I saw an editorial in the Union Tribune, which was apparently originally written on October 14 2015 in the Washington Post by Charles Lane. His position is that if we ended the war on drugs, and let all of the previous drug offenders out of prison, we still wouldn't significantly reduce the prison population.
Charles Lane pointed out some possible exaggerations in statements recently made by politicians, such as Carly Fiorina's claim that “two-thirds of the people in our prisons are there for nonviolent offenses, mostly drug-related.” He then stated that 46 percent of all state and federal prisoners are there for violent crimes. That clearly conflicts with Fiorina's claim of 66% in prison for non-violent crimes. He also says that only 19.5% of the prisoners are there for drug offenses. It amazes me that the statistics can be so different! The drugwarfacts.org website says 50% of federal prisoners are there for drug violations. The Huffington Post agrees with that number. I think the problem is that we don't have standard definitions of what a "drug-related" offense is, nor can we easily tease out the "violent" offenses that are drug related from all other violent offenses. A lot of burglary, robbery, car theft, weapon offenses, could be caused by drug addicts trying to obtain money to feed their habit of drugs that are only expensive because of our prohibition laws. Many non-violent crimes, such as income tax evasion, money laundering, credit card fraud etc are also possibly drug-related. Remember Al Capone was finally convicted for income tax evasion. That probably would have been called a non-violent, and "non-alcohol" related crime, while his "empire" was all about alcohol, and one of the most violent crime organizations.
There could be some changes in the laws that will help reduce the US prison population. See this article: However, it would seem that the various organizations that keep statistics on prison populations do need to get together and come up with better definitions and better ways of maintaining the statistics. If we are going to make any progress on reducing the incarceration rate, we need to be able to have a way of measuring our progress. It will also be interesting to see if state prison populations change in states that have legalized recreational use of marijuana, like Colorado. If so, that might prove, or disprove the assumption that relaxing laws on drugs could reduce the incarceration rate.
Charles Lane pointed out some possible exaggerations in statements recently made by politicians, such as Carly Fiorina's claim that “two-thirds of the people in our prisons are there for nonviolent offenses, mostly drug-related.” He then stated that 46 percent of all state and federal prisoners are there for violent crimes. That clearly conflicts with Fiorina's claim of 66% in prison for non-violent crimes. He also says that only 19.5% of the prisoners are there for drug offenses. It amazes me that the statistics can be so different! The drugwarfacts.org website says 50% of federal prisoners are there for drug violations. The Huffington Post agrees with that number. I think the problem is that we don't have standard definitions of what a "drug-related" offense is, nor can we easily tease out the "violent" offenses that are drug related from all other violent offenses. A lot of burglary, robbery, car theft, weapon offenses, could be caused by drug addicts trying to obtain money to feed their habit of drugs that are only expensive because of our prohibition laws. Many non-violent crimes, such as income tax evasion, money laundering, credit card fraud etc are also possibly drug-related. Remember Al Capone was finally convicted for income tax evasion. That probably would have been called a non-violent, and "non-alcohol" related crime, while his "empire" was all about alcohol, and one of the most violent crime organizations.
The statistic that is currently being touted by many, including Bernie Sanders and President Obama is that the US has 5% of the world population but 25% of the world's prisoners. I get the impression that Charles Lane does, somehow agree this is a problem. But his arguments against relaxation of drug laws makes him appear to be a strong supporter of the drug war. At the end of his column he wrote of the US incarceration rate: "The only way to lower it dramatically would be to reduce the frequency and duration of imprisonment for violent crimes, while continuing to reduce violent crime itself. If any of the candidates has a plan to do that, he or she should speak up." So it is clear that Charles Lane doesn't have a real solution to the problem. If he does, he probably wouldn't want to advocate it because it could alienate his readership. As soon as anyone proposes reducing the frequency and duration of imprisonment for violent crimes, his fellow right-wingers scream "soft on crime" and complain that releasing prisoners will unleash a huge rash of crime in the US, There are now so very many people making so much easy money as part of the "war on drugs" that they will certainly push the politicians to continue the war. In the 1960's many Americans complained about the Military-Industrial complex that caused us to buy weapon systems we maybe didn't need. Now we have a "Drug-war-Industrial Complex" that advocates for continuation of the drug war. This complex may be larger and much more powerful than the military-industrial complex. They include high tech companies who make spy and surveillance equipment, border patrol, FBI, NSA, CIA, DEA, Police, prison guard unions, builders of prisons, judges, prosecutors, and even defense attorneys. They all enjoy relatively high paying positions and are willing to put money into politics to advocate for increasing the war on drugs.
There could be some changes in the laws that will help reduce the US prison population. See this article: However, it would seem that the various organizations that keep statistics on prison populations do need to get together and come up with better definitions and better ways of maintaining the statistics. If we are going to make any progress on reducing the incarceration rate, we need to be able to have a way of measuring our progress. It will also be interesting to see if state prison populations change in states that have legalized recreational use of marijuana, like Colorado. If so, that might prove, or disprove the assumption that relaxing laws on drugs could reduce the incarceration rate.
One way of trying to figure out why we have such a high incarceration rate is to ask: "What makes the US so different from the rest of the world?" Is it our drug laws? We aren't much tougher on drugs than any other nation. Some, like Indonesia have the death penalty for drug law violations. Is it our "second amendment" that allows everyone to have unfettered access to guns? That doesn't seem to be the case from prison population counts. Is it our education level? We aren't the best or the worst educated country in the world. Is it our racial and cultural mix? It is hard to see how that would be connected. Is it our freedom of religion? Or our lack of a strong religious "moral compass?" is it our TV & Movies that glamorize drugs and violence? Our movies and TV are shown all over the world, so how could it be unique to the US? Somehow, I'd think that the many sociologists, criminologists, political scientists, and other similar professionals would, by now have some solid, scientific-based recommendations to resolve this problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment