http://wcbstv.com/national/prison.americans.prison.2.665053.html

Report: 1 In Every 99 Americans Now Behind Bars

2/28/2008 2:07:31 PM

That's fucking horrible.

2/28/2008 2:10:35 PM

i haven't read the article yet, but that basically means, what, 3 million people?

2/28/2008 2:11:02 PM

A-yep.

2/28/2008 2:13:21 PM

Wow, I'm impressed. That's only 10% of the black population in America. I thought it'd be more.

2/28/2008 2:18:23 PM

^ RACIST!!!

2/28/2008 2:24:42 PM

Quote :

"The rate of increase for prison costs was six times greater than for higher education spending, the report said."

talk about fail

2/28/2008 2:26:12 PM

Married? What was all of that "one in a hundred" talk?

2/28/2008 2:28:31 PM

Quote :

"^ RACIST!!!"

On a serious note...

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm

Quote :

"At yearend 2006 there were 3,042 black male sentenced prisoners per 100,000 black males in the United States, compared to 1,261 Hispanic male sentenced prisoners per 100,000 Hispanic males and 487 white male sentenced prisoners per 100,000 white males."

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 2:36 PM. Reason : link]

2/28/2008 2:34:05 PM

i bet half of those are for drug crimes

2/28/2008 3:24:36 PM

if TWW were America

305 of us would be in prison



[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 3:27 PM. Reason : womp womp]

2/28/2008 3:27:20 PM

What percent have at least been to jail once?

I bet thats closer to 20 percent

2/28/2008 3:28:16 PM

^^^^ I retract my statement and apologize for my accusation.

2/28/2008 3:46:41 PM

This is all chris hansens fault.


Maybe they did just want to talk

2/28/2008 5:28:57 PM

Quote :

"i bet half of those are for drug crimes "

fo real

every non-violent drug offender should be released immediately

they haven't harmed anyone

in fact, they're heroes for refusing to obey an unjust law

someday, washington dc will have a wall with the names of everyone harmed or killed in the war on drugs

2/28/2008 5:49:59 PM

crackheads don't need to be out.

on the point of spending... they don't need free cable while they're in, either

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 5:53 PM. Reason : ]

2/28/2008 5:52:24 PM

I agree that inmates having free cable or internet is bullshit

although, if they pay for it, and the prison offers it, then that would be ok

but why do you think that "crackheads don't need to be out"?

I'm probably one of the few that would call that bigotry, but really, it is

addiction is a often tragic medical condition, but should it be a crime? no.

why don't we arrest tobacco or alcohol addicts?

and if you think for a second that tobacco addicts wouldn't mug, steal, and kill over "territory" were it illegal

then you simply don't understand the big picture



prohibition of drugs

- creates unaccountable drug dealers

- makes quality control impossible

- allows for the majority of gang and terrorist revenue through the black market

- causes disrespect of law enforcement among those who can clearly see the injustice

- causes disrespect of the rule of law

- was founded based on racism, and remains racist in practice.

- contributes largely or wholly to the deaths of innocent americans

- tears apart families

- destroys lives

- destroys careers

- wastes tax dollars on enforcement, courts, jails, propaganda, etc.

- prevents tax revenues that could come from the taxed legal sale of drugs

- and, of course, causes prison overpopulation



oh, and before you point out how the harms of addiction can destroy lives, etc.

remember that prohibition stigmatizes addicts and therefore makes it much less likely for them to seek treatment

thus prohibition makes the harms associated with addiction worse, in addition to all the above harms




addicts need doctors and treatment, not cops and punishment

2/28/2008 6:23:51 PM

America FTW

2/28/2008 7:27:08 PM

1 down, 99 to go.

2/28/2008 7:52:05 PM

Quote :

"then you simply don't understand the big picture"

maybe you don't understand the big picture. American drug laws serve as a great way for our government to funnel money out of other countries into our own. Why tax a percentage of the proceeds of the sale of drugs when you can use civil forfeiture laws to take the entire gross revenue of sales? We make more money off of prohibition than we ever will by legalizing drugs and taxing them.

do you really believe that drug dealers and street gangs are somehow less accountable than pharmaceutical conglomerates or the alcohol and tombacco industries? how many drug dealers have politicians in their pockets or can mold American laws in their favor just by throwing some money around? The only black market drug dealers that powerful in our country are in the CIA.


Also, prohibition doesn't cause the destruction of lives, families, and careers that you listed - addiction does. prescription medications, tobacco, and alcohol have proven themselves capable of this already.

2/28/2008 8:05:35 PM

^
get a fucking clue

2/28/2008 10:02:42 PM

Quote :

"Despite reaching its latest milestone, the nation's incarcerated population has actually been growing far more slowly since 2000 than during the 1990s, when the spate of harsher sentencing laws began to take effect. These included a 1986 federal law mandating prison terms for crack cocaine offenses that were up to eight times as long as for those involving powder cocaine. In the early 1990s, states across the nation adopted "three-strikes-you're-out" laws and curtailed the discretion parole boards have in deciding when to release an inmate. As a result, between 1990 and 2000, the prison population swelled by about 80 percent, increasing by as much as 86,000 per year."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/28/ST2008022803016.html

It looks like treating inner city crack worse than white collar cocaine and Bill Clinton's 3 Strikes laws are largely to blame.

2/28/2008 10:19:18 PM

Quote :

"The report said the United States is the world's incarceration leader, far ahead of more populous China with 1.5 million people behind bars."

unbelievable

2/28/2008 10:45:18 PM

^ Not really. You ever been to Cary. You ever stop and really think about how many cops there are in that town. Let me put it this way, there are so many that they have the resources to leave cop cars in band parking lots overnight as a deterrent. I'm guessing there's probably something like 1 cop per 300 people in Cary (I'm just guessing, but there's a fuckload for sure).

It's one of the reasons I both love and hate living there. It keeps out the majority of the small time hoods and shitheads that you get in say... the part of Raleigh around NCSU, but it also makes it a real pain in the balls to go somewhere at 3:30 AM 'cause you're probably getting pulled over whether you did anything or not.

[Edited on February 28, 2008 at 11:09 PM. Reason : shaggadsf]

2/28/2008 11:07:23 PM

I've lived in Cary for 3 years, have driven around late at night, and haven't been pulled over even once. I think it has more to do with mandatory sentencing.

2/28/2008 11:14:52 PM

It does, I was just making a point about the massive police presence everywhere.

Mandatory minimums and the continuing "War on Drugs" are the two obvious reasons for our ridiculous number of inmates.

2/28/2008 11:21:26 PM

i refuse to support relaxing our criminal code in order to solve the problem of a populace in moral decay.

2/29/2008 1:20:11 AM

Moral decay? I'd say locking people up for almost any reason is less moral than using drugs.

2/29/2008 2:25:21 AM

^^^ add in class/income disparity greater than in many other countries

and certain aspects of American culture, both pop and historical

2/29/2008 2:58:23 AM

Fewer crimes and harsher penalties.

Quote :

"addiction is a often tragic medical condition, but should it be a crime? no."

Being batfuck crazy in a way that makes you want to kill people is a tragic medical condition, too, but I'm perfectly willing to put you in prison as a result.

Quote :

"- causes disrespect of law enforcement among those who can clearly see the injustice - causes disrespect of the rule of law"

A fairly small percent of the population falls into this category. When the cops raid a crackhouse, the crackheads aren't protesting because of the goddamned injustice of it all. And of the population in general, I would say more take issue with lawmakers than with actual law enforcement, and a larger percentage still doesn't take issue with either (at least when it comes to drugs).

Besides, the same result is caused in anybody who disagrees with any law. Child molestors see injustice in laws against child molesting. Plenty of Libertarians have long since given up rule of law as dead. You get the idea.

Quote :

"- tears apart families - destroys lives - destroys careers"

Whereas perfectly legal drugs like alcohol have never done any such thing.

Quote :

"- contributes largely or wholly to the deaths of innocent americans"

It does contribute to the existence of a black market environment, which in turn creates a higher risk of violence. I'll grant that. However, to say "wholly" -- hell, even "largely" -- seems like you're taking a hell of a lot of responsibility off of the guy that pulls the trigger.

Quote :

"- creates unaccountable drug dealers - makes quality control impossible"

These are basically true, though of course there are those of us that would argue that having no drug dealers or drugs of any quality is the preferable outcome. Of course, you'll say such a thing is impossible, and in a strict interpretation it is -- but we can come a damn sight closer than we have been doing.

Quote :

"- prevents tax revenues that could come from the taxed legal sale of drugs "

This is a bit silly as well. We could also legalize slavery and start taxing that. Also contract killings. Generation of revenue is not a sufficient reason for legalizing a practice.

Quote :

"addicts need doctors and treatment, not cops and punishment"

And yet, here I agree with you.

There's no point in sending addicts to jail. It is a waste of time and resources simply because it doesn't cure the addiction. No, send the addicts to doctors, and send everyone who produces or traffics a certain quantity to the electric chair.*

And I'm serious. No exaggeration. We can't get rid of the supply or demand, but we can make the price of doing business so high that virtually nobody is willing to take part in it. The death penalty isn't much of a deterrent when you're talking about murder, because so many murders are either crimes of passion or the product of an unbalanced mental state. But to set up the apparatus to produce and distribute narcotics, you've got to have a fairly rational frame of mind. The real possibility of execution by the state is the sort of thing that will normally carry quite a bit of weight in such considerations.

*-Yes, I know pretty much everyone uses lethal injection now, but "send them to the table with the straps and the IV's" doesn't have the same cachet.

2/29/2008 4:07:14 AM

Quote :

"Generation of revenue is not a sufficient reason for legalizing a practice."

Very true. However, to me the question is and has always been, "Why should X be illegal?" not, "Why should X not be illegal?" We seem to be moving from the former to the latter in this country and it's a fucking travesty. Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al would be rolling over in their graves.

2/29/2008 6:09:51 AM

Quote :

"There's no point in sending addicts to jail. It is a waste of time and resources simply because it doesn't cure the addiction. No, send the addicts to doctors, and send everyone who produces or traffics a certain quantity to the electric chair.* And I'm serious. No exaggeration. We can't get rid of the supply or demand, but we can make the price of doing business so high that virtually nobody is willing to take part in it. The death penalty isn't much of a deterrent when you're talking about murder, because so many murders are either crimes of passion or the product of an unbalanced mental state. But to set up the apparatus to produce and distribute narcotics, you've got to have a fairly rational frame of mind. The real possibility of execution by the state is the sort of thing that will normally carry quite a bit of weight in such considerations."

GG, GrumpyGOPdude.

I fully agree with that.

2/29/2008 8:13:41 AM

I think we should model our punishments after Singapore

2/29/2008 8:53:47 AM

wow, ya'll are nuts

we may never legalize all drugs

but that death penalty thing will never happen, ever

you are stupid to think americans would stand for that


that being said, I would actually like to see it happen, because it would cause "civil war 2"

at which point I would personally hunt down and kill you first, and put your head on a pike

you fucking douchehose

Quote :

"Newt Gingrich, The Master of Ethics "Answer a fool according to his folly." - King Solomon By Donovan, Prisoner of War in America Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House and Paragon of Virtue, recently stated that drug dealers should be shot and that if enough of them were, it would solve the problem. Not long ago in Nogales, Arizona, two 69 year old grandmothers were arrested with 400 pounds of marijuana in the trunk of their car. Newt would have them hustled out with a flour sack over their heads and their brains blown out against the international boundary fence, Not, of course, if it was his grandmother-only yours. Gingrich is the architect of H.R. 41, a bill that would require the death penalty for anyone smuggling one hundred dosage units of an illicit substance across the border. That's about two ounces of marijuana and would practically cut the population of Mexico in half. Newt Gingrich has admitted to smoking marijuana, quite possibly more than two ounces and we sincerely hope should his bill pass the House, that retroactivity clauses be put in place: we want to see Newt with a flour sack over his head, too, along with everyone else. Despite the current administration's verbal attempts to disengage the martial rhetoric surrounding the war on drugs, and in spite of the ever escalating billions of dollars to fight it, Gingrich wants a "World War Two effort of cataclysmic" dimensions and calls the current failed efforts-baloney. Current drug war efforts are baloney for the basic reason that prohibition only works in totalitarian or fundamentalist regimes. The current drug war has taken us a long way down this path, with no apparent benefit. In 30 years of increasing enforcement and ballooning budgets, all the government has to show for its efforts is a prison boom that has replaced school and university construction and a curtailment of civil rights unprecedented in U S history. Illicit substances remain, are as plentiful as ever and we are, per capita, the world's leading jailer. But Gingrich would take it another step. While the Western World moves toward sane drug policy solutions, with the recent Swiss model of distribution to its heroin addicts of both heroin and clean needles being but one example, American leadership-and we use the term kindly-is locked within stale bombast three decades old. What would Gingrich do that has not already been tried? A random sampling would doubtless include military intervention on a par with our less than brilliant Panamanian fiasco which cost tens of millions of dollars and about 500 lives to extract one tin horn dictator we ourselves placed into power. It would doubtless include napalming coca fields in Peru which would then in turn make the coca crop in Colombia double in value. Once the U.S. government wiped out the coca crop in South America, it would soon find coca grown in Nicaragua. Juan Valdez has long since given up pinching off coffee beans and sold his burro for a Lear jet. It cannot be supposed that once Juan's crop is in ashes that another Juan Valdez won't cultivate another crop. Indeed, were coca eradicated in Latin America, it might soon be grown in Equatorial Africa. This is true of most illicit substances and the reason that scorched earth tactics are of no value in this particular war. Demand fuels production and there are too many people defying drug laws in the United States to make those laws efficacious. A recent Time magazine article stated that Gingrich had a very bad year. Between his being censured by Congress for ethics violations and the attempt within his own party to have him removed from his position as Speaker of the House, he is looking for scapegoats and, as usual, the drug issue provides him with a bully pulpit to recoup his loss of credibility. This is what opportunistic politicians do and there are far too many of them. It is important to counter Gingrich's nonsense with a large dose of reality: the drug war is lost and nobody won. Gingrich and company have had thirty years to test their hard line policies and each has failed: well over ten million Americans have been arrested and had their lives ruined in this war. It is time for a new approach, but this takes the kind of leadership that simply does not exist in Congress. Elected officials today have not made a study of the past and they are, emphatically, not statesmen. H.R. 41 is an ill-conceived, terrible law that is exemplary of the kind of prostitution that has replaced common sense and statesman-like solutions. This is opportunistic politics: "Dismal baloney . . . I met with General McCaffrey two months ago and said, 'I want a World War Two style victory plan-a decisive, all out cataclysmic effort to break the back of the drug culture'." -Newt Gingrich This is statesmanship: "I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions changed with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times." -Thomas Jefferson 1743-1826"

[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 9:12 AM. Reason : ]

2/29/2008 9:11:52 AM

Quote :

"And I'm serious. No exaggeration. We can't get rid of the supply or demand, but we can make the price of doing business so high that virtually nobody is willing to take part in it. The death penalty isn't much of a deterrent when you're talking about murder, because so many murders are either crimes of passion or the product of an unbalanced mental state. But to set up the apparatus to produce and distribute narcotics, you've got to have a fairly rational frame of mind. The real possibility of execution by the state is the sort of thing that will normally carry quite a bit of weight in such considerations. "

i remember reading in freakonomics how giving the death penalty for having a stolen gun would be a very good way to bring down gun violence but how no one would do it because it seems overly harsh

... but i'm starting to wonder if that's true...

what if we gave the death penalty for having an unlicensed or stolen firearm

if you did it correctly while ensuring full gun rights for law abiding citizens... that might solve a lot of problems

2/29/2008 10:07:24 AM

wow

you all are almost the saddest bunch of dreaming losers I've ever encountered

why don't you start a blog, with your real name and picture on it, espousing all this death penalty crap

please?

I mean, if you actually believe that draconian shit, you should be proud to "yell it from a mountain", right?

what would you have to fear?

other than NO ONE EVER TAKING YOU SERIOUSLY FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIVES CAUSE YOU ARE FUCKING CRAZY

2/29/2008 10:15:52 AM

If we had executed people for boot-legging in the 20's, do you think Americans would've stopped drinking?

Whenever the gov't interferes in a supply & demand situation, things usually get a lot worse for everyone.

2/29/2008 10:16:03 AM

i don't know

it does seem overly harsh

but WHY would someone have an unregistered or stolen firearm?

they only reason they have them is to impede getting caught if they shoot someone

not very legal at all if you ask me

draconian... sure, but why not?

2/29/2008 10:19:48 AM

Quote :

"This is a bit silly as well. We could also legalize slavery and start taxing that."

what an asshat comment. Slavery is clearly a violation of human rights whereas who is Spicoli hurting by sitting in his room smoking pot , eating cheetos, and watching grateful dead videos

2/29/2008 10:29:07 AM

Quote :

"Slavery is clearly a violation of human rights whereas who is Spicoli hurting by sitting in his room smoking pot , eating cheetos, and watching grateful dead videos"

I wasn't saying anything about the nature of either crime. I was merely pointing out that "lost tax revenue" is among the weaker of the pro-legalization arguments. It is a pro, yes, and to give 392 credit he used it as one of many pros.

Quote :

"you are stupid to think americans would stand for that"

Classy comment, but I don't think that I ever said I really thought Americans would come around to my way of thinking.

Quote :

"that being said, I would actually like to see it happen, because it would cause "civil war 2""

I think you drastically overestimate the population that supports drug dealers in this country, let alone the population that is willing to go to war it.

Quote :

"at which point I would personally hunt down and kill you first, and put your head on a pike"

So out of all the people on both sides, out of all the people in government who actually enacted the law, you'd come kill a semi-employed recent graduate with effectively no political power because of something he said on TWW?

I mean, it's your business, just seems like your priorities are a bit out of whack.

Quote :

"why don't you start a blog, with your real name and picture on it, espousing all this death penalty crap"

Well, seeing as how you have a picture of me in your photo gallery, I'll forgo posting another one. My name is Ian Booth, though. Plenty of people on here already know that because it was in the newspaper right there with my fucking screen name.

Go accuse somebody else of hiding behind internet anonymity. Perhaps the kind of person that goes around making specific death threats and telling other people to put up their name and photo while he himself does neither.

Quote :

"If we had executed people for boot-legging in the 20's, do you think Americans would've stopped drinking?"

I think Americans would've still wanted a drink. I also think they would've had a much, much harder time getting one.

2/29/2008 11:42:37 AM

Quote :

"just seems like your priorities are a bit out of whack."

yeah, I may not be the best military strategist

Quote :

"making specific death threats"

who's making specific death threats?

I was just making hypotheticals, just like you said I should be executed if I sell some dope

Quote :

"and telling other people to put up their name and photo while he himself does neither"

ya got me there

I like my anonymity, because I'm aware of the overwhelmingly destructive power of bigotry

of course, I never actually expected that you would wear your draconian death penalty advocacy on your shoulder, either

[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 12:34 PM. Reason : []

2/29/2008 12:33:46 PM

Quote :

"I like my anonymity, because I'm aware of the overwhelmingly destructive power of bigotry"

I'm translating this as: "I am liable to say incriminating things on this website and do not want to get arrested." Does that about sum it up?

Quote :

"of course, I never actually expected that you would wear your draconian death penalty advocacy on your shoulder, either"

Why wouldn't I?

2/29/2008 12:51:34 PM

2/29/2008 12:54:21 PM

Quote :

"draconian... sure, but why not?"

"Why should the government kill people?"

"Hey, why not?"

Sorry, that fails to meet minimum standards for reasonable debate.

Speaking of reasonable, sometimes I think the old Grumpster is. Then I read threads such as this. Nuke to stop genocide, execute to stop drugs.

[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 1:29 PM. Reason : meet]

2/29/2008 1:26:12 PM

Quote :

""Why should the government kill people?" "Hey, why not?" Sorry, that fails to meet minimum standards for reasonable debate. "

no, the question is

should the government kill people who seem to want to commit a violent crime with an unlawful firearm

they may not not have committed the violent crime yet... but they sure have the means to do it and make it frustrating to bring them to justice

there's a lot of reason there

if a person has and feels he needs to have an unlawful firearm, should he really be a part of our society anymore?

talk about cutting out the problem at the source...

[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 1:37 PM. Reason : .]

2/29/2008 1:34:42 PM

cary cops leave their cop cars parked in visible public areas, because they live outside cary limits and aren't allowed to take them home (like, garner or apex or unincorporated Wake Co.) at night.

its a common event in suburban communities.

2/29/2008 2:22:02 PM

Quote :

"I am liable to say incriminating things on this website and do not want to get arrested." Does that about sum it up?"

nah, more like

Quote :

"I am liable to say incriminating things on this website that really piss off bigots and do not want to get arrested jumped, vandalized, etc.."

Quote :

"Why wouldn't I?"

I already said: (imho) "NO ONE EVER TAKING YOU SERIOUSLY FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE"

go ahead, do what you want -- if you don't think people will write you off as a nut, like they do me, go ahead

Quote :

"if a person has and feels he needs to have an unlawful firearm, should he really be a part of our society anymore?"

you mean like the hundreds of thousands of non-violent, mentally-stable, otherwise law-abiding drug felons

who can't legally own handguns because of drug-bigoted policy?

so if they live in a dangerous area (most drug felons do,) and are forced to acquire a handgun for protection

then they should be exucuted or for that?


dude, quit thinking you're so smart -- your clearly a fucking moron; on this issue at least...

2/29/2008 3:40:09 PM

i would like to live in a safe society

and if it means maybe killing people who acquire illegal firearms...

i mean, honesly, i really don't care about "the hundreds of thousands of non-violent, mentally-stable, otherwise law-abiding drug felons"

fuck them

...

i'm not saying it's a good idea

i'm just saying i'm not going to dismiss it out of hand

...

Quote :

"dude, quit thinking you're so smart -- your clearly a fucking moron; on this issue at least..."

my clearly a fucking moron what?

ahahhaha that's great

but seriously, stop ranting and raving

[Edited on February 29, 2008 at 3:44 PM. Reason : .]

2/29/2008 3:42:20 PM

Quote :

"i would like to live in a safe society"

Safe for whom? Folks who follow the rules?

2/29/2008 3:58:04 PM

here's your anti-drug & anti-gun hero folks,
nastoute:

Quote :

"i mean, honesly, i really don't care about "the hundreds of thousands of non-violent, mentally-stable, otherwise law-abiding drug felons" fuck them"

wow

I agree with goldenviper:

Quote :

"Sorry, that fails to meet minimum standards for reasonable debate"

it's too late to edit your post -- you're stuck with having said that

I mean, you might be proud to feel that way now......but words, especially bigoted ones, tend to come back

just sayin'

2/29/2008 4:38:07 PM