Who's Next for US Targeting?

MaPoSquid · June 20, 2003, 4:18am

The amount depends on the type, the state, and a few other things. Nevada used to have a one-year mandatory minimum for any amount of anything, and they meant it. OTOH Seattle is notably lax, at least for simple possession of less than an eighth of an ounce of pot; last I heard, they only confiscated it and fined the possessor.

[quote=“fred smith”]Second, 2 million is a hell of a lot of people. What’s up with this? Are they being rehabilitated or is this becoming a prison-industry complex as I heard it referred to a while back?

Is crime in America dependent on race? poverty? drugs? guns? lack of education? Is enforcement stronger because of race? What’s it called racial profiling?[/quote]
How many master’s theses do you want people to type in here?? You’re not asking questions that have simple answers; actually, there aren’t even any generally-agreed-upon answers.

Prison industry is both a scam/curse and a rehabilitation measure. There are people getting rich off the cheap immobile labor; prison wages in Washington state are typically much less than US$1 per hour. In some cases, the prisoners are learning useful skills, though. And in some cases, employers who use prison labor are destroying other small businesses because they can undercut the non-prison industries. Case in point, there is a water-jet machining company that uses prison labor in the Monroe state pen; his competitors are going out of business because he can afford to cut his rates and still make an excellent profit. The prisoners are learning a skill that (prior to the economic crunch, anyway) could get them a good-paying job when they get out of prison, and he’s making a fortune.

As far as “racial profiling” goes, it makes the news every time a black criminal is arrested. Funny, though – the ones who scream about it the loudest are the ones who turn out to be guilty as hell. Sorta like Kim Jong Il insisting that he’s a really nice guy and the U.S. is unfairly branding him.

Eric_W_Lier · June 20, 2003, 5:13am

Saudi Arabia would be the most logical choice as they were blatantly complicite in the 911 attacks.

Eric_W_Lier · June 20, 2003, 5:36am

Saudi Arabia would be the most logical choice as they were blatantly complicite in the 911 attacks.

fred_smith · June 20, 2003, 6:52am

Well just for comparison in terms of crime, I would say that generally East Asia is quite safe. I have NEVER experienced any crime in any East Asian nation not stealing, (a few moderately heated exchanges with cab drivers) otherwise nothing. There are no neighborhoods that I am aware of that I would be afraid to walk in anywhere in any East Asian city bar Manila and Indonesia or Papua New Guinea or the Solomon Islands but I put them as more Oceania (Melanesian) societies.

When I lived in India, there was no neighborhood in Calcutta, Bombay etc that I felt threatened to enter because of crime and there is some crushing poverty in India. You might be missing a bag if you put it down unattended but never mugging or robbery etc. at least not in several years and many return trips that I have been there.

Europe has a lot of petty theft. Hassled endlessly by Gypsy children during the tourist season (July/August) in Rome, Paris, Barcelona, Vienna, etc.) otherwise perhaps bag snatching in Naples and Palermo but I have never been robbed etc, nor had any bags snatched but I do know people that did or were pickpocketed.

In the US and UK there have been neighborhoods that I have been afraid to go into. One in southeast Paris. These areas have had rough whites but have been mostly Black (America and UK) and Algerian (Paris) and actually Brussels too. Ditto for Marseilles.

Then there is the Middle East. If you are a foreigner very little crime though I understand the locals may be affected more strongly. The police will really take care of someone who tries to mess with a tourist in Egypt, and the law is very severe in Iran, Syria, not so much Jordan or Morocco.

Finally, Africa. I have had numerous trouble with attempted muggings, cannot drive at night because of robbery road blocks (Pakistan has these too), theft at hotels, theft at offices, theft by workers at complexes (gardeners, etc.)

So while the US has a high incarceration rate. Ditto for Russia. I do not sense that the crime is that serious of a problem in either. Therefore this leads me to believe that there must be something other than strictly crime that is accounting for the high numbers in both countries. Is this a mentality in the criminal justice system. Is this a drug thing that is inflating US statistics. What? I think actually now there is more of a crime problem in most UK cities. By contrast, many tough American cities are actually quite safe.

I would say that crime is strongly affected by culture. East Asia and India are remarkably stable despite high poverty rates. Africa is terrible even in the best neighborhoods. Middle East hit and miss. Latin America a bit better but can be bad. Europe and North America about the same barring a few neighborhoods.

So if the US is in this group, where is this strict crack down on crime coming from? Nearly 2/3rds of inmates are Black, 20 percent white, 20 percent Hispanic. 96 percent are men, 4 percent female. Is this a racist thing? Do minorities actually cause more crime? Why the three strikes your out laws? etc. etc. Drugs? Then again if it was just a matter of minorities and race (Africa high crime rates = high crime rates among Blacks in the US because they are black), why does Russia have such high incarceration rates when they are all white?

What say thee JB?

Jack_Burton · June 20, 2003, 8:59am

after todays’ tumultuous posts, I am looking forward to a good cold one or a shot of vodka to start.

as for reasons for the statistics, I simply could not tell you. Not an easy task too. I know more about the judicial system than the social problems. for me, ordinary crime is mostly socio-economic, not race. (ordinary meaning not those strange twisted serial killers. Is it me or are they all white. kinda weird. I never heard of, in US, at least famous non-white serial murderers. please, this is a real query)
here’s a opinion,
as for why US cities don’t seem violent in general, maybe we are just not in the particular neighbourhoods where crime is concentrated. or there the worst times to be there. I remember driving through Compton in daytime. Didn’t seem so bad. Wouldn’t go there at night. Same with MacArthur Park. Looked rather nice during the day. Wouldn’t go there at night. Probably could say the same for other cities.
I agree with the cultural differences. Traditional Asian countries, ideally speaking, will chastise and disapprove of young people breaking the law. So maybe they grow up with a shame of crime and wrongdoing, ideally speaking.
In N.America and other countries, there is an attitude, among some teenagers, that breaking the law or resisting cops, (unless you come from a cop family) is the cool thing to do. maybe this attitude helps creates a culture where there is less respect for upholding the law at least in certain respects. Look at the word “pig” for cop for example. I’m sure the reasons are far more complex; this is just an general example (and very simplified too).
also glorifying criminals through culture (books, movies, songs) probably doesn’t help

Tigerman · June 20, 2003, 9:13am

Its Friday!

Jack_Burton · June 20, 2003, 9:22am

Its Friday! [/quote]

I’ll drink to that! hmmm I have a Duvel waiting for me in the fridge. Thanks for the correction on pronouncing Duvel.

Hope we keep arguing and no-one take things personally. Just enjoy arguing.

Taurus · June 20, 2003, 9:32am

Sorry but we already have an exclusivity contract with the Germans, only them are allowed to invade France.

Besides, american have learnt their lesson from Vietnam. They only go for easy targets now.
Wait, I don’t say we’ve got a great army. Just look at what they doing in Africa. Mwarf!!
But we also have a goof president as dumb as W and he has the bomb. Pfff… scary.
Thinking about this, I don’t even know if we have missiles that can reach the US. Mmm… probably. Or can these things be send by Fedex?

Well, I’ve voted for North Korea. I’d really like to see what the most powerful army would do over there.

Taurus

MaPoSquid · June 20, 2003, 10:35am

Lee Boyd Malvo and John Allen Muhammad (the D.C. snipers).

Derrick Todd Lee (the recently-caught Louisiana serial rapist-murderer).

You’re right, the vast majority of serial killers are white males, but that’s become such an ingrained cliche’ that the FBI and other agencies actively ignore the possibility that, golly, people of any other race might get into it. In both of the above cases, the FBI issued “profiles” insisting that the suspect must be a white guy; in the D.C. sniper case, they backed away from that relatively quickly, but in the Louisiana case, they deliberately threw out leads that mentioned black men because it “couldn’t” be a black guy, which probably cost their investigation about five months and resulted in at least one additional rape-murder victim.

Oh yeah, that Mexican drifter from a couple of years ago, whose family turned him over assuming he’d be spared the death penalty if they did. (Edited: found it: ) Rafael Resendez-Ramirez.

MaPoSquid · June 20, 2003, 10:56am

[quote=“jackburton”][quote]His decision followed the exoneration of the 13th death row prisoner found to have been wrongfully convicted in the state since the USA resumed executions in 1977. [/quote] 13 since 1977 in 1 state alone (and not even texas).
Cf. this with the above post.

[quote]As I ever-so-carefully pointed out, some of the people on death row HAVE been found to be innocent – BEFORE they were executed. NOBODY has been found to be innocent AFTER being executed. And if even one had been, the anti-death-penalty crusaders would be trumpeting it at every execution.
As I also ever-so-carefully pointed out, NEARLY ALL of the sentences that have been reduced were changed because of judicial activism, NOT because of any particular case merit. Your evidence to the contrary? A general rant on Constitutional rights. Oooh. [/quote] reduced due to judicial activism and exonerated due to wrongful conviction are clearly 2 different thing.
not that either of us had “evidence” in hand in the our previous posts anyways. we were both raving/ranting lunatics.
Oh I was wrong. highest execution rates weren’t China, Russia, and US. It was China, Iran, and US.
Of course, Amnesty International could be lying or wrong. but hey, why dont you show me why and how?[/quote]
Amnesty is correct. But as you can plainly see, the system works – the ones who were innocent were proven innocent and exonerated. The ones who were guilty got strapped down and killed.

Yes, the innocent ones went through hell, but so do a lot of innocent people in the criminal justice system – and the ones who go on death row have extraordinary resources brought to bear to free them on any excuse. The ones who don’t get the death penalty are usually left to rot, since none of these organizations gives a damn about them. Look at the Amirault case in Massachusetts, the Gary Dotson case in Illinois, and hundreds of others which never got any attention.

Yes, Gov. Ryan shut down the Illinois death row – but he didn’t just clear out the cases where there was a chance of innocence, he reduced the sentences of the ones who were unquestionably guilty as well. You know, the ones who were found with a hammer in their hands, covered with their victim’s blood, with a still-warm corpse at their feet. Ryan’s decision was dramatic, but it was still based on anti-death-penalty activism, not on the reality of the individual cases.

MaPoSquid · June 20, 2003, 11:03am

Well, drat. I logged on tonight to go back and edit a post I made earlier in which I gratuitously insulted Jack, but it appears to have been deleted. Just as well.

My apologies, Jack, my behavior was uncalled for.

Jack_Burton · June 20, 2003, 2:57pm

Well thanks for not taking this to a lower level. But I don’t wholly agree with your statement that the system works. Yes, people were saved while still alive; that tells me there is hope and room for improvement, and the justice system is responsive in this respect and is already a pretty good system.
If it really worked well (and I’m not saying 100%), those people shouldn’t have been there in the first place (Tell this to the guy who spent 20+ years probably cause he was black or some other poor reason). The Framers, in reaction to Crown injustices, I think, crafted a very good judicial systems with good safeguards (those const. rights we ‘talked’ about) to ensure that people don’t get thrown in jail, much less executed for the wrong reasons. But of course the human factor will always been the deciding factor (police and prosecutorial misconduct, unqualified witnesses, your judicial activism, etc). I think if you can reduce the more deliberate harm eg government misconduct, and to some extent judicial activism (depending on the details), etc, you can reduce the number of innocent people being wrongfully convicted. The pure human error and non-deliberate violations, I suppose, will always be inherent in the system. I am not saying there has to be 100% rate of not convicting innocent folks at the trial level. Hopefully, that is what the appeals process can rectify.

From Amnesty:

Odd to see the US grouped with countries like this, and have it come first. too bad. One reason why I care (though some may think not) about the US and US policies is precisely because I think the US could live up to its ideals and become a much greater country.
…
…
…like Canada.

Tigerman · June 20, 2003, 4:09pm

Below is an excerpt from a commencement speech delivered by one of my favorite opinion writers. I post this not to make any point, but merely because I think it relevant to the current discussion. The speaker, Mr. Goldberg, was making a point about arguing logically rather than about capital punishment … but its interesting anyway. Here it is:

[quote=“Jonah Goldberg”]We’ve all heard something along the lines of “better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished.” This sort of thing is spouted on campuses across this country as if it is an argument, as if it’s a self-evident argument. It’s not. Maybe it’s a sentiment. Or an expression of principle or even a priority. But more often it’s a copout for kids and professors who wish to sound intelligent rather than be intelligent.

Why is it better that ten guilty men go free? Ten career criminals will do far more damage to society out of prison than the price society will suffer with one innocent man in jail. By the way, we call them “career criminals” for the same reason we refer to “career accountants” they make a living out of being criminals. A strict utilitarian might say, better to punish the one innocent man for the sake of the larger society. On the other hand, a civil libertarian may ask “Why ten men? Why not 100? Or 1,000? Why not let them all go?” After all, we can say with pretty high confidence that somebody in jail today is innocent. We just don’t know who he is. So why not let them all go in order to make sure the innocent aren’t punished? In other words, if you want to say that you’d prefer to err on the side of protecting the rights of the innocent, fine. But that’s easy to say, and more important, it’s not an argument.
[/quote]