81–90 of 326 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point I'm making is that it's implicit that they are "not" criminals by virtue of there being such a huge discrepancy. This needs to be addressed in a clear, and concise manner instead of making sweeping generalizations about the discrepancy.
You should probably edit your original post, because this point is not at all clear from that post.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only. The War on Drugs is a jobs program. What will all those newly out of work people do? What will all of those local police departments do without the 'easy' money from the government? (I realize that some of them don't need the extra funding and just use it to buy 'toys,' but I'm sure there are other to count on it in their budget) I'm not saying that it shouldn't end. I'm saying that it is not "as simple as i…
>What will all those newly out of work people do? Making drugs? Selling drugs? Work in treatment? Work in the new recreational environments setup to take drugs? Increase enforcement of public intox/driving issues? Police elsewhere and other issues?
If you just cut all of those people loose, then you will have to deal with the fallout of a bunch of angry unemployed people, and their friends/family/etc. In addition to using it as a "you don't love America" field day.
There's all this discussion of these issues, which relate to racism, economic issues, police brutality, crime, etc. They seem complicated and nuanced and people throw their hands up and say well what can we do. The answer to that question is actually so simple you can say it in four words: End the drug war. Someone far more eloquent than me, The Wire creator David Simon, can flesh that out a little: http://www.washin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Among other things, our murder rate is higher than that of most other western nations. Assuming murder rate is a good proxy for other "valid" crimes (it's hard to hide a body), we would expect to have 5x the incarceration rate of the UK or France. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...
The murder rate is that high because of easy access to weapons that make murdering people relatively easy. Shooting someone is a lot easier than knifing someone, point-and-click.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only. The War on Drugs is a jobs program. What will all those newly out of work people do? What will all of those local police departments do without the 'easy' money from the government? (I realize that some of them don't need the extra funding and just use it to buy 'toys,' but I'm sure there are other to count on it in their budget) I'm not saying that it shouldn't end. I'm saying that it is not "as simple as i…
I think it's important in policy discussions to distinguish "simple" and "easy" as concepts. Needless to say, it would not be easy to end and unravel the drug war. As a concept and goal, however, it is a simple decision. > What will all of those local police departments do without the 'easy' money from the government? Perhaps they could attempt to solve and prevent crimes involving violence and fraudulent behavior, w…
You are assuming that they are not doing that currently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The drug war is a direct consequence of the Warren Court reforms of the 1960s. Equal Protection and Disparate Impact made illegal many local laws and policing methods that had worked to maintain order. Prosecutors needed new tools to get criminals behind bars, hence the war on drugs.
I don't think I've heard this theory before. Can you flesh it out a little bit please?
When the author was asked in the comments to expound on the thesis he just provided a link to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Court#Due_process_and_r...
I think the crux is in the last paragraph of that section, although the link to the War on Drugs is not made explicit:
> Conservatives angrily denounced the "handcuffing of the police." Violent crime and homicide rates shot up nationwide in the following years; in New York City, for example, after steady to declining trends until the early 1960s, the homicide rate doubled in the period from 1964 to 1974 from just under 5 per 100,000 at the beginning of that period to just under 10 per 100,000 in 1974. Controversy exists about the cause, with conservatives blaming the Court decisions, and liberals pointing to the demographic boom and increased urbanization and income inequality characteristic of that era. After 1992 the homicide rates fell sharply.
I think it's entirely reasonable that the War on Drugs began as a reaction to rising crime rates.
My two additional bits: I've often heard that the US is a little exceptional in that it approaches the problem of "police doing bad things" by throwing "tainted" evidence out and mostly not holding the police accountable for their actions, whereas other countries allow the "tainted" evidence to stand but then allow some sort of proceeding against the police to address the bad behavior. It seems from my limited understanding that the US approach stands on the Warren Court.
It's interesting that both aspects of the US approach (War on Drugs, shielding the police from liability) are under fire. I wonder if these things are as controversial in other Western countries -- if not maybe the Warren Court really does deserve some scrutiny. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that the Warren Court caused the police protectionism, rather that it tacitly allowed it to persist with frameworks that mostly provide indirect corrective feedback to police misbehavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Legalize which drugs? Only marijuana, or also crack, heroin, or LSD? If a certain drug causes brain damage and makes its users invalids, who will support them? I think a cost-benefit analysis needs to be done for each drug.
If all drugs where legal then they would be made by commercial organisations, instead of illeagal non-accountable crime organisations. Some people will die, and then those commercial organisations will get thier asses handed to them in a law suit, the industry will find ways to make it safer and accountable for thier own proTection. Instead of the current situation, where very large numbers of people die, and the sup…
There's all this discussion of these issues, which relate to racism, economic issues, police brutality, crime, etc. They seem complicated and nuanced and people throw their hands up and say well what can we do. The answer to that question is actually so simple you can say it in four words: End the drug war. Someone far more eloquent than me, The Wire creator David Simon, can flesh that out a little: http://www.washin…
I agree that we should end the drug war but you are oversimplifying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems as if you're saying violent crime is a function of race (crazy talk) instead of class status (arguable). Is it possible that, due to race-income inequalities in America, that black males are also more likely to have low/no income at the same "much higher rate"?
Empirically, crime rates do depend on race, not just class. It's not crazy to recognize reality.
Crime is a complex system that involves more than just the two axes race and violence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that it is mostly a for profit business helps a lot.
Only 8.4% of US prisoners are in privately owned prisons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prison#Development_3 I suspect wider cultural reasons rather than just simple corruption - though that no doubt plays a part.