It's predicated on some faulty notions. One is the "Systemic racism" meme that constitutes Black Lives Matter's raison d'être. Another is that the jails are full of fine people who happen to have penchants for recreational drug use, end of story.
The reality is different and much starker:
Pace Mr. Obama, the state-prison population (which accounts for 87% of the nation’s prisoners) is dominated by violent criminals and serial thieves. In 2013 drug offenders made up less than 16% of the state-prison population; violent felons were 54% and property offenders 19%. Reducing drug-related admissions to 15 large state penitentiaries by half would lower those states’ prison count by only 7%, according to the Urban Institute.In federal prisons—which hold only 13% of the nation’s prisoners—drug offenders make up half of the inmate population. But these offenders aren’t casual drug users; overwhelmingly, they are serious traffickers. Fewer than 1% of drug offenders sentenced in federal court in 2014 were convicted of simple drug possession, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Most of those possession convictions were plea-bargained down from trafficking charges.Another myth promoted by the deincarceration movement is that blacks are disproportionately targeted by federal drug prosecutions. The numbers tell a different story: Hispanics made up 48% of drug offenders sentenced in federal court in 2013; blacks were 27%, and whites 22%.Even on the state level, drug-possession convicts are rare. In 2013 only 3.6% of state prisoners were serving time for drug possession—again, often the result of a plea bargain on more serious charges—compared with 12% of prisoners convicted of trafficking. Virtually all the possession offenders had long prior arrest and conviction records.Nor is it true that rising drug prosecutions drove the increase in the prison population from the late 1970s to today. Even during the most rapid period of prison growth—from 1980 to 1990—violent prisoners accounted for 36% of the rise in the state prison population, compared with 33% from drug offenders. From 1990 to 2000, violent offenders accounted for 53% of the census increase and all of the increase from 1999 to 2004.
MacDonald goes on to demonstrate how the criminal justice system actually pukes all over itself to employ alternatives to incarceration, resulting in a whole lot of violent crime that goes unpunished, much less unprevented.
Again, as we noted in yesterday's post about Hillionaire's appearance before the House select committee on Benghazi, the left has perpetuated a meme that appeals to well-meaning people's sense of "social justice." So that just as with such lies as that the goal climate is in some kind of trouble, or that there was, circa 2008, some kind of crisis in health-care access in America, or that Islamic radicalism isn't the specific problem regarding terror threats, we are asked to swallow hooey that hobbles and imperils our once-great nation.
I don't calla 33 per cent increase in drug offenders during the Reagan administration anything to scoff at. Ronnie really ramped up the Drug War to include confiscation of personal property. Yet some still call him a beacon of freedom. Incidentally, not too many heeded his lovely wife's call to Just Say No. And now here we are finally on the brink of freedom for marijuana smokers in many jurisdictions. This would not have occurred nor would gays enjoy their own personal freedoms if folks all over the country had not just said no to authority. Civil disobedience does work. Sorry Ron and Nancy.
ReplyDeleteYour comment proves my point. We are at a pathetic and disgusting juncture ended when some post-American cattle find it celebration-worthy that perversion and intoxication are now enshrined as "rights" - I put that word in quotes because we are actually talking about merely achieving a set of circumstances in which the post-American legal system looks the other way as these harbingers of civilizational rot are practiced openly - and attempt to ascribe some kind of nobility and dignity to the cause of those who have brought us to this juncture.
ReplyDeleteMarijuana is in no way, shape or form a Schedule I drug and its intoxication is much milder and shorter lasting than that of the legal drug alcohol. A good read available at your local socialist public library is Susan Cheever's Drinking In America: Our Secret History. We are a land of lushes, even back when you say we were so fab. And don't try to tell me that gays need to be jailed again.
ReplyDeleteIt is impossible by definition for homosexuals to be married. Homosexuality also happens to be a sin.
ReplyDeleteAmericans collectively could stand to drink less, but one way or the other, there are moe pressing problems on our national plate than how to regard various substances from a legal standpoint.
The old matter of priorities being drug out again. Hogwash!
ReplyDeletehttp://triblive.com/aande/books/9265471-74/drinking-cheever-drink#axzz3pXcT8CsK
Do they throw you in a state or federal hoosegow for simple possession of marijuana? No, your trashed ass is thrown in a local clink, your employment chances are greatly diminished because now you got a record. Even a lot of cops are fed up with this bull crap.
ReplyDeleteAs for sin, you are advised to look to your own soul.
ReplyDeleteJust read where your ilk lost out at the Vatican Synod on the Family where the majority of bishops voted to side with Francis, to work towards a more merciful and less judgmental church. Wonder if Jesus is as pissed as your ilk over this? We are sure to hear how the sky is falling from you. And how the world is now largely populated by the clueless.
ReplyDeleteIl Papa who your ilk has done their damndest to disparage said the synod had "laid bare the closed hearts which frequently hide even behind the Church's teachings or good intentions, in order to sit in the chair of Moses and judge."
ReplyDeleteRe: your questions in comment no. 6: Consider the smoker's freedom and individual sovereignty in the matter: He or she freely chose to smoke / buy - sell / transport marijuana, knowing the legal ramifications.
ReplyDeleteRe: the Vatican Synod: it was a mixed bag: http://news.yahoo.com/conservatives-prevail-gay-issues-vatican-synod-143859406.html
The pope spoke at the end of a three-week gathering, known as a synod, where the bishops agreed to a qualified opening toward divorcees who have remarried outside the Church but rejected calls for more welcoming language toward homosexuals.
In any event, if MacDonald's assertions are true, you really don't have a point about post-America's criminal justice system.
At least 80 percent of American prisoners are grossly over-sentenced. The Supreme Court knows this, but shows scant concern for this human side of criminal justice system. --Conrad Black (if not a Tea Party darling, Laura Ingraham
ReplyDeleteYes Laura loves him, here's another quote:
ReplyDelete"I am proud of being in a U.S. federal prison and surviving."
Regarding your response to my comments in Comment 6, yeah, like during Prohibition, millions chose to ignore the law. Some went to jail; others never got caught, but guess what, the law was repealed. Citizens are not created for laws, laws are created for citizens and it they are unjust and, well, bull shit, like the categorizing of marijuana as a Schedule I drug in league with heroin, well, hell no, we won't go along. And, again, guess what, something's gotta go, and, well, though it's just getting started, it's the law that's going. Kudos to Justin Trudeau of Canada (man, his mom was hot back in da day) for essentially telling the US DEA to kiss his rosy red behind. Brains and courage are always admired.
ReplyDeleteAfter surveying those kind of tradeoffs, The Week magazine concluded last month that “as bad as state-run prisons can be, private prisons ultimately pose a greater threat,” since “they exist solely to make a profit off of incarcerated individuals.”
ReplyDeleteRead more at http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/presumed-guilty-how-prisons-profit-the
in documents the company is required to file under securities law, Corrections Corporation of America has told investors that its business may be hurt if new policies advance “leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices.” And in a 2010 report, CCA declared that “any changes” to harsh drug sentences could stem the flow of new prisoners in the U.S., reducing “demand for correctional facilities to house them.”
ReplyDelete“For-profit prisons are making contracts with states, saying, ‘Guarantee that our prisons will be filled. Guarantee we’ll make a profit,’” says Michael Skolnik, a filmmaker who visited over 100 prisons while researching Lockdown, USA, a documentary about reforming jail sentences for drug offenses. “And how do you guarantee that? You create drug laws,” Skolnik told msnbc. He argues that private prisons reinforce drug sentencing policies that have constituted “a war against black and brown America.”
Ibid.
I repeat, if MacDonald's assertions can't be refuted, you really have no point.
ReplyDeleteDo you want violent people locked up or not?
Of course I want violent people locked up. I am not sure many of MacDonald's assertions can be refuted, but I am sure his and your conclusions can. There are a multitude of ifs, ands, buts and so forths, to this issue.
ReplyDelete"While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.”
― Eugene V. Debs (and Jesus)