New York Times has an editorial asking for an end to mass incarceration:
For more than a decade, researchers across multiple disciplines have been issuing reports on the widespread societal and economic damage caused by America's now-40-year experiment in locking up vast numbers of its citizens.
Several recent reports provide some of the most comprehensive and compelling proof yet that the United States "has gone past the point where the numbers of people in prison can be justified by social benefits," and that mass incarceration itself is "a source of injustice.". That is the central conclusion of a two-year, 444-page study prepared by the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences at the request of the Justice Department and others
The report highlights many well-known statistics: Since the early 1970s, the nation's prison population has quadrupled to 2.2 million, making it the world's biggest. That is five to 10 times the incarceration rate in other democracies.
On closer inspection the numbers only get worse. More than half of state prisoners are serving time for nonviolent crimes, and one of every nine, or about 159,000 people, are serving life sentences -- nearly a third of them without the possibility of parole.All of this has come at an astounding economic cost, as tallied by a report from the Brookings Institution's Hamilton Project $80 billion a year in direct corrections expenses alone, and more than a quarter-trillion dollars when factoring in police, judicial and legal services.
The editorial argues, and makes a convincing case, that all of this seems to stem from the unwillingness of the politicians to appear "soft on crime". Which, by nature, I think is a stance no different from the "war on terror" and the "airport security theatre". If I'm right, I wonder just how much the US citizens are actually willing to pay for their everyday dose of "feeling secure"?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by IgrokU on Monday May 26 2014, @09:08AM
is too big to fail. We just need to lock more people up to make it work at scale.
All my opinions belong to me... that's why they are mine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26 2014, @09:17AM
You just volunteered, Number 3719. Report to your cell.
(Score: 1) by IgrokU on Monday May 26 2014, @09:52AM
actually, it was 37346... but who cares now.
All my opinions belong to me... that's why they are mine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26 2014, @09:14AM
that would be occurring if only the US were not just one giant bureaucracy that produces nothing of value. All the real jobs moved overseas ages ago. Might as well incarcerate the entire population and let the rest of the world continue without the US.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26 2014, @10:08AM
New Yoork
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26 2014, @10:45AM
I think I prefer the editor's new spelling: New Yoork sounds more Dutch than English, so at least is giving credit where due to the people who actually bothered to found the place...
(Score: -1) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26 2014, @10:32AM
terrorism and drug wars have a significantly higher cost per casualty than common crime. Marijuana seems to be at the process of reduced drug sentances. people will use less of other drugs, when marijuana has lower criminal penalties, and less dangerous than other drugs. so, no. most of the criminals will stay in prison.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Popeidol on Monday May 26 2014, @11:08AM
You're all ignoring the obvious economic benefits here. By imprisoning more people, you are:
-Lessening pressure on the job market by removing some of the potential hire pool
-Creating quite a few jobs with no prerequisite skills
-Bringing back manufacturing jobs that can actually compete with china for cost.
Most importantly, by steadily increasing the percentage of people in prison we can seamlessly transition to a post-scarcity society. When we only need 50% of people working full-time? make sure the other 50% are in jail. By the time we hit 100% incarceration, we will be living in a paradise where nobody understands what work is, let alone think they need a job.
If you care about your country at all, vote for harsher laws and longer sentences. Do it for your children.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by VLM on Monday May 26 2014, @11:22AM
From a pure busywork and financial standpoint, probation and rehabilitation-type programs should be immensely more expensive/profitable than just locking them up.
I live a couple blocks from a work-release facility (next door to the main city police station) and I've seen my neighbor participate in that program after his n-th drunk driving conviction, where n is pretty large, and this sort of psuedo debtor's prison is the likely future of society, at least for those who aren't at the top of the feudalistic order. So, once the middle class is extinguished, go to jail for free food / medical / dental care without the neocon morons whining about "socialism" and you sit there unless/until you get a job. Everybody wins. Freedom is eliminated which the religious nuts love. The minority percentage in jail is huge, so the racists love it. Poor people get free food and socialized medicine while the neocon nuts have nothing to complain about. The prison industrial complex gets lots of money from the state. The 1%ers at the top love it because the streets are "safe" from jaywalkers and truant school children and they have an infinite supply of minimum wage work release "employees" (really, slaves, especially when you factor in the minority percentage, but whatever).
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday May 27 2014, @04:55AM
"From a pure busywork and financial standpoint, probation and rehabilitation-type programs should be immensely more expensive/profitable than just locking them up."
My understanding is that it already IS, and that the two industries have a handy symbiosis going, since all those recently-released prisoners and those on probation are pretty uniformly required to attend rehab and 'education' classes. When I watched the courts for a day, I observed that the average person being released on probation was required to take FOUR such classes, costing from a few hundred to a few thousand dollars each.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 5, Funny) by c0lo on Monday May 26 2014, @11:49AM
Wouldn't it be cheaper to legalize slavery? I mean... just think of it...
--
(a large, dark and sickened grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26 2014, @12:08PM
Somehow you have managed to make slavery sound even more frightening.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday May 26 2014, @01:16PM
That was what I intended, thanks for the confirmation.
If you think of it, the only part that's not yet in the current picture of the world is "you as collateral for loans"... other than that, the picture spells "self agreed servitude" (start with study loans and continue with car loan, mortgage, loans for the kid's school, etc).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26 2014, @04:30PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26 2014, @08:42PM
legalize slavery
The moderation for both you and the parent are currently showing as Funny.
In both cases, the correct modding would be +5 Insightful.
Even after the 13th Amendment was passed, there was a time when the practice you mentioned was common.
Slavery by Another Name [wikipedia.org]
Following the era of Reconstruction (which ended when Union troops were withdrawn from The South in 1876), Jim Crow laws [wikipedia.org] allowed local cops to arrest black people for the most petty of things.
Those people were, of course, found guilty and imprisoned.
They were then rented out for a tiny cost [wikipedia.org] to the class who were formerly plantation owners.
The Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 (yup, they didn't even spell it right) and Nixon's War on (some) Drugs expanded the number of crimes and extended the reach of these practices to people who aren't quite so dark and, in practice, to all people who aren't rich.
Expect to see a lot more of that sort of thing until Americans start electing Civil Libertarians to public office en mass.
In his weekly radio program|webcast, [google.com] Economics Professor Richard Wolff has mentioned that, while the renting of prisoners outside the prison walls has been stopped, a low-wage sham has continued inside many US prisons (~50c/hr).
Prof. Wolff has also mentioned that 20 percent of American production capability is currently sitting idle.
Since the advent of cheap computers, the wide introduction of women into the labor force, and containerized shipping / offshoring, laborers have had to bid themselves into poverty wages.
I'll take this opportunity to note that over a century ago, Henry George had a brilliant idea:
Don't tax property that is being used in production; only tax idle property. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [dissidentvoice.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday May 27 2014, @05:05AM
But when there's a lien, and if the object against which the lien is held is sold for more than what you owe, you're paid the difference.
So if you own $1M, but your life value is $6M, and you're sold to cover the debt -- assuming fair market value, you'll receive $5M from the sale (the 'profit' after your creditor is paid off).
[dodges stampede of folks attempting to get themselves sold to pay off their debts]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 27 2014, @05:46AM
Strikes me as a stupid idea to get only $1M in debt if I'd end being sold anyway. Remember the saying of: "If you owe zillions to the bank, it's not you but the bank to have a problem"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday May 27 2014, @06:09AM
I should have perhaps suffixed a Sarcasm Alert. :)
But yes, that saying is indeed quite true.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 27 2014, @06:44AM
Anyway. I don't mind/resent if others can and/or do have a light-hearted take on it).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday May 27 2014, @07:19AM
Not so lighthearted, considering my current options in life. :/
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26 2014, @12:01PM
To quote George Carlin, "fuck the children." My life shouldn't be dictated by someone else choosing to reproduce and propagate their demon spawn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26 2014, @01:07PM
That's indeed one way to get into prison. ;-)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26 2014, @01:19PM
That depends on how much money you have.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Monday May 26 2014, @05:44PM
...Or who you are as well
Roman Polanski got to fuck a young female model up the ass, although rape would be a better word. Not only did he not go to prison, but he even had celebrities campaigning for him.
So you can get away with buggering a small child as long as Hollywood loves you.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26 2014, @08:32PM
An interesting quote I found from Polanski's victim is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski#Sexua l_abuse_case [wikipedia.org]
'During a television interview on 10 March 2011, Geimer blamed the media, reporters, the court, and the judge for causing "way more damage to [her] and her family than anything Roman Polanski has ever done," and stated that the judge was using her and a noted celebrity for his own personal gain from the media exposure.'
People never consider that perhaps society's handling of someone's victimization can be more harmful than whatever originally happened. Continually and forcefully dredging up the past for a victim is (in my opinion) more abusive to them than the original act, and it is often the handling of sexual abuse cases that ensures victims are mentally scarred for life. People need to be able to stand up, dust off, and keep walking forward. Geimer seems to agree with this.
(Score: 1) by GmanTerry on Tuesday May 27 2014, @05:40AM
My concern is the number of young lives the government destroys with no thought of the consequences. I know for a fact that in my State, children as young as 12 years old are destroyed by the government for sex crimes. I know because I was on a Grand Jury that did a jury nullification on a 12 year old who touched his step sister's breasts. He confessed and was facing juvenal jail time and lifetime probation as a registered sex offender. His entire life destroyed at 12. A just society would have pushed him towards counseling but instead the State just wanted to destroy him. When I was young we didn't destroy lives so quickly. The other problem is plea bargains offered to juvenals. I am aware of a case where a 17 year old was accused of a sex crime. The State waited until he was 18 to arrest him and then offered him a plea bargain. The sentence he was facing was 65 years in prison but he was offered one year in county jail and lifetime probation as a sex offender if he pleaded guilty. His lawyer told him that if the alleged victim cried on the stand he was going to be convicted. So he took the guilty plea. I believe he was/is innocent. We as a society too easily destroy the lives of young people for crimes that could be handled far better by a counselor or an intervention. It has gotten to where we have removed all the power of Judges to make decisions with "mandatory sentance" and "truth in sentencing" laws. The first time offender gets no second chance and receives the same sentence as the repeat offender. I hope this might make someone think just a little bit about how we treat people who break the law. I know I have in my many years done things that could have had serious consequences. Luckily I lived in a better time and never got trapped in the system.
Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
(Score: 1) by yours truly on Monday May 26 2014, @02:27PM
Too bad the generations before you didn't think that way. The world would be a better place. For your information it is too late to pay them back. Here you pay ahead. The open source model. Your turn.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday May 27 2014, @10:06AM
That's an interesting idea. At what point does it become cheaper to put everyone in jail by default and only let out those who prove to be worthy of freedom?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26 2014, @11:17AM
I have a felony sex offense for what amounts to CP possession. Even ignoring my explanations of what really happened and why the charges were bullshit and how no one charged with that can do anything but take a plea bargain, the reality is this: I can code circles around a lot of people, I have skills that are very marketable, and I deal well with people (I have friends of many years who don't know about it and others who know and don't care.) I am more than qualified for many IT jobs and once had a request to interview with Google. The "conviction" is over 8 years old and I have been out of probation (and thus finished "doing my time") for around 7 years. I've never even been to prison for a single day and have no plans to end up there.
I can't get a computer programming job because of my record. I can't risk moving because I am in a stable location that doesn't give me trouble and there is a bogus "can't live within 1000 feet of a school or day care center" rule that makes housing hard to find. If I did move, I'd have to find a private landlord that doesn't ask about it since apartments and many landlords will reject me solely on the basis of my aging criminal record. I can't open accounts on social networks that allow people under 18 to join and I have to register all of my email accounts so they can make sure I don't. If I sign up for a Facebook account, I'll get tagged with another felony and go to prison. If I move and don't know that it's too close to a school or day care despite the fact that no one provides any sort of map or online GIS-based property locator to tell me where I'm allowed and not allowed to live, I'll get a 30-day notice if I'm lucky and a felony charge if I'm not.
I am a self-made person for no good reason other than being on some government shit list. I have to tread extremely carefully or I risk upsetting the balance I have spent so much time to create. This literally affects every aspect of my life. I am essentially imprisoned despite being "free." Who wants to calculate the economic impact of this sort of oppression? I'm looking forward to seeing what happens with these "ban the box" initiatives that are going on; they might actually give me a chance to get a great job using the skills I've built over the past two decades.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Horse With Stripes on Monday May 26 2014, @02:14PM
Your situation is an unfortunate byproduct of the necessity to protect society from habitual offenders.
If what you say is true about your CP conviction, then you are (but probably shouldn't be) tainted by the truth about the vast majority of CP and pedophile offenders: they cannot be trusted in any environment where children may be present. No offense, but not many real CP offenders ever admit that they deserved their conviction, but I'll take you at your word for the rest of my comment.
Regarding your employment situation, you are on your own. You'll need to be a contract employee (maybe even 'remote' employee) for most of your gigs, though many places require background checks for all employees and contractors these days. One of my clients (9 years) just signed a big contract with a billion dollar company and now everyone with keys to the building needs a full background check (employees, contractors, cleaning staff, handyman, even the senior couple nearby that has emergency keys). You could also just start your own business (which I'm sure you've already kind of done), but unless you're going to produce a software product you'll end up being hired by companies that may do background checks. Your chances of getting larger clients is pretty bleak.
You stated a real problem, and possibly your future business solution, in your comment:
With many others in your situation there is a market for a source of "safe" locations to live. I imagine it would need to be a short-term subscription model, say 30-60 days (how often do people move?), and would need to provide your listings via snail mail as well as online (some in your situation are banned from using computers). You could start by researching schools/daycare/etc in your city & county, and expand from there. I'm sure there are real estate websites that list all the possible schools and/or child care facilities in an area to help sell houses. These could be your starting point for putting together your database.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26 2014, @03:38PM
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Monday May 26 2014, @05:53PM
Just males, and it is regardless of whether they have looked at porn.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Monday May 26 2014, @06:35PM
By your logic, there is no difference between regular "consenting adults" porn and child porn. I'm going to have to disagree with you.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26 2014, @07:29PM
The difference is an artificial one. On the production side, the crime that is committed is the child abuse, and all justification for bans on child pornography are related to that child abuse.
Production is illegal because it requires engaging in sex acts with children.
Criminalization of distribution carries less clarity in its justification. An assertion can be made that paid distribution creates a commercial incentive for increased production, which is effectively a commercial market for child abuse. However, an assertion can also be made that distributing it at no cost does not create that commercial incentive. Because of this, free (gratis) distribution of child pornography loses a clear financial link to the original harmful behavior of abusing children, and without a financial incentive to produce the only remaining reason to criminalize distribution is that it MAY encourage those who produce for their own enjoyment to continue to produce new works (which obviously means "engage in sex acts with children more times than they already have.")
Possession is where the logic chain completely breaks down. If someone did not produce child porn and did not distribute child porn to others, all connections to the production (and hence the child sexual abuse) break down. The only arguments that can be made to support criminalization of possession tend to fall into one of these general descriptions:
1. "If child pornography possession is legal, it sends a message that it is okay."
2. "It is a gateway drug; they will soon tire of the pornography and turn to real child abuse."
3. "It encourages production because it 'creates a market' for child porn."
4. "It must remain illegal because it is a useful tool to arrest potential child abusers."
5. "Every time a copy of that picture/video is seen, it re-victimizes the child."
All of these are false, unsupported, or outright backwards claims:
1. The law does not exist for one group to push their personal morality onto another group, though is it abused that way frequently. Also, legality does not imply endorsement; alcohol is legal in most places, yet there is a large minority of the population that finds alcohol to be morally reprehensible and consumers of it worthy of disdain and social rejection.
2. While this may be true in a minority of cases, the "scratching of the itch" that child pornography gives to pedophiles is far more likely to result in less cases of child sexual abuse, not more. This can be easily seen in the curves of availability of adult pornography in Western societies when superimposed against numbers of rapes and other forms of sexual assaults. More access to pornographic materials results in less rape and sexual abuse.
3. There is no financial incentive involved in simple possession, therefore there is no "market." Furthermore, possession is two steps removed from production AND possession without distribution means that the person is keeping the materials to themselves for personal viewing in private, so the already dubious link that gratis distribution has to production (and thus to acts of child sexual abuse) completely falls apart. The "creates a market" argument has no logical basis.
4. No law should exist solely for the purpose of "catching" people because the government can't pin something bigger on them. If the government can't make a case, any law that exists just to make it easier for the government to find something else to arrest them for is a miscarriage of justice.
5. You cannot "re-victimize" someone by viewing or owning a photograph. Specifically the implication is that having or seeing the pornography of the criminal act is as harmful as the original act. By this logic, all crime scene photos are re-victimization of the victims of the crime. The logic to support this is simply nonexistent.
Posting AC because this post could be setting me up for really violent retribution. Just talking about this subject offends some people's sensibilities a la Reefer Madness and turns them psychotic.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Horse With Stripes on Monday May 26 2014, @08:47PM
But the public doesn't care that there is a difference. They see the direct connection between the possession of, and the making of, CP. And the law won't change because there is no up side for politicians. The general public considers CP a heinous crime, so they are in favor of punishing everyone involved (abductors, abusers, photographers, distributors, purchasers, etc). Those convicted of anything related to CP will probably have lost their right to vote, so a politician doesn't care about them. It's just the way it is.
1. Possession is illegal in the same way possessing illegal drugs or stolen goods is illegal. Sometimes the only way to convict someone who creates or distributes an illegal item is to catch them with it and charge them with possessing an illegal item. They knew it was illegal and yet they acted to obtain it anyway. The person arrested for possession is also often used as a tool of law enforcement to get higher up the distribution and/or production chain. If production was illegal but distribution & possession were not then anyone who produced the illegal item could claim "I didn't produce the one that you caught me with, I bought this one.
2. I don't agree with #2. Those who want to act upon their urges will act upon them. Watching may be a holdover between acts, but it I don't believe it is an enabler. I like to watch football, but I have no urge to go outside and get knocked on my ass all afternoon.
3. There is no financial incentive for possessing it, but there is a financial incentive to produce it if you know that the market exists. Removing any restrictions, sanction or stigma from that market would make the distribution more commonplace and more profitable. Also, in this "digital world" the mere possession allows for easy distribution.
4. Like I mentioned earlier, it's useful for working up the food chain. And if it turns out to be the only charge they can make stick on someone who is in the production of CP, well, I'm OK with that. Someone who is caught with a little bit of weed gets a shorter sentence than someone who is caught with intent to distribute, and their sentence is shorter than someone who is a bigger distributor on up to the kingpin. But because of the digital nature of CP being in possession can result in the occasional (or frequent) act of distribution.
5. If the victim of any crime knows that pictures or video footage of it is commonly being viewed I can understand how that may be very troubling to them. I'm not sure if that makes them a 'victim' every time it is viewed, but I know it certainly wouldn't make them feel better about the situation.
Logic, statistics, facts, et al have been mentioned throughout the AC posts in this thread. They have absolutely no place in this discussion. This is such a sensitive issue that expecting people to be reasonable about it is unrealistic. I know that I am in favor of horribly painful retribution for those who abuse children. Is that fair? I don't care. In my opinion those that abuse children surrendered their right to fairness when they abused a child.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26 2014, @11:08PM
You do a fantastic job of bringing out the real problem: this is a 21st century witch hunt and as far as the witch hunters are concerned there is no room for "reason." Better to just kill them all and ask questions later...well, perhaps not that second part. Such behavior is the polar opposite of civilized people, and as you have pointed out my faulty reasoning lies in expecting Normal People(TM) to behave in any such civilized manner.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 27 2014, @10:11AM
For that, wouldn't it be more effective to not make the possession illegal, but to make it illegal to not tell the authorities when asked where you got it from?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 27 2014, @11:00AM
If the answer is P2P or IRC or a free .ru website, that's not going to help them find a distributor, and "a Tor onion site" would be something they probably already knew existed. I don't know if you've heard but the FBI actively goes after people for CP by dropping links that claim to be CP and then arresting whoever clicks them: http://www.cnet.com/news/fbi-posts-fake-hyperlinks -to-snare-child-porn-suspects/ [cnet.com]
(Score: 1) by throwaway23 on Tuesday May 27 2014, @06:56AM
The way to not get charged with possession is to encrypt your hard drive with a good key. It's really that simple.
As far as I know, I don't possess any naked photos of people under 18. Legit porn sites don't distribute those, so I'd rate the chance at 0.1%. But, if I got raided and my hard drives were taken, because, say, some goon decided I wasn't submissive enough at the airport, or Border Control decided to search my stuff just because they can, I have to assume the goons pawing through my stuff would go through everything with a fine-toothed comb and try to find SOMETHING to pin on me. Maybe some person would be found to look under 18 even though he/she wasn't, and I wouldn't be able to prove she/he was of age. Maybe it would be something else. I don't even have porn on most of my computers, and my goal is for all of it to be homemade with my (of age) partner soon. But, they'd try to get me on SOMETHING, and I'd rather they just didn't have that opportunity.
And that's just me. Think about this: for teenagers under 18 who want to exercise their natural sexual rights and like to make homemade porn (and who doesn't?), hard drive encryption is really a must. They should also use standalone digital cameras instead of cell phones, which are horrid pieces of technology to use for that anyway. Oh, and they need to learn how to use dd on the memory card afterwards, too.
Do you get the picture yet? The best thing we can do to get rid of stupid, Puritanical laws, and unchill free speech, is to teach technology to the young.
Is posting AC using Tor evidence my speech on this topic just might be being chilled? Perhaps. It's also an example of me using technology to exercise my right to anonymous speech, even in the face of those who would take it away from me. If the whole population could use technology as most Soylentils can, thoughtcrime would disappear overnight.
Have crypto parties. Spread the word.
Serious question for fellow Soylentils: I used the Tor Browser Bundle and posted AC. Did I miss anything?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 27 2014, @10:21AM
I don't (and never did). Sweeping generalizations are bad in both directions.
(Score: 1) by Zinho on Tuesday May 27 2014, @04:36PM
I think you missed the step of logging out, or checking the "Post Anonymously" box. Regardless how well the TOR browser worked for you, this post was an epic anonymity fail.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26 2014, @05:03PM
On the contrary, sex offenders in general have the lowest sex offense recidivism rate of any category of felon (5.3% after 3 years, 6% after 10 years, according to various studies done by departments of correction and justice), so "they cannot be trusted (etc.)" is an assertion that is difficult to support with facts. Also consider that "stranger danger" is largely bullshit: over 90% of new sex crimes are perpetrated by someone known to and close to the victim (family, friends, teachers, friends-of-the-family, etc.) and that leaves very little room for the 10% of the 600,000+ convicted and registered sex offenders in the country to take their part in the statistics. As ridiculous as it sounds due to the violent emotional reactionary baggage attached to the subject, you can statistically trust a convicted sex offender more than an uncle or coach. For people in my category who were convicted of possession of CP (but not production, distribution, or even any actual abuse) there is a small but growing body of evidence that shows that such material has a deterrent effect rather than an encouraging one.
If you want citations, I have plenty. I've had a lot of time to research this stuff on my own and I'm honestly quite shocked at this whole world if injustice that I'd never have known about had I not been dragged into it against my will. The reality is worse than most people realize, and not in the ways that are conventionally assumed.
I don't think there is a big enough market for providing such maps; the biggest problem on the enforcement side of the whole sex offender idiocy is that most departments are under increasingly ridiculous pressures and regulations that unnecessarily pull their limited resources away to check up on this low-risk group, and funding is a constantly losing battle (I doubt I have to explain that one.)
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Monday May 26 2014, @05:55PM
The low recidivism rate does not matter to the public at large. The court of public opinion is not subject to statistics or citations. What matters to the public is the fact that an individual has shown that they are capable, willing and able of committing this act in the past. That alone brands them as capable of committing it in the future. It may not be supported by statistics, but to the public at large the fact remains that someone decided it was OK at some point to commit <insert crime here> so they may show the same bad judgement in the future. And anyone who supports them, sides with them, hires them, etc is showing poor judgement as well.
Let's not dismiss that there are repeat & serial sex offenders (just like there are repeat & serial <insert crime here> offenders). And no one knows who is going to turn out to be someone who does it again. The severity of the crime generally supports the caution practiced in these cases (not always, but generally). No politician wants to be soft on crime, or support <insert crime here>, so they always push for politically popular restricts and sanctions.
As far as the market for this type of service, just look at the number of people on the sex offenders registries in each state, and add to it the number of people who are currently incarcerated for a crime that will require their registration once they get released (looking ahead 12 - 24 months). That's a pretty good sized niche market, even of you only grab a few percent. And ask yourself "how much would I pay to know" that this particular apartment complex or rental property is not in a school zone, and they don't do criminal background checks, etc, etc? Would you pay $20? $30? $50? That's nothing compared to having to move again within 30 days (which could mean losing your security deposit because you broke your lease, not to mention the other costs of moving). I'm not saying you should start this type of service, but if it was available would you use it (or have used it in the past)? If yes, do you think others in your situation would as well?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Monday May 26 2014, @06:20PM
Mixing of categories runs rampant here. Both in the courts and in your assertion above
"Sex offenders in general" includes those guys (they are always guys) booked for peeing in an alley late at night after the bars close, and those who are caught with CP in any form. There are so many bullshit things that are labeled a "sex offense" that the term "sex offenders in general" is at the same time meaningless and redundant.
Actual sex offenders, rapists, and child snatchers, groomers, even gropers, are recidivistic to a high degree [umich.edu]. The problem is that these are lumped in with so many unrelated categories that meaningful statistics become impossible.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26 2014, @06:54PM
Your cited study is of people who self-reported having 'gotten away with' at least one act of sexual violence. I can easily see where someone who gets away with his first non-consensual sex act would be likely to try again. And I can see where someone who has gotten away with several such acts would be more likely to admit to them in a confidential sociological survey.
That does not necessarily predict that such people, once caught, tried, and convicted, will also re-offend. Nor does it give any indication of the relative numbers of non-offenders, undetected offenders, and convicted offenders. The sizes of those pools is essential to any risk assessment.
I agree that the language of "sex offender" has become far too inclusive, to the point of including essentially victimless crimes in the same category as some of the most violent and abhorrent crimes. This, though, is a feature of the prison industry complex and the national campaign of mass incarceration.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26 2014, @07:36PM
There are plenty of studies that are designed through their methodology to artificially construct extremely high "recidivism rates" and the Scott study is one of them, as is Langevin et al.
The latter is mentioned here: http://www.synergiescanada.org/journals/utp/120324 /t06113111422/w411364308557741 [synergiescanada.org]
Quote: "A recently published article by Langevin, Curnoe, Fedoroff, Bennett, Langevin, Peever, Pettica, and Sandhu (2004) reports a recidivism rate of 88.3% for sex offenders. A detailed analysis of the study demonstrates that this unusually high level is uninterpretable because the offenders whose criminal careers were followed are unlikely to be representative of sex offenders in general. Furthermore, the measure of recidivism used in the study not only distorts the normal meaning of recidivism but also artefactually creates an inflated - and consequently meaningless - recidivism rate."
Try this out instead. Human Rights Watch: No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the US
http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0 907webwcover.pdf [hrw.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26 2014, @05:29PM
Aside from the dubious constitutionality of 1000-foot restrictions for sex offenders since it constitutes banishment and banishment is patently unconstitutional, contrary to what the politicians would have you believe, the sex offender recidivism rate is very low. Do some research and you will prove it to yourself.
(Score: 1) by blackest_k on Tuesday May 27 2014, @06:16AM
So what your suggesting is a convicted pedophile should make a database of schools/ daycare /ect and sell this information to other convicted pedophiles on a subscription basis?
Can you not see a potential problem with this?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 27 2014, @11:07AM
Most sex offenders would prefer to know where every local school and day care is located just so they can avoid being anywhere near them. Sex offenders who don't practice some level of paranoia are apt to be tossed in jail. In some places, a sex offender being within 300 feet of such a place (even if only driving through without stopping) is committing a felony.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Tuesday May 27 2014, @08:34PM
Yes, I can see the potential problem with it. Unfortunately the exact same information that is necessary for them to steer clear of schools, childcare facilities, etc, can be used to stalk those same locations. Had he inquired further I would have recommended that registrants provide proof of identity, information on their conviction and an email address that they acknowledge/certify is monitored by the authorities as required by their local statutes. Of course, this all requires the registrants to be telling the truth. But, if his email is also monitored (as he claims it is) then the authorities will know whether or not the email address used to register on the site is in fact associated with the convicted sex offender who is registering.
Making it only available to people on the sex offenders registry, and everyone acknowledging that all of the emails are monitored, it is as above board as it can be for the business while not publishing the names of the registrants in the public realm.
(Score: 1) by blackest_k on Wednesday May 28 2014, @05:15AM
I was pretty much giving it the spin it would get if such a business was set up and became known to exist. Consider how it would read in the local paper.
I'm fairly certain that there would be parole restrictions on sex offenders associating with other sex offenders after release from prison and parole could be revoked.
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/ex-offe nders_face_tens_of_thousands_of_legal_restrictions / [abajournal.com] while I couldn't find anything specific to sex offenders this article might help set the tone for the situation for convicts in general.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Thursday May 29 2014, @12:53AM
I agree with the "local paper" angle. This service, like any support service for sex offenders, would be painted in the worst light imaginable. That is the nature of the public's opinion of what is commonly a horribly vile crime.
I know there are many restrictions placed on parolees, including types of people they can associate with. But purchasing a list to help adhere to their post-incarceration restrictions couldn't be considered 'associating' (especially when all transactions are in effect monitored by the authorities). And not everyone on the sex offender registries are parolees (though they probably were at some point). Hell, this service could be provided to the parole system so they can identify safe zones for offenders.
The scrutiny this type of service would face would be severe, but I would think that somebody has to already offer this type of service (though they don't necessarily have to be someone who needs this same data for their own circumstances). Of course, it's entirely possible that the parole agencies (and everyone else involved in the process) doesn't provide any guidance just to increase the chances of violating someone's parole or rearresting them for anything they can stumble into.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday May 27 2014, @10:15AM
> You could start by researching schools/daycare/etc in your city & county, and expand from there.
"You see your honour, I was online researching all the local schools and playgroups so that I wouldn't be in breach of the terms of my release. No, really. Why are you looking at me like that?"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mhajicek on Monday May 26 2014, @03:47PM
Plea bargains are evil; a total corruption of "justice".
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday May 26 2014, @04:00PM
What happens if one refuse the plea bargain?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by IgrokU on Monday May 26 2014, @04:28PM
What happens is they over charge your crime making it a long term felony, then they "offer" to reduce said penalty , if you plea bargain. If you don't they will seek the maximum sentence. Since the state has unlimited resources, unless you are rich, you have to take the plea. SOP for prosecutors.
Damned if you do, double damned if you don't.
All my opinions belong to me... that's why they are mine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26 2014, @06:38PM
If an accused sex offender insists on going to trial, the prosecutor can also engage the media, who love sex crimes trials. Given the choice between a highly public and expensive trial, the consequences of which might be 10-20 years in prison against a quiet plea and a short formal probation period, it's hard not to take the quick, easy, and cheap option. All the more so because one repeatedly hears that a jury trial is basically a crap shoot, more dependent on the charisma of the lawyers and defendant than on actual guilt.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26 2014, @07:41PM
Specifically in North Carolina, the "CP distribution" and "CP possession" laws overlap since the possession law includes "receives" as an action that qualifies as child porn distribution. How do you possess anything without also receiving it? It is not uncommon for prosecutors to use such clever overlaps to charge under the lesser charges, allow the defendant to post bail, then they offer a "sweet plea deal" and on the other side threaten to re-charge under the higher level statute, causing re-arrest (and require re-posting of even higher bail that may be financially impossible resulting in months or years of waiting around in a jail cell), and face a far more serious prison term if the defendant loses.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Monday May 26 2014, @02:50PM
Apropos, here's a story about how the US prison system is the single largest employer of illegal immigrants, and of course they pay them 13cents/hour.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/25/us/using-jailed- migrants-as-a-pool-of-cheap-labor.html [nytimes.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26 2014, @02:52PM
...I know more about this stuff than most.
I deal directly, almost every day of the week, with felons that have done stuff that would freeze your blood.
And I invite them into my house all the time. I'm quite familiar with the issues they face.
I also know quite a few "throw the key away" types, and reluctantly have to support society in keeping them under wraps.
Society [b]NEEDS[/b] to protect itself. Revenge is pointless. It feels good for about 30 seconds, then the walls cave in, and life sucks after that. Protection, on the other hand, is absolutely merited and necessary (and can sometimes be a lot more cold-blooded than revenge).
Many of you started hating me the second you read the subject line of this comment. There's a real good reason folks hate addicts. We do some of the most heinous things in the press. I haven't done most of them, myself, but that won't stop a lot of you from hating me anyway, because I have the very real potential to be a walking nightmare; just like some of the folks that I hang out with several days a week.
That's why we can't rely on society to help us to climb out of our self-made jackpots. You guys just want us all euthanized.
Posting AC...because...
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Horse With Stripes on Monday May 26 2014, @03:59PM
First, I don't hate all addicts. I am painfully aware of the selfishness and self-destructive behavior that addicts exhibit, but I don't hate anyone because of their addictions (though I feel differently about the ones that have directly affected me).
Not all addicts are criminals (though the government would argue differently), and not all criminals are addicts. But, where those two groups meet is just bad news. Violent offenders who are also addicts often have no self control or ability to entertain rational thought while under the influence. This group is usually the most dangerous. But, society needs to be protected from all violent offenders as well as the non-violent criminals who try to fleece each and everyone they ever come in contact with. They both can wreak havoc in their own ways.
Now, your garden variety addicts (this includes alcoholics) who aren't committing major crimes are usually just in need of treatment and supervision (until their lives are stable). This doesn't mean all drug users, though some form of help should be available to those who want or need it. I'm no bleeding heart liberal, but it is just more practical to treat the disease rather than house, feed and care for the individual for months/years/decades. Addicts will get medical care related to their addiction in prison, so isn't it more practical to get them the care they need without the rest of the expenses and responsibilities related to the legal & prison systems? It's certainly cheaper for the tax payers. A handful of people could get treatment for what it costs to house just one inmate for a year.
There are always going to be individuals who relapse, and who go from getting high and stealing a pack of beef jerky to becoming a full blown addict and a violent offender. But dealing with addictions before they get to the point of dangerous criminal behavior will prevent far more crimes. If we want less addicts, and less crime, let's try to prevent it rather than acting after the fact. But we should also severely punish those who are violent offenders or those whose crimes have serious repercussions on their victims.
Getting someone sober is a lot like teaching them to fish ...
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday May 27 2014, @04:10AM
Yes, really bad for your business of selling fish (or prisons) :)
Do agree with you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26 2014, @04:44PM
I for one didn't. On the other hand I have no experience with addicts.
Not me. I believe most addicts are fairly harmless.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 26 2014, @05:55PM
Unfortunately, there you would be wrong. Addicts are some of the most dangerous creatures in the world.
Don't ever forget that. We will pull you down before you even know what happened. That includes your own children and your own parents. Really difficult to get a grip on that, but I have seen some real bad situations. I have friends that murdered their own parents, or pimped their own kids, for drug money.
Like I said, there's a reason that folks hate us. Lots of perfectly good, justifiable reasons.
We are mostly self-destructive, but self-destructive folks are dangerous to all those they interact with.
It's difficult to work with addicts, because it is a situation fraught with risk. However, no one else really wants the job, and those that do want it, aren't especially good at it (including the ones that do it on TV). There's a lot of folks that like to fleece desperate people for money. Lots of folks get rich selling snake oil to families of addicts. That's one of the big reasons that it is so difficult to get rehabilitation covered by insurance, these days.
If you want a job done right, you got to do it yourself, as they say.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday May 26 2014, @11:09PM
A friend of mine recently lost a dear friend of hers to addiction. Another friend of mine has gone from being a bright articulate woman to being a moron all because a boyfriend introduced her to heroin. Believe me, I know and sympathize with addicts.
If it were up to me, as a non-addict who doesn't want addicts doing serious irreversible harm to me or anyone else:
- If someone were picked up solely for something harmless like jaywalking while strung out, I believe the correct response is not throwing them in jail but helping them get clean.
- Addiction is, in my experience, a reaction to something else going horribly wrong in a person's life. Some reasons people I know have been addicted: PTSD after a tour of duty in Vietnam, unrequited love, being gay but trying to act straight (or vice versa), parental abuse, and diagnosed but not properly treated mental illness. So to truly get an addict clean, you have to deal with the underlying problem.
- Drug use does not in any way absolve somebody of responsibility for their actions. If you did something because you were high on angel dust, you're just as guilty as if you did the same thing for other reasons.
- Making drug abuse illegal does, at best, nothing useful in solving the problem.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 27 2014, @01:03PM
Must admit this was a bit of an experiment. I pretty much knew what the outcome would be, but decided to try it anyway.
The truth is no fun at all. Especially this kind of truth. Nevertheless, it is Truth. Addicts don't make up all of the prison population, but they do make up the majority of it.
Look at where most of the comments on this thread went.
Human nature is sadly predictable.
"War talk by men who have been in a war is always interesting; whereas moon talk by a poet who has not been in the moon is likely to be dull."
Mark Twain
Lots of moon talk, here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 27 2014, @02:31PM
I should add that by "thread", I meant the entire comments section.
There were two main posts by folks with direct, relevant experience at "ground truth" on the matter: mine, and the chap recounting his CP conviction.
Neither of us has actually been incarcerated, but we both have more direct, relevant experience with the system. Mr. CP is dealing with the aftermath of his experience. Mine was all juvenile (but was very, very bad). I've been in recovery for over 30 years (That's 30+ years of NO DRUGS AT ALL -including the completely legal, and very powerful sedative/hypnotic drug alcohol). In that time, I have spent most of my free time hanging with folks who have very, very real experience in being incarcerated.
Most of these folks come out with severe PTSD. Their lives are in ruins, and they are treated as pariahs. I know of many who have made it past the roadblocks (some, amazingly so), but they are exceptions. The vast majority of folks spend the rest of their lives impoverished and shunned; even if they never commit another crime.
We will do things like arrest a kid for possession of an ounce of pot (DAs like to turn this into a "dealing" felony offense), throw them into a prison with hardened gang-bangers, where they are raped and beaten half to death, get a nazi neck tattoo, just to stay alive, and then get thrown out into a world where the best they can hope for is a job washing dishes.
In civilized countries (including some that we like to sneer at), records are sealed after a few years of not offending. This allows felons to truly rehabilitate. They are also absolutely appalled at the brutality of our prisons.
Since the US is not actually a civilized nation, we get what we get.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday May 27 2014, @09:54AM
One of the saddest things about this report is that people don't give a shit about the massive injustice until someone writes a report that puts it in economic terms. Then, suddenly, as soon as money is involved it all becomes "oh noes think of all the wrongly-imprisoned people."
Something is fucked with our priorities.