No one has ever been incarcerated in this country for the use, recreational use, or habitual use of drugs. Some parolees are sent back to jail for violating conditions of parole if they fail drug tests, but it is not technically a crime to use drugs. I know I'm quibbling on this point but I wouldn't want you to labor under a misconception. It is a usually a crime to possess certain drugs above a set quantity. Evidence or even a confession of use will not get you arrested.
If I've interpreted the rest of your post accurately, I agree with your point.
posted on March 20, 2001 03:51:05 PM new
xardon - Thank you very much for that explanation, and I'll certainly look forward to the day when you post that 'rant'.
I've always voted for building of new prisons when it's been up for a vote. Until we find a better way, I'd like to know that serious offenders are away from society.
posted on March 20, 2001 04:01:57 PM new
Xardon
Well I have to give credit where credit is do, you have a point there. However, is there a law against being intoxicated in public?
posted on March 20, 2001 04:08:35 PM new
In some places there are such laws, kc. An arrest might be made based on observation of some locally defined offensive behavior. It's usually no more than a sumary violation, the equivalent of a traffic ticket. There are also laws against driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. In both cases it's not the use that constitutes the offense, it's the offender's action.
posted on March 20, 2001 04:13:23 PM new
I have seen officers of the law arrest people just because they appeared to be under the influence of something illegal. I was at the Indy 500 one year (in the snake pit) The police arrived with a school bus and started loading them up!
posted on March 20, 2001 04:18:15 PM new
I'm not sure I get your point, kc. Are you trying to convince me of something? I've already said that in some places you can be arrested for public intoxication. Do you know what the charges were in Indianapolis?
posted on March 20, 2001 05:19:28 PM new
I hope I've made myself clear regarding my opinion on the current drug laws and my stance on the needless incarceration of certain offenders. For the edification of some, and for the consternation of others, I'll provide for you a real world consequence of insufficient prison space.
In my area the most prevalent crime is theft. Auto break-ins, theft of patio furniture, office equipment, metal house trim, etc. Burglary is the next most common offense. Within my area of responsibility about a hundred people a month are arrested for these offenses. We arrest many of the same people the next month, and the next, and the next. They get arrested but they don't go to jail. There's no room. My city, along with many others, is required to adhere to federal guidelines regarding the number of prisoners in custody. We cannot exceed capacity. There are no exceptions. If a person is arrested for a serious crime and does go to jail, another prisoner must be released to make room.
The situation here is hardly unique. Most major cities have identical problems.
I'm often assailed by community residents who are vehement in their condemantion of police efforts to reduce crime. They don't want to hear excuses. I'm the visible and available representative of the justice system. It comes with the territory. I just keep on arresting the bad guys and throw out my arrest figures when questioned about how I'm addrssing the problem. It's frustrating on all sides of the issue. Is this acceptable?
The police don't make the laws. Legislators do. Legislators are elected. They are elected by people who apparently approve of those who take a tough stance on crime. Not many politicians can afford to take a soft posture on drugs. Why is that?
I vote for people who appear to understand the true nature of the problem. I'd vote for someone who expressed a real interest in drug law reform. Who do you vote for?
The purpose of new prisons may be to provide additional room for those who shouldn't be there. One should not lose sight of the fact that they are also providing room for those who should be. Until such time as the citizenry instructs their lawmakers to adapt to presnt day realities, the status quo will persist. It's not my fault. It's not the fault of the police. The fault is in ourselves.
posted on March 21, 2001 07:34:06 AM new
I have to agree...we have too many prisons because we have too many criminals.
But....
I think a large part of the reason that we have too many criminals is because we have too many damn laws defining too many damn things as crimes. The government needs to get the hell out of the morality business and create laws that protect society.
For instance...prostitution. Why is that a crime and not a legal occupation. Solisitation of a prostitute should be punishable by wives, not courts. The majority of the problems associated with prostitution is because it is illegal. Most of the public health concerns are because it is illegal. It is a religious and moral issue...and should not be a legal one.
Drugs are another "crime" that is made worse by the legal status. There are many such crimes.
In the early 1980s I read an article that there was at that time over 3,000,000 lagal "crimes". The article said that none of us could possibly be aware of all of them and pretty much were certain to break several every day. Our law makers have made many, many more since then and repealed few.
I do think that social ills result in an increase of actual crimes. No program has ever been instituted to insure there were less social ills. It would be a massive undertaking of multiple organizations filled with people that were educated to understand the agenda and understand the short term goals along the way. In addition, it would have to include a willingness of the people who we want to improve their social status. And it would have to involve a respect for cultural differences.
Money is definately a good thing to have if you tangle with the legal system. Does not matter if you are guilty or not guilty, money is good. The more the better.
Did you ever notice that "white collar" crimes carry pretty light sentences?
Did you ever notice that many "crimes" became crimes because they were cultural practices of particular ethnic groups (at least at the time the law was inacted)...ex. the reefer laws.
Our very legal system, from legislation to juditial is set to favor the wealthy, the male, the majority, and certain religions. It has nothing to do with equality and never has. Yes, I would like to see it change, but I believe that certain political happenings of recent years will insure that it does not.
posted on March 22, 2001 02:45:59 AM new
I think you all are missing the whole pictue here--OVER CROWDED PRISIONS???? think about it---How about calling it refuge camps--TIME TO LOCK UP PEOPLE WHO ARE CAUSING PROBLEMS---so ya all be careful-- & don't make a mistake that might put us all there!!!!! KINDA SOUNDS LIKE HITLER BUT IN A DIFFERENT SCERENIO---SCARY!!!!
posted on March 22, 2001 03:05:39 AM new
OFFENDER OF SOCIETY--- what does that exactly mean without including all of us---god gave the 10 commandents & for some reason most of us want to pick & chose which seeems to fit our bill & to omit 9 out of 10. There is not one sin out of the ten that is more punishable than the rest--think hard--think long---& then cast the first stone---can you fit the bill--??? right now & before we are seeing injustice with our governemnt--lying cheating---right there you have two offenders of justice & they should also be locked up---a lie is a lie & to steal is to steal--I am not a drugy but, to pick on them as an injustice to society is unethical---to put down the lowley & keep the high & mighty as higharchy is an abomishment to America when they commit the same crimes but, white collar----CRIMES-- that's not justice in my eyes---
posted on March 23, 2001 12:18:57 AM new
I know I'm probably gonna catch some heat for this, but I've made an observation. It appears to me that the very same people who are FOR people going to prisons as the end result of a trial and being found quilty, are also the same folks who are homophobic. From what I have observed over the years, prison conditions, being inhumane, tyhat most do not allow for conjucal visits. The rate of forced sex in prisons is high, I hear, and I have heard stories of folks going into prison as straight and coming out years later as bi-sexual or gay. Do prisons creat homosexuals? If they do, then isn't it odd that these same people who revile at homosexuality are actually causing it to happen faster than the population norm?
Maybe I don't know jack from cheddar on this, but that's how I'm seeing it.
posted on March 23, 2001 12:38:15 AM new
Way too sweeping Borillar. I, for one, am not homophobic at all yet I am in favor of sending criminals to prison (of course, we could always lobotomize them or something instead, but that's considered inhumane isn't it?)
posted on March 23, 2001 06:50:08 AM new
Check out how Finland has decreased their prison population and
criminal behavior!
It is based on the premise that good social development policy is the best criminal policy.
By promoting moral education and by using conditional sentences, Finland
has been able to significantly reduce their prison population along with a reduction of crime.
posted on March 23, 2001 07:44:22 AM new
Incarceration as a means of social justice, i.e. punishment is just flat wrong. Incarceration needs to be reserved for those individuals who demostrate a clear danger to society or themselves. Incarceration has a recividist rehabilitation rate of only 8% to 12%; and one could successfully argue, the indivuals so-rehabilited were going not not repeat any offences anyway. Therefore, incarceration as a form of punishment is pure sadistic behaviour on the part of society. Should we be surprized when the crime rate goes up in societies that utilize incarceration as punishment?
Certainly you want to deter crime. But no matter what the social deterrent may be, it will not stop most crime from taking place. Therefore, the best use of funds, time and labor is best spent in preventative measures; that is, to treat crime before it happens, rather than after the criminal incident has taken place.
All studies have shown that crime prevention and programs that address social needs is much more cost effective than criminal incarceration as a deterrent to criminal behavior. Some studies suggest that half as much money or less is spent in preventing a crime than the costs associated with police activities, housing (jails), courts, and prisons - a whole army dedicated to just one proposition: incarcerate wrongdoers.
Due to the length of this subject and the nature of messageboards, I must stop this post before it goes overlong.
posted on March 23, 2001 08:09:43 AM new>"Says you."
Certainly, sez I. I'm not speaking for anyone else. But I ask you, jamesoblivion, if incarceration is an ineffective means at crime prevention, then what purpose does it serve? I am not referring to dangerous individules who need to be kept from society, I am asking what purpose or value that incarceration has beyond that one, slim need?
posted on March 23, 2001 08:23:12 AM new
I think the question is not so much whether incarceration is necessary to prevent crime as it is what should be considered a crime in the first place.
Fewer laws against consensual crimes = fewer criminals.
posted on March 23, 2001 08:25:52 AM new
It's a consequence to an action.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think all criminals whould be locked away. It's a cath-22 as jail is a bad environment and criminals don't usually leave jail with a better attitude. Very often they leave a bit more antisocial then they came in.
Certainly I think that the root causes of what makes a person criminal should always be studied and an effort made to weed out crime before it happens. Since it's shown that poverty is a likely catalyst to crime, efforts should be made to wipe out poverty (among other reasons, of course). In the case of the school shootings, if it is shown that bullying is a cause, efforts need to be made to prevent bullying.
Of course what is a crime to begin with needs redefinition.
posted on March 23, 2001 09:31:26 AM new
Well, I agree that the defenition of "what is crime?" needs to be rethunk ('tis word, indeed!) Does commiting a crime have to have a negative consequence? Negative consequences produce negative outcomes. Incarceration does not prevent crime, incarceration does not keep crime from happening again. Therefore, incarceration is only a form of torture.
Now I ask you, James: what sort of a society are we that promotes the torture of its citizens for any reason? It is a sick, mentally ill act of sadism that the act of crime gives society the permission go ahead to perpetrate on wrongdoers. I submit, that since torture; i.e. incarceration, has no redeeming value, then to promote it as a "useful tool" as a consequence of crime is to acknowledge that it is society that ought to incarcerated for its sick rational.
Instead, if the perpetrator is not a danger to the community or to themselves, then why not try to FIX the problem, instead of trying to fix the BLAME?
