The Drug War Is A Catastrophic Failure

Eight · Jun 16, 2013

Of all the sentencing laws the Three Strikes Law is the best because it aims square at psychopaths. Pscyhopaths are the most significant slice of the population that needs to be policed. They do not learn from their mistakes, they cannot be rehabilitated, and they are 50x overrepresented among perps of significant crimes. That one law is responsible for bringing down California's crime rate. Bullshit lefties tried to say it was about abortion but the crime rate fell directly after that law went into effect. I was for it and since then I've realized that we could more directly just diagnose psychopaths early and track them closely, same as molesters, and leave the Three Strikes law in place as well. It would bring a transformation of society if we could contain that little segment of the population. Every serial murderer and conman would have his face up on the web before he ever got started.

piezoe · Jun 16, 2013

Quote from Humpy:

The State would save a lot of money if criminals were allowed out when they were cured. The incurable could be terminally assisted.

Life sentences that truly mean a lifetime in prison are rare in the UK but common in the US. Why is this punishment so prevalent in the US?

Last week, an English court handed a whole-life sentence to Dale Cregan for murdering four people, including two policewomen.

That penalty means he will never be eligible for release, and it puts him in rare company, making him one of about 50 people in the UK serving such a sentence.

Had he been in the US, he would have been less of an anomaly.

In the US, at least 40,000 people are imprisoned without hope for parole, including 2,500 under the age of 18.

That is just a fraction of those who have been given a life sentence but yet may one day win release. The Sentencing Project, a non-profit organisation that studies sentencing and criminal justice in America, estimated in 2009 that at least 140,000 prisoners in the US now serve a life sentence.

This does not include convicts given extremely long sentences with a fixed term, like the Alabama man sentenced to 200 years for kidnapping and armed robbery.

Most of them will have the opportunity for parole - though Sentencing Project Director Marc Mauer says few will receive it.

Continue reading the main story
â
Start Quote
Criminals are always less popular than victimsâ
End Quote
Franklin Zimring

University of California, Berkeley

David Wilson, professor of criminology at Birmingham City University, says several factors underlie the high number of American convicts imprisoned for life.

"In large part it reflects the overly punitive nature of the American criminal justice system," says Mauer.

"Not only do we use life sentences much more extensively than other industrial nations, but even in the lower level of event severity, the average burglar or car thief will do more time than they will in Canada or Wales."

The harsh sentences reveal a type of "sentencing inflation" that began in the 1980s and 1990s.

"It was almost a competition among legislatures of both parties to show how tough they could be on crime," says Mauer.

At the same time, the sentence is thought to send a message.

"In states like Michigan where they don't have a death penalty, this is what they have as its moral equivalent," says Franklin Zimring, professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley.

In states that do have the death penalty, long sentences underscore distaste for crimes that do not meet the threshold for capital punishment.

California's overcrowded prisons have prisoners sleeping in stacked bedding in the gymnasium
"This is a way of putting a denunciatory exclamation point in the punishment," he says.

Politicians and other state officials are loathe to be seen as soft on crime, let alone to release an offender on parole only to have him commit another crime.

The 1993 death of Polly Klaas, a young girl killed by a recently paroled man with a long criminal history, led California to pass a "three strikes" rule mandating a sentence of 25 years to life for anyone found guilty of three felonies.

Continue reading the main story
Life in jail: Safer streets?
Does locking away criminals for life make society safer for everyone else?

"At some level the answer is obviously yes," says Dan Bernhardt. "There's no threat to safety if the prisoner is not at risk of re-offending, and a clear benefit if he is."

But Bernhardt's research shows that long prison sentences may impede rehabilitation.

"It can be grossly counterproductive," he says. "It can discourage someone from trying to rehabilitate themselves."

In the UK, "it is rare but not unheard of for someone on a life licence to commit serious offenses," says David Wilson, who says checks are in place to keep tabs on those who are released.

California lawmakers cite the three strikes policy as the reason for the state's declining crime rate. But University of California, Riverside sociologist Robert Nash Parker says other factors are responsible, like the national decline in alcohol consumption.

"The drop in crime occurred all over the country, in every state. It dropped at the same time, magnitude, direction," he says. "It can't possibly be due to a policy in just one state."

But now, in both the US and the UK the sentence of life without parole is coming into question.

In England, these sentences are currently being challenged in the European Court of Human Rights, after a lawsuit brought by three men serving whole life sentences - "a double murderer, a man who wiped out his entire family to inherit money, and a serial killer," says Wilson.

These men, at least one of whom proclaims his innocence, argue that the denial of a parole option does not allow them to claim they have changed. They further argue that the assignment of these sentences is arbitrary - some convicted killers get them, others do not.

In the US, budget cuts have forced states to reconsider whether the practice of locking criminals up for long periods of time is cost-effective.

"Lawmakers in Illinois have made the decision to shut down a few prisons and let people out early in order to save money," says Dan Bernhardt, professor of economics at the University of Illinois.

"There's nothing like state budget problems to get people to see what the costs are."

In 2012, the US Supreme Court also established that for minors, a sentence of life without parole violates the Constitution's safeguards against "cruel and unusual" punishment.

The court also ruled that prison overcrowding in California - due in part to severe sentencing and the three strikes programme - violates the same safeguards. It ordered the state to release tens of thousands of prisoners.

But action after these verdicts has been slow, as state officials continue to fight in court.

In the US, once someone has been sent to prison on a life sentence, it's hard for him or her to get out.
More...

Do you have for-profit prisons in the UK? If not, that could explain some differences in sentencing in the U.S. and in Great Britain. In the U.S. many prisoners are profit centers.

bigarrow · Jun 16, 2013

This doesn't have to be an all or nothing decision. Legalize pot now, it's a no brainer. I don't think there is any way all drugs will become legal, but legalized pot is very doable.

FortuneTeller · Jun 17, 2013

The movie Snitch is interesting to watch. At the end of the film they gave out a website www.takepart.com/snitch which is about the long drug sentences given out here in the US for possession of small amounts of drugs. Some lawmakers are working to reduce the length of the sentences.

CaptainObvious · Jun 17, 2013

Let us not forget who is prosecuting this war. A completely inept and criminally corrupt government. Ending the war was never part of the plan. Too much money in it. So much so, that even taxing drugs would bring in less revenue, and that legal money would be more difficult to steal.

achilles28 · Jun 17, 2013

Quote from CaptainObvious:

Let us not forget who is prosecuting this war. A completely inept and criminally corrupt government. Ending the war was never part of the plan. Too much money in it. So much so, that even taxing drugs would bring in less revenue, and that legal money would be more difficult to steal.
More...

Ya exactly. The retards don't get it.

BSAM · Jun 17, 2013

I just wonder how much money the drug cartels send to our D.C. whores each year.

BSAM · Jun 17, 2013

Quote from bigarrow:

This doesn't have to be an all or nothing decision. Legalize pot now, it's a no brainer. I don't think there is any way all drugs will become legal, but legalized pot is very doable.
More...

I have long said that if whiskey is legal, then marijuana should be legal.
If they threw it all down the toilet, it would be fine by me, but the government logic is somewhat bizarre.

wjk · Jun 17, 2013

Quote from bigarrow:

Legalize pot now...
More...

Huh?

achilles28 · Jun 17, 2013

Quote from BSAM:

I just wonder how much money the drug cartels send to our D.C. whores each year.
More...

Apparently, they're sending hundreds of billions to Wachovia and HSBC. Besides, think of the trillions fleeced from tax payers over the years on building prisons, guards, judges, cops, asset forfeiture seizure. It's a great racket. Oooooooo scary drugs! We need more laws!!

America is great at inventing new things to be scared of. Fear is a great industry. Probably the #1 industry in America.