General US Politics Discussion

[Burbalade]

23 minutes ago, TheSpectre said:

Once he sold out and started campaigning for her yes. But Sanders had 30,000 strong crowd in NYC after his return to the campaign trail this cycle.

NYC vs Oklahoma isn't really a fair comparison. Population of NYC is more than double that of the entire state of Oklahoma. Population density of nearly 30,000 vs less than 60.  

[Raavi]

Isn't whataboutism fun?

[Smith John]

Not as fun as relativism.

[Raavi]

In another round of the ugly politicisation of the DOJ: Those lawyers that threw a Molotov cocktail at an unoccupied already damaged NYPD cruiser lightly damaging its dashboard - have now been brought up on a slew of new charges that carry a mandatory minimum of 45 years (!!) with a maximum of life in federal prison. These charges are outrageously trumped up and do not in any way reflect the actual criminal conduct that occurred. And, to add insult to injury, carry a far more severe punishment than even the maximum the ex-cop will get that murdered Floyd that kickstarted all this. It is an absolutely disgusting attempt at trying to railroad a bunch of young people with no criminal history to speak of just to appease the current regime. One would not be surprised to see such practices in places like Russia or China, but under Billy Barr the DOJ is not far removed from those places. Absolutely disgusting. 

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

For anyone wanting to understand the history and background of BLM, and the current unrest in the US, Unravelling The Rat's Nest has produced a brilliant history and study into the US systems involved, both then and now :
 

I never knew California used penal labour to man it's forestry and remote fire services....

 

[TheGodDamnMaster]

I was actually just reading about prison labor in Chris Hedges' book "America The Farewell Tour" and was surprised to read that in some states, such as Georgia, it is mandatory and unpaid. Modern day slavery. Even in states that pay their prisoners for labor they make at most $2 an hour, not even 1/3 of the federal minimum wage. McDonalds employee uniforms are mostly manufactured by prisoners. I was also surprised to see Nintendo among companies that utilize prison labor. And with the advent of privately owned prisons, the owners make backroom deals to have a "guaranteed" flow of prisoners into their walls. It is disgusting.

Edited June 27, 2020 by TheSpectre

[Raavi]

@TheSpectre That's the prison industrial complex for you, un(der)paid labour is just the tip of the iceberg. If you are interested in the plight and injustices of incarcerated people in the US I can recommend https://www.themarshallproject.org.

[Typhus]

So, Russia was offering bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan. Trump has known about this since March apparently and done nothing.

I mean, I know he's lowered the bar of acceptable conduct for the Presidency, but surely this has to yield some kind of negative consequences for him?

[Creed Bratton]

1 hour ago, Typhus said:

So, Russia was offering bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan. Trump has known about this since March apparently and done nothing.

NOT TRUE!

 

He invited Russia to G-7.

 

At this point, anyone who still thinks that Trump isn't owned by Russia is a f*ckin' moron. Trump's ties to Russia aren't all unrelated coincidences. It's a pattern that's visible from outer space.

Edited June 27, 2020 by DareYokel

[Burbalade]

Quote

the current president of the US is banking on popular racism to get him back into office.

No, the current president of the US denounces racism and is banking on his ability to build the economy.

The opposing party is banking on selling you the lie that he is racist, and preventing him from building the economy. 

 

Quote

He is capable of using the division and populism centred on race in the US to appeal to factions

That actually describes exactly what the "you ain't black" democrats are doing with minorities. Go figure it's the left leaning mainstream media that is cherry picking stories to paint a picture of systemic racism, causing the divide that they then accuse Trump of creating and profiting on. This follows their regular tactics of being the aggressor and then playing victim. 

 

Quote

but these are not unusual protests.

They absolutely are. Accidental deaths or really any deaths in police custody typically do not lead to mass protests, rioting, looting, or seizure of US land. This doesn't happen when white people are killed by police, even when it's obviously intentional and the officer sees no discipline. Why should you riot when a black man is accidentally killed and the officer is charged with murder?

 

Quote

 not trigger the division and populism.

They absolutely do, you just call anyone that doesn't agree with you a racist. Believe it or not, that is in fact divisive. 

 

Here's a tip: If you want your article to be taken seriously, then don't start out by building the entire thing on a web of lies. 

 

 

9 hours ago, TheSpectre said:

Even in states that pay their prisoners for labor they make at most $2 an hour, not even 1/3 of the federal minimum wage. 

For someone that has no expenses, that's plenty. Paying anywhere near federal minimum would make being in prison extremely lucrative, incentivising crime. Seems counter productive to me, but the worst crime I've committed is speeding. Maybe if I were a career criminal I'd feel differently about it. 

[Raavi]

 

Quote

For someone that has no expenses, that's plenty. Paying anywhere near federal minimum would make being in prison extremely lucrative, incentivising crime. 

 

This is the same flawed reasoning that is used against making prisons more habitable - even in the face of mounts of evidence that it actually leads to lower recidivism rates and more successful reintegration into society. The money that is earned inside prison walls is also spent inside prison walls on commissary. No one is going to commit a felony just so they can go to prison, work and get commissary items they can get at any corner store.

 

 

[Burbalade]

47 minutes ago, Raavi said:

No one is going to commit a felony just so they can go to prison, work and get commissary items they can get at any corner store.

You wouldn't, but that doesn't mean no one would. Even as is there are those that find prison life easier than life on the outside, and there are countless examples of people committing crimes with the intention of being put back in prison, generally with no more than a passing mention in local news. Now add to that easy potential for $1800/m without having to worry about housing, food, power, water, transportation, etc. or have the opportunity to spend that income on stupid stuff like $1500 phones and $300 shoes. All of a sudden it makes financial sense for those in poverty to spend a year or two in prison. 

 

Prison doesn't need to be hell but that doesn't mean it needs to be heaven either. The line needs to be drawn somewhere. I haven't seen any evidence suggesting that making prison easier and more enjoyable than lower class life on the outside will improve anything other than quality of life for criminals. My previous workplace had me working alongside ex cons on a regular basis. Most of them realized they were wrong, and improved their lives while inside. The only ones I ever met which complained were ones that the system wasn't going to help regardless because they don't think anything they do is wrong. 

[Raavi]

45 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

and there are countless examples of people committing crimes with the intention of being put back in prison, generally with no more than a passing mention in local news.

Emphasis here on the being "put back" as in, they have been incarcerated before. That's not attributable to them "liking" incarceration as much as it is to them being not at all equipped to deal with the outside world. Which is caused by a system that is only interested in profits and appearing "tough on crime" but not with the consequences of its fetish for arresting people and warehousing them for many years. 

 

45 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

Now add to that easy potential for $1800/m without having to worry about housing, food, power, water, transportation, etc. or have the opportunity to spend that income on stupid stuff like $1500 phones and $300 shoes. All of a sudden it makes financial sense for those in poverty to spend a year or two in prison. 

No one said they should get 1800 USD. Which by the way is significantly higher than the monthly federal minimum wage. For context, at present, in many states they make barely more than 0,20 - 0,50 USD / hour which is just extortionate. All it does is force them to hustle and start up illicit rackets within the confines of the prison walls, resulting in more violence. Because realistically, what a prison provides is barely enough to function. Heck, many don't even provide enough toilet paper or real soap. All things they have to buy from commissary. 

 

45 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

Prison doesn't need to be hell but that doesn't mean it needs to be heaven either. The line needs to be drawn somewhere. 

It is however hell at present in many states. Look up Parchman Prison for a peak.

 

45 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

I haven't seen any evidence suggesting that making prison easier and more enjoyable than lower class life on the outside will improve anything other than quality of life for criminals.

There is a vast body of literature that suggests that harsher conditions not only lead to higher rates of criminality after release but also to more severe offending. The criminogenic effect of prison. So it is actually in the interest of the public for prison conditions to be more liveable, because the majority of prison inmates will return to a neighbourhood near you.

 

Incarceration may have over the past 100 years or so have become engrained into society. But in reality prison is a very flawed means of addressing crime and it doesn't really make sense for most offences, especially non-violent ones. In actual fact, it is counterproductive in most cases. Or to put it in terms that are more interesting for the more economically minded: It is a huge waste of your tax dollars.

 

45 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

My previous workplace had me working alongside ex cons on a regular basis. Most of them realized they were wrong, and improved their lives while inside. The only ones I ever met which complained were ones that the system wasn't going to help regardless because they don't think anything they do is wrong. 

Kudos to your old workplace for hiring ex-offenders. No job prospects is a huge part of why there is such a high re-arrest rate. 

[Burbalade]

3 minutes ago, Raavi said:

them being not at all equipped to deal with the outside world.

It's not the job of the prison system to equip you for reality. Being equipped for a reality is something that is required of everyone and starts in your early childhood. Typically you've got 18 years to figure out how the world works, if you haven't by then it's on you. You can not take personal accountability out of the equation. 

 

8 minutes ago, Raavi said:

No one said they should get 1800 USD. Which by the way is significantly higher than the monthly federal minimum wage.

$7.25 x 8hr day x 31 days = $1798

There is no federal monthly minimum wage,so not sure what you're talking about there.

 

12 minutes ago, Raavi said:

All it does is force them to hustle and start up illicit rackets within the confines of the prison walls, resulting in more violence.

You're removing personal accountability again. 

 

14 minutes ago, Raavi said:

There is a vast body of literature that suggests that harsher conditions not only lead to higher rates of criminality after release but also to more severe offending.

Are you under the impression this will extrapolate infinitely? If not, the line needs to be drawn somewhere and you need to figure out where we are at in relation to that line. Forgive me if you've previously set such boundaries but from this conversation I'm not gathering anything from you suggesting any such line.

 

19 minutes ago, Raavi said:

the majority of prison inmates will return to a neighbourhood near you.

Previously true, but no longer. I've lived in a few ghetto apartment complexes but I'm now very much enjoying rural life. 

 

22 minutes ago, Raavi said:

prison is a very flawed means of addressing crime and it doesn't really make sense for most offences, especially non-violent ones. In actual fact, it is counterproductive in most cases. 

Having known and worked alongside plenty of ex cons, I've seen the opposite to be true. Most were in for drug offences and those almost always come out better than they went in.

From what I've seen it's the violent offenders that are less likely to gain anything from the system. They go in pissed at society and expect things to be handed to them, blaming their issues on others. And it's these cases in particular that I don't see your stance helping as it reinforces their belief that society owes them. 

 

31 minutes ago, Raavi said:

Kudos to your old workplace for hiring ex-offenders. No job prospects is a huge part of why there is such a high re-arrest rate. 

Most aspects of construction don't care in the slightest about criminal history. Always looking for help but it's hard manual labor and unfortunately a lot people would rather their money be dirty than their hands. 

[sivispacem]

11 hours ago, Raavi said:

No one said they should get 1800 USD.

At two bucks an hour as previously noted, you'd have to work longer than there are hours in the day to even get close to $1800. Working 24 hours a day solidly for a month would still net you less than $1500.

 

Eight hours of working six days a week would net prisoners a whopping $384 per month, not even remotely close to the pie-in-the-sky $1800 figure.

[Raavi]

10 hours ago, Burbalade said:

It's not the job of the prison system to equip you for reality. Being equipped for a reality is something that is required of everyone and starts in your early childhood. Typically you've got 18 years to figure out how the world works, if you haven't by then it's on you. You can not take personal accountability out of the equation. 

That's very naive. Sure, in a normal developmental process one's parents, teachers, sports coaches etc. will equip one for adulthood. But that is a privilege that is predicated on a lot of things going right in one's life. Myriad factors can derail that: Think early-childhood abuse, addiction, mental health issues, wrong friends, toxic relationships, poverty or even something as seemingly trivial as bullying - and so on and so forth. The people that wind up in the criminal justice system tend to check at least one and often multiple of these boxes.

 

Then they're in prison, which in the US even for non-violent crimes or violent crimes with serious mitigating factors can incur some seriously draconian sentencing (Then add to that the insanity of sentencing minors as adults). Then what, they're within those walls for 5 years, 10 years, 40 years before being kicked to the curb with often not more then a couple hundreds of bucks and decades worth of trauma. That's a job well done for the prison? If not for equipping people for dealing with reality what utility does prison have to society? 

 

10 hours ago, Burbalade said:

$7.25 x 8hr day x 31 days = $1798

There is no federal monthly minimum wage,so not sure what you're talking about there.

 

For starters they do not get paid for 31 days a month, they solely get paid for actual hours worked. Their work schedule varies significantly as it depends on the work - but 8 hours a day x 5 days x 4 weeks which would = 1160 USD under the current federal minimum wage. Realistically now though it equals 80 USD based on an hourly rate of 0.50 USD. 

 

10 hours ago, Burbalade said:

You're removing personal accountability again. 

I think we've been over this before but I do not believe in the notion that we have unbridled free will, which is the only scenario where a full reliance on personal accountability would make sense. Prisons furthermore also have a duty of care towards their residents. Which is often forgotten. 

 

10 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Are you under the impression this will extrapolate infinitely? If not, the line needs to be drawn somewhere and you need to figure out where we are at in relation to that line. Forgive me if you've previously set such boundaries but from this conversation I'm not gathering anything from you suggesting any such line.

 

I think it can endlessly trend upwards, the worse you treat them, the more squalid conditions you force them to live in, the worse the potential crimogenic effect and adverse mental health consequences. Downwards however, no one is suggesting to turn prisons into 5-star hotels but a basic standard which includes seemingly trivial things such as mattresses that don't actively work to ruin their back-health, food that is palpable, enough toilet paper and sanitary products, windows that actually allow them to see outside, not degrading them at every step of the process - just to name a few of a laundry list of quality of life improvements that can directly aid not only in personal betterment but also the safety of the institution and its staff. There are various examples of institutions that have successfully implemented some of these improvements. No, not only in Europe, there have been to a lesser degree some successful institutions like that as well in the US.

 

10 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Previously true, but no longer. I've lived in a few ghetto apartment complexes but I'm now very much enjoying rural life.

That wasn't a dig at you personally. It was to say that the majority of offenders will ultimately return to society, which is why it is in everyone's best interest to treat them accordingly.

 

10 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Having known and worked alongside plenty of ex cons, I've seen the opposite to be true. Most were in for drug offences and those almost always come out better than they went in.

They would have benefited more from a mandatory in-patient treatment program that does not result in them being branded as a felon for the rest of their lives with all the consequences that entails. Drugs often are as ubiquitous in prisons as they are on the street.

 

10 hours ago, Burbalade said:

From what I've seen it's the violent offenders that are less likely to gain anything from the system. They go in pissed at society and expect things to be handed to them, blaming their issues on others. And it's these cases in particular that I don't see your stance helping as it reinforces their belief that society owes them.

Violence doesn't happen in a vacuum. You have to tackle the underlying causes that leads to their violent behaviour or as you rightly point out they will just end up more pissed at the end of the road. Because violence also isn't black and white it runs the gamut from opportunistic violence to crimes of passion and everything in-between. Obviously each of these underlying causes requires a different tac. Prisons are not an effective tool for each type of violence.

 

10 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Most aspects of construction don't care in the slightest about criminal history.

More industries should take note. Giving ex-offenders the chance to work early on in the reintegration proces is immediately impactful as to the success of their release.

 

[Burbalade]

6 hours ago, Raavi said:

If not for equipping people for dealing with reality what utility does prison have to society?

One you've seemingly not even thought of - punishment.

You seem to be fixating on the idea of good people making ends meet via non violent crime and then being sentenced to decades in prison. That's not a trend I've seen.

 

6 hours ago, Raavi said:

For starters they do not get paid for 31 days a month, they solely get paid for actual hours worked.

There's nothing to suggest they can't work 31 days a month. It's not like they're spending weekends at the beach or reserving entire days to go pay bills or fix their cars. 

 

7 hours ago, Raavi said:

I think we've been over this before but I do not believe in the notion that we have unbridled free will

The choices available to you are certainly influenced by your circumstances, but to take free will and personal accountability out of the equation entirely is not only based on falsehood but also suggests that any form of punishment is unfair. 

 

7 hours ago, Raavi said:

I think it can endlessly trend upwards

If it trends endlessly upwards but not endlessly downwards, then finding the point at which it shifts is extremely important to the discussion, as is knowing how close we are to that point. If it doesn't endlessly trend downwards, then pointing out the most we should give them is just as important as the least we should give them. Too much is equally as inefficient (if not more so) as too little as far as preventing repeat offenders, but costs significantly more to do. That extra expense needs to be paid by taxpayers, inmates, or some combination. 

 

7 hours ago, Raavi said:

It was to say that the majority of offenders will ultimately return to society, which is why it is in everyone's best interest to treat them accordingly.

And the type of person that is violent because they think all of society owes them is not the kind of person that can simply be healed through kind treatment and having things handed to them. This is where prison has value as an undesirable punishment. When a person's morals don't prevent them from committing crime, fear of punishment should.

 

7 hours ago, Raavi said:

They would have benefited more from a mandatory in-patient treatment program that does not result in them being branded as a felon for the rest of their lives with all the consequences that entails. Drugs often are as ubiquitous in prisons as they are on the street.

Oh, you misunderstand. These individuals were not sentenced to years in prison for drug use. If there's nothing suggesting intent to distribute then there's not much to worry about as far as jail time. Certainly not the timelines you're talking about.

These individuals were in prison for selling drugs, often ones they're not dumb enough to try themselves. 

 

7 hours ago, Raavi said:

You have to tackle the underlying causes that leads to their violent behaviour

Often there isn't a fix for the underlying issues. You can't go back in time and fix their childhood or mental development. And if you're trying to prep people for reality, then allowing them to work at federal minimum wage with no bills is not going to accomplish that. 

 

17 hours ago, sivispacem said:

Eight hours of working six days a week would net prisoners a whopping $384 per month, not even remotely close to the pie-in-the-sky $1800 figure.

Once again skimming over posts to see if there's any chance to prove me wrong without bothering to figure out the context or actual meaning. Not only did you completely misinterpret what was said, but you're not supporting the atmosphere of a healthy debate. Just stop. 

[Raavi]

16 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

One you've seemingly not even thought of - punishment.

The taking away their freedom, the incarceration is the punishment. Which is even being experienced as such in the most progressive prisons in the world. But beyond that what utility does prison as punishment for punishment sake have to society? Wouldn't society be far better served by a system geared towards rehabilitation and betterment such that it can prevent future harms to society.

 

26 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

You seem to be fixating on the idea of good people making ends meet via non violent crime and then being sentenced to decades in prison. That's not a trend I've seen.

There are indeed some very egregious examples of non-violent offending leaving to decades in prison under tough on crimes laws introduced in the 80's and 90's. But if we zoom out, going by the most recent statistics roughly 44% of people are in state prisons for crimes other than violent crimes. This category runs the gamut from drug possession to theft and everything in-between. What trend have you seen?

 

43 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

There's nothing to suggest they can't work 31 days a month. It's not like they're spending weekends at the beach or reserving entire days to go pay bills or fix their cars. 

They don't work anywhere close to that amount of time. Many of the jobs in prisons are linked with industry outside of the gates and as such is also beholden to regular business days. Even the ones that are not are not round the clock and often are dealt with in shifts.

 

43 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

The choices available to you are certainly influenced by your circumstances, but to take free will and personal accountability out of the equation entirely is not only based on falsehood but also suggests that any form of punishment is unfair. 

How is it based on falsehood? There is a growing body of neuroscience literature that suggests that our conception of free will is for a large part rather based in myth than science. The Kenneth parks sleepwalking murder case and the case of the brain-tumour induced pedophilia, just to name two that are poignant examples of this notion. 

 

59 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

but also suggests that any form of punishment is unfair. 

Punishment in the criminal law sense is the intentional infliction of suffering upon an individual by the state. Can that ever be fair? I am guessing you are a retributivist so you will answer that question positively. But note that there are many (conflicting) theories of punishment that even can justify it outside of the realm of free will - fairness takes on different forms in that context, if not remains entirely out of the picture. 

 

1 hour ago, Burbalade said:

If it trends endlessly upwards but not endlessly downwards, then finding the point at which it shifts is extremely important to the discussion, as is knowing how close we are to that point. If it doesn't endlessly trend downwards, then pointing out the most we should give them is just as important as the least we should give them. Too much is equally as inefficient (if not more so) as too little as far as preventing repeat offenders, but costs significantly more to do. That extra expense needs to be paid by taxpayers, inmates, or some combination. 

I do agree that there needs to be a balance between the expense and the benefit. But many of these changes I have mentioned don't really come at a huge monetary expense - things like sanitary products and better mattresses are more a matter of policy than funds. Building more humane prisons doesn't mean they are more expensive either, it just means there has to be a significant shift in mindset in how they are constructed. If implemented correctly these changes will actually spare the taxpayer considerably. Because there will be less recidivism, and as such less crime, and as such less harm that needs to be addressed. 

 

1 hour ago, Burbalade said:

And the type of person that is violent because they think all of society owes them is not the kind of person that can simply be healed through kind treatment and having things handed to them. This is where prison has value as an undesirable punishment. When a person's morals don't prevent them from committing crime, fear of punishment should.

Problem with that notion is two-fold: firstly, research has shown that it is no so much the severity or fear of punishment but more so the likelihood of getting caught that impacts crime rates. Secondly, as you pointed out before yourself prison environments make them worse not better. Resulting in escalating patterns of crime and more harm to society at large. Treatment of these people is invaluable, but it has to be effective treatment and not programs that are introduced just to tick some box and get more funding. Again though, it depends on the type of violence.

 

1 hour ago, Burbalade said:

Oh, you misunderstand. These individuals were not sentenced to years in prison for drug use. If there's nothing suggesting intent to distribute then there's not much to worry about as far as jail time. Certainly not the timelines you're talking about. These individuals were in prison for selling drugs, often ones they're not dumb enough to try themselves. 

How did they get into the drug selling business in the first place though? Most often this is attributable to some kind of dependency on narcotics where they start dealing, often harder drugs just to support their own habit. Another common cause is financial problems often caused by drug use. Unless in this case these were crimes of opportunity and these guys not having any addiction issues of their own from day to the next decided they should start dealing dope?

 

1 hour ago, Burbalade said:

Often there isn't a fix for the underlying issues. You can't go back in time and fix their childhood or mental development. 

Many mental issues don't have a quick fix as such, but supplying people with the tools to constructively deal with their underlying issues and teaching them how those issues manifest themselves is tremendously beneficial to their functioning in society. The notion of "nothing works" was part of what underpinned those draconian tough on crime laws of the 80's and 90's and we can see where that got us. 

 

 

[Burbalade]

14 minutes ago, Raavi said:

The taking away their freedom, the incarceration is the punishment. 

We've long seen trends of people foolishly trading away freedoms for promises of security, is it really wild to think a noteworthy portion of people may willfully trade some freedom for financial security? In regards to the lower class it's not like they have the financial stability needed to take advantage of many of these freedoms anyway. Prison is an equalizer of sorts and as you raise quality of life inside, you increase the number of people who's quality of life outside of prison is lower than that inside, in which case the incarceration itself could just as easily be seen as a reward as it could a punishment. 

 

23 minutes ago, Raavi said:

roughly 44% of people are in state prisons for crimes other than violent crimes. This category runs the gamut from drug possession to theft and everything in-between. What trend have you seen?

Let's keep in mind non violent doesn't always mean victimless. Theft is still a serious issue and I feel you may be a little mislead on drug charges. The vast majority of people getting decades over drug charges are not in only on drug charges and the drug charges they do get typically aren't just simple possession. You might be able to cherry pick a few cases that might show that, but I would wager there's more going on in most of them that what you see and in the others I would agree that is unjust. But generally speaking you're not getting 20 years for having a joint on you. Typically you'd just see probation if any punishment at all. Owning a meth lab or being busted with illegally owned weapons and several million dollars worth of heroin is a different story. Even for fairly large cases with definitive intent to distribute you're typically looking at a few years tops if there's nothing else being stacked on top of it. 

 

36 minutes ago, Raavi said:

Many of the jobs in prisons are linked with industry outside of the gates and as such is also beholden to regular business days. Even the ones that are not are not round the clock and often are dealt with in shifts.

Most businesses operate well outside of regular business days and hours, but nothing I brought up suggests working around the clock. With no commute and not much else to do in your free time an eight hour work day is nothing, especially if it's in doors. If I were in prison working for minimum wage I'd be working as many hours as I was allowed to and likely pushing for more. 

 

42 minutes ago, Raavi said:

There is a growing body of neuroscience literature that suggests that our conception of free will is for a large part rather based in myth than science.

It's certainly not the majority of literature on neuroscience, and in no way can or should it be used to affect policy. Let's not try to use the 0.1% as proof that the 99.9% is false. 

 

45 minutes ago, Raavi said:

Punishment in the criminal law sense is the intentional infliction of suffering upon an individual by the state. Can that ever be fair? I am guessing you are a retributivist so you will answer that question positively.

Yes, I do consider the idea of punishing people for especially bad behavior to be fair. There are those that believe only in negative reinforcement, and there are also those that believe only in positive reinforcement. Personally I feel a combination is the best way to train the mind. During early stages reward desirable behavior, and punish undesirable behavior. Once the base understanding of expectations is there, you get nothing for expected behavior, reward for especially good behavior, and punishment for especially bad behavior. I also find it perfectly fair that repeating the same bad behavior carries a more severe punishment each time. 

If you want to argue that the punishment is unfair because you don't agree with the severity of the offence, that's an entirely different discussion and one that is endlessly debatable.

 

55 minutes ago, Raavi said:

But many of these changes I have mentioned don't really come at a huge monetary expense - things like sanitary products and better mattresses are more a matter of policy than funds.

Buying more sanitary products requires more funding and there's also the issue of potential waste. Better mattresses are typically more expensive, this again requires more funding. 

 

58 minutes ago, Raavi said:

research has shown that it is no so much the severity or fear of punishment but more so the likelihood of getting caught that impacts crime rates.

Is it fair then to assume you support heavy policing in neighborhoods with higher crime rates, regardless of racial demographic?

 

1 hour ago, Raavi said:

Secondly, as you pointed out before yourself prison environments make them worse not better.

Not at all. I mentioned in most cases that people came out better than they came in. In a few cases (which were typically the more violent) they were less likely to gain anything from it. Less likely to come out better should not be inferred as a net negative trend. 

 

1 hour ago, Raavi said:

How did they get into the drug selling business in the first place though?

This is such a frequent issue there's really no blanket statement that can accurately say. If I really break it down to the absolute basics in common cases, they wanted nice things as teenagers and turned to selling weed to fund it instead of getting a job. For many, it simply grew from there finding new substances to sell that could turn more profit. 

 

1 hour ago, Raavi said:

supplying people with the tools to constructively deal with their underlying issues and teaching them how those issues manifest themselves

...is only effectively possible once they've accepted that they have an issue. If you can't reach that stage, then any investment in them is wasted. 

[sivispacem]

 

8 hours ago, Burbalade said:

is it really wild to think a noteworthy portion of people may willfully trade some freedom for financial security?

Is there any evidence to think they actually do? This is a common rebuttal to the notion of improving prison conditions (that there comes a point where the conditions within prisons become favourable to such a degree that people actively seek incarceration) but to the best of my knowledge there's no actual evidence suggesting this is the case. In fact, overall incarceration rates and rates of recidivism are substantially lower in systems with better living conditions for prisoners, though there are a myriad of other factors (such as increasing focus on education and rehabilitation, movements towards dealing with offending within the community and social attitudes) which also differ so drawing direct comparisons is impossible. I would also suggest that, in and of itself, this wouldn't be a justification for maintaining squalour and oppressive conditions; the focus should be on providing an environment that instills the greatest positive net outcome for the majority of prisoners in terms of rehabilitation and reintegration rather than designing the entire system to account for a small number of lowest-common-denominator edge cases at the expense of failing to rehabilitate the majority. The latter is clearly both more societally harmful and more fiscally costly in the long-run.

 

8 hours ago, Burbalade said:

The vast majority of people getting decades over drug charges are not in only on drug charges and the drug charges they do get typically aren't just simple possession

There are a number of interesting tidbits from reports like this one, specifically the breakdown of offenders on p.21. It's worth noting that these figures are solely for people incarcerated for more than one year so they're weighted heavily in favour of more serious offenders.

Particularly, these two stand out to me

• 3.7% of the US prison population serving over one year had a most serious convicted offense of drug possession
• 1.8% of the US prison population serving over one year had a most serious convicted offense of DUI/DWI

There are nearly twenty three thousand people in the US serving prison sentences of over a year for DUI/DWI which is absolutely staggering. 

 

I would love to find similar figures for people serving sentences of under one year, as it's people in this category who are most substantially negatively impacted by prison sentencing, but this doesn't seem to be something widely reported on. BJS does provide breakdowns of average sentence lengths which are useful indicators in this respect; they go to show just how large a proportion of convictions aren't represented in the granular breakdowns above but might be useful for extrapolation. For instance;

• 59% of people imprisoned for drug possession served under one year, and 29% under 6 months (this is particularly notable as first-time possession is a misdemeanour offence typically leading to prison terms of less than a year)
• 50% of imprisoned public order offenders served under one year
• 54% of burglars, 52% of fraudsters and 51% of vehicle thieves, served under one year

In fact nearly forty percent of all imprisoned offenders spend less than twelve months behind bars.

 

There's a significant body of evidence that these forty percent subject to short sentencing are those most negatively impacted, as they're typically unable to get access to heavily oversubscribed educational, vocational or supportive services due to the lengths of waiting times. Reoffending rates amongst people who serve short sentences are vastly higher than those serving longer sentences; studies here in the UK suggest more more than double for sentences under 12 months and even higher for those under 6 months, than for those over 12 months (65% and 67% versus 29%); with non-prison sentences showing recidivism rates of around 38%. If these offenders could be addressed within the community or through other means its likely the net impacts would be both a reduction in prisoner numbers and offending rates.

 

8 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Most businesses operate well outside of regular business days and hours, but nothing I brought up suggests working around the clock. With no commute and not much else to do in your free time an eight hour work day is nothing, especially if it's in doors. If I were in prison working for minimum wage I'd be working as many hours as I was allowed to and likely pushing for more. 

The numbers of people involved in direct employment by private companies within prisons is relatively small; around 5,000 people under PIECP (so significantly under 1% of the prison population). A much larger proportion work for state-owned correctional industries (around 6%) who hold contracts with other private entities to supply labour. Pay and standards are typically much lower in the latter state-run services than the former directly private-supported ones. Then there's the "inward facing" labour force, much larger than either of these groups, with prisoners performing janitorial, culinary or laundry roles, or other roles within the prisons themselves, who are often paid less than a dollar a day for this mandatory work and in five state are paid nothing at all. 

 

8 hours ago, Burbalade said:

I mentioned in most cases that people came out better than they came in.

I'm not sure this is true, given that 83% of former inmates are rearrested within 9 years and 45% within a year. 

 

8 hours ago, Burbalade said:

...is only effectively possible once they've accepted that they have an issue. 

Helping people understand these underlying issues and become aware of the prospect that they have an issue is usually part of the process as well. People with long-term drug addiction and mental health problems as a result of childhood abuse will necessarily require more support in coming to terms with their problems, and these represent a significant proportion of offenders.

[Burbalade]

16 hours ago, sivispacem said:

Is there any evidence to think they actually do?

I've seen a handful of such cases locally, so yes. I'd be curious to see numbers on people intentionally arrested to avoid hardships on the outside but unfortunately I don't believe that's a statistic that is being tracked. 

 

16 hours ago, sivispacem said:

Particularly, these two stand out to me

• 3.7% of the US prison population serving over one year had a most serious convicted offense of drug possession
• 1.8% of the US prison population serving over one year had a most serious convicted offense of DUI/DWI

There are nearly twenty three thousand people in the US serving prison sentences of over a year for DUI/DWI which is absolutely staggering. 

I don't find any of this surprising. I would imagine the vast majority of that 3.7% convicted of possession were likely charged with possession with intent to sell/distribute.

We do have a serious problem here with DUIs. It doesn't help the older generations that around the 90s it shifted from very loosely enforced to zero tolerance. 

 

23,000 may seem like a lot to you but in the US that's only 0.00007% of the population. 

 

16 hours ago, sivispacem said:

Reoffending rates amongst people who serve short sentences are vastly higher than those serving longer sentences

This could easily be turned into a case against Raavi's assertion of draconian sentencing and/or harsh conditions having a negative impact. 

 

16 hours ago, sivispacem said:

Then there's the "inward facing" labour force, much larger than either of these groups, with prisoners performing janitorial, culinary or laundry roles, or other roles within the prisons themselves, who are often paid less than a dollar a day for this mandatory work and in five state are paid nothing at all. 

As opposed to being outside of prison where they would perform these tasks in their own homes for no pay while having to pay for all of the items involved as well as the house in which to complete these tasks. Maybe you grew up with a maid and inherited a home but in the US these are considered mandatory tasks at your residence and no form of compensation is expected for completing them as children, much less as an adult. 

 

16 hours ago, sivispacem said:

I'm not sure this is true, given that 83% of former inmates are rearrested within 9 years and 45% within a year. 

Interesting read but an article from a biased source about reports on a data set that we haven't seen shouldn't really be considered the best source of information, especially when there's so much information known to be missing from the data set. There's ten states missing from this data and the article makes no mention of which ten states those are. For reference, that's twice as many states as do not pay prisoners for basic housekeeping work they would not be paid for outside of prison, which you felt was important enough to mention. But even ignoring the potential inaccuracy of the data, let's look at the opinions formed based on what data is available. 

 

“Our analysis of inmates released from prison in fiscal year 2015-16 did not find an overall relationship between inmates completing CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) rehabilitation programs and their recidivism rates,” - one of the reports mentioned in the article

"So long as prison officials dedicate only a fraction of their budget to rehabilitative programs, high recidivism rates should come as no surprise." - opinion of the article's author 

Here we see an opinion shared within the article that directly contradicts what the data shows and suggests investing more money in programs that are shown not to work. And that's the issue, this isn't an analysis of data, it's someone sharing their opinion. It can't be considered a valid source of information any more than this post can. 

You would make a mockery of me if I posted opinion piece articles from biased sites as sources of information. Try holding yourself to the same standard you hold me to. You're at least being more civil now, which I do appreciate. 

 

16 hours ago, sivispacem said:

Helping people understand these underlying issues and become aware of the prospect that they have an issue is usually part of the process as well. 

Indeed, but attempts at such are often ineffective. According to one of the reports referenced in the article you linked, statistically speaking it is entirely ineffective to attempt this through a specialty program designed for it. However as you stated, longer sentences are apparently effective. 

 

16 hours ago, sivispacem said:

People with long-term drug addiction and mental health problems as a result of childhood abuse will necessarily require more support in coming to terms with their problems, and these represent a significant proportion of offenders.

Maybe so, but such individuals are usually put into programs rather than prison. I don't know that I've met anyone that's even been jailed for simple possession. Again when you see people in state and federal prisons on charges of possession, that's typically possession with intent to distribute. Let's not pretend that storing a million dollars worth of a drug is the same as having $40 worth on you. 

Edited June 30, 2020 by Burbalade

[sivispacem]

On 6/30/2020 at 3:53 AM, Burbalade said:

I've seen a handful of such cases locally, so yes

I don't doubt that there are extreme edge cases even in a country like the US where prisons are far less amicable than elsewhere (we also get similar reporting in primarily the right-wing of our press); what I don't think I've ever seen is any evidence that this constitutes a noteworthy proportion of people. I also wonder what proportion of these people are those who have already served time in prison, given that factors such as homelessness which align strongly with "hardship" are so heavily influenced by criminal convictions. I would suspect that rates of intentional offending amongst the homeless in the intent of getting imprisoned are much higher than other aspects of the population and to a great degree may be cyclical; here in the UK there's some suggestion it might be as much as one-fifth of the homeless albeit taken from a very small sample size, but many of these had previously served prison time before becoming homeless. But I would suggest that this is more indicative of abject failures within provision of support services more widely, and that 20% still constitutes a very small number of people.

 

I'd also be very keen to see statistics as I think it's an important area of investigation.

 

On 6/30/2020 at 3:53 AM, Burbalade said:

I would imagine the vast majority of that 3.7% convicted of possession were likely charged with possession with intent to sell/distribute.

Unfortunately, I can't find detailed breakdowns by specific offence, but I would posit this varies significantly from state to state, and that in actuality even in these one-year-plus sentences there may well be a significant proportion of this group were convicted of simple possession (usually a second or third conviction). From the research I've done, which I admit is far from complete, it appears to be largely dependent on the type of drug possessed and how many times this person has been arrested or convicted, as well as where the conviction takes place.

 

From what I've been able to garner (and I have no idea how up-to-date this list is), a surprising number of states- Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and Utah,- have minimum sentences of at least one year in prison for simple possession of Schedule 1, 2 or specific named narcotics in personal use amounts, regardless of where the arrest occurs and with no intent to distribute (though some of these states only apply these sentences on second or third conviction). A load more seem to have minimum sentences of 6-12 months for simple possession when criminally convicted (rather than treated as a misdemeanor). There are also some seemingly crazy local laws regarding possession volumes, like in South Carolina where more than 1g of cocaine or 2g of heroin is treated as automatic intent to supply.

 

On 6/30/2020 at 3:53 AM, Burbalade said:

This could easily be turned into a case against Raavi's assertion of draconian sentencing and/or harsh conditions having a negative impact. 

I suppose it could, but my suggestion is that it reinforces the notion that prison is only effective in the cases of more severe criminal activity, and is demonstrably more harmful for lower-severity offenders compared to alternatives. I would also posit that it shows that availability of, and access to, support services, education et cetera dramatically decrease offending rates.

 

On 6/30/2020 at 3:53 AM, Burbalade said:

As opposed to being outside of prison where they would perform these tasks in their own homes for no pay while having to pay for all of the items involved as well as the house in which to complete these tasks

I mean most people would perform these tasks at home for no pay, but by no means is it mandatory- you can live in a pigsty in dirty clothes and subsist solely on takeaway and ready meals, as many people do. I would also argue that the scale, scope and frequency of this activity means it isn't really directly comparable. 

 

On 6/30/2020 at 3:53 AM, Burbalade said:

Interesting read but an article from a biased source about reports on a data set that we haven't seen

Data set here; apologies I should have posted that this first time round. You'll find the figures are supported by that BJS report.

 

On 6/30/2020 at 3:53 AM, Burbalade said:

Here we see an opinion shared within the article that directly contradicts what the data shows and suggests investing more money in programs that are shown not to work

I don't agree that the cited element of the report directly contradicts the quoted comment, though it certainly don't support it.

CBT is only one of the various rehabilitative programmes in place in prisons, so stating this contradicts the author, or inferring that programs don't work in general, doesn't ring true in my view.

 

Interestingly, this report from the NCJRS which considers multiple other reports and effectively represents a meta-analysis, specifically contradicts the claims that CBT had no positive impact on recidivism rates, to quote directly: "Recidivism: CBT programs have produced relatively strong results in reducing recidivism"

Sadly not US centric, but a normalised study in Italian prisons on the impact of rehabilitative (often referred to as "open" in Europe) prisons versus traditional prisons which shows significant reductions in recidivism.

 

On 6/30/2020 at 3:53 AM, Burbalade said:

According to one of the reports referenced in the article you linked, statistically speaking it is entirely ineffective to attempt this through a specialty program designed for it.

The NCJRS report I posted above has a good breakdown across a variety of different intervention types with four different metrics for assessing success (prison misconduct, post-release employment, recidivism and cost-benefit). In terms of either return on investment or reduction in reoffending, educational and (particular types of) employment programmes, CBT, chemical dependency treatment and sexual offender treatment have all demonstrated significant positive outcomes.

[CosmicBuffalo]

On 6/25/2020 at 8:57 AM, Raavi said:

In another round of the ugly politicisation of the DOJ: Those lawyers that threw a Molotov cocktail at an unoccupied already damaged NYPD cruiser lightly damaging its dashboard - have now been brought up on a slew of new charges that carry a mandatory minimum of 45 years (!!) with a maximum of life in federal prison. These charges are outrageously trumped up and do not in any way reflect the actual criminal conduct that occurred. And, to add insult to injury, carry a far more severe punishment than even the maximum the ex-cop will get that murdered Floyd that kickstarted all this. It is an absolutely disgusting attempt at trying to railroad a bunch of young people with no criminal history to speak of just to appease the current regime. One would not be surprised to see such practices in places like Russia or China, but under Billy Barr the DOJ is not far removed from those places. Absolutely disgusting. 

If they are found guilty, their law licenses should be suspended.  Its really only a criminal trespass.  Possibly a ciminal damage felony.  I honestly do not see how this is even a federal case.

[Raavi]

52 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

If they are found guilty, their law licenses should be suspended.  Its really only a criminal trespass.  Possibly a ciminal damage felony.  I honestly do not see how this is even a federal case.

 

Agreed, third degree arson at most under NYS law. You should see the reasoning the EDNY has used to make it federal, it's laughable: "Because NYPD cruisers belong to the NYPD and NPYD receives federal funding it is federal" and the second one from the initial indictment is even richer "Since the cruisers are bought in other states it concerns interstate commerce hence it falls under federal jurisdiction." Absolute insanity.

 

At least one positive development is that the 2nd Circuit has affirmed the district courts order that they can await their trials in home confinement. 

 

@Burbalade I'm not ignoring your reply, but will get to it when I'm not pressed for time.

[CosmicBuffalo]

13 minutes ago, Raavi said:

 

Agreed, third degree arson at most under NYS law. You should see the reasoning the EDNY has used to make it federal, it's laughable: "Because NYPD cruisers belong to the NYPD and NPYD receives federal funding it is federal" and the second one from the initial indictment is even richer "Since the cruisers are bought in other states it concerns interstate commerce hence it falls under federal jurisdiction." Absolute insanity.

 

At least one positive development is that the 2nd Circuit has ruled they can await their trials in home confinement. 

 

@Burbalade I'm not ignoring your reply, but will get to it when I'm not pressed for time.

Thats a stretch...should be remanded to state court.  NYPD is the owner...the reasoning stated would allow the feds to prosecute all crimes...

Edited July 1, 2020 by CosmicBuffalo

[trip]

Unrelated but imwas a bit shocked so...

 

This is a real product avail on amazon right now.  https://www.amazon.com/dp/B088JYMTHR/

[Burbalade]

8 hours ago, sivispacem said:

what I don't think I've ever seen is any evidence that this constitutes a noteworthy proportion of people.

... 

and that 20% still constitutes a very small number of people.

Keep the population difference between our countries in mind when you're thinking of stuff like this. If 23,000 seemed like a lot for DUIs, 20% of the known US homeless population is well over 100,000. 

 

8 hours ago, sivispacem said:

it appears to be largely dependent on the type of drug possessed and how many times this person has been arrested or convicted, as well as where the conviction takes place.

This I wouldn't argue with. From what I can tell you're far more likely to be jailed for meth, heroin, etc. than weed and admittedly the scope of what I've seen is limited to the areas I've lived in.

 

8 hours ago, sivispacem said:

I mean most people would perform these tasks at home for no pay, but by no means is it mandatory- you can live in a pigsty in dirty clothes and subsist solely on takeaway and ready meals, as many people do.

Living in a pigsty doesn't mean you're not cleaning or washing clothes at all, only that you're not keeping up. Whether you store your dirty laundry in a basket or on the floor, wash it weekly or monthly, you still need to eventually do wash. Keep in mind if you want to eat take out to avoid cooking, that is a luxury that you need to pay for. Using disposable plates and utensils to avoid washing them can also be considered a luxury that again you would need to pay for continuously to take advantage of. 

I would also argue that teaching inmates that these tasks are mandatory and should fetch no compensation or praise is a good start at preparing them for reality. Whether you want nice things or you're complacent with what you have, you still need to work. It teaches responsibility. 

 

8 hours ago, sivispacem said:

I don't agree that the cited element of the report directly contradicts the quoted comment, though it certainly don't support it.

There's no way to logically reach the author's conclusion from the data or statements that were available to the author. We both know the author and opinions expressed in this case to be heavily biased. 

 

8 hours ago, sivispacem said:

or inferring that programs don't work in general, doesn't ring true in my view.

The data set this author was looking at showed the program to be entirely ineffective, and yet his closing statement suggests the only solution is to throw more money at it. 

 

 

8 hours ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

Its really only a criminal trespass.

 

7 hours ago, Raavi said:

Agreed, third degree arson at most under NYS law. 

Additionally:

-destruction of government property

-rioting

-incitement to riot

And I'm sure there's plenty more that could apply. What you're doing is downplaying crimes of people that you associate with politically. Bias. 

 

If NYS allows citizens to destroy vehicles that the federal government helped pay for, would you rather the feds press the charges instead, or cut off all future funding?

 

 

[Raavi]

4 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

Additionally:

-destruction of government property

Is not a charge in NYS. It would fall under criminal mischief, since it involves a cop car the felony variant but likely very low-class considering the damage caused in this case was very contained and minor. Any damage assessment is further complicated by the fact the car had already incurred significant damage prior to the incident.

 

18 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

-rioting

Is a very specifically delineated charge in NYS. Even in the second degree it requires four or more people to participate simultaneously. The facts speak against this since both defendants in this case were together in a car and had been together for an extended period of time prior to the incident. It also is merely a class A misdemeanour, or in the first degree class E felony but  it requires ten or more people.

 

22 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

-incitement to riot

Inciting to riot is another class A misdemeanour and requires inciting again ten or more people. Which did not happen here.

 

22 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

And I'm sure there's plenty more that could apply. What you're doing is downplaying crimes of people that you associate with politically. Bias. 

Sure if stacking charges is your hobby. A practice I might add that usually is used to scare people into agreeing to a plea deal.  I do find the notion that I am downplaying their criminal conduct pretty entertaining in light of you wanting to charge them with a bunch of misdemeanours and low class felonies whereas the top level charge I mentioned far exceeds anything you mentioned in both severity, penalty and likely sentencing range.

 

38 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

If NYS allows citizens to destroy vehicles that the federal government helped pay for, would you rather the feds press the charges instead, or cut off all future funding?

This is a straw man. No one has advocated that they should not be charged. All that's being argued is that the fed charges are ridiculously overblown, and that they shouldn't have been charged by the feds in the first place because this is not a fed case. They should be charged under NYS law.

 

[CosmicBuffalo]

58 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

 

And I'm sure there's plenty more that could apply. What you're doing is downplaying crimes of people that you associate with politically. Bias. 

 

If NYS allows citizens to destroy vehicles that the federal government helped pay for, would you rather the feds press the charges instead, or cut off all future funding?

 

 

No, first off, I do not align politically with these people, but I do follow the law. The only reason the feds would pick this case up is because they know the state courts will probably not harshly punish these two.  And really their professional careers are shot for the foreseeable future, and there is no reason to overly punish people.  There is no reason to punish people just because of their status as attorneys when hundreds or thousands of people will be allowed to have no legal consequence.  The case would be way overcharged if it was more than felony criminal damage, and will waste judicial resources as the defendants are likely to fight more serious charges, serious charges are unlikely to result in convictions, and there is no federal jurisdiction on top of it.  Both of them should be eligible for a first offender plea, regardless, so that they can avoid an actual conviction.  In my opinion, the prosecutions should be dismissed upon completion of community service and possibly and anger management class or something similar, unless they were given a break in the past..which may be the case, but if even then, it should only be for the crime that is committed.

Edited July 2, 2020 by CosmicBuffalo

[Burbalade]

44 minutes ago, Raavi said:

It would fall under criminal mischief, since it involves a cop car the felony variant but likely very low-class considering the damage caused in this case was very contained and minor.

It would be considered first degree, which is a class B felony. 

 

44 minutes ago, Raavi said:

Even in the second degree it requires four or more people to participate simultaneously. 

...

It also is merely a class A misdemeanour, or in the first degree class E felony but  it requires ten or more people.

They weren't the only ones rioting.

 

44 minutes ago, Raavi said:

Inciting to riot is another class A misdemeanour and requires inciting again ten or more people. Which did not happen here.

They were inciting people to riot and trying give them molotovs. I've seen no mention of the number of people they incited but if you can say for certain that it did not happen, then I'm guessing you have seen that number?

 

44 minutes ago, Raavi said:

the top level charge I mentioned far exceeds anything you mentioned in both severity, penalty and likely sentencing range.

Class C far exceeds class B?

"At most" obviously implies maximum, so stating anything less than everything that could apply is not the most. It's just your suggestion. 

 

43 minutes ago, CosmicBuffalo said:

but I do follow the law.

1st degree criminal mischief - class B felony, max 25 years

3rd degree arson - class C felony, max 15 years

They definitely committed both of those, but you would gladly see them only charged with criminal trespassing? Do you even expect to be taken seriously?