9 ms·

> "Police arrest a heroin addict along the tracks." We humans think that we are intelligent and just, yet I would love someone to explain the wisdom and/or log

> "Police arrest a heroin addict along the tracks." We humans think that we are intelligent and just, yet I would love someone to explain the wisdom and/or logic behind this policy; to arrest someone who is addicted; to give someone a criminal record which removes any possibility of bettering oneself all for the so-called 'crime' of succumbing to an addictive drug. Even more appalling is that it is a subjectively produced list of drugs that will get you arrested, as other drugs won't.

flukus 10y ago
In theory at least, prison is a safe and isolated place to put someone while they detox. Much like with crazy people, isolating them where they can't hurt other people or be hurt isn't a terrible idea. I would say the criminal record and it's repercussions is a separate issue.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > In theory at least, prison is a safe and isolated place to put someone while they detox. Isolated, perhaps, but safe? That's a whole different story.
  - flukus 10y ago
    That's why I added "in theory". There is definitely some room for improvement in the implementation, but the basic idea is not a bad one.
  - gydfi 10y ago
    It seems to me that most of the problems with prisons can be solved by eliminating contact between prisoners. A cell, a treadmill, some books and movies, and Skype privileged with your family on the outside. That's all you need. It's constraining enough to still be a punishment that you want to avoid, but it doesn't send you crazy like traditional solitary (which is more like sensory deprivation). You don't make contacts with other criminals, you don't risk getting shanked, and you sit out your sentence in an annoying yet humane state of boredom, like a waiting room.
    - digler999 10y ago
      I've thought this too. They say prison "breaks you down" and the contact with other ruffians "hardens you", well, maybe if they structured prison the opposite, and give them a ladder to climb up. So that through years of operant conditioning, an inmate can go from a tiny cell and many hours of lockdown, and gradually earn those privileges by not misbehaving, getting a GED, mentoring new prisoners, etc etc. Earn privileges all the way up to better food, having a pet, limited internet access, music, free college education, family visitation , etc. You could probably get true rehabilitation by "breaking them up" instead of down.
projektir 10y ago
Well, intelligence and wisdom are not the same thing. Intelligence, like power, makes you better at doing things. But it doesn't mean that the things you're doing are the right ones. The bigger issue here is that your perceived intent is very different from the perceived intent of the people behind such policies, or the historical "intent" of how such things form. It is not the intent of systems to allow people to better themselves.
bradbatt 10y ago
Because politicians like to appear "tough on crime". Because prisons make money when we lock up drug addicts. And because Americans are somewhat punitive in nature. We should be putting money into helping people rehabilitate. Help them kick their habit, get back on their feet, and get back to being a productive member of society. Prison doesn't accomplish any of that because, in America, it is build for punishment, not rehabilitation.
- ImTalking 10y ago
  > And because Americans are somewhat punitive in nature. Yes. Very much so. And at what stage does the word 'punitive' turn into it's next level of synonym: 'sadistic'?
- rayiner 10y ago
  Private prisons are illegal in Pennsylvania and have been for awhile. The Pennsylvania AG even sent intervened to stop an illegal private prison construction in the 1990s: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pennsylvania-attorney-general-fisher-says-private-prison-in-clearfield-county-is-illegal-orders-company-to-halt-construction-74231622.html http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pennsylvania-attorne....
dkhenry 10y ago
I'll give it a try. Why arrest an addict? Its because by attaching a punishment to the behavior we attempt to alter the fundamental utility calculation that is taking place when someone decided to take a hit. That person knows it is illegal to take that hit, but they also know two additional things. First they are going to enjoy it, a lot. Secondly the chances of being caught are very slim. In an attempt balance this calculation on the side of "don't do the drugs" we make the penalty for getting caught harsher and harsher. The idea being if you make the penalty harsh enough eventually people will see its not worth it and they will choose not to do the drugs. While you might immediately reply that this is nonsense since the addicts are not driven by rational thought in that moment when they are seeking their next fix there are many people who aren't as fatalistic about the rationality of people in that moment, and the penalty isn't really about _that_ person. Its about the person who is choosing to take their first hit, or who is on the rebound and is thinking about relapsing. That stiff penalty might just be the factor that makes a recovering addict not go back to his old habit. The case against punitive policy's isn't as cut and dry as your comment might make it out to be, and unfortunately our understanding is still evolving. There is a lot that goes into policy making besides just what to do with someone addicted right there in that moment.
- mtarnovan 10y ago
  "the fundamental utility calculation that is taking place when someone decided to take a hit" Are we still talking about heroin addicts?
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    What about changing the calculus for anyone who isn't yet an addict?
- true_religion 10y ago
  If we can't make it easier to catch drug users, we should severely limit the punishments so that society isn't worse off for pursuing drug users than it would be if drug users were simply allowed treatment instead. Rather than being punitive, we should always offer treatment prominently so when addicts are not seeking their next hit, they can decide to enter treatment knowing they won't be stigmatised, and abused for it.
synicalx 10y ago
Not arresting someone who is doing something illegal (drugs, or anything else) then sets a precedence that it's ok to engage in that behaviour. So while not arresting that one particular person might be beneficial to them, it doesn't benefit society as a whole and may end up normalising undesirable behaviour.
- true_religion 10y ago
  We could arrest them but not send them into prison. Drug use should be a misdemeanour offence that simply forces you into increasingly more intensive therapy, rather than going with the 'therapy' of jailtime and cold-turkey.
- ImTalking 10y ago
  > it doesn't benefit society as a whole... But there is no benefit to society by incarcerating someone removing the possibilities of a functioning life. Does Louisiana benefit by having 1 out of 7 black men either in jail, or on parole? The private prison system, sure. But does Louisiana overall? Not a chance.
rayiner 10y ago
The purpose of laws is to create norms. Criminal law would be pointless if it was merely about the deterrent effect on a specific individual contemplating a specific crime. By then it's too late. The point is to convey to individuals the degree to which certain conduct is socially unacceptable. Humans being social animals, will usually abide.
RangerScience 10y ago
See: Portugal's drug policy Also, the descriptions of what it means to be "schedule xx" make a lot of sense, it's just not what's actually used to determine which goes where.
RangerScience 10y ago
See: Portugal's drug policy Also, the descriptions of what it means to be "schedule xx" make a lot of sense, it's just not what's actually used to determine which goes where.
nradov 10y ago
In the Venn Diagram of "People who use or sell addictive drugs" and "People who commit other crimes" there is a very large overlap between those two sets. Law enforcement doesn't always have resources to investigate those other crimes but when they catch someone in possession of illegal drugs it's an open-and-shut case. So that serves as a useful proxy to keep habitual criminals locked up and prevent them from committing additional more serious crimes. Personally I think that logic is twisted, and we should decriminalize drugs to focus on addiction treatment instead. But there's your explanation.
- RangerScience 10y ago
  Did you intend to change language from "addictive drugs" to "illegal drugs"? Many non-addictive drugs are also illegal.

flukus 10y ago

In theory at least, prison is a safe and isolated place to put someone while they detox. Much like with crazy people, isolating them where they can't hurt other people or be hurt isn't a terrible idea. I would say the criminal record and it's repercussions is a separate issue.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> In theory at least, prison is a safe and isolated place to put someone while they detox. Isolated, perhaps, but safe? That's a whole different story.
- flukus 10y ago
  That's why I added "in theory". There is definitely some room for improvement in the implementation, but the basic idea is not a bad one.
- gydfi 10y ago
  It seems to me that most of the problems with prisons can be solved by eliminating contact between prisoners. A cell, a treadmill, some books and movies, and Skype privileged with your family on the outside. That's all you need. It's constraining enough to still be a punishment that you want to avoid, but it doesn't send you crazy like traditional solitary (which is more like sensory deprivation). You don't make contacts with other criminals, you don't risk getting shanked, and you sit out your sentence in an annoying yet humane state of boredom, like a waiting room.
  - digler999 10y ago
    I've thought this too. They say prison "breaks you down" and the contact with other ruffians "hardens you", well, maybe if they structured prison the opposite, and give them a ladder to climb up. So that through years of operant conditioning, an inmate can go from a tiny cell and many hours of lockdown, and gradually earn those privileges by not misbehaving, getting a GED, mentoring new prisoners, etc etc. Earn privileges all the way up to better food, having a pet, limited internet access, music, free college education, family visitation , etc. You could probably get true rehabilitation by "breaking them up" instead of down.

projektir 10y ago

Well, intelligence and wisdom are not the same thing. Intelligence, like power, makes you better at doing things. But it doesn't mean that the things you're doing are the right ones. The bigger issue here is that your perceived intent is very different from the perceived intent of the people behind such policies, or the historical "intent" of how such things form. It is not the intent of systems to allow people to better themselves.

bradbatt 10y ago

Because politicians like to appear "tough on crime". Because prisons make money when we lock up drug addicts. And because Americans are somewhat punitive in nature. We should be putting money into helping people rehabilitate. Help them kick their habit, get back on their feet, and get back to being a productive member of society. Prison doesn't accomplish any of that because, in America, it is build for punishment, not rehabilitation.

ImTalking 10y ago
> And because Americans are somewhat punitive in nature. Yes. Very much so. And at what stage does the word 'punitive' turn into it's next level of synonym: 'sadistic'?
rayiner 10y ago
Private prisons are illegal in Pennsylvania and have been for awhile. The Pennsylvania AG even sent intervened to stop an illegal private prison construction in the 1990s: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pennsylvania-attorney-general-fisher-says-private-prison-in-clearfield-county-is-illegal-orders-company-to-halt-construction-74231622.html http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pennsylvania-attorne....

dkhenry 10y ago

I'll give it a try. Why arrest an addict? Its because by attaching a punishment to the behavior we attempt to alter the fundamental utility calculation that is taking place when someone decided to take a hit. That person knows it is illegal to take that hit, but they also know two additional things. First they are going to enjoy it, a lot. Secondly the chances of being caught are very slim. In an attempt balance this calculation on the side of "don't do the drugs" we make the penalty for getting caught harsher and harsher. The idea being if you make the penalty harsh enough eventually people will see its not worth it and they will choose not to do the drugs. While you might immediately reply that this is nonsense since the addicts are not driven by rational thought in that moment when they are seeking their next fix there are many people who aren't as fatalistic about the rationality of people in that moment, and the penalty isn't really about _that_ person. Its about the person who is choosing to take their first hit, or who is on the rebound and is thinking about relapsing. That stiff penalty might just be the factor that makes a recovering addict not go back to his old habit. The case against punitive policy's isn't as cut and dry as your comment might make it out to be, and unfortunately our understanding is still evolving. There is a lot that goes into policy making besides just what to do with someone addicted right there in that moment.

mtarnovan 10y ago
"the fundamental utility calculation that is taking place when someone decided to take a hit" Are we still talking about heroin addicts?
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  What about changing the calculus for anyone who isn't yet an addict?
true_religion 10y ago
If we can't make it easier to catch drug users, we should severely limit the punishments so that society isn't worse off for pursuing drug users than it would be if drug users were simply allowed treatment instead. Rather than being punitive, we should always offer treatment prominently so when addicts are not seeking their next hit, they can decide to enter treatment knowing they won't be stigmatised, and abused for it.

synicalx 10y ago

Not arresting someone who is doing something illegal (drugs, or anything else) then sets a precedence that it's ok to engage in that behaviour. So while not arresting that one particular person might be beneficial to them, it doesn't benefit society as a whole and may end up normalising undesirable behaviour.

true_religion 10y ago
We could arrest them but not send them into prison. Drug use should be a misdemeanour offence that simply forces you into increasingly more intensive therapy, rather than going with the 'therapy' of jailtime and cold-turkey.
ImTalking 10y ago
> it doesn't benefit society as a whole... But there is no benefit to society by incarcerating someone removing the possibilities of a functioning life. Does Louisiana benefit by having 1 out of 7 black men either in jail, or on parole? The private prison system, sure. But does Louisiana overall? Not a chance.

rayiner 10y ago

The purpose of laws is to create norms. Criminal law would be pointless if it was merely about the deterrent effect on a specific individual contemplating a specific crime. By then it's too late. The point is to convey to individuals the degree to which certain conduct is socially unacceptable. Humans being social animals, will usually abide.

RangerScience 10y ago

See: Portugal's drug policy Also, the descriptions of what it means to be "schedule xx" make a lot of sense, it's just not what's actually used to determine which goes where.

RangerScience 10y ago

See: Portugal's drug policy Also, the descriptions of what it means to be "schedule xx" make a lot of sense, it's just not what's actually used to determine which goes where.

nradov 10y ago

In the Venn Diagram of "People who use or sell addictive drugs" and "People who commit other crimes" there is a very large overlap between those two sets. Law enforcement doesn't always have resources to investigate those other crimes but when they catch someone in possession of illegal drugs it's an open-and-shut case. So that serves as a useful proxy to keep habitual criminals locked up and prevent them from committing additional more serious crimes. Personally I think that logic is twisted, and we should decriminalize drugs to focus on addiction treatment instead. But there's your explanation.

RangerScience 10y ago
Did you intend to change language from "addictive drugs" to "illegal drugs"? Many non-addictive drugs are also illegal.