Where is 1% of the American adult population?

[Occhidiangela]

Crusader: read the fifth amendment to the constitution of the US, then get back to us.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Lissa: Three strikes laws are a fool's device. Likewise minimum sentencing guidance, which takes the judgment away from the judge.

[kandrathe]

There is something else about that story that bothers me more than inmates getting good TVs. It is not a *prison* it is, according to the article, "The Minnesota Sex Offender Program at Moose Lake is one of two state facilities that house civilly committed sex offenders who are deemed such a danger that they are held beyond their normal prison sentences."

Now, you can tell me all about how dangerous these people are and how society must protect itself. But keeping people beyond their prison sentence is wrong. They committed a crime, they were tried, convicted, and given a sentence. Then when their sentence has been served, the state determines, without a trial, without due process, without even a new charge (and acting on the old one is double jeopardy) that they should be incarcerated longer. By what right? I have no problem locking the true sex predators up and throwing away the key, or feeding them to an endangered species (alligators come to mind), but let's do it right. If that's what we're going to do to them, then let's put a law in the books saying so. Let the incarceration period given as a sentence include whatever time they must serve in a sex offender program. Or make it a life sentence with the possibility of parole being contingent on being declared 'cured' in such a program.

And let's keep in mind the no ex post facto business. Yeah, if some of those scumbags are already in jail and there's no law on the books to keep them past their sentence, then you just can't do it. Sure, you can pass that law for when it happens again in the future, but you can't make it retroactive.

Of course, we could just do what they used to do. Very few sex predators, especially child molesters, ever made it to trial. Amazingly, they mostly tried to escape while multiple people held guns on them. And while we're at it, let's reintroduce wergeld.

Well, yes, it is troubling to some people, but, there is a due process. It was of course enacted as a knee-jerk response to a sex crime spree by a recently released notorious murderer/rapist offender. But, the liberal sensibilities of Minnesotan's don't allow us to have the death penalty or permanent incarceration. But, evidently, if you are insane, then permanent institutionalization is ok here.

I think this was the case that my dad suggested where the families of the victims should have 24 hours to exact justice. I think it would result in your example of where the prisoner would have died while attempting to escape. Wergeld is another expression of "An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.", or blood price.

[Jester]

But, consider that overall, crime rates are dropping across the board, but arrests and incarceration is increasing. Meaning... We are criminalizing more and more in our society.

I think I agree with you, especially about drugs. But to play devil's advocate... if "tough on crime" worked, then obviously, you would see two trends: lower crime, and more people arrested and jailed. You wouldn't have to criminalize new things, just enforce the law more rigorously, and punish more harshly.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . if "tough on crime" worked, then obviously, you would see two trends: lower crime, and more people arrested and jailed.

Let's take that logic one step further. The percentage of criminals in a stable society is roughly constant. So, the more that are in jail, the fewer that are out and committing crimes. Naturally, the crime rate drops. So, in that sense, "tough on crime" works. But in the sense of making this a more law abiding culture, I think it is a dismal failure.

--Pete

[Jester]

Let's take that logic one step further. The percentage of criminals in a stable society is roughly constant. So, the more that are in jail, the fewer that are out and committing crimes. Naturally, the crime rate drops. So, in that sense, "tough on crime" works. But in the sense of making this a more law abiding culture, I think it is a dismal failure.

(Again, arguments from a point of view which is not my own... take with an unhealthily large grain of salt...)

Yes.

Some roughly constant % of people are bad apples. You can't fix people. You can't fix their culture*, at least, not in a political time frame. Trying to fix the crime rate by improving people is not much better than King Canute and the tides. "Tough on crime" might be a dismal failure, but we live in a dismal world, and society contains many dismal people.

If you want to "fix" crime, you have to go after the criminals. The more that are in jail, the fewer are out committing crimes. The incarceration rate should increase at least until the costs of jailing more exceed the costs of the crimes they would otherwise have committed, and maybe a little extra to be on the safe side.

-Jester

*You can, however, wreck it in fairly short order. See: Revolution, French.

[--Pete]

Hi,

If you want to "fix" crime, you have to go after the criminals.

I think there's a lot of factors here. A big one is redefining crime. As long as actions which do no harm to others are considered crimes, we will have many criminals. Make things such as gambling, prostitution, drug use, and so forth legal (probably controlled, for the safety both of the purveyor and the buyer) and you get a great reduction in crime. Not only because the people who are 'guilty' of only these crimes are no longer criminals, but because the economic conditions the laws against those activities bring about would no longer apply.

Then there is social 'justice'. Entirely too many see any form of social programs as creeping communism and a free handout. The high cost of crime is at least in part caused by the poverty and attitudes of the deprived segments of society. That cost is not just in supporting those individuals while incarcerated. It is also the differential cost for police departments and a judicial system from what a law abiding society would need. It is the loss of the productive input of the minds of those who turn to crime because that is their only possibility. It is the loss to society because of the fear of that crime. When all these costs are totaled, it may well be that tax supported social programs to improve the living conditions, education, and prospects for low income people is cheaper in the long run than paying for the results of poverty. "It's going to cost you, but it's the right thing to do" is a hard sell, but "You'll do good and save money" should appeal to nearly all.

Finally, for now, there's evil. Most criminals are so because of circumstances, stupidity, or both. It might be possible to turn these people around, or at least get them to want to do so. But then there are the psychopaths and sociopaths and others who are mentally broken. Curing them by incarcerating them makes as much sense as trying to cure a fever by whipping the patient. We need some way to identify these individuals. We need some way to determine if there is a way to fix each individually, and if not, we need some permanent solution for them -- incarceration or death, but that's another topic. We need laws and methods to insure these people do what has to be done if they are released (e.g., taking their meds on a regular schedule if that is what's needed to keep them sane).

In many ways, we're trying to solve twenty-first century problems with eighteenth century tools. And then we express surprise at our failures.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

If you want to "fix" crime, you have to go after the criminals.

I think there's a lot of factors here. A big one is redefining crime. As long as actions which do no harm to others are considered crimes, we will have many criminals. Make things such as gambling, prostitution, drug use, and so forth legal (probably controlled, for the safety both of the purveyor and the buyer) and you get a great reduction in crime. Not only because the people who are 'guilty' of only these crimes are no longer criminals, but because the economic conditions the laws against those activities bring about would no longer apply.

Then there is social 'justice'. Entirely too many see any form of social programs as creeping communism and a free handout. The high cost of crime is at least in part caused by the poverty and attitudes of the deprived segments of society. That cost is not just in supporting those individuals while incarcerated. It is also the differential cost for police departments and a judicial system from what a law abiding society would need. It is the loss of the productive input of the minds of those who turn to crime because that is their only possibility. It is the loss to society because of the fear of that crime. When all these costs are totaled, it may well be that tax supported social programs to improve the living conditions, education, and prospects for low income people is cheaper in the long run than paying for the results of poverty. "It's going to cost you, but it's the right thing to do" is a hard sell, but "You'll do good and save money" should appeal to nearly all.

Finally, for now, there's evil. Most criminals are so because of circumstances, stupidity, or both. It might be possible to turn these people around, or at least get them to want to do so. But then there are the psychopaths and sociopaths and others who are mentally broken. Curing them by incarcerating them makes as much sense as trying to cure a fever by whipping the patient. We need some way to identify these individuals. We need some way to determine if there is a way to fix each individually, and if not, we need some permanent solution for them -- incarceration or death, but that's another topic. We need laws and methods to insure these people do what has to be done if they are released (e.g., taking their meds on a regular schedule if that is what's needed to keep them sane).

In many ways, we're trying to solve twenty-first century problems with eighteenth century tools. And then we express surprise at our failures.

I was really looking at the direction of the rates. Incarceration rate is increasing, while the crime rate is decreasing. It makes sense that all things being equal, the more criminals you remove from the streets, the lower the crime rates. It would follow that with fewer crimes being reported, that fewer people would go to jail and incarceration rates should also decrease. So, can the growth in incarceration be explained by population growth, or more/tougher laws? Probably both. I know one area where we've gone a bit overboard here is with sex. If you are >18 and have sex with someone <18 and the difference in ages >2 (e.g. 17 & 20) it is considered Statutory rape, and many people end up in jail now and have to register as level 1 sex offenders. Another area that they've toughened up on is DUI/DWI by lowering the permissible level to .08 resulting in one of the nations highest rates of DUI offenders per capita (23.5%). I have heard that for people living in Minneapolis (Hennepin County) about 1/3 of the people have a DUI/DWI arrest on their record.

From the latest DOC report for MN;
Crime........................................Men.............Women
Person ......................................2,838 ............172

Person (sex offense) .................. 1,627 ..............19
Drug .........................................1,634 ............217
Property ......................................935 ............ 118
DWI ............................................615 ..............51
Weapons .....................................486 ................6
Other ...........................................592 ..............43
Total ......................................... 8,727 ............625

DWI crimes here usually mean you've driven after your license has expired, > .2 BAC or multiple offenses. Drug crimes include both possession and distribution, so it's hard to tell how many may be "victimless".

The number incarcerated is really pretty small per capita. However, our costs per inmate are comparably higher ($32,573) than average. I wonder how Montana can only spend $11,268 per inmate?

[Jester]

Drug crimes include both possession and distribution, so it's hard to tell how many may be "victimless".

If they're restricted to either possession or distribution? All of them.

As George Carlin memorably opined about prostitution, which works on identical logic: "Selling is legal. F#*$ing is legal. So why isn't selling f#$*ing legal?"

If there's violence, or border crimes, or whatever else involved, then that's a different offence - notably, one that wouldn't be necessary if they just legalized drugs.

-Jester

[Kevin]

Another area that they've toughened up on is DUI/DWI by lowering the permissible level to .08 resulting in one of the nations highest rates of DUI offenders per capita (23.5%). I have heard that for people living in Minneapolis (Hennepin County) about 1/3 of the people have a DUI/DWI arrest on their record.

You have a causality error there. Every state is .08 BAC for a DUI. So if you guys have a higher rate than other states it's not because of the BAC.

[Sir_Die_alot]

Drug crimes include both possession and distribution, so it's hard to tell how many may be "victimless".

If they're restricted to either possession or distribution? All of them.

Anyone got some crack I can sell at the elementary school down the street? I'm sure my jury will understand this is a victimless crime.

[ShadowHM]

Drug crimes include both possession and distribution, so it's hard to tell how many may be "victimless".

If they're restricted to either possession or distribution? All of them.

Anyone got some crack I can sell at the elementary school down the street? I'm sure my jury will understand this is a victimless crime.

Only if you manage to convince them that there is no such thing as an age of majority. Or did you fancy that Jester was advocating unregulated sale of drugs?

[Sir_Die_alot]

More pointing out that drug distribution is quite different from use as far as if you belong in jail or not. Distribution, even if its feeding your own habbit, is exploiting others. To me that's a step up from just abusing yourself.

[Jester]

Anyone got some crack I can sell at the elementary school down the street? I'm sure my jury will understand this is a victimless crime.

All sorts of perfectly reasonable, legal things become illegal an unethical if you do them "at the elementary school down the street." I'm sure we could have all sorts of fun, mad-libs style, putting otherwise innocuous phrases at the front of that sentence.

If two *consenting adults* want to enter into an agreement together, I don't feel I have any right to stand in their way. Children are a different matter, ethically and legally.

-Jester

[Pantalaimon]

I'm sure we could have all sorts of fun, mad-libs style, putting otherwise innocuous phrases at the front of that sentence.

Pleeeeaaaaasssssee?

[kandrathe]

You have a causality error there. Every state is .08 BAC for a DUI. So if you guys have a higher rate than other states it's not because of the BAC.

We used to be at .10 until the Feds threatened to cut off the highway funding...

[--Pete]

Hi,

Pleeeeaaaaasssssee?

You see, that's a problem with text only communication. We can neither hear your tone of voice nor see your body language. And what a 'heart' emoticon means in this situation is unclear. So, is it:

Please, that's a totally stupid idea.

or

Please, let's play that game and see what kind of funnies we can generate.

or

Please, {something totally unrelated both to the subject and to the post you quoted}.

Laconic can be good (especially if everyone is afraid of you) but may not be as communicative as loquacity.

--Pete

[eppie]

Let's take that logic one step further. The percentage of criminals in a stable society is roughly constant. So, the more that are in jail, the fewer that are out and committing crimes. Naturally, the crime rate drops. So, in that sense, "tough on crime" works. But in the sense of making this a more law abiding culture, I think it is a dismal failure.

--Pete

Well, jail time, especially when the situation in jails isn't very human usually makes petty thieves into hard criminals.
Also I don't know what you mean with a stable society; is this something theoretical?
Apart from the mentally deranged and psychopath, a criminal is something you are not born to be. It 'happens' depending on stimuli from the area and way you are living (in).

[Sir_Die_alot]

If two *consenting adults* want to enter into an agreement together, I don't feel I have any right to stand in their way. Children are a different matter, ethically and legally.

So in the end you are saying I'm correct and that not "all" distributors perpetrate victimless crimes? In my experience people addicted to drugs started before they were adults.

[Jester]

So in the end you are saying I'm correct and that not "all" distributors perpetrate victimless crimes? In my experience people addicted to drugs started before they were adults.

In a world of legalized drugs, a distributor of drugs (AKA: a pharmacist) is no more culpable for children getting their hands on their products than the beer store salesperson, the kiosk vendor, or the 7-11 guy for when booze, smokes and pornography find their way to minors.

It'll happen. Is it their fault? Not really. Are they committing "crimes"? Not unless they're selling direct. And, as I said, that itself is illegal for reasons that have little to do with drugs, and everything to do with children.

-Jester

[Pantalaimon]

Please, let's play that game and see what kind of funnies we can generate.

This one! In hindsight, I'm not contributing, so consider me properly chastised.

</delurk>