Another Something That Obama Has Done Nothing About

I'm no Obama drone, but he probably has more authority over Gitmo than over the American penal system.

Well, these particular abuses of the American penal system are based on the Drug War. Obama's attorney general started to do something about the drug war and then backed off. What Obama has done is supported it among those countries in the Western hemisphere, many of which are being reduced to chaos by its effects.

But, of course, as your type of libertarian you are more interested in important things like defining "initiation of force."

>3 lawecon:
Would be far more expensive and intrusive to wage a "Drug War" correctly. Coming down on the Black community is easier. They have little or no money with which to clog up the court systems. Many of them do not have the criminal savey of a white collar criminal (some of whom I am pretty sure use or distribute their own fair share of drugs) Nor do they have the same kind of "cover up" if you will. If they are spending money on luxury items it is far easier to suspect a Black man who is either unemployed or under employed of drug related activities than a CPA or assistant manager.

I think the term is a "slam dunk" as opposed to actual work.....costly work at that. Not to mention the political implications of some of the measures that need addressing.

A concern of mine has been the continued privatization of the prison systems. Keeping these institutions at maximum and even over populated levels is going to be of benefit to private business. Easier to incarcerate the poor than those with money for a good defense. Also very easy for poor behavior on the part of the system. Was already a case of a judge sending kids to a private juvenile prison system without justification.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/mark-ciavarella-pa-juvenile-court-judge-convicted-alleg...

I believe Jan Brewer of Arizona has ties to private prisons.

http://ndn.org/blog/2010/08/az-governor-jan-brewer-sb1070-and-private-prisons

This may or may not be part of the problem today but I can't see how it is going to help in regards to the Drug War and the continued "Jim Crow" issues.

As usual, face, we don't quite agree.

No, there is no way to wage a drug war "correctly," any more than there was a way to wage prohibition "correctly."

Yes, if you're going to engage in this farce, it is easier to come down on people who are on average poor and ignorant and unable to defend themselves. One of the things that this book talks about is the difference in the conviction rate between poor Blacks and reasonably well off Blacks. Can't imagine why that is, and I'm sure you wouldn't have a clue, other than some postulated conspiracy by lawyers and judges.

Yes, those who benefit from the War On Drugs support it vehemently. That includes prison workers - WHETHER PUBLIC BUREAUCRATS OR PRIVATE ENTREPRENEURS - and politicians who appeal to stupid people. This author presents evidence that prior to the War On Drugs being redeclared under Reagan, there was a general decline in prison populations to the point where many experts thought that there would be few or no prisons in 20 years. Hence, the declaration of a "problem" proceeded the problem.

One of the points made by this author is that, holding wealth constant, Blacks still get arrested and convicted for "drug offenses" much more than Whites. That is also not surprising. When the State is conceived of as an instrumentality of "upholding morals" those persons who "we all know" are of lower morality are, of course, the targets of enforcement and prosecutions for "morals crimes." The "knowledge" that Blacks are "naturally" of low morals is still very much with us. Never mind the protests that no one believes such a thing (wink, wink).

Guess the "war on drugs" makes as much sense as the "war on terror". If a war is to be waged it should be a war on drug usage, just as the war on terror should be addressed as a war on acts of terror and that which causes such acts.

"One of the things that this book talks about is the difference in the conviction rate between poor Blacks and reasonably well off Blacks. Can't imagine why that is, and I'm sure you wouldn't have a clue" (chosing to ignore the last nine words of the sentence)

Are you really surprised by the findings of the book ? American's like to think that they've come a long way on racism but I'm not so sure about that. What was once out in the open is now hidden, sometimes so well that even those guilty of racism don't recognize it for what it is. Not much different than sexism.
I suppose this is an important book but then again, it seems that what the author is pointing out is very evident. But then, the treatment of our current President has much to do with racism and many individuals would argue that it is not. Bull........

"This author presents evidence that prior to the War On Drugs being redeclared under Reagan, there was a general decline in prison populations to the point where many experts thought that there would be few or no prisons in 20 years. Hence, the declaration of a "problem" proceeded the problem."

Does the evidence take into consideration the financial differences between the 80s and today ? The expanding market for drugs coupled with a flat/declining economy for the lower middle class and fewer opportunities for the poor, makes the money involved with drugs look pretty inviting today. Of course if dealing drugs were not a felony there were would be fewer prisoners. Given the American habit to abuse most everything we get our hands on, not too sure we wouldn't be replacing one problem with another.

"That includes prison workers - WHETHER PUBLIC BUREAUCRATS OR PRIVATE ENTREPRENEURS "

Agree that waste in government is rampart and public bureaucrats are not above self serving when it comes to job security, but neither I do not like the thought of private facilities, as I feel that big business has even less scruples when it comes to the bottom line.

where many experts thought that there would be few or no prisons in 20 years

Any experts who believed there'd be no prisons was surely not an expert, and was either politically or clinically crazy.

>5 lawecon: "This author presents evidence that prior to the War On Drugs being redeclared under Reagan, there was a general decline in prison populations to the point where many experts thought that there would be few or no prisons in 20 years."

I agree with you that the 'war on drugs' has been a disaster-- both within the U.S. and in Latin America. But 'few or no prisons in 20 years'? Impossible. Unless they planned to do something else with criminals beside put them in prison. (Executions? Transport them to a penal colony? Galley ships?)

Actually, the crime rate in the U.S. climbed sharply in the 1960s and especially '70s, peaking the year Ronald Reagan was elected, which was why the 'war on drugs' was initially quite popular. Americans were alarmed by all the crime, and blamed drugs. Prisons were not running out of prisoners. Quite the opposite.

Here's a handy little pdf from JRSA (Justice Research and Statistics Association) on the topic:

http://www.jrsa.org/programs/Historical.pdf

I'd like to add "treatment and rehabilitation" as an alternative to prisons.

Once we remove the social reasons for crime, such as poverty and the criminalization of everyday behavior, what remains is mental illness.

(Surely the most affluent nation on earth could get rid of poverty in 20 years, if it really wanted to?)

Once we remove the social reasons for crime, such as poverty and the criminalization of everyday behavior, what remains is mental illness.

I don't want to be disagreeable, but I think we have the distilled essence of what is wrong with a certain view of crime. You often hear sentiments along these lines--justifying this or that crime as arising from a social condition, eliding evil and insanity, or imagining that we can reach some sort of social utopia--but I've never seen it expressed so baldly. I'd love to go through a list of criminal cases and have you tell me which are insanity and which are the result of which curable social problem! Shall we grab a crime report and go at it?

#3: What Obama has done is supported it among those countries in the Western hemisphere, many of which are being reduced to chaos by its effects.

You'll get no argument from me there. But I thought we were talking about the penal system (or at least the book does), not about an international drug war. Obama never promised to pardon all non-violent drug offenders. Even if he had kept his promise to respect state-level laws regarding the legalization of medical marijuana, I don't imagine the medical marijuana industry is disproportionately black enough to contribute at all towards correcting the problem. Or maybe you have to go easy on a bunch of white hippies first (who would happily throw blacks under the bus on this issue) before you're allowed to go easy on black people. In any case, not all the crap that happens in the US is the fault of the Dear Leader.

~7

"Any experts who believed there'd be no prisons was surely not an expert, and was either politically or clinically crazy."

Ah, another topic on which Tim is "an expert." Too bad that the actual experts, as usual, disagree with him Big Prisons, Big Dreams

~8

One of us is having problems reading charts. The booklet you recommend has a chart labeled United States Drug Arrest Rate, 1965–1998 that shows a decline in drug related arrest until 1981, the year Reagan was elected, with a sharp increase thereafter. While it also contains a chart labelled United States State Prison Population, 1925–1997, that shows a moderate increase in prison populations as a whole from three years prior to Reagan's election, the increase is steep thereafter.

One might almost conclude that imprisoning criminals and crime rates have nothing to do with each other, but that, of course, would be "looney."

~10

"I don't want to be disagreeable, but I think we have the distilled essence of what is wrong with a certain view of crime. You often hear sentiments along these lines--justifying this or that crime as arising from a social condition, eliding evil and insanity, or imagining that we can reach some sort of social utopia--but I've never seen it expressed so baldly. I'd love to go through a list of criminal cases and have you tell me which are insanity and which are the result of which curable social problem! Shall we grab a crime report and go at it?"

How about this as an alternative. We grab a list of crimes and you tell us (and actually support with statistics) which of these crimes is decreased by increased incarceration or other forms of typical ruin-the-criminal's-life "punishment." Want to go at it, or is your intuition a sufficient substitute for reality?

" In any case, not all the crap that happens in the US is the fault of the Dear Leader."

Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul, he'll solve it for us all.

You need to keep the slogans consistent.

>10 timspalding:
"--but I've never seen it expressed so baldly. I'd love to go through a list of criminal cases and have you tell me which are insanity and which are the result of which curable social problem! Shall we grab a crime report and go at it?"

Kind of makes the case for the book doesn't it ?

The criminal "element" ! Somehow when I hear those words I think of Wall Street, Big Banks and top end lawmakers.

Completely overlooked white collar crime, which is tolerated quite a bit by our society, as it is harder to prosecute and much harder to detect. If one really wants to get a picture of "crime" and accountablity we could look to some of the top lawmakers of this country who are guilty of war crimes and have failed to face the responsibily. How many hedge managers, bankers and CEOs were held accountable for the market crash ? Not sure if the book touches on how much this type of crime costs society as opposed to crimes committed by the "poor", the "insane", or people of color.

The first group of criminals are challenging, more expensive to process and require a fair amount of effort, the second group is easy, predictable and ensures that the penal system justifies it's existance.

Guess The War on Drugs was effective in that it turned all eyes on the "criminal element" in this country while those who have position and power were pretty free to commit other types of crimes. Costly crimes !

>13 lawecon:. Look at the first chart, showing the crime rate. It peaks in 1980. Also, the prison population was increasing, not decreasing prior to 1980. Granted, it has skyrocketed afterwards, but it was NOT declining as the 'experts' you quoted claimed.

The idea that prisons could have been eliminated in 20 years if it hadn't been for the war on drugs (20 years from 1980 = 2000. 12 years ago, in other words) is so absurd I can't believe any intelligent person could take it seriously.

We've been fighting a 'war' on drugs for over a century now.

We've lost.

It's really long past time (if the War on Drugs is truly about drug consumption) to admit that we've lost and make our peace with drug consumers and distributors.

Like most sumptary laws throughout history, the idea of banning and criminalizing certain products and activities keeps coming back as a method of social reform and control. And every time, it fails. But the desire to meddle and control the activities of 'little people' (for their own good, of course), and the desire for personal power, which is closely linked, is a human constant.

e. g.: consider that the penalties for the possesion of crack cocaine (a drug used primarily by blacks) are far stiffer than those for possession of powder cocaine (a drug used primarily by wealthy whites) and we see that mere outlawing of a pernicious habit that threatens the body politic is not the primary thrust of anti-drug legislation these days.

And that's not considering that enforcing laws against consensual crimes requires law enforcement officials to engage in activities that ultimately are corrosive and corrupting of those officials.

But the War on Drugs is bigger than Obama. He's certainly guilty of not doing what he can to end it, though.

It's definitely a race/wealth issue and it's funny that a younger Barack takes a wrong step here or a wrong step there and he might be sitting in a cell right now instead of the Oval Office. The perspective of many caucasian people when they see poor black people or go through a beaten looking urban area is that the people who live there somehow deserve their environment--it comes down to 'Get a job!'--'pick yourself up' and they refuse to see that opportunity isn't the same across the board. Young drug dealers might be predatory but in a way and very often they look at it as making it the capitalist way which tends towards a certain ruthlessness. Almost nobody ever wants to take a step back from their long held convictions or even question the general direction of convictions held by the majority viewpoint.

That Horatio Alger pull-yourself-up-with-your-own-bootstraps myth is a core American belief. And since a small percentage of people have come out of poverty, it should be easy for everyone and therefore anyone who remains poor deserves it.

Of course, many of those claiming to have done so actually started out in comfortably affluent surroundings. In their defense, it's hard to see your own intrinsic privilege.

The 'war on drugs' has obviously failed, and created a lot of collateral social damage, not just within the US, but also in her Latin American neighbors. Yet, while many Americans might accept legalized marijuana, legalized cocaine, heroine, meth and PCP might be a harder sell.

Ah, another topic on which Tim is "an expert." Too bad that the actual experts, as usual, disagree with him Big Prisons, Big Dreams

I haven't read that book, but I've read a number of summaries and reviews of it now. None of them suggest that the author believes that we can, in fact, abolish prisons altogether. Whether the US overuses prisons—I agree it does—and may use them less in 20 years—maybe—are entirely different questions from whether we will abolish prisons in 20 years. I have no strong opinions about the others, but I will continue to contend that no experts, and precious few sane people, really believe prisons will cease to exist in 20 years. That you don't grasp the distinction between "fewer" and "none" is clear.

We grab a list of crimes and you tell us (and actually support with statistics) which of these crimes is decreased by increased incarceration or other forms of typical ruin-the-criminal's-life "punishment." Want to go at it, or is your intuition a sufficient substitute for reality?

Again, you misread. Whether or not a given crime will go up or down with more or less incarceration is an entirely different question from whether incarceration can be abolished altogether. There may indeed be crimes—drugs, for example—that we over-incarcerate for. We may over-incarcerate generally. That no crimes should ever result in incarceration is, I think, pretty silly stuff, and, barring alien invasion, the second coming or the zombie apocalypse, stands no chance of happening. Experts agree.

Well, there you go. I just, once again, misunderstood what you were "really saying."

That's not really a response. I can infer from it that really think that eradication of all prisons isn't silly? Apparently you got me, but your opinions are childish.

~24

Yes, Tim, very TOS-like. When you have no real arguments or facts to bring against a position, it becomes "childish" or "clinically crazy" or any of your other conclusory (and totally unconvincing) statements regarding views that offend your uninformed intuitions. And thank Tim that those outbursts aren't violations of the rules of this game. After all, what would happen if there was some sort of requirement that a position be taken seriously and met with reasoned argument or contrary evidence.

But, as Bob reminds us in an adjacent thread, this is just a chat room, and will never be anything better.

#15: Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul, he'll solve it for us all. You need to keep the slogans consistent.

Your tourettic ditherings aside, I don't see how your baseless claim that I would think Ron Paul could magically solve everything has anything to do with your inability to understand spheres of influence.

25> It seems that you're unhappy here. Why don't you try somewhere else.

Human beings have been committing crimes (as defined by the society they live in) for as long as recorded history.

Some of those crimes (e.g. heresy) are no longer criminal in many societies. Others (e.g. theft) still are crimes.

Earlier societies had the options of exile, fines, corporal punishment, or death. (Imprisonment came later, when there were enough spare resources to support people who contributed nothing to the overall survival of society.)

Exile really isn't an option anymore. Western societies eschew corporal punishment for adults. That leaves fines, death and imprisonment.

Since there's really no evidence that people have become 'better' in the 8000+ years of recorded history, we're left with the fact that some people will commit criminal acts. And, if left unpunished or restrained, will continue to do so (insert coporate bank joke here). It may be possible to reduce the number/percentage of prisons and the prison population; this may very well be a good thing. But it's highly doubtful that we could reasonably eliminate incarceration altogether.

There are those intuition based nonsequiturs again. "Anarchism" is chaos. Direct democracy "can't work." (A little arsenic never hurt anyone, but one cannot do without it.)

"We" can't do without incarceration, because, ah, because "Human beings have been committing crimes (as defined by the society they live in) for as long as recorded history," and criminals have no prospect to contribute anything to the survival of society. (Nevermind the contradiction that you yourself point out that society did without incarceration for centuries.)

Every time you go off on one of these rants, I give you links, but they never have an effect. Perhaps this time:

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/litigation/materials/s...

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/uncategorized/criminal_justice/Turnin...

http://www.abajournal.comwww.abajournal.com/news/article/how_criminal_defendants...

http://www.abanow.org/wordpress/wp-content/files_flutter/1267822188_20_1_1_7_Upl...

http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_...

~27

Thanks for the suggestion. I will give it the consideration it deserves. (Now if I said something like that the post would be awash in red flags. Anyone interested in a wager as to how many red flags this post draws?)

>29 lawecon: You haven't been listening to what we've been saying, Lawecon. We all agree that the incarceration rate in the U.S. is too high. It's just that none of us believe your statement:

"there was a general decline in prison populations to the point where many experts thought that there would be few or no prisons in 20 years." (post #5)

I have shown statistics that contradict that statement, quite clearly. Crime rates were rising and the prison population was increasing, prior to 1980, and the proclaimed 'war on drugs'.

Do you still stand by your statement in post 5? Or can you admit you were wrong (or at least the author of the book was wrong) and we can move on to a more profitable debate?

By the way, Lawecon, I read the first pdf you linked to. It says nothing about eliminating prisons altogether, just how to reduce prison populations. Rhode Island, their 'model', reduced prison populations by 9%. A remarkable achievement, but still a long way from the 100% necessary to close all the prisons in the state.

As I pointed out, the distinction between reducing prison populations and eliminating them is lost somehow. He jumped down my throat for saying the latter wasn't something experts predicted would happen within 20 years, when we all know it's not just experts but anyone with a grip on reality. It's just bizarre. Say "experts think earth and the moon unlikely to hit each other this year" and you get raked over the coal for bogus reliance on experts.

~31

Mad, as is typical in these threads you or another chatterer have picked up on a small side point and have attempted to make it the theme of the thread. (High school debate still with you, is it?) I am not playing that game. Prisons simply don't work. It is not that "the rate of incarceration is too high," it is that prisons create "hardened criminals" out of those who mostly were easily reformable to start with, and in many instances had committed acts that shouldn't haven't been crimes to start with.. This push for prisons as a solution to increased crime is a nonsequitur - just like most of the Fox News "solutions" to this and other social problems.

To be frank, mad, neither you nor I nor Tim nor anyone else posting to this thread knows what criminologists were saying in the 70s. The literature from that period is all in dead tree form and is not easily accessible to those who do not have a major specialized library near them. I, at least, am relying on an expert with quite impressive credentials and contemporary criminologists and lawyers specialized in tha field. You and Tim are not. Why don't you try admitting that so we can get on to a more productive issue - the issue of what really to do about crime.

~33

"As I pointed out, the distinction between reducing prison populations and eliminating them is lost somehow. He jumped down my throat for saying the latter wasn't something experts predicted would happen within 20 years, when we all know it's not just experts but anyone with a grip on reality. It's just bizarre. Say "experts think earth and the moon unlikely to hit each other this year" and you get raked over the coal for bogus reliance on experts."

Ah yes, the "experts are insane ranters with no touch with reality while my intuitions are Truth embodied" line. Well, keep at it Tim. That hocus pocus has worked for centuries, mostly in collapsing civilizations, The uninformed mob always wants to be flattered by being told how bright its "common sense" already is without any needed work. I'm sure you will be successful as someone who supplies that flattery and assurance.

After all, look at what you've created in these forums - a product that is so impressive that the founder of one of the major ones was moved to wipe it out of existence out of disgust. Amazing, isn't it, since the discussion in that forum was all strictly within TOS.

Mad, as is typical in these threads you or another chatterer have picked up on a small side point and have attempted to make it the theme of the thread.

Judging by the subject of this thread it seems that it's theme is a jab at Obama for not having a solution for every problem on the Earth. I think most people have wisely not taken you up on that topic.

I am not playing that game. Prisons simply don't work. It is not that "the rate of incarceration is too high," it is that prisons create "hardened criminals" out of those who mostly were easily reformable to start with, and in many instances had committed acts that shouldn't haven't been crimes to start with.

Despite being the "theme" this is the first time you've mentioned this aspect of the problem.

I had a teacher in High School who told us that the problem with prisons is that society couldn't decide if they should be for punishment or rehabilitation. If they were for one or the other they could spend all their resources on that and do a good job of it, but as it is they couldn't do either well.

So, if we didn't have prisons, what would you have society do with thieves, for example, cut off their hands?

>35 lawecon:.

*sigh* That's not even close to what Tim was saying.

Well, L.E., while it's been kind of sadistic fun to watch you flail around like a fish on a hook, knowing you are caught saying something stupid, but doing everything you can to avoid admitting it, I've had enough. Good luck, Tim!

#29

Link #1: too many people are being incarcerated.

Link #2: too many people are being incarcerated

Link #3: collective action by criminal defendants could wreck the current system.

Link #4: Changes should be made to the current system of sentencing/incarceration

Link #5: criminalizing drugs has had huge negative consequences

There's really no disagreement with any of those conclusions by most of the people here on LT. But even the first two links stated that until drugs were being seriously targeted by authorities, the rate/percentage of incarceration remained both relatively steady and comparable to Eurpoean nations. And the commentator found no problem with that; it was the unprecedented jump in the numbers they had a problem with. Link #4 proposed changes, but at no point suggested the elimination of prisons.

If you have solved a problem that has beset mankind for at least the 8000+ years of recorded history (and almost certainly longer than that), then perhaps you should be writing it down and gaining your due reward for such a breakthrough in human society, Lawecon. It certainly would be a better use of your valuable time than wasting it posting to an unappreciative audience.

Crime can be whatever the fuck--pretty much. Punishment is far more tangible. Those American 'pioneers' going west pretty much took away whatever land they wanted from people who had been living there for centuries. That was a form of legalized theft--resistance to which became a 'crime'--along comes the Calvary. And more or less the inheriting generations figure they have every right to inherit on the fruits of these crimes. People--particularly wealthy people--or banks and corporations are ever expanding on legalized theft of money, property, services etc.--and hardly ever will anyone be held accountable to spend a night in jail unless it's for some kind of charity event.

Those who have the least are the ones who are targeted the most. To have is to belong--to have not makes you suspicious in the eyes of the law--makes you easy to prosecute in the courts which makes both law enforcement and the courts look as if they're accomplishing something and gives an almost always uneasy public a degree of safety and security or the illusion to the the great majority that they are on the right side of things. Back to those with the least--no doubt they are often envious but envy runs throughout a society from top to bottom.

What's funny is I've been watching http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_abolition_movement , and I keep having a desire to gut the page. Yes, yes, we (or at least I) agree the American prison system sucks. Race, drugs, rehabilitation, working as a finishing school for crooks, yes, yes, got it. Most of that can be summarized by single sentences pointing to other Wikipedia articles. Where's the meat? What are we going to replace prisons with? What are we going to do with serial killers and rapists that get released on the streets? How are we going to discourage people from other lesser crimes? I'm not saying I have to agree with the answers, but proponents haven't even bothered adding the answers to the article.

~37

"*sigh* That's not even close to what Tim was saying.

Well, L.E., while it's been kind of sadistic fun to watch you flail around like a fish on a hook, knowing you are caught saying something stupid, but doing everything you can to avoid admitting it, I've had enough. Good luck, Tim!"

O.K., well I may be totally wrong. Since you know what Tim was saying, help me out. What I heard was that "Any experts who believed there'd be no prisons was surely not an expert, and was either politically or clinically crazy." and, subsequently, that said experts were "childish". This was in reaction to my statement, which Tim quoted, that "many experts thought that there would be few or no prisons in 20 years."

Perhaps you can present the evidence that Tim failed to present of the craziness or childishness of such experts or that projection of a perceived trend is either childish or crazy.

Waiting with great eagerness for your thoughtful response.

~40

So, you would concur that people with such goals are, per se, either crazy or childish?

It is so nice to have a consensus. Now about the frogs and warts...........

While you're at it, you might explain what was done with the very few such people of the type you mention prior to the existence of prisons. Or are you under the impression that prisons are of an eternal character?

Incidentally, thanks for the link. Perhaps the other posters to this thread should read it to see what crazy and childish look like in their essence. Or maybe they should just read it for the information contained in it. (Those that aren't gifted with intuitions that already give them immediate access to the REALLY REAL.)

>42 lawecon:

You've shifted grounds. The question I, at least, was addressing was not goals but whether it was reasonable to believe—then or now—that prisons would disappear in 20 years. I continue to maintain—and you apparently agree, since you only disagree with things I didn't say—that people who think that prisons will in fact disappear in 20 years are not in good touch with reality. The political will, culture, not to mention the law itself would need to undergo a radical, radical transformation before a strong national consensus decided to abolish prisons. You might as well imagine a majority of the population agreeing to the abolition of property, raising all children in common, eliminating the US military and replacing all police forces with roving, licensed social workers. People who really that's sort of change is doable soon might have their heart in the right place. They might want the right things. They may well get fewer prisons. But those are all different issues.

'wecon at #25: But, as Bob reminds us in an adjacent thread, this is just a chat room, and will never be anything better.

That's the second lie he's told about me this week. I've certainly never said the second half of the statement he attributes to me: that (again) is something that exists only in his head.

(Again: 'wecon will refuse to provide a cite where I've ever said anything at all like that.)

Oh, and BTW, the fact that 'wecon can shorten usernames arbitrarily and assume that people will still know who he's talking about rather proves that "Talk" is just chat on the the internet.

#40: Where's the meat? What are we going to replace prisons with? What are we going to do with serial killers and rapists that get released on the streets?

Pepsi: The refreshment from the people who keep Charles Manson on ice. Donald Draper, eat your heart out.

~43

And here is my continuing problem with what you said before and the quite different thing you are saying now:

(1) You haven't read and you hadn't read the arguments and research behind the conclusion I was referring to. Your reaction was simply to the summary statement that ""many experts thought that there would be few or no prisons in 20 years." As you plainly stated "Any experts who believed there'd be no prisons was surely not an expert, and was either politically or clinically crazy." and, you subsequently said that anyone who endorsed that conclusion was "childish".

As I stated above, that appears to me to be the same sort of claim of special access to reality through gifted intuition that is often made in these forums by, e.g., faceinbook. I don't see any other way to read it. You didn't look at the evidence, you just "knew." You have "common sense," other people don't.

I don't think that is a responsible way to argue, and anyone who truly believes that they have this sort of special insight into what MUST BE true, followed up by denunciation of any other conclusion about reality as "crazy" or "childish," is someone whose own fundamental sanity is properly in question. (I don't know whether you truly believe such a thing or not, but what you said is plain above.)

(2) What you didn't say previously was anything about "political realities" or changing social perceptions. I tend to agree with this entirely new point. That it is an entirely new point is evidenced not only by my initial reaction but the "defense" of what was evidently your position by those such as madpoet. Everyone outside of you believed that you were claiming that it was simply inconceivable that the use of prisons to control crime could be radically reduced or abolished, not that it was politically infeasible. I wonder now how the posters above, who thought you were taking the position of impossiblity and took it themselves, feel, now that you have pulled the rug out from under them by implicitly admitting that such an arrangement is possible, but that Americans are simply not ready for it.

Everyone outside of you believed that you were claiming that it was simply inconceivable that the use of prisons to control crime could be radically reduced or abolished, not that it was politically infeasible.

Here's what Tim actually wrote:

Any experts who believed there'd be no prisons was surely not an expert, and was either politically or clinically crazy.

He was only responding to the "abolished" part of what you wrote, not the "few" part. And it's quite clear to me that he isn't saying why it's impossible, whether politically infeasible or something else. If you wanted to know why you could have asked him to expand on his answer.

(1) You haven't read and you hadn't read the arguments and research behind the conclusion I was referring to.

And if you expect me, or I suspect, anyone else, to go off and read a whole book before I can respond to your posts then you're the one who's crazy. If they have valid arguments, then you can summarize them here, otherwise you're just arguing from authority.

~47

It is really nice to have all these people speaking for Tim. But could you either speak for yourselves or butt out.

As for your question of whether I expect you (or anyone else) to examine arguments and evidence for a position before concluding that it and the person advocating said position are "crazy" or "childish," the answer is - only if you don't want to be dismissed as a know-nothing crank. Of course if that is your goal, go to it.

Well, you did say this, but I guess your curiosity doesn't extend to actually wanting to hear what other posters thought.

I wonder now how the posters above, who thought you were taking the position of impossiblity and took it themselves, feel, now that you have pulled the rug out from under them by implicitly admitting that such an arrangement is possible, but that Americans are simply not ready for it.

~49

Nice dodge. Not at all convincing, but you do try (or something like "try").

And your mother wears army boots. Are we having fun?

Now we're getting somewhere.

~51 and 52

Yes, I'm having as much fun as I usually do when you and krolik show up and start with your diversions and irrelevancies. I just keep having to remind myself: it is only a chat room.

Incidentally, "Hi, Bob." Nice to see you in your element. I'd respond to your repeated whining about not being addressed with your full title, but it wouldn't be appropriate to take your concern that seriously. After all, it is only a chat room.

You didn't take the hint Law. Tit for tat.

#42: Amazing. Lawecon ignored what I said completely.

very few such people of the type you mention prior to the existence of prisons.

They got burning hot pokers shoved up their ass. They got drawn and quartered. They got sent to Australia. (IIRC, the US proposal to send our prisoners to Australia nearly started WWIII.) And, as Steven Pinker points out in A History of Violence, the murder rate in fourteenth century England was 40 times that in the early 1960s; so saying they did things differently in fourteenth century England does not in itself convince me that going back to that way is a good thing.

>53 lawecon:
Always happy to bring out the funster in you. When experiencing the damp, drizzly November of my soul, I remind myself of this role. It gives me a purpose.

Lawecon's own links do not support his position; (Link #5 refers to Link #4, btw).

From Link #4: RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges states, territories and the federal government to ensure that sentencing systems provide appropriate punishment without overreliance on incarceration as a criminal sanction...

Note the phrasing here. Not that incarceration should be abandoned; merely that the current system relies on incarceration too much. Which is supported by the other links, which oppose the century-old War on Drugs (and its comparatively recent escalation). And the resultant wave of drug-related criminals created by that escalation.

Which is actually a position I support. Whether Obama COULD do more to end the madness I'm unsure; that he hasn't done very much is clear.

I don't think there's an argument here. I think we're having arguments with misrepresentations and misreadings, and crankiness.

I think people are poking at Lawcon in the hope he will once again explode.

~59

Well, don't worry about it, Simon, because I'm not going to bother.

If some people can't read what has been said and can't respond to a reasonable interpretation of it - rather than making up a straw man - then they're not worth getting irritated about.

After all, they are just proving Bob's point: they think that they are participating in a chat room (or high school debate or free association) - and really wouldn't want to participate in anything more serious.

And I do want to thank Bob for repeating this perspective. It does tend to defuse people like me who have this innate and persistent prejudice that most people either are, or easily can become, intelligent and rational if they just work at it a bit. I keep forgetting, or blocking, the fact that half of the population has an I.Q. under 100 and that Fox News is the most popular news show in America.