The Imprisoner’s Dilemma
bloomberg.com
The Imprisoner’s Dilemma
1–10 of 29 posts
Re: The Imprisoner’s Dilemma
#2The cynic in me assumes that state governments are using this crisis as an opportunity to lower expenditures because of looming budget crises. Releasing tens of thousands of prisoners without sufficient support into a flailing economy is setting them up for failure.
Re: The Imprisoner’s Dilemma
#3The people advocating to release ~1 million violent criminals are least likely to suffer at their hands. Hand on heart, nobody wants to leave next to a convicted murderer or drug dealer.
Mass incarceration is a symptom, abolishing it is not a cure.
Re: The Imprisoner’s Dilemma
#4The cynic in me assumes that state governments are using this crisis as an opportunity to lower expenditures because of looming budget crises. Releasing tens of thousands of prisoners without sufficient support into a flailing economy is setting them up for failure.
Unfortunately “adequate support to help people reintegrate so going back to crime isn’t their best option” looks a lot like “rewarding criminals” to a good portion of the electorate. Maybe in part because social services in general are so bad that anything at all looks like a lot of aid.
Dunno if it’s still the case but I at one point a tax guy asked me if I’d been convicted of (IIRC) any drug offenses because if I had I’d have been ineligible for certain education-related tax assistance. Dafuq? Yes let’s make it even harder for people to do something other than dealing drugs, when they get out. That makes a ton of sense.
Re: The Imprisoner’s Dilemma
#5The people advocating to release ~1 million violent criminals are least likely to suffer at their hands. Hand on heart, nobody wants to leave next to a convicted murderer or drug dealer. Mass incarceration is a symptom, abolishing it is not a cure.
Drug dealer? Seriously? You mean those people who happened to sell a couple joints worth of marijuana to a friend while black? Or those who just happened to possess a bit too much to be considered "for personal use"?
Re: The Imprisoner’s Dilemma
#6The people advocating to release ~1 million violent criminals are least likely to suffer at their hands. Hand on heart, nobody wants to leave next to a convicted murderer or drug dealer. Mass incarceration is a symptom, abolishing it is not a cure.
This study by the NYU School of Law figures that 4 in 10 (!) US prisoners are either non-violent or have already completed long sentences, and can be set free with minimal risk.
https://time.com/4596081/incarceration-report/
That said, I agree that reforming drug policy in particular would also be a great way to reduce mass incarceration.
Re: The Imprisoner’s Dilemma
#7The people advocating to release ~1 million violent criminals are least likely to suffer at their hands. Hand on heart, nobody wants to leave next to a convicted murderer or drug dealer. Mass incarceration is a symptom, abolishing it is not a cure.
Where in the article is the release of ~1 million violent criminals advocated? The story's focus is on California:
> Newsom and the CDCR are prioritizing the 4,800 people who are within 180 days of finishing their sentences for the first round of rolling releases by the end of July, and then those with a year or less left to serve who are living in high-risk prisons like San Quentin. People in jail for violent offenses and perpetrators of domestic abuse are not eligible for release.
Re: The Imprisoner’s Dilemma
#8The people advocating to release ~1 million violent criminals are least likely to suffer at their hands. Hand on heart, nobody wants to leave next to a convicted murderer or drug dealer. Mass incarceration is a symptom, abolishing it is not a cure.
Drug dealer? Seriously? You mean those people who happened to sell a couple joints worth of marijuana to a friend while black? Or those who just happened to possess a bit too much to be considered "for personal use"?
Both you and the grandparent are making sweeping generalizations; as with everything, there's various gradations in a crime and it's not a boolean equation.
That said, I do agree that there's a large amount of people in prison that shouldn't be there, and the US prison system ensures people stay or return to prison later on.
Re: The Imprisoner’s Dilemma
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Drug dealer? Seriously? You mean those people who happened to sell a couple joints worth of marijuana to a friend while black? Or those who just happened to possess a bit too much to be considered "for personal use"?
Both you and the grandparent are making sweeping generalizations; as with everything, there's various gradations in a crime and it's not a boolean equation. That said, I do agree that there's a large amount of people in prison that shouldn't be there, and the US prison system ensures people stay or return to prison later on.
I should probably have been clearer, but that was my point--the fact that "drug dealer" is too broad a concept. Even though some dealers are definitely career criminals, and some might also commit violent crimes, lumping a large majority of them in the same category as murderers is what got you (and other countries to varying degrees) into the whole mess in the first place. It is rhetoric only meant to scare people and shut down thinking.
Re: The Imprisoner’s Dilemma
#10[deleted]