Court sides with defendants in sentencing cases

It's all about money. The way it works is an addict needs to sell drugs or steal in order to support his addiction.
He gives some, whatever drug he's into, to a novice to try.
If the novice becomes addicted, he then tells him that he can't afford to keep giving it to him, so he gives him some and tells him to sell half and keep the rest for himself.
The novice, now a new addict, has to find or create his own customers and does the same thing to a new novice.
Hence, the drug addiction is spread by money, or the need for it, to support the addiction.
If the CDC was to handle addiction, they would ask, how does this disease spread?
This disease is spread by money.
So, if you can take the money factor out of addictive drugs, you can greatly reduce the spread.
There would be no reason for a drug addict to sell drugs to a high school kid were it not for the financial need.
Drug cartels like stiff penalties for drug crimes, as that keeps the price high.
Drug cartels hire lobbyists to lobby for stiffer penalties. This is a fact!
I knew a drug dealer, 40 years ago, who belonged to a big cartel. He told me this is how it works. He gave 10% of his earnings, through the cartel, to a battery of lawyers, just in case someone got busted. He also gave 10% to lobbyists, who then lobbies schools, churches, and legislators for stiffer penalties.
Changed my attitude towards drugs forever.
There is a great deal of corruption in government with regard to illegal drugs as well. Border guards are paid off, politicians are involved and being paid off, etc.
It's a mess.
Obviously our current attempts to deal with it are failing.
Any suggestions?

Okay, so why is it that the US continues to have the largest prison population of any country in the world, including Russia and China? Our total population is higher and our population per 100,000 people is higher.

Prescribe the drugs...keep track of the users. Get them help when they are ready. They do not belong in jail...

The reason we have such a large prison population is because we think prison is the way to cure addiction.
We have created mandatory sentences, etc.
Mostly our legislators believe that stiffer penalties and mandatory sentences will deter illegal drug use.
Mostly they believe this because lobbyists have told them this.
Thing is most of those lobbyists work for drug cartels.
Fact is, if you could wave your magic wand and eliminate every drug in the world, which has ever been abused, you would not eliminate the illness of addiction. Addicts would simply find something else to be addicted to.

dogjudge,

"Okay, so why is it that the US continues to have the largest prison population of any country in the world, including Russia and China?"

The answer is: There is a signifcant part of our population that thinks going to prison is the natural order of things and thus engage in a veritable cornucopia of criminal activity and are too stupid to not get caught. These are the same genisuses who think doing well in school and being able to read, speak, and write coherent English is beneath them.

93% of the U.S. prison population are democratic voters...that's why the dems want to change the law and give them the right to vote after their release for commiting a felony.

How much lower can the dems go???

Paulo

Okay, so why is it that the US continues to have the largest prison population of any country in the world, including Russia and China? Our total population is higher and our population per 100,000 people is higher.

Posted by: dogjudge | December 10, 2007 2:49 PM

A good question. I believe, for the most part, the answers (not necessarily in order of importance or impact) are:

1. Simple possession of drugs (for personal use and not for distribution) is still considered an offense worthy of a prison sentence in most States. Keep in mind that more people are sent to prison from State courts than from the federal system, and drug possession still accounts for a large number of the crimes for which people are imprisoned.

However, this is beginning to change. Our most populous State – California – instituted a system in 2000 that requires all eligible non-violent drug possession offenders to be given the option of state-licensed treatment instead of incarceration. Needless to say, most people opt for treatment. This change in the law has already saved the State of California $1.8 billion in the last 7 years.

2. The U.S. only executes murderers, meaning all other serious offenders are imprisoned. In contrast, there are 68 capital offenses in China, including embezzlement and fraud. China keeps the number of people it executes a “states secret.” Yet, according to one estimate from Amnesty International, China executed approximately 60,000 people between 1997 and 2001, and one Chinese Scholar gave the unofficial figure as approximately 10,000 executions a year. That means China executes more of its citizens, per capita, than any other country in the world aside from Singapore (which has a very small population).

Go to http://www.amnesty.org/en/report/info/ASA17/003/2004 for the report.

Many other countries throughout the world (especially Muslim countries) still employ capital punishment for numerous crimes other than murder; as well as dismemberment, disfigurement and corporal punishment in lieu of imprisonment for some offenses. If the United States executed, maimed or beat people for crimes the way they do, we would hardly have a prison population to speak of.

3. We have too many criminal laws. The State and federal governments have gone far beyond simply punishing those who harm people or property. They still enforce a variety of laws for “victimless crimes” (i.e. offenses which do not directly harm the person or property of another), as well as a host of regulatory offenses.

One reason we have too many criminal laws is that we have too much government. Every time a government comes up with an entitlement program or regulatory scheme, it inevitably enacts a complimentary set of criminal laws to enforce those schemes.

Also, with bigger government and more criminal laws, we end up with even more criminal laws to insure their enforcement. For instance, Martha Stewart didn’t go to prison because she violated federal criminal laws concerning securities. She went to prison because she supposedly fibbed to federal investigators who couldn’t find any evidence that she had committed a securities crime.

4. The justice system is still infested with racism. A disproportionate number of minorities are still arrested, prosecuted and sent to prison in situations where a white person in the same situation might not.

- and,

5. We, as a People, no longer have a valid moral compass. In particular, modern approaches to ethics and morals have simply failed even when they do exist.

Paulo:

0% of the U.S. prison population are democratic voters. They don't let people vote in prison. Furthermore, a number of States only restore voting rights after a person has been convicted of a felony only upon completion of probation or parole (the latter for those who served time in prison).

The Dems can't just change the law once if they want to insure all former prison inmates can vote. They have to change the laws in all 50 states, or at least in as many States that permanently disenfranchise ex-felons. This is so because State laws determine voter eligibility, subject to constitutional restraints, even for federal elections.

John W,

Thanks for pointing out the obvious excreable logic behind the alleged "mind" of one "pillow". This Goebbels-esque piece of black helicopter paranoid conspiracy lunacy has been trolling for too long. I guess he just decides to make up facts that suits her little tiny view of reality. Perhaps she is looking for a job at faux noise. They make up "facts" better than any talk show around.

John W.,

Thank you for your posts. I've learned a lot reading your stuff.

93% of the U.S. prison population are democratic voters...that's why the dems want to change the law and give them the right to vote after their release for commiting a felony.

How much lower can the dems go???
Paulo

Posted by: Paulo | December 10, 2007 6:26 PM

Pauldo,
Your right, we need to quit puting people in jail for minor pot offenses and start going after the real criminals.

I'd start with this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMd459-l5WE

Lock him up and throw away the key!

5. We, as a People, no longer have a valid moral compass. In particular, modern approaches to ethics and morals have simply failed even when they do exist.

Posted by: John W. | December 10, 2007 6:56 PM

Exactly when was it we actually had an approach to ethics & morals that really worked?
Other than that I'd mostly agree with your list. Mostly.

John W-

Please explain why 2, 3 and 5 do not apply to most nations in Europe as well.

They all seem to, and Europe does not imprison nearly as many people as we do.

Which brings leaves #1 & #4 - drugs and racism.

AJF:

I agree that #2 obviously applies to Europe, because they don’t execute people there. My reply, however, was responsive to the question of “why . . . the US continues to have the largest prison population of any country in the world, including Russia and China.” Thus, the existence of a not-as-fervently carried out death penalty in the U.S. was relevant to explain our prison population in relation to more than just Europe.

#3, however, definitely does not apply to Europe. Most European countries work on an inquisitorial system of justice, and they have many fewer criminal laws than we do. Most European countries do not have three sets of overlapping laws (e.g. local, state and federal) the way we do. Even in countries styled a “federation,” there are stricter pre-emption rules which make their federal laws displace all other, “lower” laws.

Here, in contrast, it is conceivable that a person who kidnaps and murders a person after traveling across state lines could be prosecuted and punished multiple times for the same offense – one time for each State involved, and once for violating federal law. Even where acts don’t cross state lines, multiple prosecutions can be had in both State and federal courts for crimes as diverse as murder, vandalism and theft. That’s because the federal government and each State are considered separate sovereignties, and each have their own duplicate and overlapping sets of laws.

There is a further phenomenon in the United States related to the multiplicity of laws – from which Europe doesn’t suffer – which has had a serious impact on the overall number of people incarcerated here. That is, over the last thirty years or so, State legislatures have found that prior efforts at rehabilitation and alternatives to incarceration have not worked well in reducing crime. Thus, they have enacted tougher sentencing laws to reduce eligibility for probation and sentencing alternatives, as well as to insure longer sentences – especially for recidivists. In at least one state, and maybe more, it is now conceivable that a person could serve a life sentence for shoplifting a candy bar if he or she committed two prior serious felonies as a minor.

The contrary is true in Europe. The tendency there is to favor shorter prison terms and place more reliance on sentencing alternatives (like therapy, rehab homes and house arrest). Thus for each crime committed and prosecuted, it is doubtlessly true that European nations incarcerate fewer people, and impose shorter terms on those they do incarcerate.

With regard to #5, it is questionable whether it applies to Europe to the same degree. The United States has a more endemic street gang culture than in Europe and, consequently, more gang crime and gang violence. This is true because we have sub-cultures in which poor kids with little or no effective parental control have come to accept, and even glorify, drug use, drug sales and violence. What you or I would consider a heinous crime – e.g. cold blooded murder – is viewed as a rite of passage and a badge of honor to a gang banger. The only moral justification they need to kill is the sight of someone wearing the wrong kind of clothing, especially the wrong color, or just knowing the victim is a rival gang member or a drug dealer moving in on their turf. It’s as though they have devolved into tribalism. Europe has gangs and street crime, but it is nowhere near as bad as in our larger urban areas.

But, yes, #1 and #4 are still prominent reasons why we have such a large prison population. Neither one is a good reason to incarcerate.

"Here, in contrast, it is conceivable that a person who kidnaps and murders a person after traveling across state lines could be prosecuted and punished multiple times for the same offense – one time for each State involved, and once for violating federal law. "

True, but we're talking about the number of people in prison. While convicted multiple times at multiple levels, we still end up with only one person in prison.

The swipe at "entitlement programs" as at least in part causing the the larger number of criminal offenses doesn't hold up when compared to Europe, where most countries have even more entitlement programs than here.

I have to disagree with your take on #5. I think you are enaging in a good bit of "the grass is greener on the otherside of the fence" along with a good bit of stereotyping the black community in this country. I would also suggest that to the extent that the attitude you describe exists, it is a symptom of the racism in this country, and in the judicial system, and is as a result, indistiguishable from #4. However, I was initially responding to you claim that "modern approaches to ethics and morals have simply failed even when they do exist". Many countries in Europe consider themselves "post-christian" and rely largely on those same modern approaches to ethics and morals which you blanketly reject as a failure.

“True, but we're talking about the number of people in prison. While convicted multiple times at multiple levels, we still end up with only one person in prison.”

Prison population numbers are revisited every year. A person who stays in prison longer because of multiple convictions from multiple prosecutions is going to factor into the prison population every year for a greater number of years. Get enough people like that in prison, and it takes fewer people getting incarcerated to keep the figures high, and more people getting out of prison to make a dent in the overall numbers.

“The swipe at "entitlement programs" as at least in part causing the larger number of criminal offenses doesn't hold up when compared to Europe, where most countries have even more entitlement programs than here.”

Now tell me that Europeans prosecute their citizens as rigorously for welfare fraud and cheating on entitlement programs the way we do here. Well, okay, you can’t because it simply isn’t true. In England, for instance, the vast majority of benefit fraud cases (as they are called) aren’t handled by the criminal justice system. They are handled by an administrative agency which passes out fines for infractions. Most European countries, including France, have no separate offense of benefit fraud (like we do), and there is no credible evidence to suggest that they scrupulously prosecute people, or even imprison them, for what we would call welfare fraud. In America, prosecutions for welfare fraud and regulatory offenses are a common occurrence. There is simply no comparison between the situation here and in Europe.

“I have to disagree with your take on #5. I think you are engaging in a good bit of "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence" along with a good bit of stereotyping the black community in this country. I would also suggest that to the extent that the attitude you describe exists, it is a symptom of the racism in this country, and in the judicial system, and is as a result, indistinguishable from #4.”

I don’t know what you mean by “the grass is greener on the other side of the fence.”

But I must ask, where did I ever mention “the black community in this country” or any particular racial group? In reference to gang membership, I alluded to “sub-cultures in which poor kids with little or no effective parental control have come to accept, and even glorify, drug use, drug sales and violence.” I never suggested these sub-cultures involved only black people much less any particular race. They are, in fact, comprised of all races and nationalities (which is WHY I didn’t mention any particular racial group). There are even poor white kids running in street gangs in parts of this country (including those just a few miles east of where I live).

What I stated was a demographic fact: kids (mostly young men) who come from poor broken homes with only a single parent exercising little or no parental control comprise the bulk of street gang members. One of the reasons they join street gangs is to have some sense of belonging. They consider the gang an extended family to replace or supplement their own. The other hard fact involved here is that street gangs are usually organized and obtain membership on the basis of neighborhoods, and mostly in poor neighborhoods. So, if one happens to live in the turf neighborhood of a particular gang, that’s the gang that will come recruiting.

As such, I was simply describing the phenomenon, and engaged in no stereotyping at all. I am somewhat offended to the extent that you suggest that I hold racist views on the subject.

In any event, because gangs are a socio-economic phenomenon that affect all people, and not just a limited number of racial groups, it cannot be so easily equated with #4.

“However, I was initially responding to you claim that "modern approaches to ethics and morals have simply failed even when they do exist". Many countries in Europe consider themselves "post-Christian" and rely largely on those same modern approaches to ethics and morals which you blanketly (sic) reject as a failure.”

I was referring to the United States, not Europe. The question was why America has such a large per capita prison population in relation to the rest of the world, and not the other way around. Therefore, the appropriate inquiry seemed to be asking what is going wrong here, as opposed to what might be going right elsewhere.

There was a time in this country, and not too long ago (e.g. within the last 60-70 years), when you could leave your door unlocked; when everyone in a community knew and supported each other; and when a combination of moral upbringing in the home, religious inculcation, ethical education in school, peer pressure, fear of community ostracism, and so on, actually kept people on the path of a fairly law abiding lifestyle. This, in my view, has largely come apart at the seams. Anonymity is now preferred over community. Even people with religious upbringing don’t show a lot of it in their daily lives. The generally accepted view appears to simply hew the line at whatever conduct the law permits – and that’s a bad substitute for the kind of compassionate, caring outlook that the former system produced. I have no doubts, based on my own personal experience defending people, that the relatively new culture of amorality has significantly contributed to the rise in crime and resulting incarceration levels. [And, yes, I consider it “amoral” to simply live by what one can get away with.”]

"Now tell me that Europeans prosecute their citizens as rigorously for welfare fraud and cheating on entitlement programs the way we do here. Well, okay, you can’t because it simply isn’t true. In England, for instance, the vast majority of benefit fraud cases (as they are called) aren’t handled by the criminal justice system."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=418487&in_page_id=1770

http://www.bexley.gov.uk/news/2006/09/1101.html

http://www.24dash.com/localgovernment/29843.htm

http://www.greenwich.gov.uk/Greenwich/YourCouncil/PressOffice/Archive/2004/February/1-7Feb/

http://www.rushcliffe.gov.uk/doc.asp?cat=10301&doc=7268

Once again John, reality doesn't meet your preconceptions and I've argued with you enough to know that the facts won't change your position, so once again we come to an impass.

AJF:

I never claimed there were no prosecutions for benefit fraud in England. I said, “the vast majority of benefit fraud cases . . . aren’t handled by the criminal justice system." The five cases you cited – all involving defendants who defrauded the government of many tens of thousands of pounds over several years – hardly disprove this assertion. Five extreme cases versus the thousands of benefit fraud cases every year does not a "vast majority" make.

Look under ‘benefit fraud” in http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070130/text/70130w0023.htm

for the statistics regarding fines imposed by the courts versus those imposed by the Department of Work and Pensions. You will see that the numbers show that administrative penalties outnumber court sanctions by 4 to 1 between 1999 to 2000, and by more than 9 to 1 in the years 2005-2006. Similarly the statistics regarding the DWP fraud investigations (immediately following) show that ‘cautions’ and ‘administrative penalties’ in the years 2004-05 and 2005-06 vastly outnumbered prosecutions by more than 2 to 1. [The report was in January of 2007.]

Just to make some sense out of these figures, one must understand that, in England, there is a hierarchy of responses to benefit fraud, including: (1) formal “cautions” which require an admission, but result in no penalties, and are recorded for future use against the individual for a number of years; (2) administrative penalties in the form of a fine of 30% plus restitution of the amount unlawfully taken, and, (3) by way of prosecution, if the monetary value is high enough (over 2,000 pounds) and/or if the lesser sanctions are

See http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/dwp/2006/sanction-policy-may06.pdf for the DWP’s sanction policy.

Thus, I stand by my factual assertion that the “vast majority” of benefit fraud cases in England are handled by way of administrative sanctions.

Furthermore, if one looks at the results of prosecutions for benefit fraud (i.e. when the courts actually do take cognizance of such cases), those cases appear to result most often in suspended sentences and fines.

In which case, I stand by my further assertion that policing entitlement programs in England does not substantially contribute to their prison population – the way it does here in the United States.

Between the two of us, I am not the factually challenged one here. As usual, you are just being a blowhard in suggesting that I am.

"93% of the U.S. prison population are democratic voters...

How much lower can the dems go???"

Paulo you idiot. Prisoners can't vote.
And no, the Democrats are not advocating giving voting rights to convicts.

"5. We, as a People, no longer have a valid moral compass. In particular, modern approaches to ethics and morals have simply failed even when they do exist.

Posted by: John W."

I think the main reason most people don't have a moral compass is because they don't want one.

Most people are hedonists who do what feels good and have little or no reasoning ability. You can't judge right and wrong if you can't weigh the consequences.

". What you or I would consider a heinous crime – e.g. cold blooded murder – is viewed as a rite of passage and a badge of honor to a gang banger. The only moral justification they need to kill is the sight of someone wearing the wrong kind of clothing, especially the wrong color, or just knowing the victim is a rival gang member or a drug dealer moving in on their turf. "

Thats why these young warriors need to join the military and do it properly. They'll win awards and be killing people.

The truth is, the gang problem arose after we got rid of the draft. We were always violent people. We always had a lot of good soldiers.

The problem today is, we don't make use of these soldiers, and so the street gangs recruit them and train them to go into these civil gang wars. It's not just the MTV culture, and it's not that there's no organized crime in Europe, the majority of mafias originated in Europe.

The difference is, in some countries, it's normal to fight/kill for your country. And in the USA, many people would rather die for a street corner than for their country. That's not a gang problem, thats a much deeper problem.

There was a time in this country, and not too long ago (e.g. within the last 60-70 years), when you could leave your door unlocked; when everyone in a community knew and supported each other; and when a combination of moral upbringing in the home, religious inculcation, ethical education in school, peer pressure, fear of community ostracism, and so on, actually kept people on the path of a fairly law abiding lifestyle.

Like I said, it's a deeper problem. The time period you mentioned was also a time period where we had the draft. The draft created a sense of unity in this country, everyone was essentially in the same gang, fighting the same enemy.

World war 2 was the last war where the country was united against an enemy. After that, the US has been fighting itself, whether it be in the street gang or the political gangs, or the corporate gangs.

Today, it's to the point where, it's each and every family for themselves. It's partly because of culture but also because we don't have shared sacrifice anymore, and most people don't have something they'd be willing to die fighting to protect along with their neighbors.

Most people don't even protect their own bodies from environmental pollution.