Criminal Justice

Tackling Mass Incarceration Requires More Than Freeing Nonviolent Drug Offenders

A new report emphasizes that the U.S. would still have a very high incarceration rate even if all drug war prisoners were released.

|

The number of people in U.S. jails and prisons fell substantially in 2020: by 25 percent and 15 percent, respectively. But according to a new report from the Prison Policy Initiative (PPI), those drops were largely due to pandemic-related bottlenecks in the criminal justice system, which drove a 40 percent drop in prison admissions even as releases from prisons fell. And the total number of people confined in jails and prisons was still nearly 2 million, meaning that the United States still had an appallingly high incarceration rate.

The PPI report debunks several influential misconceptions about the causes of mass incarceration in the United States. It notes that the war on drugs does not play as big a role as commonly thought, that the distinction between "violent" and "nonviolent" crimes is misleading, and that detainees in jails, most of whom have not been convicted, are often overlooked, even though they account for nearly half of people behind bars. A fuller understanding of the factors driving these numbers shows that many frequently proposed reforms are inadequate if the goal is an incarceration rate more in line with those of other liberal democracies.

Even if we discount official numbers from authoritarian governments in countries such as China and Cuba, the U.S. is clearly an outlier when it comes to the share of its population behind bars. The U.S. incarceration rate in 2020 was 573 per 100,000 residents, more than four times the rate in England and Wales, more than six times the rates in France and Italy, more than eight times the rate in Germany, and 15 times the rate in Japan.

While the U.S. also has a higher crime rate than most of those countries, that does not account for the huge gap in incarceration rates. According to the World Population Review, the overall U.S. crime rate is 47.7 per 100,000 people, compared to 46.07 in Great Britain, 51.99 in France, 44.58 in Italy, 35.79 in Germany, and 22.19 in Japan. The main difference is not the number of crimes but the severity of the penalties imposed on people who commit them.

In 2020, according to the PPI report, U.S. jails and prisons held 374,000 drug offenders on any given day, which is a lot of people locked up for conduct that violates no one's rights. Drug offenses nevertheless accounted for just 14 percent of the state prison population and 21 percent of people in local jails. They play a much bigger role in the federal system, where they accounted for a third of people in jail and nearly half of people in prison. But the federal system accounted for just 11 percent of the total.

The PPI report notes that "4 out of 5 people in prison or jail are locked up for something other than a drug offense," which means the U.S. would still have a very high incarceration rate even if all "nonviolent drug offenders" were released. "To end mass incarceration," the report says, "we will have to change how our society and our criminal legal system responds to crimes more serious than drug possession. We must also stop incarcerating people for behaviors that are even more benign."

Nearly three-fifths of state prisoners in 2020 were classified as "violent" offenders, a category that criminal justice reforms typically do not address. Although politicians and the general public tend to assume that "violent" offenders pose a grave threat to public safety, that is not necessarily true. The PPI report notes that, depending on the jurisdiction, the category can include people who never physically harmed anyone, such as purse snatchers, burglars of unoccupied homes, and even methamphetamine producers.

While most "violent" offenders are indeed guilty of violence, it does not necessarily follow that keeping them locked up as long as possible is a just or cost-effective solution. The PPI report notes that recidivism rates for violent criminals and sex offenders are relatively low and fall steadily with age, which casts doubt on the public safety rationale for keeping them locked up. Although "the risk for violence peaks in adolescence or early adulthood and then declines with age," the report observes, "we incarcerate people long after their risk has declined."

That is not what most crime victims seem to want. According to a 2016 survey of 800 crime victims by the Alliance for Safety and Justice, most preferred prevention and rehabilitation programs rather than long prison sentences. If politicians took their cues from those crime victims, they would emphasize crime prevention rather than retribution. That approach is supported by evidence indicating that when it comes to deterring crime, the likelihood and swiftness of punishment is more important than its severity.

"As lawmakers and the public increasingly agree that past policies have led to unnecessary incarceration," the report says, "it's time to consider policy changes that go beyond the low-hanging fruit of 'non-non-nons'—people convicted of non-violent, non-serious, non-sexual offenses….If we are serious about ending mass incarceration, we will have to change our responses to more serious and violent crime."

While there is no escaping the need to address violent criminals as part of the solution to mass incarceration, it remains true that the U.S. locks up a lot of people for less serious offenses. In addition to 146,000 drug offenders, for example, state  prisons in 2020 held 124,000 people for "public order" offenses, including illegal gun possession and driving under the influence. In 2019, according to the PPI report, "at least 153,000 people were incarcerated for non-criminal violations of probation or parole," a.k.a. "technical violations."

In 2020, misdemeanor sentences accounted for a quarter of the total jail population. The PPI report notes that "defendants can end up in jail even if their offense is not punishable with jail time," because judges often issue "bench warrants" when "a defendant fails to appear in court or to pay fines and fees."

The vast majority of the 547,000 people in local jails—more than 80 percent—had not been convicted. Many were locked up simply because they could not afford bail, which underlines the importance of reforming pretrial detention so that it does not amount to a punishment for poverty.

While left-leaning criminal justice reformers generally recognize the need for bail reform, their priorities may be misplaced in other ways. The PPI report debunks the idea that "private prisons are the corrupt heart of mass incarceration," noting that such facilities hold less than 8 percent of people in jail or prison. "The vast majority are in publicly owned prisons and jails," the report says. "Some states have more people in private prisons than others, of course, and the industry has lobbied to maintain high levels of incarceration, but private prisons are essentially a parasite on the massive publicly owned system—not the root of it."

A serious attempt to address mass incarceration has to be based on a clear-eyed assessment of who is incarcerated and why. It also requires thinking seriously about what incarceration is meant to accomplish. If the aim is to protect people from predatory criminals, the system needs to do a much better job of focusing on offenders who pose a continuing threat to public safety serious enough to justify the cost of locking them up.

NEXT: Police Repeatedly Question Mom of 6 Who Let Kids Pick Up Litter Outside

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. " . . . if the goal is an incarceration rate more in line with those of other liberal democracies . . . "

    Where is the objective metric of who is right?
    Are not those other "liberal democracies" as likely to be under incarcerating as we are to be over incarcerating?
    Of course the obvious answer is corporal punishment, combined with actual timely trials. ten lashes for the first conviction, twenty for the second, then jail.

    1. I bet the US crime rate would drop considerably if non-violent criminals had a choice of a year in jail vs a weekend in the pillory, pelted by tomatoes, eggs, anything soft and perishable -- no cabbages, no rocks. Or spend the next week walking around town in a sandwich board proclaiming their crime, with name, phone number, docket number, etc.

      I wouldn't go for flogging because it is far too easy for the flogger to take it easy on one and hard on the next, and the physical scarring makes it impossible to ever live down your crime. That strikes me as inhumane and as incompatible with rehab and reform as the scarlet A or cutting off hands or ears.

      1. I have just received $30,000 of my last month working and i was doing this in my part time online. jkl I joined this 4 months before and i know how easy this job is to make money online.

        Join now from this website:… http://WorkStar24.blogspot.com

      2. I wouldn't go for flogging because it is far too easy for the flogger to take it easy on one and hard on the next, and the physical scarring makes it impossible to ever live down your crime.

        Thank you sir! May I have another?

        There are variants that wouldn't leave permanent scars (see the movie that quote is from), and I'm sure there are ways to mechanize it to be consistent.

    2. I make 85 dollars each hour for working an online job at home. KLA07 I never thought I could do it but my best friend makes 10000 bucks every month working this job and she recommended me to learn more about it. The potential with this is endless.

      For more detail.......... http://currentjobs64.cf

    3. The objective of the incarceration rate should be the most effective way to deal with crime , and there is room to discuss alternatives. Trying to match European incarceration rates for the sake of matching them should not be a goal at all.

  2. Sorry, but there is little tolerance for criminals in successful society.

    1. Nor should there be. But unless every criminal gets a life sentence or death, they will be released at some point, and it is a lot better for society if they have had retraining, rehabilitation, reform, education, plus some kind of socialization beyond gangs and guards. I would be quite happy with indeterminate sentences, where release depends entirely on learning to read and write, learning a job skill, anger management, whatever else marks someone who is less likely to commit more crimes.

      1. Yes.

      2. And most prisons have those courses. They can not force prisoners to take them.

        1. You can't force them but the number of people taking those courses would go up dramatically if the alternative was something besides playing checkers or hanging out with the boys.

          Given the alternative between taking a reading comprehension course and a really shitty job, most would take the former and at least absorb something by osmosis. Throw in a little GPA requirement and they'd absorb more.

          Prisons could be a lot more useful and encounter far less recidivism if the people deciding how things worked were incentivized to work towards reducing recidivism rates instead of simply warehousing the criminal.

  3. Know what would really help? An explanation of exactly why the US has so many more prisoners than almost every other country.

    Is it the crime categories?

    Is it the amount of crime?

    Is it longer incarceration for the same crimes?

    For instance, it is "well-known" that the US has a higher murder rate than all European countries. But I have read many times that the UK does not count a death as murder until they have a conviction. Find a body with 7 bullet holes, but no suspects, no arrests, no trial, no conviction, and it doesn't count as murder.

    I have seen comparisons of US and European violent crime rate, and almost every European country has 3-4-5 times the US rate. Are these even measuring the same crimes?

    I would like some nice long detailed description and comparison of these differences. Until then, there is only mystery.

    1. Yeah, some of it definitely has to do with the way crimes are reported. The US tends to report the numbers pretty straight while other countries use a metric that could be described as attempts at hiding the numbers. They do the same thing with infant mortality. The US reports all infant deaths, including preterm, many European countries don't count preterm infants or don't count infants deaths under 24 hours old. They get reclassified as miscarriages often. So the US looks worse but really is comparable. Also, let's not mention underreporting or under policing of crimes committed by minorities in many European countries, how the police and courts pressure victims to drop cases if the perpetrator happens to be certain ethnic minorities.

      As for incarceration, I don't believe most Americans would be agreeable to how many prisons are ran in Europe, especially Scandinavia, not, with many of their sentencing guidelines, which most Americans would feel are to lax. Rehabilitation is a noble goal, but punishment is also needed. Many Europeans have removed the punishment aspect almost entirely and focus only on rehabilitation, even for the most drastic criminals. In Norway, the 2011 mass shooter got a maximum sentence of 21 years. That can be extended for five year intervals if he isn't rehabilitated, but can also be as short as 14 years, if they decide he is rehabilitated. The average actual prison time for premeditated murder is less than 14 years. He killed 77 people, including kids.

      Currently he is getting state sponsored college, the state bought him an X Box, then a PS2, then a PS3. He gets three cells for his use. The state pays someone to visit him, because no one else will since his mother died. The state arranged a meeting group with other prisoners, but they all requested after two meetings not meet with him anymore, so he sued the state for isolating him. He's sued the state multiple times, and has even won a case, that his punishment was to severe, but it was overturned by the appeals court. He also is suing Norway in the European human rights court because he was denied parole after serving only ten years. If this is Reason's comparison for correct incarceration, count me out.

      1. He also stated that he had been planning and preparing for the attack for 9 years and started a farm just so he could purchase fertilizer to make bombs. Joined a pistol club and purchased a hunting license just so he could buy the guns he needed for his attack as well.

        1. I read something recently about his suing for more human treatment because his three room apartment wasn't enough. Or something similar. That's going way too far. What I would think proper for socializing prisoners is that everyone starts out in their own cell, both as punishment and as quarantine, so they can't attack cellmates. Restrict them to their cells. bring meals to their cells. After some time, a month or so, let them out to meet and greet other prisoners. If they don't start any fights, if they can talk with other prisoners without screaming and yelling, after a month or two, get them something less cell-like, with a little more privacy. And so on. The last year or so, their own studio apartment, complete with kitchen, pots and pans, etc. Their final chance to screw up and start all over again. If they can survive a full year without starting fights or yelling, then it's time for release.

          For short-term prisoners, such as shoplifters, stealing a lawn mower, porch piracy, stealing from an unlocked car, other non-violent crimes -- if the pillory isn't good enough, a week or two in a solitary cell would be a better deterrent than years in a prison. Long enough to make them aware they done wrong, not so long that they can't take vacation and keep their job, home, family, etc.

      2. What's it called when one person takes an extreme outlier and presents it as their opponents argument?

        1. This isn't an outlier in Scandinavia or much of western Europe. In fact his incarceration is actually harsher than most. Convicted violent criminals are eligible for weekend furloughs and minimum security, unless they are the worst offenders. Currently, only 14 prisoners in Norway are under the strictest incarceration rules. He is one of them. This is their idea of maximum security.

        2. Most western European countries have banned even life imprisonment. Twenty years is generally the maximum sentence allowed. Look it up for yourself if you don't believe me.

        3. http://www.prisonobservatory.org/upload/PrisoninEuropeOverviewandtrends.pdf

          Europe prisons focus on making prison as close to normal life as possible, and using the shortest sentence possible. Rehabilitation and restoration is the primary goal. Punishment is not considered a goal.

          1. How punishing do you think prison should be?

            Heinlein's 'Starship Troopers' (book, not movie) has ideas. Make the punishment swift and painful, and then over. Would that work in reality? I dunno. I don't think long prison sentences are the answer either.

            I figure that we're adaptable animals, and that all spending long periods of time in prison does is teach people how to live in prison. If you want their punishment to be having a difficult time integrating back into society after spending decades in the can, then from what you're saying Europe isn't for you.

            I don't know what will "work." Maybe we could use what doesn't work as a guide.

            1. It should be a balance not a jobs training program at a day resort.

              1. I know a woman who did some time for something stupid, but believe it or not she's glad she went to jail. She was a heroin addict at the time, and the people there gave her to tools to stay clean when she got out. Though she says that it varies from jail to jail. Apparently she got one of the good ones where they try to help people. She said that at other jails it's all about dominating the prisoners and making life miserable. I guess I'm glad she went to a day resort, or she'd likely have started using again immediately after getting out and would probably be dead by now.

                1. It depends on the crime. Drugs, rehabilitation no problem. Theft with no injuries, rehabilitation no problem. Rape a kid, nope no fucking sympathy for them. Rape anyone, and I mean real rape, not she woke up the next morning and regretted it, I have no fucking sympathy for them. Murder someone with premeditation, or multiple people, no fucking sympathy. Murder an innocent bystander over some stupid gang turfwar. No fucking sympathy. Cop abuses their power and kills someone, no fucking sympathy. Soldier breaks the laws of war and kills innocent civilians. No fucking sympathy. Some shit I just don't believe you can be rehabilitated from, because your victims can never be rehabilitated. For them, I have no issue declaring them outlaws, using the original meaning. As in no prison, but no protection from the law, they are fair game for everyone. We wouldn't have a prison population problem, and the assholes might think twice. Punishment should also be a disincentive from conducting other offenses, and deter others from committing crimes.

                2. And I know the whole vicious cycle of honor killings. The thing is societies that participate in honor killings generally do it because they don't feel like justice is served through normal channels.

                  And the whole maybe they're innocent. Well if we can't bury the fuckers than locking them up sounds like a decent plan. They can appeal, if they're innocent. No system will ever be 100% perfect, but if you rape or kill one of my kids, I know a lot of places the police will never find you.

                  1. And I have enough medical knowledge to make sure your passing isn't pleasant either.

                3. I also have no real issue with using the old system for lesser crimes, e.g., go in the service or go to prison. It saved a lot of troubled youths. Taught them respect, duty and responsibility, and often a usable skill.

            2. So you're okay with convicted mass murderers getting three prison cells and serving less than 14 years? How about a serial rapist? There is a balance between the two extremes is the point. England has tried to find that balance but is blasted almost as badly as the US by prison reform activists.

              1. Justice, punishment and revenge are all distinctly different things, but those distinctions are often blurred. When does it stop being about justice, as in righting wrongs, and become punishment? When does punishment become revenge?

                1. I don't know, but revenge probably matters a bit to a person who was raped or the family of a murder victim. I tend to have less sympathy for violent criminals than for their victims. A rape survivor never lives that down, nor does the family of a murder victim. Gee, you're rehabilitated. Let's ask your victims if they buy it. I could maybe agree for lesser crimes, but you rape someone, especially a kid, or murder someone with premeditation, especially a kid or multiple people, I'm sorry, I don't consider you worth rehabilitating, because what you've done, the victims can't ever fully recover from.

                  1. Ah, but a "2016 survey of 800 crime victims by the Alliance for Safety and Justice" shows they mostly favor the "Job training and a cookie" approach.

                    From which we can learn one thing: We never gonna figure this out if we get all our statistics from advocacy groups.,

        4. When A says X is harsh, and B can show that the extreme case Y is less harsh than the claimed average X, that's a pretty good rebuttal.

    2. To a degree, your first sentence is part of the problem. We want *A* reason [just like we want to explain everything with a single stat or study] but there can be many factors, including the reasons nobody wants to say out loud. I practiced criminal law for a couple of years until I simply couldn't take the bullshit of the system any longer.

      The quick answer to most of your other suppositions is simply yes. And no, they often don't measure crime the same way. We count people spending the night in a drunk tank or waiting for arraignment whereas many countries don't count people until they are sentenced. In many countries, you can be arrested, spend a week in jail waiting for a magistrate, but never be counted IN the system. That will drop the overall incarceration rate significantly.

      The biggest thing that nobody wants to talk about is the effect of culture, and this can vary by neighborhood and family. It's not race, not income, not education... except as those things fit into the overall culture in which a person and their friends and family live. The same holds true for education, pregnancy, and heavy drug use. And because other countries don't have multiculturalism to the extent that we do here, a comparison between crime rates and incarceration is pointless and irrelevant.

      For instance, in the specific local culture that I grew up in, an adult child going to prison or even jail would be a huge stain on the family. [The same would hold true for dropping out of HS.] The few that did go to jail lost their friends and the families were culturally shamed and/or pitied, and so the cost was too high.

      However, in the case of others that I worked with in the system, no such social stigma was attached to crime. In fact, I ran across those who viewed jail as a right of passage. Now there was a lot of room in-between those extremes and nobody tried to do jail, but a lot of how we act depends on how our 'peeps' look at it.

      As a society, we also criminalize things that others don't as well as count our prisoners differently. There are a lot more countries than you can imagine where beating the shit out of your wife and kids is perhaps frowned on and you might get the same treatment from her brother, but neither of you is going to jail unless someone dies. It's a family matter. The question is, is this a standard we are okay with or do we want to give up such prosecutions so that we can look like the French?

      1. Also, comparing the US to European countries is kind of a falsehood. We are more politically, racially, and culturally diverse than most of Europe, plus we have larger populations. It would be better to compare each state separately, as we are still in many ways a federal Republic.

      2. I had ZERO suppositions. I had multiple questions.

        I did not want *A* reason. I said, quote:

        I would like some nice long detailed description and comparison of these differences. Until then, there is only mystery.

        1. You probably won't get it, as Europeans love to cook their books to make things appear rosier. Their media also doesn't call out their bullshit, because the media is fully on board with the program, even their more conservative media. Most of continental Europe doesn't even have a real conservative media alternative, not to mention press protections are not as stringent as they are in the US. In Sweden for instance, libel is considered a criminal charge that includes prison time (albeit it is Swedish prison, so think day spa you have to stay at four or five days a week). The European idea of freedom of speech is much different than the US, many have hate crime laws that include incarceration, but if you ask them, they'll tell you they have freedom of speech but hate speech isn't covered by freedom of speech. I believe a Finnish Bishop has been charged with hate speech because she quoted a Bible verse which the LGBT community doesn't like. Under Finnish law she is likely to be convicted too.

          So Europe won't keep you incarcerated for burglary and theft, but will jail you for quoting the Bible or saying marriage should be between a man and a woman. So, not sure Reason should be using Europe as an example of just incarceration.

  4. Any honest analysis of the problem also must address the fact that Soros-funded prosecutors deliberately let violent criminals off scot-free if they belong to racial or political groups that woketards favor, while persecuting clearly innocent people, such as Rittenhouse and Zimmerman, who defend themselves against those thugs.

    There can be no progress in protecting society until the enemies of civilization are purged from positions of power forever.

  5. Find a body with 7 bullet holes, but no suspects, no arrests, no trial, no conviction, and it doesn't count as murder.

    Sounds plausible. Similar to how a 90-year-old American male, lifetime smoker, dies of "smoking-related heart disease". Whereas in Europe, his death would have just been attributed to "old age".

    1. Or Covid

      1. Probably not in Europe, they've actually been accused of undercounting COVID deaths to look better. Which would be par for the course.

  6. So a mish mash of teach men not to rape and let the offenders run free style leftist prattle. OK Jacob, let's try this out in your neighborhood first.

  7. How much is just culture? Can't really compare the US to Japan as far as incarceration rates go because their culture has far less crime. C'mon.

    1. And that culture varies significantly in the US whereas not so much in Japan. Despite the raging of the equity folks, all cultures do not behave equally, most having to do with what is allowable in your specific culture and/or family. If you lose social status among your peers, in your neighborhood and within your family, or your family suffers humiliation, you're not nearly as likely to commit the crime as you are if everyone you know has done a little time.

      This explains most of what binds communities and why people do what they do and refrain from the rest. If your family and the people you grow up with smoke, are substance-addicted, commit crimes, join the military, become clergy, go to college, drop out of HS, etc., the probability that you will do the same goes up drastically.

    2. I'm sure that's a lot of it for Japan. Much of Europe though is pretty crime ridden. Tons of pickpockets and muggers, tons of burglaries and home invasions. You have to lock everything up or it gets stolen. Their lenient incarceration policies are real and surprising (to me).

    3. Not only does their culture have less crime, their legal system is brutal; merely being accused of a crime can wreck your life completely.

  8. The Koch / Soros / Reason soft-on-crime #EmptyThePrisons agenda demands we free literally everyone — except participants in the HEAVILY ARMED INSURRECTION on 1 / 6, who should be locked away forever.

    #CheapLaborAboveAll

  9. And replacing them with J6 protestors instead right sullum?

  10. Violent criminals tend to earn their sentences. We need to figure out how to reduce the violent crime rate. It's not by reducing gun ownership, though. Perhaps increasing gun ownership would work-it seemingly worked for Kennesaw, Ga.

  11. How, when, and why did it get this way? Did those other countries start out the same and then reduce their incarceration? Or did the USA start the same and increase its incarceration?

    1. It's always been that way. It's part of US culture, a rejection of authority, combined with fairly liberal laws.

      European nations are authoritarian sh*tholes with populations that worship government and police, so it's not surprising that they have lower crime rates. If you like that sort of thing, move to Europe.

      If you merely want a safe neighborhood, move to a suburban neighborhood in a red state.

  12. A fuller understanding of the factors driving these numbers shows that many frequently proposed reforms are inadequate if the goal is an incarceration rate more in line with those of other liberal democracies.

    And why would you expect the incarceration rate in the US to be "more in line with those of other liberal democracies"? Crime rates and drug use rates aren't, after all. The US is a very different society from other "liberal democracies".

    The biggest outlier in the US is, of course, young black males, who have extremely high rates of crime, violence, incarceration, single parenthood, etc. If you want to make the US more like other nations, then address that issue; and that issue isn't a criminal justice issue, it's a cultural issue.

    (FWIW, the term "liberal democracy" is a misnomer; European democracies are illiberal and authoritarian.)

  13. It's highly misleading and narrow minded to count those in prison due to the War on Drugs by how many are locked up specifically on drug charges.

    What percentage of prisoners in for property crimes were stealing/robbing to fund a habit at the astronomical black market markup, who wouldn't if a drug habit cost the same as alcoholics spend on their drug?

    How many murders and other serious violence stem from disputes between gangs over drugs? Even when not *directly* about drugs, the size of gangs wouldn't be anywhere near where it is without drug trafficking revenue.

    How many probation violations directly or indirectly because of drugs?

    Being homeless and unemployed makes someone much more likely to commit a crime; how many would never have become homeless but for losing their job from a consequence of drug use arising from prohibition (i.e. most harms)? How many failed to get a good job due to a prior felony from drugs directly or any indirect way just mentioned?

    How many weapons violations are people carrying weapons due to being involved in the black market?

    We can take it even further; how many kids wouldn't grow to be criminals if their parents hadn't experienced a prohibition related consequence?

    ----
    Reports like these dramatically understate the role of the War on Drugs in driving mass incarceration. In doing so, it undermines the prospects of tackling mass incarceration, both directly by that understatement, and indirectly by suggesting extraordinarily unpopular measures like reducing sentences for crimes with identifiable victims.

  14. I sense a massive goalpost shift occurring.

  15. Why don’t we focus on why so many people can’t follow the law ? You still have to do something to get yourself arrested.

  16. Wow! You are way off on this article. According to FBI data there are over 5 million victims of violent crimes each year in this country. Yes, many need to be locked up. As to drug crimes, the US has over 100,000 overdose deaths each year with millions (users and family) being adversely impacted. To say drug crimes "violate no one's rights" is completely foolish. The user and the low-level dealer are not the ones in prison. It is traffickers and large dealers, especially with drugs that kill people. The person who overdoses had their rights violated. As to mass incarceration, you cannot compare countries that do not have the violent crimes that the US has. I guarantee the entire country of England does not have even close to the number of shootings that just Chicago has. It's not just the severity of the punishment as you believe, it's the severity of the crime. This is a foolish article. Most of the prison populations throughout the US are made up of violent criminals. If you believe a 15 year old who murders someone should be let out at age 25, move to California. If you believe a 21 year old who murders should be let out at 41 (California is pushing for maximum 20 year sentence), move to California. A murdered person has been provided a life sentence along with their family. The perpetrator should get the same. Shame on you for your foolishness.

  17. OMG Jacob - I can not believe you are so Uninformed in 2022. I am disappointed.

    Yes, 20% of prisoners are in for drugs. Add another 50% are in for reasons which touch the War on Drugs; theft to buy the expensive drugs and drug dealers shooting each other...

    Plz start listening to detectives who work these cases (like me) and become educated! Example: 80% of the people i arrested for occupied dwelling B & E were drug addicts.

  18. OMG Jacob - I can not believe you are so Uninformed in 2022. I am disappointed.

    Yes, 20% of prisoners are in for drugs. Add another 50% are in for reasons which touch the War on Drugs; theft to buy the expensive drugs and drug dealers shooting each other...

    Plz start listening to detectives who work these cases (like me) and become educated! Example: 80% of the people i arrested for occupied dwelling B & E were drug addicts.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.