|
|
 Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
And then you got to the conclusion of the article as well, which was the nice graphic at the end. Far and away the most means you have to start somewhere to reduce the numbers, right? Or are you happy with the status quo?
First of all, why do we want to reduce the numbers? If all of those people are in there for doing bad things, then I'm fine with that. In my experience, I've found it's pretty easy to avoid prison. Why is it some badge of honor to have a low rate of imprisonment? Maybe our cops are just better at their jobs.
Second, let's say, hypothetically, that we did want to reduce the numbers, for whatever reason. What did the article say was driving the mass incarcerations? Hint: it's not drugs. So why would legalizing drugs be where you start?
Violent crime in the 70's and early 80's was out of friggen control. We tightened up, and came down hard on the offenders. Alot of them are still alive, and still in prison. Maybe we should discuss clemency for the elderly prisoners who have shown to be reformed. Maybe we should reduce the number of years imprisonment we sentence for crimes. Maybe we should allow prisoners more ways to rehabilitate themselves and earn early release. Maybe there are a dozen other options I haven't thought of.
But legalizing drugs seems like the last thing I would try.
Seems crazy to me that you made the argument for legalizing drugs as a means to end mass incarceration, and you supported that argument with an article titled "Legalizing drugs won't end Mass Incarcerations".
But you accuse me of saying 1 + 1 = 49.
|
Reply With Quote