisons, yet that's where many of them wind up, to be just another statistic. Non-violent first time drug offenders don't belong in prisons, but that's where we put them. We're a country that doesn't really want to face its problems (which is why we're going downhill fast), so we simply cart them off somewhere so that we don't have to think about them. At the same time, we complain about paying taxes to house people there, as if all this should be free. Michigan has one of the highest incarceration rates in the Midwest, and the budget shortfall is projected to be $900 million this fiscal year, so they're going to release 5,500 inmates on parole this year, and close one of the five prisons in Jackson, because it will save them $35 million this year. Now people are whipping themselves into a frenzy, because they don't want all these criminals loose on the streets. In sum, we want to have our cake and eat it too.

[BRussell]

Well said KarG. Politically, it's what you'd have to call 'overdetermined.' Just about the worst thing a politician could be accused of is coddling criminals.

[PER3]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

A low incarceration rate does not mean low crime rate. That chart just shows that the cops in America actually arrest people for doing things that they shouldn't be doing.

Would you like to back that up with some figures? Perhaps you could compare US and Australian crime rates for us against the incarceration rates. Hell, I know the entire country was once a prison, but I can assure you that things have changed in the meantime.

...

What—Australian laws are too lax and that is why we have a low crime/incarceration ratio?

[OAW]

Draconian drug laws. Plain and simple.

OAW

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by PER3 

Would you like to back that up with some figures? Perhaps you could compare US and Australian crime rates for us against the incarceration rates. Hell, I know the entire country was once a prison, but I can assure you that things have changed in the meantime.

I'm not sure Australia is the best example.

Published in The Newcastle Herald 7 February 2003

The Australian crime rate has escalated over the past 40 years. According to the International Crime Victim Survey of 17 countries, Australia now ranks second highest overall (behind England and Wales) on the rate of victimisation, and we score higher than any other country on so-called `contact crimes' such as robbery and assault.

But as the number of crimes has grown, our willingness to send offenders to prison has declined. True, we have a bigger prison population than we used to (per head of population, we now have about double the number of people in prison than we did in 1950). But imprisonment per crime committed has fallen quite dramatically.

In 1964, about 120 people went to prison per 1000 serious crimes. By the mid 1980s this number had fallen to around 30 prisoners per 1000 serious crimes, and it has remained at this level ever since. The chance of going to prison if you commit a serious offence is therefore four times smaller than it was 40 years ago.

Could this reduced risk of imprisonment help explain the continuing rise in crime?

We recently compared 40-year trends in crime and imprisonment rates in Australia, New Zealand, England and Wales and the United States. We found a fairly consistent pattern.

In all four countries, for as long as the rate of imprisonment per crime fell, the number of crimes committed continued to rise.

In America, however, they started to get tough in the 1970s and 1980s. As crimes continued to escalate, so the Americans started to respond by locking up increasing numbers of offenders. Today, the US has a much higher per capita prison population than any of the other countries we looked at but its crime rate has plummeted.

During the 1990s, the assault rate in the US dropped by more than one-third, burglary rates more than halved, robberies fell by two-thirds and car theft fell by three-quarters. In Australia, by contrast, burglary and car theft fell only marginally during the 1990s while assault and robbery rates continued going up.

Perhaps influenced by America's success, New Zealand and England and Wales both began to make more use of custodial sentences during the 1990s. And sure enough, in both countries, the crime rate (which had been increasing inexorably until then) began to fall from the mid to late 1990s onwards.

Australia, however, has not followed the other three countries. The chance of going to prison if you commit a serious crime is no higher now than it was 20 years ago. It is therefore telling that the crime rate shows no sign of falling here, as it has done in the UK, the US and across the Tasman.

[Doofy]

Crash, whoever wrote that article is talking out of their arse. Crime hasn't fallen in England and Wales at all - and our prisons are mostly full of pensioners who can't afford to pay their exorbitant property taxes.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Well, it does point out that Aus ranks second behind England and Wales. So England and Wales may have had decreased crime rates from some time before... but even so it's landed them smack at #1.

[Rumor]

There are too many cases of people going to prison for growing smoke, and people convicted of crimes that they didn't commit. Thought the latter isn't close to the number of the former.

[mitchell_pgh]

Martha Stewart went to jail in the US!

It's not just the war on drugs, it's mandatory sentencing.

[Dakar²]

Call me unsympathetic, but I'd rather see people do jail time for white collar crime than marijuana related crimes.

[Northeastern292]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

The war on drugs

Agreed, it is an expensive battle that could be put towards rehabilitating drug users.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Call me unsympathetic, but I'd rather see people do jail time for white collar crime than marijuana related crimes.

White collar crime is by far a bigger economic problem that marijuana related crimes, so it's not unsympathetic. White collar criminals generally have better access to legal representation as well. A couple of years ago, there was an article in one of the local papers (Detroit) which correctly pointed out that most of the more expensive drugs are in fact used by more wealthy people in the suburbs, as most of the lower income population of the city proper don't have the resources to purchase expensive drugs. They deal the expensive stuff, but they don't use it nearly as often, simply because they don't have the money to buy it. Another reason white collar crime is less prosecuted, particularly at the higher levels, is the government has cut back on the number of prosecutors who are assigned to patrol this area, and the wealthy can afford better lawyers. Why do you think the Enron scandal took years to even go to trial?

[TETENAL]

Why would anyone want to imprison drug users anyway? Drug addicts need help, not punishment. And since drug users harm themselves, not others, there is absolutely no need for imprisonment at all. Other means of sanction are available like imposing a fine or revoking the driver's license.

Though the war on drugs can't be the only reason for America's high incarceration rate, when I hear that people get arrested for throwing paper cups or 11 year olds for making a slingshot out of an balloon. In fact I'm quite shocked that it is even possible to imprison children in the US. This must be another exclusive in the civilised world.

How come Americans think it is acceptable to impose such draconian punishments for the most insignificant misdoings? Where is the sense of proportionality between deed and punishment? We are used to hear this from civil cases in America for ages, and it's sort of "funny" when a multi-billion dollar company like Microsoft is sentenced to pay 1.5 billion for not paying 16 million in licensing fees, but when it happens in criminal cases, and in some cases even children are involved, my guts revolt when I hear it.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

A low incarceration rate does not mean low crime rate. That chart just shows that the cops in America actually arrest people for doing things that they shouldn't be doing.

Oh jeez! You mean I'm surrounded by unarrested rapists and burglers and murderers up here in Canada? I better move to the States so I can be safer.

[tie]

There are seven times as many unarrested rapists, burglars and muderers in Canada (per capita) as in the US.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Well said KarG. Politically, it's what you'd have to call 'overdetermined.' Just about the worst thing a politician could be accused of is coddling criminals.

Originally Posted by KarlG 

We have the highest incarceration rate in the world because we don't really want to solve our problems, so we simply lock up anybody who does anything wrong. The mentally ill don't belong in prisons, yet that's where many of them wind up, to be just another statistic. Non-violent first time drug offenders don't belong in prisons, but that's where we put them. We're a country that doesn't really want to face its problems (which is why we're going downhill fast), so we simply cart them off somewhere so that we don't have to think about them. At the same time, we complain about paying taxes to house people there, as if all this should be free. Michigan has one of the highest incarceration rates in the Midwest, and the budget shortfall is projected to be $900 million this fiscal year, so they're going to release 5,500 inmates on parole this year, and close one of the five prisons in Jackson, because it will save them $35 million this year. Now people are whipping themselves into a frenzy, because they don't want all these criminals loose on the streets. In sum, we want to have our cake and eat it too.

Originally Posted by Rumor 

There are too many cases of people going to prison for growing smoke, and people convicted of crimes that they didn't commit. Thought the latter isn't close to the number of the former.

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Call me unsympathetic, but I'd rather see people do jail time for white collar crime than marijuana related crimes.

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Why would anyone want to imprison drug users anyway? Drug addicts need help, not punishment. And since drug users harm themselves, not others, there is absolutely no need for imprisonment at all. Other means of sanction are available like imposing a fine or revoking the driver's license.

Though the war on drugs can't be the only reason for America's high incarceration rate, when I hear that people get arrested for throwing paper cups or 11 year olds for making a slingshot out of an balloon. In fact I'm quite shocked that it is even possible to imprison children in the US. This must be another exclusive in the civilised world.

How come Americans think it is acceptable to impose such draconian punishments for the most insignificant misdoings? Where is the sense of proportionality between deed and punishment? We are used to hear this from civil cases in America for ages, and it's sort of "funny" when a multi-billion dollar company like Microsoft is sentenced to pay 1.5 billion for not paying 16 million in licensing fees, but when it happens in criminal cases, and in some cases even children are involved, my guts revolt when I hear it.

I agree with all of you.

I think that may be a sign of the apocalypse.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I agree with all of you.

I think that may be a sign of the apocalypse.

Holy smoke! (well, not really; I'm an agnostic)

[OAW]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

A couple of years ago, there was an article in one of the local papers (Detroit) which correctly pointed out that most of the more expensive drugs are in fact used by more wealthy people in the suburbs, as most of the lower income population of the city proper don't have the resources to purchase expensive drugs. They deal the expensive stuff, but they don't use it nearly as often, simply because they don't have the money to buy it.

In light of this comment and the topic in general, the following should shed some light on a major reason why the prison population is as high as it is and why it looks the way it does:

In 1986, Congress enacted mandatory minimum sentencing laws for all drugs and determined that crack cocaine should be treated as a distinctly different drug than powder cocaine with uniquely harsh penalties. Congress set the penalty for the sale of five grams of crack cocaine (about the weight of two pennies) at a mandatory five years in prison. For powder cocaine, Congress set the triggering quantity for a five-year sentence at 500 grams (a little more than 1 pound). Thus, it takes 100 times more powder cocaine to trigger the mandatory sentence for powder cocaine than for crack.

In 1988, Congress chose to make mere "possession" of five grams of crack cocaine punishable by five years in prison.[i] It is the only drug that carries a mandatory prison term for possession. Possession of any other drug triggers a maximum sentence of one year in prison.

The 100:1 disparity between crack and powder cocaine is unjustifiable. Research has shown that cocaine is cocaine regardless of the form in which it is used. The United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) has long been sympathetic to this fact, which is why in 1995 it passed a sentencing guideline amendment to make crack penalties the same as powder. Unfortunately, Congress blocked the guideline amendment so it did not become law. However, Congress did note that the 100:1 disparity was unjustified and it asked the Commission to come back with another recommendation to resolve the disparity.

In 2002, the Commission re-opened the crack powder debate and once again heard testimony from experts who reiterated that there is no valid scientific or medical distinction between cocaine in its powder form or in its base form (crack).

Cocaine Sentencing Has Racially Discriminatory Consequences

Unfortunately, the difference in the cocaine weights that trigger mandatory sentences for crack and powder cocaine has racially discriminatory consequences. Nationwide statistics compiled by the Commission reveal that the race of those prosecuted for crack offenses has predominately been African American. In 2000, 84.7% of crack cases were brought against African-Americans, 9% against Hispanics and only 5.6% against Whites. Caucasians, however, comprised a much higher proportion of crack users: 2.4 million Caucasians (64.4%), 990,000 African Americans (26.6%), and 348,000 Hispanics (9.2%).[ii] For powder cocaine, the disparities are somewhat different. Of all powder cases brought, 30.5% were against African-Americans, 50.8% were against Hispanics and 17.8% were against whites.[iii]

The Reasons for the Sentencing Differences are Unwarranted

Three reasons are often cited for the gross distinction in the penalties between powder and crack cocaine: addictiveness, violence, and accessibility due to low cost. All three reasons fail as a justification for the l00:1 ratio in punishment between two methods of ingesting the same drug. The Commission has been aware for many years that there are no scientific or medical reasons to justify the disparity.

Disparate treatment in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine users is not justified on the basis of the greater alleged addictiveness of crack. Research has proven that crack is not more addictive than powder cocaine. In her 10-year study of the developmental and behavioral outcomes of children exposed to powder and base cocaine in utero, Dr. Deborah Frank testified before the Commission that "the biologic thumbprints of exposure to these substances" are identical.[iv] While there are differences in the manner in which the body absorbs base versus powder cocaine, since Cocaine hydrochloride (powder) can easily be transformed into crack by combining it with baking soda and heat, it is irrational to apply a stiffer penalty between cocaine which is directly sold as crack, and cocaine which is sold in powder form but which can be treated by the consumer and easily transformed into crack.
Furthermore, the myth of the "crack baby" has been debunked. Dr. Frank testified, "There are no long-term studies, which identify any specific effects of 'crack' compared to cocaine on children's development. Based on years of careful research, we conclude that the 'crack baby' is a grotesque media stereotype, not a scientific diagnosis."[v]

Likewise, there is no research to indicate that the use of crack cocaine creates more violent behavior than using powder cocaine. A comparison of powder to crack cocaine offenses indicates that in 91% of all powder cases and in 88.4% of all crack cases there is no bodily injury. Threats were present in 4.2 % of powder cases and 3.7% of crack cases. Bodily injury occurred in 1.4% of powder cases and 4.5% of crack cases and death occurred in 3.4% of both powder and crack cases.[vi] Furthermore, according to Dr. Glen Hanson, there is "very little research on the role that drugs of abuse, such as stimulants like cocaine or amphetamine actually play in violence." Dr. Hanson concludes, that, "research has not been able to validate a casual link between drug use and violence."[vii]

Neither are excessive penalties for crack cocaine justified by its low price and accessibility. To apply draconian penalties for first time possession of crack on the basis of its low cost discriminates on the basis of class, especially in light of the fact that powder cocaine, in spite of its greater cost, is a drug abused more in this country.[viii] Furthermore, higher penalties for crack cocaine guarantee that small time street-level users will be penalized more severely than larger distributors who possess powder cocaine before it is transformed into crack. This type of drug abuse policy, which disproportionately impacts lower income people, is neither logical nor effective.

American Civil Liberties Union : Interested Persons Memo on Crack/Powder Cocaine Sentencing Policy

OAW

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by tie 

There are seven times as many unarrested rapists, burglars and muderers in Canada (per capita) as in the US.

Is that so?