posted on March 19, 2001 08:02:40 AM
An old friend of mine had a DUI charge pending against him not too long ago. It was his first offense. I was taking him to court since he couldn't and wouldn't drive. 9 months his case dragged on, he couldn't afford an attorney so they appointed a PD. After 9 months of the case, he decided to enter an open plea of guilty to get the situation over with.
I was there on the day of his sentencing. I happen to believe that DUI is one crime that should be punished harshly, since all DUI related accidents can be avoided by just not drinking and driving. Simple.
Anyway, while he was waiting for his sentence another man was up for sentencing. They read his prior, the man had 9 DUI's, 10 Driving after revoked. He had gotten another DUI and driving after, and then, while out on bail, had been caught again, ANOTHER OF EACH.
He had an expensive attorney, known around town for an excellent record against DUI convictions. He recieved 180 days in the county jail, suspended, a 2000 dollar fine and 2 years probation. He walked out of that court room.
My friend, who had the P.D., received 180 days in the county jail, with 150 days suspended. 2 and 1/2 years probation and a 2000 dollar fine. The judge said, "I want you to serve the 30 days to make sure you don't come back to my court room again"
Now I'm all for harsh sentences in the case of Driving Under the Influence, I had a terrible 1 car accident years ago, drunk, almost killed myself and was extrememly lucky I was the only person injured. I went to jail, deservedly. My friend went to jail, although he wasn't involved in an accident, he still drove drunk.
The problem I see is while my friend deserved what he got, the man that left that courtroom that day, imo, deserved prison time.
Justice can be bought these days and that fact is terrible. Oh yeah, for the record since someone brought this up earlier, my friend is white, the other man sentenced was african-american.
posted on March 19, 2001 08:35:02 AM
I will just agree to disagree.
You are able to point to a few cases where it is clear that money has shifted justice. I am talking about social patterns, rather than individual cases.
I work with demographic statistics, and if you are black, you are more likely to be poor. The two are related characteristics, not absolutes, but correlated.
If you are poor, you are less likely to obtain justice. That much we appear to agree on.
I will accept that being black does not have a proven direct and absolutely causal link on whether you will get justice or not, but because it impacts on your ability to purchase adequate legal advice, it has an impact on your ability to obtain justice. However, I still do not discount the ability of justice to be racist, as I think it is difficult to completely disentangle the reasons for inequity.
posted on March 19, 2001 08:48:01 AM
The OJ's and the Puffy's will have to spend their money on someone else to defend them, should they find themselves in need again.
On the Today show this morning, Johnny Cochran said he was giving up criminal law. His focus will now be on civil cases.
posted on March 19, 2001 01:33:43 PM
What a sad truth really....everything DOES boil down to money anymore, but taking the situation the way it stands now, no one in prison seems to feel they are being punished (to the point where they wise-up), so when they get out, they go right back to their "normal" way of living, doing the same things, committing the same crimes.
After a person already commits the crime, what do you think should happen to them from then on so they are less likely to commit another crime?
posted on March 19, 2001 04:58:42 PM
Who spends more? The government trying to stop them or the actual money spent to buy drugs?
Back in the Vietnam war I suggested that it might be cheaper to offer the whole country of N. Vietnam $1,000 a head for each citizen to go home and shut up and mind their own business. It could not have hurt to offer.
For 60 Billion you should just about be able to BUY all the acres where they can grow the crap.
posted on March 19, 2001 06:04:44 PM
I'm would like to ask about a couple of options.
First, what do you think about giving everybody the right to carry concealed
weapons. How would this affect crime.
Would the criminals be afraid to commit
robberies, for example.
Second, How does the "three strikes you're
out policy affect the prison population?
posted on March 20, 2001 01:39:57 AM
hehe Snowy is back! You know you would not be happy with all of you congratulating yourselves on all of your wonderful solutions. There must be a voice of dissent here.
Line 'em up and start the executions like Texas does. I guess that is just my uneducated side showing, isn't it Borillar?
I shudder about the people who don't shudder at all.
[ edited by snowydays on Mar 20, 2001 01:41 AM ]
Thank you for your compliment. I don't like having slugfests, generally, and don't tend to get heated unless something really stupid is going on.
The thing that bugs me more than anything else (perhaps for future reference) is not having my beliefs respected. I always try to understand that others hold views that have been shaped by their experiences, and they are valid views, for them. It really, really irks me when someone tries to force me to accept their views, without supporting evidence, without coherent argument, and without any respect for the influences that have shaped me, but just because that is what they think.
I am always open to changing my views when presented with proper evidence which is relevant. And sometimes, you just have to agree to differ, and let it be.
posted on March 20, 2001 09:50:02 AM
Prisons are overcrowded for a number of reasons. I sure don't know them all. I agree with some here who've stated that irrational drug laws contribute a disproportionate number to the total. I'm also of the opinion that there is at least one obvious reason that seems to be all too casually dismissed; Prisons are overcrowded because there are too many criminals and not enough prisons.
The statement above will cause a predictable reaction. I can almost hear the sound of knees hitting the bottoms of computer tables. I can also predict with a reasonable expectation of accuracy that the money, race, and inequitable representation arguments will be trotted out to prove that justice is not fair in this country.
To those who would make such arguments I ask: "On what do you base those arguments?" Would I be wrong to assume that your opinions are second-hand, derived from newspaper editiorials, magazine articles, countless media pundits, and the rapt attention paid to an insignificant number of high-profile cases that are reported in the news?
Money does make a difference. Race can be a factor. But to what extent? The overwhelming majority of court cases take place in relative obscurity. The prosecutorial competence in those cases is typically on a par with that of the defense. The law always has and still does favor the defendant. And yet, the prisons are still overcrowded. I don't believe the prisons are overcrowded because there are too many innocent people convicted. I'll grant that there is injustice but I don't accept that fact as the reason.
My personal theory is that crime is all too commonplace in our society. If we are to reduce the number of prisoners we need to reduce the number of criminals. The solution to that problem is not the responsibility of the criminal justice system.
If it's true that crime is escalating, I
think that Borillar's solution has even
more significance.
I hope that it's ok to post it here again.
"Create programs to try to address the root causes of crime; allow equal access to the court system and free help to fill out the proper forms and so forth so that everybody can have a judge settle a dispute long before it becomes violent; feed the hungry who have no money to buy food so that they don't have to steal to survive, house the homeless for the same reason; and give him your cloak as well as your hat (a suggestion made by someone quite famous in history); give free education while they're on that full-belly and in that warm, clean environment so that they can learn to survive without committing crime; level the playing field so that anyone who wants to try hard enough can make it; give them medical care when they are sick and the medicine that they need to keep going. Am I boring you?"
--------------------------Borillar
posted on March 20, 2001 10:46:51 AM
I think Borillars suggestions are valid, noble, well-intentioned, and simplistic. I don't see a single suggestion that has not yet been tried in some form or another. The intent of such programs is worthwhile, the implementation and applcation, IMO, has proven ineffective.
Simply identifying the root causes of crime has proven to be a daunting task. Free public legal services exist in every large community. Judicial intervention in the early stages of a dispute process would require a redefining of the judges role within the system. The arraignment and preliminary hearing process already allow for the early dismissal or resolution of cases. Education cannot be forced. It is available to those that want it. Medical reform is a good idea but I don't see how it directly addresses this particular problem. In my experience, people don't steal to feed their families. If I ran across a Jean Valjean type, I think I'd let him go.
I can't help but admit to a certain cynicism when it comes to human nature. I see greed, exploitation, amorality, and a willingness to rationalize criminal behavior at all levels of society.
Whatever the solution, it has yet to be attempted. I suspect it does not lie within the realm of social services.
posted on March 20, 2001 11:04:04 AM
The United States has a larger percentage of its population in prison than any country on Earth. Over 1.7 million human beings languish behind bars. Well over sixty percent of federal prisoners, and a significant fraction of state and local prisoners, are non-violent drug offenders, mostly first time offenders. Due to the War on Drugs, we have become the world's leading jailer. 1 out of 35 Americans is under the control of the Criminal Justice System. If present incarceration rates hold steady, 1 out of 20 Americans, 1 out of 11 men, and 1 out of 4 Black men in this country today can expect to spend some part of their life in prison.
Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Nation's Probation and Parole Population Reached Almost 3.9 Million Last Year, (press release), Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice (1997, August 14).
Bonczar, T.P. & Beck, A.J., Lifetime Likelihood of Going to State or Federal Prison, Washington D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice (1997, March), p. 1.
Currie, E., Crime and Punishment in America, New York, NY: Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Company, Inc. (1998), p. 3.
In thirty years of "The War On Drugs", our government hasn't managed to accomplish even a small reduction in drug dealing and abuse, yet we have spent almost a trillion dollars. ONE TRILLION DOLLARS! That is a huge fraction of the total national debt. All we've done is fill up our prisons at a terrifying rate, and pay homage to meaningless, mean-spirited rhetoric, like "Zero Tolerance" and "Just Say No" and "Tough on Crime." By current estimates, we need to build a complete new Federal prison every two weeks just to keep up with the demand. At the present exponential rate of incarceration, we will have half of our population in prison within fifty years. Is this how we want to greet the new millennium? We will rip this nation to pieces.
Sources: Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM).
The Lindesmith Center; Ethan Nadlemann, Director
In 1998, the U.S. was second in the world (with 668 per 100,000 population) behind Russia (690 per 100,000) in the number of citizens incarcerated as a percentage of population.
I have stated both here and in other threads that I am not in agreement with the present system of drug law enforcement in this country. It does not make sense to me and I think it should be changed. I also agree that many people convicted of drug offenses pose no real threat to society and should not be incarcerated. I do not agree with anyone who believes that all of them are wrongly in jail.
The first paragraph of your post contains some interesting, and no doubt accurate, facts. A careful reading, however, reveals that those facts are related in a way that is suggestive, but not necessarily conclusive. The sources are authoritative but the phrasing and structure appear to be out of context and manipulative. It reads like propaganda and I find it disturbing, despite my agreement with it's basic intent.
posted on March 20, 2001 11:55:45 AM
As long as the government seeks to incarcerate people who commit victim-less crimes the prison problem will always exist!
posted on March 20, 2001 11:59:52 AMThe first paragraph of your post contains some interesting, and no doubt accurate, facts... It reads like propaganda and I find it disturbing, despite my agreement with it's basic intent.
Since I didn't write it, I will not attempt to defend it. I posted it because I thought it was interesting, with no added commentary. What I find disturbing is the percentage of our population that we, as a society, feel the need to lock up.
"Land of the Free" rings rather hollow, in my opinion.
posted on March 20, 2001 11:59:53 AM
You may have inferred that, Helen, but the implication is not there. The only implication was that crime and criminals exist, and will likely continue to exist, despite well-meaning efforts to deal with the problem. I offered no reasons for crime. I presented my observation regarding avarice, a lack of morality, and a seeming willingness to exploit and rationalize as characteristic of a criminal mindset. If those traits are genetic, it's news to me.
I believe those traits are learned. A good question may be: Who are the teachers?
posted on March 20, 2001 12:12:23 PM
I believe we are in accord, mrpotatoheadd. It was only the matter of form that gave me pause.
Victimless crimes are difficult to define, kcpick4u. Where no specific individual has been victimized there is often a less than obvious victimization of society in general. In the case of some crimes described as victimless, I'm sure we would agree. Regarding others, we may not.
posted on March 20, 2001 12:13:05 PM
Interesting statistics from MrP. If they are indeed an accurate reflection of jailing trends in the US, I would think this might go some way to explain the "need" for further prisons, xardon.
Once jailed, even for non-violent drug offences, upon release the former prisoner will find it difficult to obtain employment. Without employment, and with previous knowledge gained from being inside prison, I would suspect that the re-offend rate would be high. I don't know if any research has been done on re-offending, though, so this is simply my theory.
The act of criminalising minor drug use will probably escalate imprisonments in the long term.
A second possible cause for such high imprisonment rates (and I know this will irritate a section of the population), is the easy access to guns for criminal use. I wonder if those convicted of armed robbery would have committed simple robbery if they had not had a gun around.
Finally, I would suggest that a significant number of prisoners are there for car crime. Far fewer cars are owned elsewhere, and it may be simply the number of cars available that make car crime more easily possible.
These are hypotheses, not facts.
So, although I can see your argument for the need for more prisons, xardon, for the escalating numbers of convicted criminals. But I would question what makes the criminals in the first place.
posted on March 20, 2001 12:22:44 PM
ENFORCING LAWS AGAINST CONSENSUAL ACTIVITIES DESTROYS PEOPLE'S LIVES
WHAT THE ENFORCEMENT of laws against consensual activities does to individuals is nothing short of criminal. The government is destroying the very lives of the people it is supposedly saving.
A single arrest, even without a conviction, is, in many cases, enough to ruin a life; a conviction and a year in jail are almost guaranteed to. All this, of course, is "for their own good." As the Horace of Spain (1559-1619) wrote, "No pain equals that of an injury inflicted under the pretense of a just punishment."
The above is from "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do" by Peter McWilliams. I would highly recommend it to anybody interested in the subject of consensual crimes. The entire text of the book is available online through the link provided.
[ edited by mrpotatoheadd on Mar 20, 2001 12:34 PM ]
posted on March 20, 2001 12:48:01 PM
I am not an apologist for the criminal justice system. I am merely an observer with a perspective that is, within the confines of this forum, unique at this moment in time.
Among my professional colleagues, I am considered a liberal. In other circles my specific views are often considered conservative. I disdain such labeling and espouse no form of collective reasoning.
At a very basic level my job is simple. I catch the bad guys and I protect the good guys. I don't enact or create laws. I am not a criminologist, nor am I a social worker.
I see my role, however, as being quite a bit more complex. I try to understand things. I value objectivity. I think it important to tell the truth, recognizing that truth is often subjective. In some ways I feel that my experience has provided me with a minor epiphany of sorts. The scales have fallen from my eyes and I see things with a hard won clarity. I constantly question myself as to whether this clarity is real or merely a product of a limited, rather than a broad range of experience.
As to your last question, Mivona; I don't know. Like any of us, I can only surmise.
posted on March 20, 2001 02:14:38 PM
xardon - Since you are able to observe many things that I cannot, I have a question, please. Just your opinion, from your perspective and your experience.
When the subject of first time drug offenders being arrested/and jailed is debated, I always wonder what the truth is. I read and hear that those first-time drug offenders are arrested and jailed. But then in reality TV shows (Boarder Patrols, US Marshalls, ATFs, DEAs, etc.) when they show drug busts taking place, it seems, that they don't arrest that user. They don't seem to be to be interested in the low level drug seller. They ask for and get the name of the larger drug seller who sold their drugs to the others, offering to let them go in exchange for information. Kind of like stepping up the ladder for the 'top' drug seller. Those are the one's I thought were being jailed. I thought that most first time drug users where just booked and then released until their trial, not held. Then, from the prospective I've had, the court (unless the law has mandatory sentences) just fine them, and then release.
Do I have an incorrect conception of what happens that you're aware of?
posted on March 20, 2001 03:24:58 PM
I am writing with regards to the drug users who are incarcerated for the abuse, recreational use or habitual use of illegal drugs. Aggressive prosecution and incarceration of the end user is a fruitless endeavor. The victimization of society occurs as indirect result of the prosecution and incarceration of the end user. Point being, if the illegal drugs were made legal, the black market would disappear, the result of that would be a dramatic drop in the price for street drugs. So in knowing that, you can assume that $100 a day habit, might become $20 a day habit due to free enterprise. So if the addict steals to provide means for use of illicit drugs. You can determine that there would be a drastic reduction in crime just on that point alone. Legality of drug doesn't deter its use. A certain percentage will experiment with drugs, a certain percentage will come to abuse and habituate these drugs, regardless of the legality of them. That has been proven countless times through out history.
posted on March 20, 2001 03:30:02 PM
I could go off on quite a rant about reality cop shows, Linda, but I'll spare you that for now and save it for another thread.
As briefly as possible, this is the answer to your question:
Law enforcement operates at a number of levels. The agencies you listed have distinct missions and different performance standards. The US Marshalls and ATF usually have little involvement with drugs. They may discover drugs incidental to their normal activities but they probably wouldn't make an arrest for possession unless they had ulterior motives. If they discovered a large drug operation, they'd likely turn it over to local or federal drug cops.
The DEA and, to a lesser extent, the Border Patrol have drug interdiction as part of their primary mission. The respective agencies consider simple possession arrests as beneath their station and a waste of their valuable time. They're mostly interested in large networks or confiscations. The kind of stuff that'll make the news. If they make a simple possession arrest it's usually so they can use the arrest as leverage to obtain information. They'll enlist the aid of local authorities if they do make an arrest for less than a federal level crime.
I'm sure that the bulk of simple possession arrests are made by local police. Each state sets it's own criteria for drug possession offenses. The seperate jurisdictions within the state, of which there may be hundreds, further define and enforce their own versions of the laws. None of the laws may supercede the Federal Law but much leeway exists regarding amounts and classification. A criminal possession offense in one state may not even be a crime in another. Likewise from town to town.
In some respects policing is like any other job. Employess must produce something. In the case of cops it is activity. Activity is paper: tickets, investigations, vehicle/pedestrian stops, and arrests. In some areas a possession arrest may be a big deal. The cop might even get a medal. In others, it's just so much BS. Big cities and college towns are usually the most liberal when defining criminal possession.
My officers do not make simple possession arrests unless it can be justified for reasons other than the possession itself. Such reasons do exist but that's another story.
I hope this helps clear up your confusion and has not made it worse.
