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.washingtonpost.com/rweb/commentary/want-to-fix-ba...
By blaming the war on drugs we are also completely ignoring the other elephant in the room, and that is the massive breakdown in family structure that has occurred amongst the impoverished.
This is particularly the case for African-Americans but I don't claim that it's a racial thing, directly. It's part of the cycle of poverty. In DC, which is a large focus of the original piece, over half of babies are born out of wedlock. For African Americans it's close to 70%.
With no parents working, and fathers typically absent, children do not learn the behaviors and responsibilities that are required to be a productive and self-supporting member of society. They then perpetuate this in subsequent generations. Our "war on poverty" has, like the war on drugs, been a failure. The poverty rate in 1965 was about 15%, same as today, with trillions of dollars spent.
The war on drugs funds a massive effort to catch and punish drug dealers and users. So of course that happens. The war on poverty rewards disfunctional, irresponsible, and self-destructive life choices.
You get what you pay for.
Most friends of mine regularly do drugs. Even the self made multi millionaires. None of them have been to jail. They aren't subject to the random ass searches like the poor are.
If things were different - if the millionaires were treated with the same suspect, you bet your ass these laws would change.
But they aren't. So the laws stay the same. And that's a problem.
The family structure breakdown among the poor is directly, painfully correlated to the high incarceration rate. Absent fathers are absent because they're in jail, or expect they will be sooner or later, or because they're ashamed because they are unable to provide for their children.
One of my best friends is a doctor in Orlando, who happens to be black. Back during the Trayvon Martin shooting, he told me he would not even drive through Sanford. He didn't feel safe - from the police. In his daily life, he's a key administrator at a large hospital and a radiologist. In Sanford? He's a black man driving a car too nice for him.
That's not about the war on drugs.
The reason people are "making it sound like that" is because that's actually what's happening.
Freddy Gray was plucked from a sidewalk, detained, and then killed, for literally no lawful reason.
The context for his story, and the many others like it, is the war on [certain] drugs [when used by some kinds of people] that is current social policy.
This approach to criminal justice appeared at precisely the same time that overtly racist means of policing were outlawed, to accomplish the same goal.
Do you really think it's random happenstance that urban blacks get arrested for experimenting with drugs in a way that suburban whites do not?
Did a country with a few centuries of of legally enshrined racism and violence towards blacks just, you know, stop doing that fifty years ago, suddenly?
Do you know what Ockham's razor is?
I'd say that institutionalize/systemic racism in America makes it exceedingly more likely that a minority will end up poor and exceedingly more difficult to get out of ---> poor neighborhoods --> more crime ---> broken window policy ---> problems we've been seeing recently.
Conversely, a rich kid in a wealthy neighborhood(that probably doesn't have police at every corner) could be smoking weed right now. Nobody will notice/care, and even if they did some millionaire parents will make sure things work out for the best. And we know the general demographics of rich neighborhoods. It's not that only minorities commit crimes, but the police are always heavily more present where minorities are often located. It's death of a thousand paper-cuts. Housing discrimination, workplace discrimination, poor neighborhoods with horrid schools, war on drugs, excessive police presence/force. Then when they end up poor & desperate, the police are right there waiting for them to step out of line. "See?! We got him committing a crime!" ...without understanding everything in America that led to the event. And when the police jail/kill these people(often black men), you've potential just taken a father away from a family and there's now a young child without a father... and the cycle almost unavoidably continues.
The war on drugs has been a huge driver of this cycle. End it and I think we will see a change for the better. Won't solve everything, but it'll be significant improvement.
There've been a number of cases recently where large number of convictions have been thrown in to review because of either evidence of systemic race-based misconduct by law enforcement authorities or systematic falsification of evidence by law enforcement authorities. So, in many cases, either or both the "not being locked up...because they are black" and the "they are committing crimes" part are in considerable doubt.
> By blaming the war on drugs we are also completely ignoring the other elephant in the room, and that is the massive breakdown in family structure that has occurred amongst the impoverished.
The selective targeting for higher penalties an higher prosecution rates for drugs predominantly used in the black community as part of the "War on Drugs" and the correspondingly higher rates of incarceration in that community resulting from it is a directly contributing factor to the "massive breakdown in family structure" in that community (and the war in drugs in general, and the incarceration resulting from it, is likewise a contributing factor to the breakdown in family structure among the impoverished outside of the black community.)
> Our "war on poverty" has, like the war on drugs, been a failure.
Arguably, "like" should be replaced with "in large part due to" in that sentence. The "War on Drugs" largely is a war on the poor. It directly opposes any "war on poverty" (though even as a slogan, much less any substance, the "war on poverty" was largely abandoned shortly after it was announced, and replaced by the War on Drugs.)
You're ignoring the fact that black people are more likely than white people to be arrested for minor crime; they're more likely to get prison time for similar crimes; etc.
> or poor.
Ferguson etc showed us that small towns used minor traffic violations as a revenue stream. Someone would have a minor, small, traffic violation and get a fine for it. They would then have to decide between taking time off work to pay he fine (and thus lose their job) or go to pay the fine, if they can pay the fine by the time they have too.
Because many people can't afford to pay the fine they end up in jail.
That's pretty much putting people in jail for being poor, and the US does it a lot.
Also, if the father is absent, maybe it's because he's in jail, like some scary number of people in the US? Maybe he can't get employment, because he's a felon, like a scary number of people in the US?
The person you replied to is right, ending the war on drugs makes a lot of things, including all the things you list, better. It's a great place to start.
The US is locking up very, very large numbers of young black men for minor crimes that people of other races regularly commit -- i.e., for activities that are only crimes when blacks are found to be doing them. Recent studies have shown that whites use more drugs than blacks, and yet are charged far less. Even the sentencing on perceived "black drugs" (drugs more readily available to the poor) such as crack is far more punitive than sentencing for the equivalent cocaine.
For a good book on the subject, see The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. It illuminates, with facts, just how disproportionately our system of laws punishes young black men while young whites are given second and third and fourth chances.
I just said this elsewhere, but I knew many people in college who used illegal drugs, and none of them were ever locked up (or even searched). When we have a set of laws and we choose to enforce them on some communities but not on others, then we are in fact locking people up just because they are black or poor.
Others have already pointed out that high incarceration and felony rates (in part due to the drug war) have contributed a whole lot to the social patterns that you mention here. I'll agree with you on one thing, though: our social programs today are in a particularly ineffective state with some messed-up incentive structures and still not enough resources to actually solve the problem. I'd much prefer something like a universal basic income to the complicated, market distorting system we have today. (But I still think that getting rid of these programs would be far worse than what we have now, even if the incentive structure would be more straightforward.)
That's actually not how the Gestapo worked. They were very bureaucratic and followed protocol. Their most misused power, according to Wikipedia, was the "protective custody".
If the intent is to help combat drug use then putting a user in prison and ruining his and his family's life doesn't seem like the way to do it. Not to talk about the crime it generates when a business that WILL happen doesn't have any other means to compete than with violence.
There's a great discussion between Glenn Greenwald and former Bush Drug Czar:
https://vimeo.com/32110912 (Janus Forum - Should the US Legalize Drugs?)
Besides the selective enforcement of laws, most laws themselves discriminate against the poor.
And that's exactly what you're doing.
Using drugs or selling drugs should not be a reason to put someone in jail.
Tobacco, alcohol or sugar (HFCS) do MUCH more harm to users than illegal substances ever will, and cost much more to society as a result.
> behaviors and responsibilities that are required to be a productive and self-supporting member of society
Define "productive".
If you sell illegal substances at a profit, how aren't you "self-supporting"??
There is nothing wrong with the 'culture' of Black people in America that ending white supremacy can't fix.
I have a friend, someone that has been my friend for 30 years, who is in prison right now for drugs.
He wasn't incarcerated because he's black. He was incarcerated because he was caught selling marijuana and laundering money.
I, on the other hand, chose a different path in life. I made the decision to not get involved with the things that he was doing. I have no criminal record and I'm every bit as black as he is.
I agree that fatherlessness is the key component here. The best predictor of criminality in young people is the presence of a father in the home. This holds true across racial and socioeconomic backgrounds. The large number of single parent households in the black community has a lot to do with the high levels of crime in the inner cities.
If you think drug trading and consumption is a crime, you're part of the problem.
(ETA "chosen behavior" clause.)
For all the correlations which are greatly attenuated in China, it is safe to conclude that inequality is not a significant cause of the corresponding phenomenon; instead, causation goes the other direction and/or a third factor causes both.
The real culprit is education. Why is it that the poorest neighborhoods have the poorest schools? If you want income inequality you have to flip that upside down and start teaching students what they need to know to have better income. Things like basic finance, how to negotiate, the realities of what jobs pay etc. They should know about student loans, scholarships, government programs, and how to pick a college that will actually pay off as an investment.
Also kids in desolated neighborhoods need to be counseled. They need to learn how to take care of themselves and how to avoid eating nothing but sugar with no fiber since their parent(s) are too exhausted or beaten down or addicted to make a meal that isn't mac and cheese and sprite.
The drug war is part of that. How can kids learn and grow up properly when their families are being put in jail and they are left with no one to provide for them or take care of them while it costs huge amounts of money from the government to imprison them? It is an almost impossible cycle to break out of when the ods are stacked against you.
Really?
http://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-gi...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roscoe_Arbuckle#The_scandal
Clearly part of it was due to newspapers of the time just flat out publishing lies, but the prosecutor had a huge hand in what happened.
Prosecutors often overreach, even when they are not downright corrupt, and this can lead to destruction of people's lives. There need to be consequences for prosecutors that do this. And if people are to tell me there are laws on the books that cover this, then they need to be enforced a lot more, because don't hear about it happening.
[1] http://www.danagould.com/hot-buttered-shame/
EDIT: added link to Dana's podcast.
You realise that racist policies around suburb building and home loans cause the inner cities to be mostly black? White people got cheap home loans to move into nice neighbourhoods. And that's one of the reason people are calling it a race issue.
After the violence and racism, a big problem with police is the crappy solution rates to violent and serious property crimes. The Drug War just masks that lack of effectiveness.
I think a cost-benefit analysis needs to be done for each drug.
Also, you don't need to totally legalize drugs. Though I'd love to see how that might work out.
If at any point your society thinks it needs to wage a war on the way its own citizens choose to behave you might want to take a nice long introspective look at society.
EDIT Additionally the studies have already been conducted in many cases. Asked to conduct a scientific study for your country into effects of various drugs you might find that you just end up being dismissed for presenting the data [0]
Why not spend some of that money on drug treatment and long term care for the few people who'll suffer permanent harm as a result of drug use?
Actually, no. Soft drugs are not a problem. Opiate addiction isn't addressable with prisons. We know treatment is far more effective and less costly. Other drugs don't have a large social impact one way or another. And on top of all that, disemploying narcs will get a lot of thugs off the streets.
LSD is effectively non-toxic. It's not addictive. It's less likely to make people do something dangerously stupid than alcohol, which kills thousands in drunken accidents every year. Marijuana is also non-toxic, and generally makes people cautious rather than risk-prone.
This sums it up for me.
How do we fix inequality? Companies run american prisons now, companies control elected officials, and voters are manipulated by basic psychological tricks to keep voting against their own interests (vote GOD, not basic human rights!). That's just one issue among 50 other giant issues america/world is currently failing at "doing the right thing" towards.
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.
This sums it up for me.
Here in the United States, we do have issues with the justice and penal systems. But these number alone do not paint the full picture.
In other countries, if you're convicted of a crime you may have a body part cut off. You may be executed. Or you may simply "disappear". In any of these cases, you're not considered a prisoner.
You can be executed in the US, too. In fact, the US executes more people per year than anyone but China and a handful of countries in the Middle East.
So adding the possibility of execution into the comparison doesn't actually make the US look better.
But are those really the countries you would like the USA to be compared with?
"The percentage of criminals in the United States"
Like I said, drawing and inference from the two stats you posted is disturbing because both of those stats say nothing of the actual amount of valid criminals/lawbreakers.
Why are Americans so criminal? More than Iran, China, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia.... Why is it that Americans can't follow the rules? What is wrong with them?
Of course that assertion is absurd because, at its foundation, that logic gets very racist very fast.
Not sure how this is really an additional fact. If you defined criminals in the sense of "criminals as defined in the US", you have almost by definition a direct correlation to the number of prisoners.
BTW, here in Germany we also have politicians who think that Europe's criminals concentrate in Germany. Probably every country has some people believing that all criminals come to them. The difference between countries is how much influence those voices have.
Note however that this is wild speculation, just things you have to take into account.
Try the scenario when you're in a low income family with an addict. This very easily leads to a vicious cycle - eventual arrest and incarceration. That's one less person coming home with a paycheck. That's a family growing up a generation with a criminal.
And our culture doesn't shame (rightfully) the selfishness of doing drugs - it's ramifications on families. Instead, we blame cops, we blame the government, the privileged roll eyes and think being soft, sympathetic and compassionate will help.
Whatever the solution we want to take to crime - and however hip Ivy League law students make going soft on this and that - our culture needs to recognize criminal acts are inherently selfish, not cool.
Lately the government is becoming more firm here (the Netherlands) as well. Beer drinking is now legal only from age 18 and up and serving minors is punishable by law now, a bar owner pays 1360 euro the first time but may risk closure of the establishment. Drinking in private is never punishable. For public drinking (but not for being drunk) the fine is 90 euros, 45 when below age 16. If you are sick from alcohol you will never be punished as it may be inhibiting for seeking help.
Yes this is inhibiting for seeking help.
[edit] See replies, this isn't universally true.
And of course, it happened maybe twice in my life, not a couple times a week.
This means it is not legal for a police officer to control your identity unless they have established this risk of public disorder.
Of course, as a white person living in mostly affluent neighborhoods, I have not even been controlled once in my life. The experience of my friends of "north african descent" on the other hand, has been quite different.
Of course "reasonable cause" can (and usually will) mean, that if you happen to have the "wrong" skin-tone, hair-color etc. you will be controlled. The Police justifies this racial profiling with "experience" and "statistics" (at least in Germany)
They are not allowed to search you without a reason (In theory. I heared that they might just say "I think I smelled cannabis" and then they have a reason.)
Disclaimer: IANAL, and maybe I got some details wrong.
In France, that depends mostly of your shade of skin.
Well, it mostly depend if you live in a sensible district or not. It happens that mostly Arab and black people live in sensible district because they are poorer than the normal average french people. And (relative) poverty is the source of a lot of social problems.
I don't say there is no racism in France too, there is. But it is more indirect, like people trying to avoid looking at black people, or people who prefer helping the white guy instead the black one at school is another example.
The taxi driver made no indication that it was anything abnormal.
But guys, nothing is ever 100% one way or the other, no matter how much you support it. So you have to look at differing points of view -- unless the objective is just to have a good rant.
Here are the things that come to mind reading this:
- Yep, highest incarceration rates ever. Also violent crime has been dropping to unheard-of lows and the country is safer than it ever has been
- Prisons are not about justice or reform. [insert really long discussion here]. Political systems exist and function for political reasons. Therefore the prison system is made and maintained to keep society together. They don't put the guy who killed you friend in the electric chair because of justice. They do it so you don't kill him yourself, or have a lifelong vendetta against both him and the system.
- This piece is written by a lawyer. Do not expect it to fairly talk about all of the options. It's invective; well-written, emotional, powerful invective. The goal is to make you turn off your brain and feel a certain way. Treat it as such.
- Although this is targeted at lawyers, whatever failings there are? Most likely a result of judges and elected officials -- in other words, the public. If the public wants something, and it wanted harsher sentencing, it gets it. That means changes need to occur with the electorate, not elite legal minds
- If the system is broken, it's broken. Toss out all of that racism stuff, it's a red herring. People shouldn't have their civil rights abused because it's the wrong way to run a country, not because they're a member of an oppressed minority. If you want to win this fight and fix things, toss out every other issue aside from fixing the system. Sure, use various things like incarceration rates among blacks as an argument, but only very carefully. If this is a true problem affecting everybody (and I believe it is), then don't attach yourself to one particular cause or the other. That's just an easy way to lose the discussion.
We desperately need to fix things, but that's only going to happen if we make both impassioned and dispassionate arguments -- and only if we understand the terms at stake. I'm not sure this article helped any, but it damned sure made me angry at how broken things are.
>Invective: Denunciatory or abusive expression or discourse
I vehemently disagree and think you insult the paper. It's well written, attempts to describe logical inconsistencies in how we approach our reasons for punishments, and what the legal profession might be able to do to fix it. It turned my brain up, not down, and it makes me think more about logical underpinnings of our justice system. I haven't been spoon-fed, and you also insult readers who might feel they got something honest out of the paper.
This is only true if you exclude from "the country" all the prisons where people are routinely raped and stabbed.
Also, even if it were true, the important question is: what caused it, and could that result be achieved with other means? How do other safe countries address the problem?
- [edit: I misread what you were saying here, the point about the death penalty is a non-sequitur on my part] Your second point isn't one I would disagree with but, but I don't think your example is a particularly good one: there is ample evidence indicating that the death penalty does not serve as a particularly strong deterrent. For example, murder rates in the US are actually lower in death penalty states, and have been since the 90s.
- "That means changes need to occur with the electorate, not elite legal minds." The author never asserts the legal profession is the only thing that can reform our broken criminal justice system. However he points out that the legal services we have now are vastly inadequate to the job of protecting the rights of most Americans caught up in the criminal justice system, and that part of the reason so many people are incarcerated is that they recieve little-to-no represenatation. Furthermore: "even apart from the millions of pending criminal cases for which people are not being provided a well-resourced and zealous attorney, every one of the thousands of unlawful stops, searches, home raids, beatings, taserings, shootings, and arrests that take place every day forms the basis for a freestanding constitutional civil rights suit. A quiet tragedy of the legal system is that these rampant daily violations are almost never litigated."
The broader point he is making is that the criminal justice system is only able to grind through tens of thousands of lives each day becuase those involved in it--and that includes lawyers and judges--are commited to keeping that system well-oiled and functioning. "Imagine a world in which lawyers stood ready, en masse, to use their skills and training and intellects to vindicate these constitutional rights every day. Such a social movement of lawyers would dramatically alter the nature of the legal system and our society. The system of modern policing, which depends on callous indifference to vindicating basic rights, would crumble at our simple willingness to hold it to its own formal rules. We can do it, but only through massive collective action to act on our professional and moral values."
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta... [2] http://www.nber.org/papers/w13097.pdf
Imagine a city where police commit blatant traffic violations and never ticket one another. The authorities could decrease power inequalities by developing an online system in which all citizens are able to anonymously report dangerous drivers. Anyone who received too many independent reports would be investigated – police included. This sounds almost laughably simple, and yet the model indicates that it ought to do the trick. It is, after all, essentially the same system used by many online communities.
[0] http://aeon.co/magazine/society/game-theorys-cure-for-corrup...
Of course what actually happens if you report a moderator (or even just a friend of a moderator) is that the report will get thrown out on a technicality, and then you'll get banned over a minor infraction you may or may not have committed half a year ago.
PS: Big shout-out to all my buddies who are Not Here To Build An Encyclopedia.
...
> An intellectually rigorous system would, for example, study in great detail the connection between hundreds of billions of dollars in financial fraud and tax evasion and millions of easily preventable deaths, not dramatically reduce every year the resources devoted to fighting crime committed by the wealthy.
I'm glad when they said how over-policed some areas are that they also pointed out how we don't police other areas at all and the effect of those other areas, like white-collar crime, are HUGE.
The article stressed injustices based on race and geography. It touched less on differences of injustices based on class. I don't think it mentioned sex at all. Since I applied to volunteer with the Innocence Project -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_Project -- I've become much more aware of how what we all know, which is how much more men are targeted and jailed.
I volunteered because after seeing a documentary on the project I felt compelled to do something. The innocent people the project freed spent an average of 13.5 years in jail -- completely 100% innocent. My taxes are paying for the system this piece described.
You can do something to change the system too.
Edit: a quick search for the question below on differences in sex for the same crimes -- "Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases" http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002, which I found in "Men Sentenced To Longer Prison Terms Than Women For Same Crimes, Study Says" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-se..., which has links to other research too.
> ... we’re starting to have symposia in which people talk about whether everything will be better if we give police more money to buy cameras for their lapels.
This was my mindset--that with more accountability, police will shape up. However, this article highlighted this solution as a symptomatic treatment.
I wonder how we could help address this major problem technologically?
Some states you only have to verbally identify yourself to police. Some states you're required to show I.d. if requested. Some states you can decline a breathalyzer and other states you cannot.
And if you know the law then you should exercise your rights to the limit of the law. Of course they keep passing new laws to push the limits in the other direction. And I don't think anyone wants to be a test case for throwing out a bad law in the courts.
The problem is similar here in Switzerland with the exception that there are fewer laws and that the federal government has very little power (unlike the u.s. With its strong federal laws). For example, here in one canton you can grow 2 marijuana plants for your own use while in another canton you will go to jail for even a small amount of marijuana.
Beyond that, I think that there is a lot of opportunity to advocate around these issues on the state and local level right now. Whatever you think of bodycams for police, you have to admit that in light of recent events they're going to become dramaticaly more common. That's just one example of how a crisis can provide a great opportunity for advocacy, and ultimately change. That's not to say that we will be able to make fundamental change quickly on this very difficult issue. But it is to say that there are paths forward, and I would invite people who care to dive in.
I dread the day that standard plod in the UK carries a firearm.
In reality, it's just a question of what they want to do, and whether they can get away with it. For example, if an officer insists on seeing your ID even if the rulebook says you don't have to show it, he can escalate until he gets his way.
A police officer can saw off your leg and feed it to some crocodiles if he wants to, and no one's looking or filming.
But of course, this misconception is central to the belief in "the rule of law", which keeps us misguidedly comfortable with the fact that there's a bunch of guys in blue costumes who can abuse you as they please, confiscate all your cash, shoot your dog, or just ruin your life on a whim.
