This is a much more complicated issue. Some currently illegal recreational drugs could be legalized for an net reduction in overall harm (e.g. Marijuana). But it's not clear that a significantly more permissive attitude toward, for instance, crack is a net winner.
The second half of your argument doesn't stand up to close scrutiny:
The summary of the above is that you won't generate significant taxes unless you can create a significant number of new problem users of the drug in question.
But leaving both of those arguments aside, what do you do with people who don't behave themselves under the influence of their (legal or illegal) drug of choice? Judge Alm's program is meant to deal with this exact type of offender, and does quite a good job at it at minimal cost.
That could (should) happen with marijuana, but what's the point in arguing about methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine? There's no forseeable future in which they're decriminalized.
Read the first 5 paragraphs, after that it's not much more than anecdotes of various ideas, that you've probably heard before, and probably only work in certain circumstances.
The idea at the beginning is a very good though. I hope it would be implemented everywhere.
The elite in this case, which have been humanist intellectuals, have long advocated for prison reform, and tend to favor phasing out prison terms for non-violent offenders, so saying that they've finally come to their senses isn't accurate: they've been banging this drum since the enlightenment. We are discussing this now because States can no longer afford their prison-industrial-complexes as they are overflowing with non-violent offenders (most people in prison atm are NVOs).
It's the intellectually lazy, "Common-sense", Joe-Sixpack politics of 3-strikes laws that got us into this mess. "Lock criminals up and throw away the key, I say!" is what we've been hearing from our politicians, and the electorate has been more than willing to reward those "tough on crime" with votes and money.
> and tend to favor phasing out prison terms for non-violent offenders,
So, white collar criminals shouldn't serve prison sentences? How should we punish non-violent white-collar criminals? Take away their holiday homes?
> It's the intellectually lazy, "Common-sense", Joe-Sixpack politics of 3-strikes laws that got us into this mess. "Lock criminals up and throw away the key, I say!"
Most countries have laws that separate habitual criminals from society. Most people view prison as having four purposes:
1. Rehabilitation (i.e. change the behaviour of a convicted individual through positive (reward) and negative (punishment) reinforcement).
2. Punishment
3. Protect the public by separating harmful individuals.
4. Serve as a deterrent to potential criminals.
The “three strikes” and similar laws in other countries are clearly to protect the public by separating habitual criminals from society. This is completely reasonable.
The deterrent effect has two components – the severity of the punishment and the effectivety of the prosecution. If a criminal believes he can escape prosecution, the deterrent effect will not work.
Unfortunately the left did the most damage to the judicial system. Firstly, prison sentences aren’t a deterrent any more. In the old days you received a prison sentence with “hard labour” - this was removed because the left opposed it – in most countries prisoners sits around all day doing nothing (this also increases the cost of incarceration).
The same goes to work – it was usual practice to set prisoners to work in their community on government property/parks. This not only reduced the cost of their incarceration but served as a powerful deterrent to people who see them and shows them the disappointment that society views their actions.
In my country the left started “improving” the criminal and justice system (with almost all the suggestions leftist suggestions). Unfortunately violent crime tripled in 15 years and all other crimes increased.
It is unfortunate that the same justice system that “Joe sixpack” likes works so effective in countries such as Singapore or Japan.
I don't think you're familiar with crime and punishment in the United States.
First off, prison labor hasn't been phased-out in the United States, quite the contrary; it's at an all-time high. For example, Microsoft's boxed software is assembled by prison labor in the United States. The primary reason why State governments were reluctant to permit prison labor wasn't fear from the left: it was fear from unskilled labor voters who didn't want their jobs taken from them by prisoners. It wasn't until our workforce became better educated that prison labor began to be accepted, as it was no longer seen as something that was taking jobs away from law-abiding citizens. This is also why labor is used in many privately operated prisons: they don't have to answer to voters.
Secondly, three-strikes laws have proven to be completely effete at combating non-violent crime. Drug possession charges, which have seen the widest adoption of three-strike laws, have tripled since 1982. Meanwhile, violent crime has dropped steadily and is currently at the lowest rate we've seen since the 1960s (this despite the fact that the death penalty is applied less and less).
Regardless, three-strike laws are unsustainable long-term, as State governments will be forced to pour far too much cash into prisons, putting them in a position to either raise taxes, or cut services - two very dangerous political propositions.
> First off, prison labor hasn't been phased-out in the United States, quite the contrary; it's at an all-time high.
AFAIK, all labour in USA prisons is voluntary and paid (i.e. it is not part of punishment).
Most countries (including the USA AFAIK) also ban the use of prison labour for non-governmental work. If this requirement is removed, the government can recuperate much more money from prisoners (that they lose due to the cost of their incarceration).
> Secondly, three-strikes laws have proven to be completely effete at combating non-violent crime. Drug possession charges, which have seen the widest adoption of three-strike laws, have tripled since 1982. Meanwhile, violent crime has dropped steadily
All types of crime are related. A reason for the drop in violent crime may be an increase in incarceration of the number of drug users.
>All types of crime are related. A reason for the drop in violent crime may be an increase in incarceration of the number of drug users.
Then please explain this relationship. I understand the connection between the drug trade and the violent crime, pertaining to the criminal element of the black market; but the notion that I'm buying weed today, raping/murdering tomorrow, is nonsense.
I'm not entirely certain these 3-strike laws even work for violent crime, when you consider they weren't widely used by prosecutors until the late 90s, at which point we had already seen steep drops in our violent crime rate. Regardless of whether or not a state has a 3-strike statute, you see a downward trend starting in or around '93.
> Past year illicit drug users were also about 16 times more likely than nonusers to report being arrested and booked for larceny or theft; more than 14 times more likely to be arrested and booked for such offenses as driving under the influence, drunkenness, or liquor law violations; and more than 9 times more likely to be arrested and booked on an assault charge.
You can look at that website for several statistics. You will note that that website shows increased offenses for drug users that are not related to traditional "drug-trafficking" or "black-market" activities (so this can’t be blamed on the prohibition of drugs).
> I understand the connection between the drug trade and the violent crime, pertaining to the criminal element of the black market; but the notion that I'm buying weed today, raping/murdering tomorrow, is nonsense.
You should make a distinction between hard and soft drugs. Claiming that weed is safe, therefore all drugs are safe isn’t correct – and it is a strawman. That website clearly states that drug-users have a significantly increased crime rate. I am not going to discuss in detail the causes of crime for drug users (which doesn’t have anything to do with any statement I made).
From the same website:
> Another dimension of drug-related crime is committing an offense to obtain money (or goods to sell to get money) to support drug use. According to the 1991 joint survey of Federal and State prison inmates, an estimated 17 percent of State prisoners and 10 percent of Federal prisoners reported committing their offense to get money to buy drugs;
And the conclusion:
> The evidence indicates that drug users are more likely than nonusers to commit crimes, that arrestees frequently were under the influence of a drug at the time they committed their offense, and that drugs generate violence.
Have you seen incarceration rates for the US lately? The amount of people locked up is insane (760 per 100k, in Europe it’s between 70 and 200 per 100k). And crime rates aren’t any lower than those in Europe.
Could you give some more details on the Japanese judical system? Their incarceration rate is crazy low (63 per 100k – that’s lower than even the lowest European country), so they pretty much can’t have the same system as the US. They must be doing something different.
> Have you seen incarceration rates for the US lately? The amount of people locked up is insane (760 per 100k, in Europe it’s between 70 and 200 per 100k).
Yes. This means that the system isn’t an effective deterrent. What changed in the US justice system the past 60 years?
> And crime rates aren’t any lower than those in Europe.
It is difficult to compare crime rates with different countries. Each country has a different population and economic issues. The USA has much more illegal immigrants, minorities and drug users.
> Could you give some more details on the Japanese judical system?
Japan has a very high conviction rate and they retain the death penalty.
Singapore is better example – they have an efficient justice system with stiff penalties (they retain both corporal punishment and capital punishment) which results in extremely low levels of crime.
Yes, that seemed unbelievable to me as well. As the system gets more complex it gets harder to see the big picture (even if it seems obvious with hindsight). That's just like software.
The article had another point, though: it's not enough to have positive and negative reinforcement, they should be perceived to be fair. And the system needs to adapt as perceptions shift.
For example, the traditional restrictions on women in islam were largely self-perpetuating throughout history because they were seen to be fair by whole societies, including the affected women. The perception is more important than fairness itself. From our perspective in the west it seems like a kind of Stockholm Syndrome.
The problem with this is when someone's kid is killed by a repeat offender and the parent lobbies for increased jail time. So politicians increase jail time. But almost everyone is a criminal so you can't actually put that many people in jail for common crimes. So the justice system let's people slip by with a rather than send people to jail... And then the cycle repeats.
There is a simple solution: Don’t let politicians increase jail time.
Here is how that works in many European countries:
1) Politicians call in experts (i.e. judges, police, academics, etc.)
2) They draw up a proposal
3) The proposal gets adopted
4) If anybody questions jail times politicians just say that the experts did it and that politicians are certainly not competent enough for determining efficient jail times (I’m paraphrasing here)
Not so democratic? Sure! Does it work? Just look at the incarceration rates!
Any modern/developed nation anywhere on Earth, and many other places besides. The number of minor, almost-never-enforced-but-still-on-the-books offenses you end up committing over the course of a given (insert time period) in your home country would likely startle you no matter how much better than America you think your country is.
