Mass incarceration

James Comey Has Craptacular Opinions on Mass Incarceration and Prosecutors

The former top G-Man thinks "mass incarceration" is a misnomer and that taking Martha Stewart down was pretty much the work of God.

|

A soon-to-be-disappointed customer // Justin Ng/Retna/Avalon.red/Newscom

Former FBI chief James Comey has been storming the airwaves this week to promote A Higher Loyalty, his very-sincere-and-definitely-not-an-attempt-to-burnish-his-reputation-and-cash-in-on-getting-fired-by-the-president memoir.

While much of the buzz around the book involves its comments on Donald Trump, Comey is a career lawman, which means A Higher Loyalty also filled with spicy takes on criminal justice, paeans to the rule of law, and sweaty odes to the great and powerful institutions that save us from anarchy.

Over on Twitter, freelance writer Patrick Blanchfield has been reading through Comey's new book and flagging particularly dumb passages about criminal justice. He's been busy.

For example, here is Comey recalling a meeting he had with Barack Obama, where he explained to the president that the term "mass incarceration" is really quite mean to police and prosecutors:

Although I agreed that the jailing of so many black men was a tragedy, I also shared how a term he used, "mass incarceration"—to describe what, in his view, was a national epidemic of locking up too many people—struck the ears of those of us who had dedicated much of our lives to trying to reduce crime in minority neighborhoods….I thought the term was both inaccurate and insulting to a lot of good people in law enforcement who cared deeply about helping people trapped in dangerous neighborhoods. It was inaccurate in the sense that there was nothing "mass" about the incarceration: every defendant was charged individually, represented individually by counsel, convicted by a court individually, reviewed on appeal individually, and incarcerated. That added up to a lot of people in jail, but there was nothing "mass" about it, I said. And the insulting part, I explained, was the way it cast as illegitimate the efforts by cops, agents, and prosecutors—joined by the black community—to rescue hard-hit neighborhoods.

"Mass incarceration" may be a slippery term, but it strains credulity to argue there's nothing "mass" about a 500 percent rise in the U.S. prison population over 40 years. This historically unprecedented warehousing of human beings wasn't an accident or something the country just stumbled into. It was a result of deliberate policies by state and federal officials, a shift to what Berkeley law professor Jonathan Simon calls "total incapacitation."

To put this in some perspective, California had 20,000 prisoners in 1977. By 2003, it had 160,000. Between 1980 and 2000, the Golden State built 20 new prisons to house inmates created by its punitive laws.

Here's what that rise looked like nationally:

The Sentencing Project

And while Comey is correct that defendants are sentenced individually, not collectively, there's nothing individual about the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines that lawmakers passed to fill all those new prisons.

Such guidelines take away a judge's ability to weigh defendants' character, circumstances, and future prospects, essentially turning judges into little more than rubber stamps during sentencing hearings. Read Reason's investigation of Florida's mandatory minimum sentencing laws to see judges making comments to just that effect. ("Under this set of circumstances, this court does nothing more than perform an administerial function. I sign the papers. I'm on autopilot.") Mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines also transferred discretion from the judiciary to the prosecutors, who proved to be remarkably aggressive in pursuing criminal charges even as crime rates fell throughout the late '90s and early 2000s.

Claiming the term "mass incarceration" is insulting to law enforcement is an attempt to replace the real target of criminal justice reformers—the policies, institutions, and political imperatives that incentivize and protect bad policing and overzealous prosecutions—with the ostensibly well-meaning frontline of law enforcement, whose feelings must be preserved.

Oh, but Comey isn't done. He also has bad opinions on the rule of law.

Readers might remember that Martha Stewart was sentenced to five months in federal prison in 2004 as a result of an insider trading investigation. The businesswoman and homemaker extraordinaire wasn't actually convicted of securities fraud. The feds could only make the charges of conspiracy, obstruction, and false statements stick.

Because almost everyone intentionally or unintentionally tells falsehoods to the FBI, it's a common tactic for federal prosecutors to ring up defendants on a smorgasbord of charges, confident that they'll at least get a conviction for false statements. Think that's unjust? For Comey, it's nothing less than preserving the fabric of society like an Old Testament God:

The Stewart experience reminded me that the justice system is an honor system. We really can't always tell when people are lying or hiding documents, so when we are able to prove it, we simply must do so as a message to everyone.

There was once a time when most people worried about going to hell if they violated an oath taken in the name of God. That divine deterrence has slipped away from our modern cultures. In its place, people must fear going to jail. they must fear their lives being turned upside down. They must fear their pictures splashed on newspapers and websites. People must fear having their name forever associated with a criminal act if we are to have a nation with a rule of law. Martha Stewart lied, blatantly, in the justice system. To protect the institution of justice, and reinforce a culture of truth-telling, she had to be prosecuted. I am very confident that should the circumstance arise, Martha Stewart would not lie to federal investigators again.

It takes an incredible amount of self-regard to imagine one is doing the work of the Almighty in a fallen world. Luckily, James Comey is up to the job.

NEXT: Young People Are Shifting Left on Abortion

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. C.J. has a job where he gets to use Craptacular in a headline.

    I am envious.

    1. Start making extra cash from home and get paid weekly… By completing freelance jobs you get online… I do this three hr every day, for five days weekly and I earn in this way an extra $2500 each week…

      Go this web and start your work.. Good luck…… http://www.jobs63.com

      1. FUCK! YOU! TO! DEATH! WITH! A! CHAINSAW!

        1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

          This is what I do… http://www.jobs63.com

  2. Good thing he got canned.

    1. Yes, the excerpts from his book really drive home the joy that he no longer heads the FBI.

      1. Another smart move on Trump’s part.

        1. Apart from the fact that it initiated an obstruction of justice case against him.

  3. …every defendant was charged individually, represented individually by counsel, convicted by a court individually, reviewed on appeal individually, and incarcerated.

    Sure, in an assembly-line-to-a-coerced-plea-deal sort of way.

    1. I noticed his usage of “convicted by a court” as well. Which allows one to sleight-of-hand around how many plea deals take place, and how often juries are not involved.

    2. I guess the true horror of the holocaust was the ‘industrial’ process of murdering people.

      It would have been so much better if each death had been bespoke.

  4. The legalization of abortion might be a factor. It reduced the number of Gen-Xers relative to the number of Baby Boomers so that by the time Baby Boomers bought homes in the suburbs, it was feasible to arrest the oldest of the Gen-Xers to keep that property safe. The rebellious age tends to be 15 to 30. That’s when kids who were spanked most of their lives get big enough to realize that they might have a shot if they start hitting back.

    1. You think convictions went up because the number of criminals went down? That’s a new one.

  5. If Reason doesn’t break down the prison population by categories like violent recidivist, violent first-time offender, perpetrators of theft or fraud, drug offenders, etc., how can we avoid a constant pendulum-style swing between getting soft on violent recidivist felons and imposing huge sentences for everything under the sun?

    If anyone can promote a golden-mean position on this, it’s Reason and those with similar philosophies of what should be a crime in the first place.

    1. The problem here is that the War on Drugs has muddled the waters regarding what is an actual violent crime vice what has been deemed so in order to get at those horrible drug dealers.

      Some dude selling a dime with a pistol on his pocket is, by legal definition, committing a vient crime.

    2. That wood be a good study. Public records for a year or so, break down of charges by time. Additionally, if possible, initial charges and time versus actual charges and time into at least two categories, pleas versus trial (in addition to criminal category).

  6. So, just an all around piece of shit, huh? I’d expect nothing less from the head of the FBI.

  7. “people must fear going to jail. they must fear their lives being turned upside down. They must fear their pictures splashed on newspapers and websites. People must fear having their name forever associated with a criminal act if we are to have a nation with a rule of law.”

    Which is why Comey and Clinton are in prison today, you double-standard-having POS?

    1. What an absurd statement. I can feel the bile rising in my throat at how much a piece of shit he must have been to write that. And worse, a piece of shit in a high place of extreme power.

      1. Martha Stewart, despite her wealth, was “little people.” A juicy target, a resume-booster for whoever put her away, but little people nonetheless.

        Clapper was part of the governing class, someone whose unpleasant duties included concealing information from Congress. Sure, that was technically illegal, but he was part of the club, it’s not something he should lose his freedom over. Rule of law is for the normies.

        1. She could have been the most powerful person in the world, but if your overriding reason is inflicting fear on the populace then you should not be in a position of power.

          1. The key word is “populace.” Obviously Comey doesn’t want public officials to live in fear that the crimes they commit in office will come back to bite them on the ass.

          2. What’s also concerning is the revealed belief that the only reason people ever have to behave morally is the fear of violent punishment.

            How do these people think morality exists in the first place?

            1. They think it’s made up by superior people like them as something to be obeyed by inferiors.

        2. I’ll bet Comey’s wife has a lot to do with his actions.
          She seems like a particular piece of shit that would control whomever was stupid enough to be with her.

    2. Oops, Clapper and Clinton, my bad.

    3. “Steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot, and they make you king”. B. Dylan

      1. “Steal a lot, it’s called eminent domain.”

        1. Get it, lot?

          1. But sometimes when you steal a Lot, it’s incest.

        2. Or banking 🙂

        3. Or Too Big To Fail

  8. That divine deterrence has slipped away from our modern cultures. In its place, people must fear going to jail. they must fear their lives being turned upside down. They must fear their pictures splashed on newspapers and websites. People must fear having their name forever associated with a criminal act if we are to have a nation with a rule of law. Martha Stewart lied, blatantly, in the justice system. To protect the institution of justice, and reinforce a culture of truth-telling, she had to be prosecuted. I am very confident that should the circumstance arise, Martha Stewart would not lie to federal investigators again.

    Well, I had always been somewhat neutral on Comey, not really knowing much about him. But if this is his real views then he’s a monster, and fuck him.

    1. Comey’s also the guy who wanted Apple to build an encryption backdoor for the FBI.

    2. Seriously, what a dumpster fire of a human being.

      1. The excerpts from his book induce a slight amount of barfing in the mouth.

    3. “Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battlestation.”

      -Grand Moff Tarkin Comey

    4. Why is this monstrous? Negative reinforcement is a learning tool. Break the law, be punished, try again.

      I for one am outraged by the financial institution executives that skated on massive loan and securities fraud. Through their personal actions investors and customers were defrauded and who was made to pay? Their shareholders and the tax payer.

      1. You know who else thought unelected bureaucrats should have unlimited power to punish and shape the people?

        1. 1) The director of the FBI is confirmed by the Senate, which is elected by the people.
          2) District Attorneys are directly elected by the people.
          3) Statute limits the power of law enforcement to punish for obstruction and perjury.

          But in answer to your question: Monarchs, communists, capitalists, theocratics, technocrats, autocrats, and on and on…

          1. Thank God all those people know what’s best for us!

      2. Why is this monstrous? Negative reinforcement is a learning tool. Break the law, be punished, try again.

        Is that why the US has some of the highest crime rates – particularly violent crime – in the Western world?

        Yes, it’s going swimmingly.

        1. The US has crime because it has laws. People break those laws for a variety of reasons:

          1) Mental heath issues
          2) Substance abuse issues
          3) Socio/Economic Pressures

          A reform based justice system is something I would welcome. However, even the Scandinavian countries punish their law breakers to one degree or another.

          1. A “reform-based” justice system and a “vengeance-based” justice system are mutually exclusive. Which is a big part of why our prison system is a mess.

          2. A reform based justice system is something I would welcome. However, even the Scandinavian countries punish their law breakers to one degree or another.

            Scandinavian countries also have far lower crime and recidivism.

            Unfortunately, being a hardliner is more important in the US than actually lowering the crime rates. Because the answers are obvious, and politicians just get a bigger sledgehammer instead, so that clearly indicates that punishment is paramount, not lowering crime. Quite primitive.

            A lot of it comes from a difference in viewing human beings. The US laws basically assume that human beings are static, unchanging entities, and should be regarded by using the metrics of bad/good. But humans are more complex than that, and the justice system should reflect that.

    5. To protect the institution of justice, and reinforce a culture of truth-telling, she had to be prosecuted. I am very confident that should the circumstance arise, Martha Stewart would not lie to federal investigators again.

      Arnaud Amalric approves.

      1. SFed the link. But he’s the guy who said to just kill everyone and let God sort it out.

        1. I think ‘pour encouragera les autres’ is more appropriate here.

      2. Martha Stewart would hopefully do what she should have done (and anyone else for that matter) the first time- STFU. It is not a crime to be silent or stupid. Say nothing, those cops are not trying to help you and clear things up. They have already decided you are guilty.
        Never-the-less I do not believe Martha Stewart has her “name forever associated with a criminal act.” That’s a good thing.

  9. Comey might be more of an attention-seeking egomaniac than Trump is.

    1. Which might, ultimately, be the real reason he had to go.

      That personality type has a lot of difficulty in dealing with mirrors.

  10. his very-sincere-and-definitely-not-an-attempt to-burnish-his-reputation and-cash-in-on-getting-fired by-the-president memoir

    Mrowr!

    Also, what the fuck, that chart? Jesus.

  11. Fine work on the alt-text, Caramello.

  12. That chart coincides exactly with the ramp up of the War on Drugs. Thanks, Nancy.

    1. Yup.

  13. Man, first rule of holes Comey.

    1. Digging them creates jobs?

      1. If you are one, join the government.

  14. In regard to the Martha Stewart bit:

    I get what Comey is saying here. Laws only work when people think they are enforced.

    Law and Order is only maintained through the threat of retribution. Previously the population at large thought that God(s) sworn oaths were binding and divine retribution would follow an oath-breaker. In modern society we let law enforcement take the place of divine retribution. If members of a society think they can lie to law enforcement free of consequence, they will if they think they can benefit from it. So it’s important to reinforce that there are certain agencies and offices for which falsehoods are impermissible.

    Yes, the FBI and others abuse this power and terms of prosecution for doing so could certainly be revisited. But it’s still an important concept to uphold.

    1. “But it’s still an important concept to uphold”
      No, it’s not. Fuck the police. If they can prove someone committed a crime, prosecute them. They are not some special class that one owes absolute honesty and fealty.

      1. I make no argument for loyalty. But honesty? So long as it’s pertinent to an investigation, absolutely.

        1. the 1A says i can say what i want and if i want to tell the FBI or any other group a lie then i should be able to do so with out retribution. So what if my lie leads them on a false trail that is not my problem. Does the constitution say i have to tell anyone anything I do believe i have a right to privacy and to make mistakes on locations date and times and names.

          anyone else see the article where the NY AG wants to eliminate the double jeopardy laws for anyone that Trump may pardon. the TDS is thick with them

          1. As in all things, your freedom of speech is not absolute. The case history of lies and the first amendment is lengthily and interesting to read.

            1. Police get to do it, so there’s no reason I shouldn’t.

              1. Aside from the prosecutorial reasons.

        2. The FBI, and its associated Police State, have been given immunity from honesty by the SCOTUS. Since there is therefore no “concept” to uphold, we certainly don’t need to pretend we have some obligation in any conversation with the thugs of tyranny.

          1. Your obligation is to your own self interest. Considering legally enforced honestly carries a prison sentence, you should consider your own self interest in making false statements to law enforcement.

            1. IOW, never, ever, talk to the cops. Answer no questions, provide no information, no denials or affirmations. Stand mute.

              1. You do have the right to remain silent.

            2. Considering legally enforced honestly carries a prison sentence, you should consider your own self interest in making false statements to law enforcement.

              You may think “might makes right” is a sophisticated argument, but it isn’t.

            3. now yoy’re moving the goalposts.

              first it was necessay to enforce honesty to maontaon the fabroc of spciety – now its ‘ypu mist be honest on order to protect yourself’.

              whoch is basically a tautology.

              1. Actually I’m not. The key point is that you do not *lie*. Silence is not a lie.

        3. As Popehat discusses at great length, it’s not dishonesty that gets you in trouble with the FBI. If you misremember, they got you. If they can claim to understand a word differently from how you meant it, they got you. Doesn’t matter if your falsehood is unintentional or irrelevant.

          1. I’m aware of the piece written by Mr. White and fully agree with him. Silence is definitely a virtue in regards to your contacts with law enforcement. What you must not do, as a few of thread has opined, is tell actual lies.

        4. I fisagree. its stupid and pontless to tell people that they must tell the truth to law enforcement – while law enforcement has absolute discretion to lie to them. And I’m not talking about undercovet cops either.

          And its stupid and pointless to expect *criminals* to tell the truth, let alone heap pinishment on to thwm.

          and finally, ita stupid and pointless to punish otherwise innocent people for lying just so you can chalk up a win when the rest of your case collapses.

          1. 1. If silence is not an option, tell the truth. While you have no recourse against them for lying to you, they definitely have one against you.

            2. Criminals have a self interest just like non-criminals. I’ve spoken with many an investigator that got a white collar criminal to crack under the premise that “it will be better if you tell the truth.” This was of course, a lie.

            3. It really depends on who you consider “innocent”. There’s folks that really did nothing wrong and bungled the interview. Then there’s folks that did something wrong, hid it well, and misdirected and obstructed throughout the investigation. Intentionally acting to obstruct the machinations of justice isn’t something that should fly.

          2. …law enforcement has absolute discretion to lie…. And I’m not talking about undercovet cops either.

            Yep. I was rear ended years ago and the officer first spoke to the elderly gentlemen who hit me. He then came to get my information and ask me what happened.

            At the end of my story, he then told me that the other guy says I slammed on my breaks, to which I said I did not. He replied, “Doesn’t matter anyway; he hit you”.

            Which was and still is an absolute lie – if you slam on you breaks for no real reason/to piss off a tailgater, the accident would be your fault.

            He lied to illicit a confession. I guess the old man was convincing.

            He failed either way, but if willing to lie there for a slightly cooler ticket/help out some guy, there’s no reason to trust anything they say, ever.

    2. Funny how he had a different take on Hillary’s crimes. He went to great lengths to explain that while she had broken several laws she was exempt from prosecution b/c she is of the ruling class. ” Remember; ” No prosecutor would pursue these charges” and “But this is not to say that if one” of you fuckwad plebs did the same thing YOU would be spared prosecution.

      1. Language.

        Having actually listened to and read Comey’s statement and listened to him on CSPAN talking with the Senate and Congress, I know what he did and didn’t say. And he didn’t say she broke laws.

        1. But he did describe several of her actions that are crimes.

  15. “people must fear”

    that line alone tells you how bureaucrats think of the citizenry. and that is SCARY.

    1. I’d ask him whether he in his own work was guided primarily by fear.

      1. Most bullies are cowards, so that seems likely.

  16. There was once a time when most people worried about going to hell if they violated an oath taken in the name of God. That divine deterrence has slipped away from our modern cultures. In its place, people must fear going to jail. they must fear their lives being turned upside down. They must fear their pictures splashed on newspapers and websites. People must fear having their name forever associated with a criminal act if we are to have a nation with a rule of law.

    Christ, what an asshole.

    1. It’s all zero sum with Comey, where people are always defined by the lowest point in their lives by the righteous (like Comey).

      1. Don’t forget the inherent forgivibility of lapses by the righteous. Judge Comey by his worst moment? How dare you!

    2. That “divine deterrence” never existed, much like the “good old days” for which right-wingers pine.

      If there is anything history and human nature teach us about religion, it is that claimed beliefs disappear when the “believer” perceives a benefit to ditching the superstition.

      1. While that’s true, it’s also absolutely true, if you go back far enough, that many people tended to actively modify their behavior die to a direct fear of divine retribution.

        It’s hard to understand these days, but 800 years ago and more, God and the Devil were very real, as was divine retribution. Some societies today still believe this strongly about their religion.

        Note I’m not commenting on whether or not this is/was a good thing, only on its existence and historical prevalence.

        Though I will add, for Comey to believe people should fear FBI/government to the same extent is both telling and asinine.

        At least with religion today in most places, you’re free to believe what you want and fear the consequences you choose to focus on, without interfering with others.

        In Comey’s world, our government betters function as priest & God, to be feared and followed without question. And all those enforcing government rules are angels fighting evil just as St. Michael did.

        Therefore by definition enforcers are beyond reproach and opponents are always immoral/bad people.

        Just wow

  17. We could use some prosecutorial reform. However, those who are generally victims of prosecutor shenanigans are too busy applauding the use of those shenanigans against a sitting president.

    1. However, those who are generally victims of prosecutor shenanigans are too busy applauding the use of those shenanigans against a sitting president.

      That seems like a rather questionable generalization.

    2. The real reason we don’t get prosecutorial reform is because it almost always harms someone in the lowest socio-economic percentiles.

      So they’ve isolated the harm to a relatively small percentage of people who have no methods of fighting back.

      Add to that two things. First, the rest of the population, when reading a story about prosecutorial overreach, think the defendant was likely so guilty they deserved it anyway.

      And second, any move that seeks to provide defendants better options, is seen as being “weak on crime”, a sorry political indictment which can affect votes…

      And it’s easy to see why reform isn’t happening.

      Still a travesty it’s not happening, but frustratingly simply to understand why.

  18. The real question is whether the mass incarceration phenomenon is a crisis.

  19. Listen: I get it, mass incarceration sounds bad, but… Trump! Orange liar! Beneath honor! BAD!

  20. It’s a tossup over who’s the bigger piece of shit, Comey or Trump.

    Really, it’s just a question of what kind of shit.

    1. Trump will call you bad names, Comey will put you in jail for not being scared of him. so i’d say Comey is the bigger shit

      1. And Comey will absolutely convince himself that he is doing it for your own good, and the good of Society.

      2. Trump would kill you if he could.

        Comey wpuld to (and likely has killed Americans)

        kind of a wash to me.

        1. Who has Trump killed?

  21. It was inaccurate in the sense that there was nothing “mass” about the incarceration: every defendant was charged individually, represented individually by counsel, convicted by a court individually, reviewed on appeal individually, and incarcerated.

    The Gestapo rounded up Jews individually, they walked into boxcars individually, they walked off boxcars and into gas chambers individually.

    Fuck off, slaver.

    1. The train that carried them there contain hundreds, They arrived at the camps by the hundreds, they were gassed in groups.

      Not agreeing or disagreeing with Comey. But you seem to be cherry picking the process to show individuality.

      1. American prisons incarcerate by hundreds, even thousands. Who’s cherry picking what?

      2. For that matter, paddy wagons hold more than one. Courts have more than one prisoner at a time, sometimes even try them all together.

      3. you think people take Uber to prison?

  22. And while Comey is correct that defendants are sentenced individually, not collectively, there’s nothing individual about the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines that lawmakers passed to fill all those new prisons.

    Precisely. The legislative branch and its mandatory minimums is the core problem, which further enables shady prosecutors to put more notches in their belts, while legislators get to play judge and jury in cases that haven’t even materialized yet.

    1. The bully prosecutor is all the rage at the moment.

    2. After Saudis hijacked airplanes into American buildings I worked on deportation hearings, 40 at a whack, 80 South Americans a day, for most of 2003. I never attended hearings with Saudi respondents, but imagine there must have been some. If that isn’t mass or wholesale, what is?

    3. Sentencing guidelines like the Five and Ten law making beer a felony in 1929, like the mandatory minimums the Bush-Reagan team pushed in 1987, are the cream of Republican ability to legislate. The Big House movie, 1930, was made while Herbert Hoover republicanism was moving American thought-criminals into huge new prisons by the tens of thousands.

      1. Hoover was a progressive. If you want to blame present-day Republicans for the sins of long-dead Republicans, you should blame present-day Democrats for centuries of racism.

  23. A man with decades of experience being a Republican and a prosecutor expresses authoritarian and backward views and anyone other than a faux libertarian (disingenuous right-winger in libertarian drag) considers this noteworthy?

    1. He’s a hero who vindicated Hillary, how dare you criticize him, you clinger?

  24. Comey believes he is a God or at least some Greek tragic hero like Achilles

    1. He’s certainly a heel.

  25. It’s mass incarceration, Mr. Comey (disclaimer; I’m a fan of Mr. Comey). Just done individually, one at a time. Just because we have put enormous resources into social control, doesn’t mean it isn’t. It is.

  26. ” That added up to a lot of people in jail, but there was nothing “mass” about it, I said.”

    No, that’s actually a fair point he made. “Mass” this or that implies acting on whatever is being acted on as a group. Not doing it individually. “Mass” incarceration would be marching in with troops, lining people up, and marching them off to prison, without any individual assessment.

    I mean, Comey may be, almost certainly is, an ass. But he’s got a valid point here.

    1. That’s a fair point – people on both sides like to analogize the evils of the Other Party to the practices of third world dictators, when all debates could really stand to be engaged on in less hyperbolic terms.

      We jail far too many people as a “free society,” but we don’t just round up crowds of people and incarcerate them en masse – each individual is, for the most part, treated as such.

      1. The big problem here, I think, is the use of over-charging to scare most defendants into pleading guilty to a lesser charge. The whole system would collapse if they had to give every defendant an actual trial.

        That genuinely does constitute a process that doesn’t really evaluate individual guilt, because even the innocent may think they have no real choice.

        1. Ummm, if its over-charging, then the target has nothing to fear. (lol)
          But that’s our Brett, who’d even lie to defend Trump of murder, despite witnesses.
          As Trump himself warned us.

          1. Even you can’t be stupid enough to think trials are 100% reliable at separating the innocent from the guilty.

          2. Ummm, if its over-charging, then the target has nothing to fear.

            Over charging is a serious issue – a lot of cases can be he said/she said or he said/he said or mistaken identity etc, but without direct physical evidence – where an innocent is still about as likely to get convicted as the guilty person is of going free.

            But if the evidence is crap, a jury should weigh it.

            But smart defendants looking at hundreds of years if convicted on all counts, or taking a plea to a single lesser count, with much less jail time, take the plea. Many take this option even if innocent.

            They are literally facing this option: take a deal with a known bad outcome or gamble on their lives.

            Realistically, morally, and usually legally, inducements of this nature would make any resulting agreement void, as the defendant would making this decision under extreme duress. Violation of NAP as well.

            But today it’s not a bad thing at all, in fact its use one users are hailed for their efficiency and for being tough of crime.

    2. Umm, google this, with quotes as shown
      “mass incarceration” definition

  27. well thanks for the info spotify premium 2018

  28. The language is a window to Comey’s nationalsocialist soul. So First Responders? “helping people trapped in dangerous neighborhoods” translates as moving them at gunpoint to dangerous jails, making dead/wounded examples of any who are less than smart about obeying. But this is what the Nixon-subsidized looter media told voters they needed: the initiation of deadly force to make neighborhoods dangerous in the first place. And it really wouldn’t interest anybody outside of a small circle of friends.

  29. My Buddy’s mom makes $77 hourly on the computer . She has been laid off for five months but last month her check was $18713 just working on the computer for a few hours. try this web-site

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.Jobpost3.tk

  30. So we have two losers is a pissing match of (mostly) Revenge Porn. But of the two,Trump is the only actual criminal. Repeated blatant and egregious liar is psychopathic (by definition).

    Shitty judgment is to be deplored, but equating the two is like equating a “dirty” joke with grabbing a pussy.

  31. As a poster suggested above, you need to juxtapose the decrease in violent crime over the past 35 years with the 500% explosion in incarceration to truly understand the horror of what Mr. Comey is suggesting is “business as usual”

    https://letgrow.org/resources/crime-stats/

    All U.S. homicides: Down 40% 1992 -2005
    Juvenile homicide: Down 36% 1993 ? 2005 (kids under age 14)
    Juvenile homicide: Down 60% 1993 ? 2005 (age 14 ? 17)
    Forcible rape: Down 28% 1992 ? 2006
    Sex Abuse Substantiations of Children: Down 51% 1990 ? 2005
    Physical Abuse Substantiations of Children: Down 46% 1990 ? 2005
    Juvenile Sex victimization trends: Down 79% 1993 ? 2003

    Number of children abducted in “stereotypical kidnappings” (kidnapped by a stranger for ransom or for sexual purposes and/or transported away) in 1999, the most recent year for which we have statistics: 115
    Number of children killed by their abductor: About 50

  32. Yet despite all this, we are to believe every 3rd girls in grade school is snatched up without anyone noticing since the same rescue industry regularly make the claim the average age of becoming a sex slave (entering prostitution) is 13.

    I have been all over the work and don’t find America to be an especially violent or criminal place. Most citizens will give you the shirt of their back and face an FBI felony if they are caught doing it.

    If progress truly travels in a Hearst, than an entire generation fo middle aged middle class guys who have no intersection with law enforcement so think of incarceration as a social good will need to die of before things change.

    Or, middle class white women will need to adopt the lifestyle crimes that imprison the vast majority of other people more quickly.

    After all, that’s how “crack epidemic requiring harsh penalties for inter-city monsters” became “prescription opiode crisis on the suburbs requiring rehabilitation and understanding.”

    For middle class privileged guys like Comey mass incarceration is good clean fun with no downside. After all, he hasn’t been incarcerated. His neighbors have not been incarcerated. They must just be genetically superior people.

  33. saya senang membaca semua artikel dari webite kamu admin

  34. I know it wasn’t your intention, having TDS and all that, but those seem like excellent justifications to fire the guy, on top of his conduct vis-a-vis Hillary.

  35. saya senanga melihat buku nya

  36. Saya untuk satu am marah oleh eksekutif lembaga keuangan yang berseluncur di pinjaman besar dan penipuan sekuritas. Melalui tindakan pribadi mereka, para investor dan pelanggan ditipu dan siapa yang harus membayar? Pemegang saham mereka dan pembayar pajak.

  37. The way Comey’s mind works is infuriating. An undergraduate degree in religion can be a dangerous thing.

  38. Set politics aside for a moment. Comey has proven he is an incompetent, idiot. When it is all said and done, I wouldn’t be surprised that he isn’t indicted for his involvement in leaks. I get the softening that he is receiving for opposing Trump, but the standard is misplaced if the reaction is to ignore terrible behavior based solely on a person’s level of dislike for the president.

  39. By the way, other than Comey and his ridiculous comments. This article’s analysis of incarceration and the insinuation that there is some big problem is interesting and completely lacking accurate facts. Incarceration as a percentage of population, incarceration by crime and crime rates are all essential to understanding the issue. Part of the reason that crime rates have reduced is that criminals are in jail. And while I understand the underlying, “Reason,” approach is tied to incarceration for nonviolent drug crimes, the truth is that many of the drug crimes are not actually non-violent at all. I’m not much of a supporter of the death penalty, but after seeing the impact of meth, heroine and etc. up close, I’d be fine with the chair for bigger dealers.

  40. Implying that a lot of blacks belong in jail is the only intelligent thing that corrupt traitorous prick ever said.

  41. semua bebas berpendapat

    bocoran togel

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.