6 ms·

prison population by type of crime (2012): violent: 47.7% property: 17.1% drug: 20.5% public order: 13.8% "public order" includes drunk drivin

by cgrubb 11y ago

prison population by type of crime (2012): violent: 47.7% property: 17.1% drug: 20.5% public order: 13.8% "public order" includes drunk driving, weapons possession, and prostitution. Source http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004339 http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0... Recidivism rates (2005): violent: 71.3% property: 82.1% drug: 76.9% public order: 73.5% Source: http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/Pages/welcome.aspx http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/Pages/welco...

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
danans 11y ago
I'm curious how the "drug" category breaks down in terms of dealing vs. possession/use. I support legalization, but I also think that if we nullify the black market for drugs, we'd better be ready with alternative non-criminal opportunities for those who currently are involved that trade.
- frandroid 11y ago
  Maybe drug tax income could be earmarked for educational funding in underfunded districts... Create a school to employment pipeline.
- Spooky23 11y ago
  Unlikely. Street level drug trade is a minimum wage job. In general, we systemically don't give a hoot about people in that situation.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  We will never really know what the breakdown is, because definitions have been deliberately blurred. There are many ways possession can be turned into a charge for dealing (e.g. did they find two or more baggies? it's "packaged for sale") and plea bargains that reduce dealing back down to possession. One of the well known problems with statistics for "dealing" is that a common plea bargain tactic is to reduce the charges in exchange for the defendant naming someone else as their "supplier". This works out well for actual dealers, as they often know people they can throw the charges at. Unfortunately, one of the common targets is the former (or current...) girlfriend that is only tangentially involved if they even knew about the dealing at all. They usually don't have a name to offer for a plea deal, so they end up serving time for the dealing charge. So I don't believe it is actually possible to know what the breakdown really was. What we do know is that the sentencing doesn't really line up with the actions of the people involved; often the correlation is inverted from what it should be. /* obviously, legalizing this entire mess so it can be regulated is the proper solution */
AnimalMuppet 11y ago
I wonder, though: How many of the violent crimes are drug-related? That is, if a drug dealer shoots another over territory, is that reported as "violent", or as "drug"? My guess is that it is reported as violent, and therefore that legalization would reduce crime more than you would expect from the 20.5%. Unfortunately, "legalization" means marijuana. It doesn't mean all drugs. That means that there will still be drug crimes, and violent drug-based crimes, over cocaine and heroine and meth and on and on. And I'm not sure that legalizing the other drugs would be beneficial. Even more, I'm sure it's not going to happen any time soon. That means that legalization would only eliminate the marijuana-related crimes which, while many, are by no means all the drug-related crimes.
- jakejnichols 11y ago
  "I wonder, though: How many of the violent crimes are drug-related? " Here is a quote about Baltimore: "Nearly 60 percent of all killings happened in or near a street drug market. Despite the superheated street drug scene, only about 20 percent of killings had to do with drug business; the usual beefs, vendettas, and respect killings were the order of the day." Kennedy, David M. (2011-10-04). Don't Shoot (p. 108). Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. Kindle Edition.
slowmovintarget 11y ago
For prostitution the U.S. ought to follow the Swiss (I think) model: to sell is legal, to buy is criminal, for the reason that the buyer inherently victimizes the seller. Drugs? I suppose some form of regulation would be better. Governments get scary when they attempt to legislate morality. Drug use is immoral (IMO), but perhaps it shouldn't be illegal.
- mtinkerhess 11y ago
  Do you drink coffee? Wine? Smoke cigarettes? Take Aspirin? Are those immoral? Sure, some drugs are worse for the user than other drugs, but you could make the same argument for eating sugary foods or not exercising enough. A bad idea, probably, but not immoral.
  - slowmovintarget 11y ago
    Sigh... Strawman. [1] You know that by "drugs" I meant narcotics and intoxicants. And while I do not believe the drinking of wine is immoral, I do believe it immoral to drink wine in excess. And yes, becoming intoxicated, thus reducing your ability to exercise personal restraint and judgment is immoral. [1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  >for the reason that the buyer inherently victimizes the seller you'll have to explain here, because it seems to me that under a legal regime, a prostitute making a clear decision to sell sex is no more a victim than the owner of a convenience store deciding to sell slurpees.
  - mikepurvis 11y ago
    It's contentious— there is certainly a class of sex worker who is empowered and fully in control of the economic transaction being carried out. But there are also many, many who are trapped and not making their own decisions, especially when drugs are part of the picture.
hmrmaxwell 11y ago
The first table seems off given other data, e.g. http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offens..., which seems to represent drug related crime at a much higher rate.
- cgrubb 11y ago
  You source appears to be for federal prisons only. Those numbers only add up to about 200k inmates. Most people are imprisoned by the state or county.

by cgrubb 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

danans 11y ago

I'm curious how the "drug" category breaks down in terms of dealing vs. possession/use. I support legalization, but I also think that if we nullify the black market for drugs, we'd better be ready with alternative non-criminal opportunities for those who currently are involved that trade.

frandroid 11y ago
Maybe drug tax income could be earmarked for educational funding in underfunded districts... Create a school to employment pipeline.
Spooky23 11y ago
Unlikely. Street level drug trade is a minimum wage job. In general, we systemically don't give a hoot about people in that situation.
pdkl95 11y ago
We will never really know what the breakdown is, because definitions have been deliberately blurred. There are many ways possession can be turned into a charge for dealing (e.g. did they find two or more baggies? it's "packaged for sale") and plea bargains that reduce dealing back down to possession. One of the well known problems with statistics for "dealing" is that a common plea bargain tactic is to reduce the charges in exchange for the defendant naming someone else as their "supplier". This works out well for actual dealers, as they often know people they can throw the charges at. Unfortunately, one of the common targets is the former (or current...) girlfriend that is only tangentially involved if they even knew about the dealing at all. They usually don't have a name to offer for a plea deal, so they end up serving time for the dealing charge. So I don't believe it is actually possible to know what the breakdown really was. What we do know is that the sentencing doesn't really line up with the actions of the people involved; often the correlation is inverted from what it should be. /* obviously, legalizing this entire mess so it can be regulated is the proper solution */

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

I wonder, though: How many of the violent crimes are drug-related? That is, if a drug dealer shoots another over territory, is that reported as "violent", or as "drug"? My guess is that it is reported as violent, and therefore that legalization would reduce crime more than you would expect from the 20.5%. Unfortunately, "legalization" means marijuana. It doesn't mean all drugs. That means that there will still be drug crimes, and violent drug-based crimes, over cocaine and heroine and meth and on and on. And I'm not sure that legalizing the other drugs would be beneficial. Even more, I'm sure it's not going to happen any time soon. That means that legalization would only eliminate the marijuana-related crimes which, while many, are by no means all the drug-related crimes.

jakejnichols 11y ago
"I wonder, though: How many of the violent crimes are drug-related? " Here is a quote about Baltimore: "Nearly 60 percent of all killings happened in or near a street drug market. Despite the superheated street drug scene, only about 20 percent of killings had to do with drug business; the usual beefs, vendettas, and respect killings were the order of the day." Kennedy, David M. (2011-10-04). Don't Shoot (p. 108). Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. Kindle Edition.

slowmovintarget 11y ago

For prostitution the U.S. ought to follow the Swiss (I think) model: to sell is legal, to buy is criminal, for the reason that the buyer inherently victimizes the seller. Drugs? I suppose some form of regulation would be better. Governments get scary when they attempt to legislate morality. Drug use is immoral (IMO), but perhaps it shouldn't be illegal.

mtinkerhess 11y ago
Do you drink coffee? Wine? Smoke cigarettes? Take Aspirin? Are those immoral? Sure, some drugs are worse for the user than other drugs, but you could make the same argument for eating sugary foods or not exercising enough. A bad idea, probably, but not immoral.
- slowmovintarget 11y ago
  Sigh... Strawman. [1] You know that by "drugs" I meant narcotics and intoxicants. And while I do not believe the drinking of wine is immoral, I do believe it immoral to drink wine in excess. And yes, becoming intoxicated, thus reducing your ability to exercise personal restraint and judgment is immoral. [1] https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
oldmanjay 11y ago
>for the reason that the buyer inherently victimizes the seller you'll have to explain here, because it seems to me that under a legal regime, a prostitute making a clear decision to sell sex is no more a victim than the owner of a convenience store deciding to sell slurpees.
- mikepurvis 11y ago
  It's contentious— there is certainly a class of sex worker who is empowered and fully in control of the economic transaction being carried out. But there are also many, many who are trapped and not making their own decisions, especially when drugs are part of the picture.

hmrmaxwell 11y ago

The first table seems off given other data, e.g. http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offens..., which seems to represent drug related crime at a much higher rate.

cgrubb 11y ago
You source appears to be for federal prisons only. Those numbers only add up to about 200k inmates. Most people are imprisoned by the state or county.