A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

https://www.aclu.org/living-death-sentenced-die-behind-bars-what

by subsystem • 13 years ago

656 488 13 years ago

mschuster918• 13 years ago

As an European citizen, I think such "sentences" are more resembling China, Russia or any other dictatorship, but not a first-world country.

Do human rights actually mean something in the US?

hobs• 13 years ago

If you are poor? Not really. Every person that I see listed was not able to afford a decent lawyer.

aspensmonster2• 13 years ago

But... but... the public defender!

eruditely2• 13 years ago

This highlights the necessity of putting yourself in a good financial situation, otherwise be put in prison or just be black I suppose.

eruditely2• 13 years ago

This highlights the necessity of putting yourself in a good financial situation, otherwise be put in prison or just be black I suppose. This situation is unfathomable .

a8da6b0c91d2• 13 years ago

You can have cute little Norwegian jails with light sentences when the population is Norwegians. But America is not Norway. We have a large underclass of people capable of destroying whole communities. Have you seen those pictures of Detroit in ruins? Crime in the 1970s got out of control. Stuff like this played a role in turning it around.

mschuster918• 13 years ago

Does the stupidity of politicians to adequately address these problems warrant human rights violations? I don't believe so!

justanother• 13 years ago

[ citation needed ]

sillysaurus24• 13 years ago

Crime in the 1970s got out of control. Stuff like this played a role in turning it around.

Does anyone have any data to back this claim up?

pswenson2• 13 years ago

you are defending this insanity? did you read the link?

jonah• 13 years ago

Crime is a byproduct of a broken social system, not a cause.

guelo• 13 years ago

What is it about Norwegians that's different from this "large underclass"? Just come out and say it.

coldtea3• 13 years ago

But America is not Norway.

I wonder why that is... Perhaps this attitude has something to do about it?

We have a large underclass of people capable of destroying whole communities.

Where "large underclass of people" means black, latino and generally poor, and "whole communities" means cozy, middle class existance.

And destroying means "stealing a wallet from a hotel" or "borrowing a van", clearly acts that should be punished with life sentences.

vacri• 13 years ago

Norwegians comprise a mere 0.6% of the population of Europe.

anigbrowl6• 13 years ago

This is poorly focused. I'm absolutely against 3 strikes sentencing laws and mandatory sentencing escalations that can put petty criminals in prison for life.

On the other hand, I'm perfectly OK with some criminals dying behind bars, such as the recently sentenced Whitey Bulger, and so are most other people. By making the headline about the undesirability of custodial life sentences in general, they'er losing a large chunk of their potential audience straight out of the gate.

prutschman• 13 years ago

The largest word in the title is "what", as part of the phrase "for what?", making clear that the focus is on the reasons for--as opposed to the mere existence of--custodial life sentences.

coldtea3• 13 years ago

On the other hand, I'm perfectly OK with some criminals dying behind bars

Lots of people from similar backward countries are perfectly OK with this.

I mean, if I recall correctly you even still have the death penalty. Heck, it's only like 4 decades since you ended racial seggregation (in paper).

Hopefully, in 3-4 decades you'll turn to more modern and humanistic views on justice, catcing up to most Western European and Skandinavian countries.

Meanwhile, some can cheer and advocate for minor BS changes to laws like the gay marriage (talk about a upper middle class issue, if there ever was one), while others rot in prison for "crimes" such as the ones described in TFA, blacks constitute the lion's share of prisoners, prisons are turned into private for profit enterprises, 16 year olds are sentenced to death, SWAT teams get employed for BS offences, etc... Talk about not seeing the big issues...

anigbrowl6• 13 years ago

I'm from Ireland, actually, although I live in the US.

itchitawa2• 13 years ago

Scandanavian countries don't have as many blacks as the US.

protomyth7• 13 years ago

This 3 strikes law reeks of injustice. I too am fine with certain violent offenders spending life behind bars, but this is just plain stupid and frankly not cost effective[1].

Let's save the jail space for murders, pedophiles, rapists, and violent offenders then put money into programs to rehabilitate folks.

1) I still get mad when I hear other small government folks who are ok with this crap. I'm against the death penalty because it costs too much and I don't trust the government to be 100% right.

itchitawa2• 13 years ago

Please don't lump pedophiles in with murderers. Many of them are in prison simply for downloading a file from the internet. In some cases, the content is perfectly legal and harmless but was edited to be sexually suggestive and the people caught with it end up in prison. That's not to say some don't actually abuse children, but many do not.

GuiA5• 13 years ago

So, question- if you actively support putting people behind bars with the intent of seeing them die there, why not just kill them right away? If the intent is for them to not cause any harm to society, then that'll get the job done while saving money for society and making them suffer for a shorter period of time.

Unless the goal is to make them suffer for their entire life as punishment; in which case, why not just torture them? That seems like it would be more efficient.

I'm legitimately curious as to why one would support prison if one does not believe that society should aspire to transform criminals into better, law abiding citizens.

twoodfin• 13 years ago

I'm legitimately curious as to why one would support prison if one does not believe that society should aspire to transform criminals into better, law abiding citizens.

Deterrence. Not that trying to reform criminals is a bad idea, but it's not the only goal of the system.

zaguios• 13 years ago

Killing someone actually ends up costing more than imprisoning them for life (Just an FYI). I do however agree with your point about what the goal of prison should be.

wmil2• 13 years ago

Everyone supports reforming criminals. However we don't have any system that can achieve that reliably.

I find three strikes to be to strict. But if they've proven unwilling or unable to reform it's preposterous to let them out of prison.

Jach• 13 years ago

Personally, I would support hanging them high instead of putting them in prison for life... except I do hold certain relevant beliefs about the future of humanity. I think there's a decent chance that before this century is out, us humans will have mastery over our brains (which may or may not be the same gooey brains we've always had), and I think it would be tragic if we put even a bad man to death instead of imprisoning him for several decades then fixing his brain when the technology comes along. If prisons become too costly for the rest of us to support or if it's going to take a lot longer for the tech, then mass cryogenic suspensions would be better than straight up executions, and for free people cryonics would be better than dying of old age... Of course if I thought humans will never gain mastery over the brain, then sure, why not have executions for those with life sentences, who ideally are those where "education" and rehabilitation are impossible due to the way their brains are?

cmccabe3• 13 years ago

why not just kill them right away?

Because evidence might come up later that proves them innocent. Because killing someone deprives them of all of the rest of their life, whereas life imprisonment offers them some fraction of it.

I actually do think there are some people we should just hang-- after due process, of course-- but definitely not everyone who has a long sentence.

Also, a "life" sentence usually just means 20 years in the US, for whatever reason.

andrewaylett• 13 years ago

It's very difficult to release an executed man if new evidence shows he's innocent after all.

pandaman4• 13 years ago

Do you have any price quotes re: execution vs life sentence to support your assertion that money are to be saved?

brianbreslin• 13 years ago

This is pathetic. What country that claims to be a leader in human rights can justify this kind of justice? I'm American, and am continuously appalled to hear these types of stories. these stories are sadly not isolated either, and have come to almost be accepted. We are nearing a tipping point where we need to stand up for a better America. Screw the prison industry, and screw lobbyists, screw bipartisan squabbles. We need to stand up for ISSUES that matter to us.

grecy4• 13 years ago

What country that claims to be a leader in human rights can justify this kind of justice?

They claim to be the leader in a lot of things when it's plainly not true. Unfortunately, the only people that believe the marketing spin are those inside, or those in the poorest of countries. Everyone else knows it's a crock of shit.

BorisMelnik• 13 years ago

this is so ridiculous. 3 strikes laws are meant for murderers who just don't know how to stop carrying guns, not these people.

riggins2• 13 years ago

in a sane world this would be true.

sadly, in this world 3 strikes laws aren't meant just for murderers.

tshile5• 13 years ago

in a sane world murders get 3 chances?

protomyth7• 13 years ago

There are serious money interests (both union and private companies) in having as many jails as possible.

spodek• 13 years ago

It's a crying shame. Normally that's an empty phrase, but it describes this.

I can't imagine reading this and not feeling tears well up.

No sense of what I would call humanity. From what perspective does this make the world a better place?

What am I missing about being human that this fits into that I don't understand?

rfnslyr2• 13 years ago

Does anybody else constantly live in a state of guilt? So many lives lost and wars fought just to get us to where we are, and we reap the benefits. I feel so guilty for having a good paying job in the city. I'm not adding any value to the world, none at all. I tinker with a few codes every day and make silly amounts of money, when there's people struggling to put food on the table working 18 hour days.

I need to do something, something meaningful. Sure I send a few bucks every month to a few charities but that just makes me feel worse, like I'm loosely patching holes of my guilt with plaster that will fade the next day.

What can I do? I don't belong here. I'm just another waste of space.

cgag• 13 years ago

I feel guilty for doing basically anything that isn't actively working to fix our horrible justice system.

evincarofautumn• 13 years ago

You are a waste of space. But committing suicide is so boring—I don’t recommend it. You are going to have to figure out the point you want your life to have. So quit complaining on the internet about your privileged guilt, save your silly amounts of money for a while, then spend it executing your vision. The best any of us can hope to do is to mean something to somebody.

lostlogin4• 13 years ago

Contact representatives in government bodies every so often. I'm not sure it makes a difference but I always figure that at a bare minimum it occupies some of their time (at least it does here in New Zealand, as the replies are not canned as far as I can tell, and they aren't from assistants either usually) which prevents other work getting done. I have a faint hope that it achieves more than this, but hope is about all.

javajosh3• 13 years ago

There is hope. Software is the key to addressing a great deal of injustice in the world. I believe that software programmers who want to make a difference can do so by collaborating on open source projects intended for use by government at every level.

Consider: if we can write the software that cities, states, and even the federal government uses to do it's job, then we can also have a material impact on transparency, usability, etc for the users.

Take the judicial system. It is badly underfunded, especially in California, which has the largest civil court system in the Western world. What if an enterprising group of civic minded programmers simply wrote awesome, free, open software to run a state courtroom, complete with a self-help web interface?

Such a project would not necessarily be fun. But it would be useful, and it would arguably contribute greatly to society.

cdcarter• 13 years ago

Find a local (and hopefully small) charity you like. Start giving to them, as much as you can. Volunteer with them. See if they are looking to add trustees. Find every way you can help.

It's hard. It's not just giving $10 to Oxfam (which you should do anyway), it's a real dedication of time and care. But you'll meet people, you'll support something you are passionate about, and you'll have a lot less time to think about how you're a waste.

jodrellblank• 13 years ago

What can I do? I don't belong here. I'm just another waste of space.

Isn't everyone? Why is working 18 hours of labour a day inherently more valuable or useful to humanity, the planet, the universe, anything? Why is someone struggling inherently a better, more worthy person than anyone else (and by what standards?).

Would you really prefer a world where everyone has to struggle to survive, because that's where it sounds like your comment is leading.

The feeling of guilt is an echo in your head. It's not actually an objective measure of your worth, it's not really some outside deity judging you and finding you unworthy, even if it feels like it is. Because of this, there's no saying there is anything you can do to assuage your feelings of guilt if you go with them. Maybe it's a while loop that says "while (bad_things_happen_anywhere) { feel_guilty(); }". You ask what to do as if there's bound to be a corresponding "if I do X then I can feel less guilty" pattern in your head waiting to be triggered - but maybe there isn't.

What you can do is work on it as your problem, your suffering, your mental issue that needs addressing in your head. You're not unhappy because the world sucks for a dirt poor person. You're unhappy because of a "be unhappy" thought stuck in your head. Don't change the world to stop this suffering, change your thoughts.

was_hellbanned3• 13 years ago

Take some of your money and travel. Go to Cambodia and don't be shy with your cash. Visit the landmine museum, do some crying, and see how the resilient people are (slowly) making a comeback. Buy all the trinkets and crap off the swarming children. Hire a guide. Stimulate their local economy, then come back with a greater appreciation of everything in your life. Vote (I suggest independent, since mainstream are different shades of the same color), focus on your friendships, and find yourself a more challenging and fulfilling job, and don't read so much bad news. Everyone plays a role in the world, and yours doesn't have to be one of direct savior. You can and do add value in innumerable ways that you don't even notice.

grahamburger• 13 years ago

Remember that not everyone who is poor is unhappy.

mixmastamyk• 13 years ago

No. If you're paying taxes and not a criminal/on the dole, we need ya... and more of ya.

Amadou• 13 years ago

What can I do?

Don't do it from a place of guilt, find something that you feel passionately about, cut back on the meaningless and lucrative tinkering and start tinkering for your passion. Your most valuable contribution to the world is your time, arrange your life so that you can spend as much time as possible, without burning out, on something meaningful to you.

lancewiggs• 13 years ago

I really liked this "own a problem" perspective from an HR post (1). Pick a problem to help solve, prioritise that and deprioritise everything else to solve it.

You can also shift to work for an institution which is genuinely trying to do good, such as the World Bank or a not-for-profit. Or you can do what you can from within your own organisation to get them to be working to improve the world rather than take advantage of it.

(1) http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/11/what-problem-will-you-own/

dodyg• 13 years ago

I am a third worlder currently living in Cairo - if you think a bit of poverty here and there in the US is bad, here in this city we are surrounded by it.

Being poor is not a moral flaw and I see people everyday go out of their bed and try to win most of their days. Still people manage to find happiness within the most dire constraints.

You cannot do everything and nobody expects to. Take comfort in that. We are all doing out bits to repair the world (There's a wonderful Hebrew phrase for this: Tikkun olam).

But when you have the means, go travel. Meet the others who occupy this world, who have different perspective of living, who struggles with different things that you do. They will be happy to meet you.

mattraibert• 13 years ago

There are days when I could write this comment.

But what you describe does not sound like an honest or clear assessment of the world. It sounds more like depression. Which is real and serious and treatable.

The world is often tragic. It <em>is</em> wrong to live comfortably and be willfully ignorant to tragedy, but it is not wrong to take care of yourself and make yourself whole. So, yes, seek something meaningful to make the world better, and start by taking care of yourself.

rjurney• 13 years ago

Change your life. Go work for a non-profit.

lostlogin4• 13 years ago

Failure to sign the Ottawa treaty (anti landmine) and the international criminal court agreements, execution of minors (and execution at all), assassination of opponents even if citizens (via drones), torture, war crimes, illegal invasions, use of phosphorus (probably comes under war crimes), continual killing of civilians in non declared wars, massive prison population, secret prisons, outsourcing torture, supporting some of the worst governments of earth etc. Who sees the US as a leader in human rights? No one I know.

latch• 13 years ago

It's easy to distill these issues and hold a self-righteous opinion, but I personally find most too complex to form anything resembling an educated opinion.

Take land mines. I've heard that they play a critical role in South Korea's defense, which was a major reason Clinton didn't sign. Military experts talk about how it's an effective tool that, when used responsibly, can benefit civilians more than harm them.

They also kill and maim people.

Intellectually, both sides seem reasonable to me. Of course, emotionally, one is passively helping people (or so we are told), while the other is actively harming them, so, ya, I lean towards being anti land mines. But, I fundamentally can't shake the feeling that I have no clue what's going on, so maybe I shouldn't be too quick to judge.

cmccabe3• 13 years ago

Three-strikes laws are dumb, but so are you. Take your anti-US agenda somewhere else. I suggest North Korea, China, Venezuela, Iran, Russia, or any of the other countries not allied with us, so you can see how much "better" they are.

baddox• 13 years ago

Who sees the US as a leader in human rights?

The vast majority of people who are raised in USA public schools.

grecy4• 13 years ago

Who sees the US as a leader in any measure of what it's like to live there? No one I know.

mossplix2• 13 years ago

Thats American exceptionalism

Natsu• 13 years ago

If you hate this and want to do something for them, there is the option of petitioning for political pardons for them.

After all, even if three-strikes is reformed, that almost certainly wouldn't be reapplied retroactively.

downandout2• 13 years ago

It's a crying shame.

That is an appropriate reaction, but the ACLU's focus on life without parole sentences grossly understates the savagery of US sentencing schemes. Tens of thousands more inmates are serving life with the possibility of parole for non-violent crimes. These inmates may very well never be released, and if they are they will have served so long that they will never be able to recover.

In Nevada, for example, 1 in 5 prisoners is serving a life sentence with the possibility (but no guarantee) of parole. Our version of the 3 strikes law, which is used in several other states as well, enables any three felony convictions to qualify an offender for a life sentence. This can and has included repeat drug offenders (including those who were not dealing), those committing multiple relatively minor property crimes (vandalism, theft, etc), and those with multiple DUI's that never resulted in accidents.

Simply put, US habitual offender laws defy all sense of logic, humanity, and reason. The political will to change this does not exist within either of our major political parties, so the problem is likely to expand over time.

reginaldjcooper4• 13 years ago

Multiple DUIs do deserve a severe punishment IMO, because that is attempted murder basically and they are a danger to the public. The rest I agree are ridiculous. Huffing drugs three times does not deserve permanent incarceration.

jnbiche3• 13 years ago

Almost sadder is the fact that if these people were ever released, they're in the exact same position as every other ex-con. Which means that finding a job goes from being a challenging task (for most of us) to almost impossible.

If you manage to find the very rare employer willing to overlook a felony conviction, there's also the challenge of finding an apartment with a criminal record (apartments can and do reject ex-cons from leasing).

Never mind the emotional hurdle of reuniting with family (if you're lucky), and the huge challenge of socially re-integrating with society.

groupthinker• 13 years ago

This comment is off-topic, and is not related to hacking at all. This entire submission should be deleted. I agree with all opinions expressed here.

rayiner6• 13 years ago

The ACLU page is rather manipulative in that they construe the facts very favorably to the convicted. E.g. "After serving two years in prison during his mid-twenties for inadvertently killing someone during a bar fight." Oh yes, he just accidentally killed someone in a bar fight. Happens all the time really, right up there with leaving your credit card with the hostess after getting a little too tipsy.

It would be less biased to show statistics for the kind of people sentenced under the three strikes law, but that wouldn't tug the heart strings as much. California's law is particularly dysfunctional, because it applies to any three felonies while most states limit their laws to serious felonies. As a result, about half of three strikers in California are in for non-serious or non-violent predicate felonies (burglary, robbery, and drug possession). But in other states the law is more limited. For example, the Georgia law only applies to: (1) Murder or felony murder, (2) Armed robbery, (3) Kidnapping, (4) Rape, (5) Aggravated child molestation, (6) Aggravated sodomy, or (7) Aggravated sexual battery.

Besides that, what you're missing is that nobody is really intending for these specific, cherry-picked, people to be kept in jail for their whole lives. Their sentences are the unintended consequences of three-strikes laws that offer no discretion to sentencing judges.

When legislators voted for these three strikes laws, with public support, they were thinking of people who are "irredeemable." Hardened convicts who end up in jail on three occasions. What they didn't count on was the fact that there are people living on the edge who rack up a number of felony convictions for relatively minor things even though they're not the kind of hardened criminal legislators were thinking about. If you live in the ghetto and have friends who engage in gang activity, it's pretty easy to get drawn into some bad behavior that results in a couple of felony convictions, so that "one mistake" later in your life can bring you under the three strikes law.

Why don't these laws get repealed? Because Americans are really not sympathetic to people living on the edge. Ordinary people don't live in the kind of circumstances where they might wander into a felony conviction from a minor lapse in judgment. They don't have drug dealer boyfriends or friends who try to recruit them into burglarizing a house. It helps that 75% of people sentenced under California's three strikes law are black or hispanic (45% are black despite only 6.5% of the state population being black). Americans are particularly unsympathetic to racial minorities living on the edge.

I think sentences in the U.S. are deeply dysfunctional, but I hate this sort of publication by the ACLU. It makes people who support sentence reform seem dishonest by cherry-picking the edge cases, instead of trying to paint an accurate picture with statistics.

michaelt• 13 years ago

  It would be less biased to show statistics for the kind of 
  people sentenced under the three strikes law, but that 
  wouldn't tug the heart strings as much.

Perhaps we could aspire to have a law that works right in outlier cases, not just on average?

Daniel_Newby4• 13 years ago

Americans are particularly unsympathetic to racial minorities living on the edge.

AFAICT, it's about neurological differences, not racial or cultural differences. White people with low IQ or poor impulse control get shafted just as hard, they are just a smaller proportion of the population. Gypsies and trailer trash are just as screwed as minorities of color.

chongli• 13 years ago

instead of trying to paint an accurate picture with statistics.

People are even more unmoved by accurate pictures painted by statistics than they are of "minorities living on the edge". That's the problem here. The ACLU is trying to relate to people on a human level so that they can build some support. So what if they end up producing something very biased? Is this a scientific paper in peer review? I think most people are aware of the fact that the ACLU is a civil liberties advocacy organization and that this naturally biases towards the left wing.

dba7dba• 13 years ago

I agree. While I sympathize for the people in the stories, the publication by ACLU is much like typical spinning of facts done by marketing firms and politicians.

crusso• 13 years ago

instead of trying to paint an accurate picture with statistics

When that starts working I'm sure advocacy groups and politicians might give it a try.

thecodeore2• 13 years ago

   Ordinary people don't live in the kind of circumstances where 
    they might wander into a felony conviction

Ohh I think you should be shocked at the number of felonies a person could commit on the course of everyday life. Felony is not just used for serious crimes. Almost every state have what are referred to a "catch all" felonies that can be brought against just about any one at any time if you piss off the right person in power.

dont fool yourself into think the legal system is anything other than a tool for oppression and control

onetwofiveten• 13 years ago

You're construing the facts against the convicted. You didn't even finish the sentence you quoted. After he went to jail, that guy turned his life around and became a productive valuable member of society. They say he killed someone accidentally because there's an important distinction between accidental and intentional homicide, not because it's an easy mistake to make. He's exactly the kind of edge case that shows the stupidity of three strikes laws. Instead of being an irredeemable criminal, he was a criminal who actually showed clear signs of rehabilitation. Really not someone who should be shoved in jail forever at the taxpayer's expense.

pswenson2• 13 years ago

insanity. I don't understand how many of these cases aren't cruel and unusual punishment

anigbrowl6• 13 years ago

Sadly, because it's cruel but not unusual. Oversentencing is so common in America that you can't make the argument in absolute terms, and some conservative judges are hostile to comparisons with extraterritorial penal policy - eg Justice Scalia got rather annoyed about such comparisons being made in a case about whether the death penalty could be administered to minors.

dsjoerg• 13 years ago

A throwaway thought: one of the (many) problems with 3-strike sentencing laws may be that the escalation curve is too quick to have the desired curbing effect.

It is obvious (to me) that some kind of exponentiation would be more effective. 2x - 3x elongation per offense would be plenty harsh, harsh enough for the offender to understand it's going to be much worse each time, without it having to be life in prison.

EDIT: On second thought, formulaic sentencing is bad. Sentencing is hard, consistency is hard, but to remove human judgment and discretion from the sentencing process seems obviously wrong.

skyraider5• 13 years ago

Is it really hard to make a decision on sentencing in nonviolent crimes that you wouldn't personally lock someone in a box for?

If they're not a danger to society, they do not belong in a box.

clarky0722• 13 years ago

breaking and entering seems like something people should probably go to jail for. That's what several of these were.

zw123456• 13 years ago

From the map it seems like all the cases are in the Southeast. Is the Southeastern United States sort or a 3rd Word Country within the U.S. ? It seems like every time I see something like this it is in the Southeast. It seems to me like the rift from the Civil War has never completely been resolved. Just an observation, does anyone else feel the same way?

randuser• 13 years ago

The southeastern part of the United States has a larger African-American population.

http://www.censusscope.org/us/map_nhblack.html

GuiA5• 13 years ago

I've lived in the southeast of the US as well as the west coast, and I am from Europe.

To my foreign eyes, infrastructures and poverty levels in the south east of the US definitely made it feel like a 3rd world country.

clarky0722• 13 years ago

It depends on where you are. Certainly on average there are more poorer areas, but there are plenty of nice areas as well. Atlanta, Nashville and a few other places are really nice.

Edit: Also 3rd world is a bit hyperbolic. Even the bad areas of the southeast aren't comparable to most of Africa and the real 3rd world.

pfedor3• 13 years ago

For example, Alabama is almost as poor as France or Japan, and Mississippi (the poorest state) is almost as poor as Spain and New Zealand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP

yetanotherphd2• 13 years ago

Look at a map of "percentage Black". The number of issues associate with race, will be correlated both with how Black people are treated, but also the number of Black people.

EDIT: missed the other almost identical reply :-)

mynameishere• 13 years ago

The three strike laws make some sense as long as people conflate "felony" with genuinely serious crimes like rape or aggravated assault. If someone commits three consecutive rapes...well, who would complain about locking him up forever?

The problem is in the increasing meaninglessness of the term "felony". If they limited it to grievous crimes, there wouldn't be much controversy.

Also, it's weird to have something presented as "news" when The Simpsons covered it satirically about 15 years ago:

http://smotri.com/video/view/?id=v1656836867c

neeee• 13 years ago

If someone commits three consecutive rapes...well, who would complain about locking him up forever?

I would. The primary purpose of prisons should be rehabilitation. Giving life sentences doesn't take into account that people can change.

clarky0722• 13 years ago

So what is a reasonable punishment for a serial rapist? Seems to me that no one should get the chance to be convicted of rape 3 times. They should have been locked up before that 3rd one happened. I might, might let you out at some point after 1. After 2, screw you. You clearly didn't learn and you are a danger to society.

jakejake• 13 years ago

Agreed. The death penalty is much better in that situation.

sukuriant2• 13 years ago

It says that there is no hope for these individuals.

... Why? Why can't they be brought out of their situation? I know some have been in there for 22 years already; but, why can't they be helped from this? I just... it doesn't make sense to me

coldtea3• 13 years ago

It's because of what they call "law" in these there parts. It makes it nearly impossible for them to get freed.

joshfraser2• 13 years ago

There is so much injustice with our prison system right now. There are countless people being locked up for their entire lives over petty crimes -- the same crimes that relatively comfortable white boys like me could easily get away with because I can afford a decent lawyer. It's racism and wealth discrimination disguised as justice.

The US is leading the world in incarceration and the privatization of prisons is a big contributor to the problem. Corporations have a financial incentive to incarcerate more people and lobby to keep strict drug laws.

Meanwhile we make jokes and laugh about things like prison rape. I believe we will look back at prison rape the same way we look back at slavery. How barbaric are we that we think that's somehow okay?

For things to change, we’re going to have to change public perceptions and start demanding change. I wish we were a little less eager to deprive people of their most basic right to freedom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta...

jrockway2• 13 years ago

I don't think the underlying problem is privatized prisons. The underlying problems are our unconscious biases, political pandering ("tough on crime!") and weaknesses in our educational and healthcare systems.

joshfraser2• 13 years ago

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-carlsen/immigration-refo...

yummyfajitas3• 13 years ago

Privatizing prisons generally reduce the financial incentive to incarcerate more people.

In non-privatized states, you generally have a prison guard union. The prison guard union lobbies for more prisoners and gets more money. Simple as that. A non-monopolistic prison corporation spends their own money lobbying, and all the other prison corporations get to reap the benefits. Classic collective action problem.

http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/10/the-effect-of-privatization...

http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/11/the-effect-of-privatization...

anu_gupta4• 13 years ago

Privatizing prisons generally reduce the financial incentive to incarcerate more people.

That made me laugh - thanks :)

gregsq• 13 years ago

In England, especially in the eighteenth century, we had a somewhat similar, though harsher regime where one strike against you on a charge of petty larceny could lead to imprisonment in HM prisons. Of course the prison population swelled as hangings became less fashionable, and the temporary prison ships were unmoored to sail to places like Australia. Transportation for the theft of a loaf of bread.

Ironic that that country, along with its New World cousin the USA, claimed ideals of freedom so strongly. Much more so in the USA. Mandatory sentencing has it's place it can be argued. This seems antithetical to first principles however.

skyraider5• 13 years ago

I think an effective way to frame this issue is:

Would you consider these people so dangerous that you would personally build a small concrete box and forcibly keep them inside for many hours a day for the rest of their lives? Or, is that how you would treat your children if they committed some minor, nonviolent, kinda-maybe-bad act?

No reasonable person would - the moral decision above is clear. Would you pay for someone else to do this?

We are brothers and sisters in humanity, and we elect people who write these laws and treat fellow people like this (and/or refuse to reform the US Sentencing Commission). We are to blame.

mrkmcknz• 13 years ago

The UK in comparison:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentencing_in_England_and_Wales

I understand that we don't have the kind of problem that a8da6b0c91d mentioned here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6743406 however I really don't understand the common sense of the US judicial system.

If I were to be caught breaking some computer misuse act against a UK company it's more than likely a slap on the wrist would be handed down to me. Abuse a US corporation and I would expect extradition and 10 years or more in one of your comfortable prison cells.

Also compare the US and UK prisons themselves.

UK: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=uk+prison+cell&espv=210&es...

US: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=uk+prison+cell&espv=210&es...

memracom• 13 years ago

The decline of the American empire. Things like this are nickel and diming the taxpayers to the bone.

electic• 13 years ago

I actually teared up reading this. This is truly a tragedy.

thaumasiotes13• 13 years ago

My thoughts on the best and the worst:

Anthony Jackson has a sixth-grade education and worked as a cook. He was convicted of burglary for stealing a wallet from a Myrtle Beach hotel room when he was 44 years old. According to prosecutors, he woke two vacationing golfers as he entered the room and stole a wallet, then pretended to be a security guard and ran away. Police arrested him when he tried to use the stolen credit card at a pancake house. [...] Because of two prior convictions for burglary, Jackson was sentenced to mandatory life without parole under South Carolina's three-strikes law.

Emphasis mine. I can't get too worked up about a system that sentences this guy to life in prison. What would be the point of letting him out? He knew he wasn't supposed to walk into other people's hotel rooms and take their wallets. At what point does society get to tell people "you know what, knock it off"?

After serving two years in prison during his mid-twenties for inadvertently killing someone during a bar fight, Aaron Jones turned his life around. He earned an electrical technician degree, married, became an ordained reverend, and founded the Perfect Love Outreach Ministry. Years later, Aaron was hired to renovate a motel in Florida, and was living in an employee-sponsored apartment with two other workers, one of whom had a truck that was used as a company vehicle by all the co-workers. Jones decided to drive this truck home to Louisiana to visit his wife and four children. When Aaron's co-worker woke up to find his truck missing, he reported it stolen. Aaron was pulled over by police while driving the truck.

I don't understand this one at all. Shouldn't the truck owner have testified on his behalf? Declined to press charges?

I made a cursory effort to look up the case itself, but I have no idea how to do that.

Anderkent• 13 years ago

Uh, why would he decline to press charges? The guy stole his truck. No idea why the article calls it 'borrowing'.

sliverstorm• 13 years ago

They are applying spin to fit their narrative.

This is the ACLU; they are both biased and good at spin.

(Which is not to say they are quacks, but know what you are dealing with)

chc5• 13 years ago

If the article is to be believed, it was understood among the men that the truck was for everyone to use, and it was his intention to return the truck as they always did. If that was the case, I don't see how it meets the common definition of theft. (It may not be the case. The fact that he got convicted seems to fly in the face of the situation they describe.)

anigbrowl6• 13 years ago

Theft is a bad thing but hardly deserving of a life sentence, even with a history of burglary. The economic cost of this crime is at most a few thousand $, probably much less. The economic cost of incarcerating the guy for 30-40 years is going to be a few million.

clarky0722• 13 years ago

depends on where he is. cost of prisons varies wildly by state and city, which i find to be a bit bizarre. According to some quick research, it can be as low as 13k a year (Louisiana) to as high as 47k a year (California) and even on smaller levels 167k (New York City).

30 years in Louisiana is just over 2 years in new york city.

mikeash5• 13 years ago

Where do you draw the line? I bet you wouldn't go for life in prison for someone who get three speeding tickets. Once we agree that there is a line, then it just comes down to which side of the line a particular crime is on. I don't see wallet theft as being all that serious. Yeah, it sucks to be the victim (been there, done that) but it's fairly minor in the grand scheme of things.

Ultimately, the point of letting him out is that he is still a human being who deserves freedom unless we can show some very good reasons why he doesn't. What would be the point of keeping you out of prison?

clarky0722• 13 years ago

there is a difference between pickpocket and breaking and entering. I'm guessing if someone else came into your house or place you were staying you'd be pretty scared and think that it was pretty unacceptable behavior deserving of some serious jail time. After 3 times, it seems reasonable to escalate the penalty a bit. Perhaps life is too severe, but it should be for a long damn time.

thaumasiotes13• 13 years ago

I bet you wouldn't go for life in prison for someone who get three speeding tickets.

Sure.

Once we agree that there is a line, then it just comes down to which side of the line a particular crime is on.

I actually don't find this to follow, because your example is exceptionally poor. I don't favor speeding tickets at all; as far as I can see, they're just a way for governments to capriciously collect extra revenue from people without giving it the politically unpopular name of "taxes".

Repeated-burglaries guy is obviously opting out of functioning in society. If the cost of keeping him out of it exceeds the cost he inflicts by his presence, I'd say we should keep him incarcerated and spend less, not just tell him "OK, burgle all you want".

nandemo• 13 years ago

I don't understand this one at all. Shouldn't the truck owner have testified on his behalf? Declined to press charges?

Maybe, just maybe, the ACLU account is deliberate fuzzy on the details? It's difficult to conciliate the claim that the accused "borrowed" the truck with the allegation that the co-worker found the truck missing.

Mithaldu6• 13 years ago

At what point does society get to tell people "you know what, knock it off"?

You're thinking about this the wrong way.

First, ask yourself: Why is there the justice system and prisons?

The answer: To reduce occurrence of crime.

Now why are prisons meant to help reduce crime? By scaring people into not committing crimes? That obviously doesn't work, especially when many people live lives so bad that they can't see a way of improving their lives but by committing crimes, which is pretty much all the people in that document.

Now how would you actually get those people to stop committing crimes? The document actually shows that:

Educate them. Once they know enough to actually be able to meaningfully participate in modern society they see life entirely differently.

Only problem is: These people have reached that point and are barred from actually acting upon it.

wmil2• 13 years ago

Nonsense.

The primary way prisons reduce crime is by people who commit crimes.

The problem is generally their personality. Habitual criminals are impulsive, aggressive, and bad at thinking ahead.

It's unfair to expect everyone else to put up with a lifetime of offenses, even if each one isn't particularly horrible individually.

tshile5• 13 years ago

The point of the justice system is to adequately determine punishments for crimes committed.

The point of prisons is to provide a place to isolate people from society that have been deemed not fit for society (permanently or temporary.)

Neither one is there to reduce crime. They're reactive not proactive systems. Society uses them as examples to deter future crime, but that does not make that their job.

phreanix• 13 years ago

What is it these guys are doing right and we're doing wrong?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/11/sweden-closes-p...

hrjet• 13 years ago

"When Aaron's co-worker woke up to find his truck missing, he reported it stolen"

What could have happened: Aaron requests truck for a day from room-mate. Room-mate agrees. But the company finds out about it and frowns. Mate says Aaron stole the truck, out of fear.

There are any number of ways this might have happened; and perhaps the case docs talk about it. But, in any case, life sentence seems harsh.

fleitz9• 13 years ago

Good point, it's too bad authorities never caught up to that Oliver kid. The gall to ask for more gruel and then turn to a life of crime!

They should have locked him up for life.

collyw5• 13 years ago

Since the recession hit here in Spain, I have had my wages cut 7% for two years running. That's to basically to pay for the cock ups the bankers made, through bailouts, and their crap investments. No one went to jail there, but I have lost money an order of magnitude bigger than if I had had my wallet stolen.

andylei• 13 years ago

I don't understand this one at all. Shouldn't the truck owner have testified on his behalf? Declined to press charges?

in most cases, i think details are pretty important. here, not really.

let's say he straight up stole the truck. does he deserve life in prison? doubtful

Declined to press charges?

Also, i'm pretty sure this isn't a thing. Only prosecutors can decide whether they want to press charges in criminal cases.

thaumasiotes13• 13 years ago

Only prosecutors can decide whether they want to press charges in criminal cases.

Yes, but it generally helps if they can produce someone who says "yes, my truck was stolen".

in most cases, i think details are pretty important. here, not really. let's say he straight up stole the truck. does he deserve life in prison? doubtful

This is reasonable, but I think the details I wondered about are important to another issue, that of "how the heck was this guy jailed at all?"

Lacking any other evidence, I tend to lean toward the theory that he did straight up steal the truck, and the ACLU is whitewashing him, which (a) is weird, since they're not apologizing for much less sympathetic prisoners, and (b) implicates a third important issue, "can we trust the ACLU to describe its own cases?"

Confusion• 13 years ago

  At what point does society get to tell people "you know what, knock it off"?

In other countries, much, much later. And they have less crime. Blanket laws with such severe penalties always have more downside than upside. The ability to dispense such severe sentences should be in the hands of a judge that can weigh each case individually.

If you believe someone deserves life in prison for two burglaries and a case of theft, you are being inhumane. You need to change the system or these people, such that they don't feel the need to steal. That takes time and several moments to check whether it worked. Hell, most countries don't even have true 'life in prison' sentences and they manage to be safer than the US.

Kequc• 13 years ago

It surprises me how often what it takes to answer a "how do we fix this social problem" is to look outside of the US border, see how other people are fixing it. Yet it seems like it's the last idea on anyone's mind.

zurn• 13 years ago

What would be the point of letting him out? He knew he wasn't supposed to walk into other people's hotel rooms and take their wallets.

How do you end up concluding that petty theft is a good reason to torture this guy for the rest of his life? People do things they're not supposed to all the time.

grey-area2• 13 years ago

You should try looking at prison differently. It's incredibly expensive to lock someone up for their life - that's four walls, meals, space to exercise and guards for say another 40 years. We shouldn't spend that unless the alternative would cost a lot more (say violence against another person, a person's life).

he woke two vacationing golfers as he entered the room and stole a wallet, then pretended to be a security guard and ran away

Crime is often impulsive, irrational. Now this guy had poor impulse control and started from a difficult position in life. He then did stupid things like petty crime. The loss to these golfers was probably $100 - balance that against the cost to society of a life in prison. I disagree that's a worthwhile trade or is protecting society to any significant degree. It costs huge amounts of money, throws away a life that could be turned around, results in disproportionate and inhumane punishments, and doesn't even help the victims. This is little better than deportation for stealing an apple.

The US has 1.6 million of its population in jail, and that figure rose very rapidly in the last few decades, probably due to laws like this and jailing people for minor drugs offences, I'm not convinced that has saved US society any money or even made it much safer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...

drivingmissm• 13 years ago

U.S. violent crime rates have plummeted in part because of higher incarceration. A lot of people on this list don't remember when cities like New York and Washington, DC were very dangerous places and all native born inhabitants were leaving.

EliRivers4• 13 years ago

I can't get too worked up about a system that sentences this guy to life in prison.

Is that seriously the best fucking option you can come up with? A massively expensive revenge-trip that causes far, far more damage than the theft of a wallet?

Perhaps there's some kind of much, much more effective way to get him to stop taking things that don't belong to him. I say perhaps; of course there are. Lots, that are cheaper, more effective and build a better society; but no, (parts of) the US is happy doing this. Cutting off its own nose to spite its own face and destroying a life in the process, behaving like children.

waps4• 13 years ago

I wonder what his three strikes are ? I thought that for three strikes you're only fucked if at least one of those strikes involved violence and a victim ?

nhangen2• 13 years ago

Are you kidding me? What do you want to do instead, cut his hand off?

If we have to pay to keep a criminal like this off the street, then I'm OK with that. We're paying for protection.

Not to mention, there's lots that could go wrong with lacking the 'impulse control' to enter someone's hotel room.

marvin2• 13 years ago

Your lack of empathy in these cases is frightening. Do you really feel that spending the rest of your life in prison is an appropriate punishment for stealing? I could probably concieve of some edge case where it would take some slight effort to argue against it, but none of these cases are anywhere near that.

Personally, I would rather just be shot and get it over with, than spending 40 years with no personal freedoms. You are literally condoning a fate worse than death for non-violent offenses with a relatively small impact on the victim. Please take a step back and listen to what you're saying here.

mercer• 13 years ago

I was writing essentially the same response when I noticed yours. I completely agree with the sentiment.

What baffles me most is the idea that someone can value 'stuff' so much that the resulting damage (be it emotional, financial, or practical) justifies such a harsh punishment.

Sure, 'stuff' can be important. If someone cheats you out of a large sum of money that you've been working hard for, the damage can be considered large. But I don't think that's what we're talking about here. And even then I'd say 40 years in prison is way out of proportion.

bullseye• 13 years ago

I don't understand this one at all.

I suspect it had something to do with driving a "company vehicle" to Louisiana from Florida, without telling the actual owner of the vehicle. There are some details missing obviously.

His prior convictions were armed robbery, negligent homicide, and issuing worthless checks. According to the ACLU, the docket number for the LA court of appeals is supposedly: 2000-KA-2117. I couldn't find anything on it though.

ElComradio2• 13 years ago

This is an important issue, but HN?

w_t_payne2• 13 years ago

Why, you you rather people buried their heads in the sand?

ElComradio2• 13 years ago

I'd rather people buried their heads in Gawker for this.

analog31• 13 years ago

I came across a web forum thread in which the escalation of criminal sentencing laws is compared to the Milgram experiment:

http://www.isthmus.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=58211

Of course no analogy is perfect, but this one gave me pause.

mayneack• 13 years ago

Obama is pretty stingy on pardons:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2013/08/15/barack-th...

_xhok• 13 years ago

I have no words. None. At all.

I'm going to be honest and say that in general I am anything but a compassion. I have every bit of sympathy, however, for (relatively) innocent people being victims of things like bureaucracy, human stupidity, laziness, or sheer scumfuckery. It's hard for me to imagine what was going on in those judges' heads, but chances are it's something I despise.

This one was the worst for me:

When he was 22-years-old, Lance Saltzman was charged with breaking into his own home and taking his stepfather’s gun, which his stepfather had shot at his mother and repeatedly used to threaten her. He was convicted of armed burglary and sentenced to prison for the rest of his life.

refurb• 13 years ago

I'm pretty sure that story is missing some important details. First, how can you be charged with breaking into your own home?

It sounds like he broke into his stepfather's home, stole a gun and likely because of his criminal past got the book thrown at him. Breakings law is bad enough, but doing it while armed will get the book thrown at you.

I'm not saying mandatory minimums are right, they aren't. Why have judges if you aren't going to let them do the judging.

However, these stories don't seem to pass the sniff test.

EDIT: A few more important details about Lance..

"In March 2006, when he was 21, Saltzman came home to find his stepfather, Toni Minnick, and his mother, Christina Borg, were in a heated argument. His stepfather took his gun and pointed it at his mother. He fired it near her. His mother called the police. Police seized the gun then returned it to his stepfather days later. There were no charges filed. Again, his stepfather pulled the gun on his mother and threatened to kill his mother.

Saltzman decided that his stepfather should no longer have this firearm. He was likely to shoot and kill his mother. In June, he removed the gun from his stepfather’s bedroom and then sold the gun, according to evidence, to “feed his drug addiction.” It was later used in a burglary.

His stepfather found the gun missing and notified the police. Police found the gun “in the possession of the young man who had committed the burglary.” Saltzman was then charged with “armed burglary, grand theft of a firearm, and being a felon in possession of a firearm—all for breaking into his own home and taking his stepfather’s gun.” Police also found cocaine in his car and he was charged with possession of cocaine."

codezero2• 13 years ago

I felt like the title here was misleading. They weren't sentenced to "death," as in, given a death sentence, they were sentenced to life in prison, which in some cases means they will die in prison, this is pretty different, though no less a tragedy.

Mithaldu6• 13 years ago

Not some cases, all cases, as it's a life sentence without parole, meaning they can behave all they want in prison, they are never coming out, period. I think it's clear why this is just as good as a death sentence.

codezero2• 13 years ago

I agree but just as good as is not the same as. Death sentence is a very specific thing.

e12e• 13 years ago

"(...) we found out that seven out of every ten black men behind jail, and most of the men behind jail are black

Seven out of every ten black men never went to the ninth grade

Didn't have 50 dollars and hadn't had 100 for a month when they went to jail

So the poor and the ignorant go to jail while the rich go to San Clemente"

     -- We beg your pardon America, Gil Scott-Heron
        from the album The First Minute of a New Day (1975)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDCfEkopryo

clarky0722• 13 years ago

Am I the only one here not seeing this as propaganda with nicely worded articles masking a lot of the reality here? Some of them seem a little unreasonable I'll agree, but lets go through a few of these:

"taking a wallet from a hotel room" - we blame it on the court appointed lawyer. He's already been convicted and sent to jail twice for burglary and he continues to break into other peoples places and steal their stuff. Poor guy just took a wallet from those rich vacationing golfers. Screw that. If I was there I'd be scared to death. How many times do we let him keep doing this. Stop doing it stupid.

"stealing tools from a tool shed" - oh he was just riding along. sure he was. already been convicted multiple times for burglary. The fact that he desperately misses his children does not make him less guilty of continuing to break into other peoples places and taking their things. Stop doing that stupid.

"borrowing a co-workers truck" - i think there is clearly more to this story. generally speaking, people don't normally drive other people's trucks 3 states away without letting them know. If it really was harmless, i'd expect the other guy to not press charges or testify on his behalf. Hey guys, it was just a misunderstanding I thought someone else took it. Also, "inadvertently killing someone" is a really nice way of saying he beat the shit out of someone in a fight and the guy died.

Perhaps some of these don't deserve life, but I don't really have that much of a problem with it. Maybe we could lower it to 20-30 years, but I have no problems with escalating penalties. If you are a productive member of society this isn't a problem. These mini-articles are all worded as if these people didn't do anything wrong and just made a tiny mistake this one time and now they are in prison forever. Not the case. Most of them made pretty big mistakes, and they made them repeatedly.

Mithaldu6• 13 years ago

There's a principle in justice: A punishment fitting the crime.

As the document points out, people who raped or murdered, sometimes more than once, can leave prison after 5-15 years, depending on behavior. Meanwhile those people listed will never be able to leave, even if they spend 50 years with impeccable and absolitely perfect behavior.

clarky0722• 13 years ago

Can I ask where the document states that? Ctrl-F doesn't seem to find the word rape and says nothing about 5-15 years. That being said, I am not for anyone convicted of rape or murder being let out after 5-15 years. Being ok with someone convicted repeatedly of things being sentenced to long terms does not mean I want short terms for even more serious crimes. Feel free to argue for longer terms for rape and murder. Unlikely to find too much dissension. This article on the other hand is for shorter terms for different crimes. The two things don't REALLY have anything to do with one another.

tshile5• 13 years ago

Crimes. Plural, not singular. Three strikes laws exist for a reason.

Does stealing a wallet justify sitting in jail for life? No.

Does getting caught committing your third burglary? Well, that's a much more interesting question and everyone is obviously entitled to their own opinions. But no one is entitled to completely twist the facts and then demand everyone agree with them or feel sorry for their own positions on it.

avenger1233• 13 years ago

Incredible.

Please, please take a step back and read what you wrote. Now, for each of those instances you described, please assume this is your uncle, brother, cousin etc? Do you still feel the same?

No one is saying these people did nothing wrong. The main issue is that the punishment does not fit the crime. That's it. Simple.

Where do we draw the line? Obviously for you the line is ok where it is at. But, frankly, all these cases, I have an intuitive sense that the punishment does not fit the crime. There are many people, I would assume that also have this intuitive sense.

Why is this? I would make a guess that when I see someone like Martha Stewart getting less than a year in prison for securities fraud and someone "taking a wallet from a hotel room" getting life, well, it just doesn't jive right. Obviously this is just one example. The unevenness of it makes it wrong.

clarky0722• 13 years ago

you clearly don't know me at all. I have a cousin that has stolen large sums of money from and threatened bodily harm to my grandma along with several other convictions that i'd like to stay in prison for a long time. I've got an uncle that I have similar feelings for.

Also, you should re-read what I wrote. I also said that perhaps these don't deserve life, but "a long time" does seem reasonable.

Finally, how is securities fraud worse than breaking and entering? How is securities fraud worse than "inadvertently killing someone?" Really? Yes yes, I know we hate the 1%. Terrible rich people. Insider trading is not worse than breaking and entering or killing someone. Come on now.

PeterisP7• 13 years ago

Serial theft is a tricky issue.

Imagine someone pricking you with a pin. And doing it repeatedly. For years. The crime is tiny, but you'd anyway want him to stop permanently.

So the question is what do we do with people who commit small crimes as a lifestyle, and have proven repeatedly in practice that our rehabilitation doesn't work on them? On one hand, harsh punishment doesn't fit the crime, but on the other hand, allowing to continue to offend all the time (we locally had an underaged teenager that was caught stealing 20+ times in less than a year, but was always released because the legislation doesn't expect imprisonment in such cases) is stupid as well, since it hurts victims.

What should we do with such people? I've no idea. Exile from society seems somehow appropriate, but we can't do that.

rlpb• 13 years ago

The main issue is that the punishment does not fit the crime.

The punishment certainly does not fit the description of the crimes given. But what were "the crime[s]", and how accurately have they been represented in the descriptions given in this article?

It seems to me that the article has been written to be lenient with the truth, so I think it's acceptable to question the truth about the crimes represented here.

We should have more information about these specific crimes before judging these specific cases.

drawkbox• 13 years ago

If there are filters like archaic three strikes laws to take out human decision making on repeat offenses, there should be sanity filters on the other end. Laws that say noone, ever, should serve more than X amount of years for non-violent crimes and that is probably or should be a low number, single digit. Life for non-violence is very sad as a society.

I am against prison or jail for any non-violent offense beyond fines or 'outpatient' like corrections, they cost much less and might actually help. They keep the individual contributing and don't subject people to a further life of crime locking them up, especially drug offenses when it is really most likely an illness or a non-issue.

If, when they gave a sentence, they reported the projected cost of that sentencing maybe some of this would change?

Things to try to help this:

1) Create common sense filters for sentencing so non-violent criminals or repeat offenses serve no more than x amount of years for a crime or remove jail/prison for non-violence altogether.

2) When sentencing is handed down, the projected cost of that sentence should also be read with the sentence except in extreme cases of violent sentencing. All non-violent sentencing should have a price right next to it so people understand what it really means. i.e. caught with a small amount of drugs = 10 years * 30k per year = 300,000 to put this person away for nothing. Right after that it lists their projected income and loss in taxes. Then a net benefit total which in this case is probably around 500k of economic value for this one offense.

Stupid events like this wouldn't happen if we changed this: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/video-shows-man-dyi...

Technology changing society is another side to this. In the past, laws were not only there to dissuade people from doing undesirable behavior but were also more lax and harder to get caught. Nowadays everything is tracked and aggressive laws are now problematic because it isn't just a dissuading factor anymore it is a certainty. If there is something that probably shouldn't be illegal but is based on this past we could be in trouble. So all laws or things like this with non-violence being locked up and a private prison industry run amuck, we need to change drastically soon. People are human and they can mess up, our systems for corrections sometimes mess up the rest of their lives for one momentary lapse of reason.

edvinbesic• 13 years ago

The 3 strikes law system seems beyond ridiculous. Not being a US native, does this mean that I can get three tickets for shoplifting and go to jail for life? What about 3 speeding tickets?

/genuinely curious

cmccabe3• 13 years ago

Let's try wikipedia:

The three-strikes law significantly increases the prison sentences of persons convicted of a felony who have been previously convicted of two or more violent crimes or serious felonies, and limits the ability of these offenders to receive a punishment other than a life sentence. Violent and serious felonies are specifically listed in state laws. Violent offenses include murder, robbery of a residence in which a deadly or dangerous weapon is used, rape and other sex offenses; serious offenses include the same offenses defined as violent offenses, but also include other crimes such as burglary of a residence and assault with intent to commit a robbery or murder.

So, since speeding is not a felony, it has no relevance here. Shoplifting might be a felony, but it would only invoke three strikes if you already had two prior felonies which also happened to be violent.

By the way, I'm not defending three-strikes laws, just describing them. I think they are a bad idea. I also think the ACLU is whitewashing the records of a lot of the people involved here.

zaroth• 13 years ago

If the judge simply orders a sentence below the minimum, what happens? While the Government can appeal the sentence, then it comes to the next judge up the line to stand up for justice.

For example, California's 3-strike law counts non-violent felonies, which sweeps up a lot of criminals into 25 year sentences that they don't deserve.

"The California law originally gave judges no discretion in setting prison terms for three strikes offenders. However, the California Supreme Court ruled, in 1996, that judges, in the interest of justice, could ignore prior convictions in determining whether an offender qualified for a three strikes sentence." [1]

But these so called "mandatory" sentences are not actually that, it's just that most judges simply don't have the guts to stand up for justice. A judge can use their discretion in setting sentences, but then can be challenged if Government can show the sentence is unreasonable. While following the guidelines is presumed reasonable, simply not following the guidelines is not presumed unreasonable.

Lois Forer was a judge in Philadelphia facing just such a decision, and he explains the process better than I can [2]. In the end, the man he tried to save was resentenced by another judge to serve the balance of the "mandatory minimum" five years. This is a system which is ultimately perpetuated by the judiciary.

I don't blame the legislature for enacting laws that get them re-elected. I do blame the judges for letting a sentencing law unjustly destroy some peoples lives.

[1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Three+Strikes+... [2] - http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Justice+by+the+numbers%3B+mand...

skyraider5• 13 years ago

A few points:

- Many former judges are prosecutors. Prosecutors are trained to get the maximum 'sustainable' sentence. This means looking at what the law says and enforcing it. Fault: legislature.

- If the law says that sentences should or must be X long, sentences are going to be around X long. Outside of the 3 strikes system and the California Supreme Court's ruling, how is this the judiciary's fault? There is a severe lack of empathy among the public, legislators, and in the judiciary for sure, but the legislators passed the laws.

- How much, really, does sentence length have to do with re-election? Maybe a few really informed voters on either side will vote on the sentencing issue only but I really doubt this.

erichocean• 13 years ago

How much, really, does sentence length have to do with re-election?

If you mean, with the voters? Almost nothing.

It you mean, in the ability to get votes in the next election through adequate funding? It means a lot.

The prison union (among others) is a heavy, heavy funder of politicians here in CA (and I assume other places). Obviously they benefit from having more customers^Hprisoners; hence, politicians are willing to vote for legislation in their favor, to keep the money flowing for the next election.

This should surprise no one.

yetanotherphd2• 13 years ago

This really shows the unjustness of "three strikes" laws. There is nothing magical about committing three crimes. In my opinion, sentences should reflect the crime you actually committed an not much else.

tshile5• 13 years ago

Wait, are we actually supposed to get worked up over this? The ACLU so clearly tip toed while writing the descriptions of these cases as to clearly walk a line between lying about the case and giving us the context needed to understand why these people are in jail for life.

"Patrick had no violent criminal history and had never served a single day in a Department of Corrections facility" - Right, but he obviously had a drug problem since he did NA in prison and probably got in trouble previously, just not enough to go to the Department Of Corrections facility (what his crimes and punishments were are left as an exercise to the reader)

The other stories have similar issues. Blame it on the abusive and threatening boyfriend, not the previous drug convictions and a three strikes law. Life in prison for borrowing a truck from a friend that accidentally reported it stolen?

Look, innocent people get in trouble for things they didn't do. Not innocent people get in trouble for things they didn't do, but were just in the wrong place at the wrong time due to the other things that they did do. It's an unfortunate part of the system and I'm all for things that minimize overcharging and punishing innocent people.

But anyone who can't read between the lines on these is either a sap or just believing what they want to. They even led into it with a statistic about race to soften you up. There are three strikes laws for a reason. There's massive amounts of context missing from these. It's a shame, I generally like the ACLU and what they do, but this is awful.

eaurouge2• 13 years ago

Three strikes on drug convictions is unfair - especially given the disparity in sentencing for crack cocain vs. other drugs. Do you have any idea how many privileged celebrities would be in jail (some for life) if drug crimes were enforced fairly and uniformly?

tshile5• 13 years ago

So for drug convictions it's unfair? possession or distribution? what about manufacturing? is the crime for possession change depending on amount? what about the type of drug?

i think the way our country approaches the issue of drugs is not only pointless but down right dumb. about as dumb as breaking the law 3 times when you know that there's a three strikes rule on the books. i just don't have sympathy for people that can't learn from their mistakes. these laws are in place for a reason, these people knew they were in place, and now we're all supposed to feel bad for them about their decisions making? sorry, i don't buy it.

as for celebrities, i don't think we can really model the entire country around how they're treated. i'd prefer they be treated like everyone else too, but money buys lawyers and not all lawyers are created equally.

brohoolio• 13 years ago

Sounds fucking expensive.

beloch2• 13 years ago

The U.S. and Canada have very similar cultures, so comparisons here have some meaning. The U.S.'s per capita incarceration rate is 6.28 times Canada's [1] and the per capita number of police officers is 1.26 times higher in the U.S.[2]. However, the intentional homicide rate of the U.S. is 2.94 times that of Canada[3]. Certain types of offenses (e.g. drug offenses) are higher in Canada, but the violent crime rate is lower.

It's worth asking what is going on here. I'm no expert on law and punishment, but it seems like the U.S. is throwing more resources at the problem (perhaps prodded by for-profit prison lobbyists) and getting poorer results. The cultures are too similar to explain this away by saying Canadians are inherently less violent. As Canada considers harsher prison sentences and expanding prison capacity, it's imperative to understand if this will produce the intended results.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarcerat...

[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_...

[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...

fleitz9• 13 years ago

I worked in the poorest postal code in Canada (http://goo.gl/maps/hzKct here's how bad it gets, this intersection is called Wastings and Pain by many), it's a walk in the park compared to the bad neighbourhoods of many US cities. I've never felt like I was in the 3rd world in Canada, there are parts of the US that make you wonder...

We generally take care of our people and don't use the prison system as part of the social safety net to the degree the US does. Ironically, in Montreal in the winter, you pretty much have to kill someone to get sent to jail if you're homeless.

Also, it's not so much Canada as Stephen Harper.

beloch2• 13 years ago

I'm afraid I have to call BS on the ol' "Blame Harper" schtick. The Conservatives, Liberals, and NDP all have exactly the same platforms and would likely be doing exactly the same thing if in power. Canada's political parties have stopped running on the merit of policy and are running purely on the basis of personality. It's really starting to annoy me.

grecy4• 13 years ago

Many people don't appreciate how much a solid social net does to reduce crime. Even the poorest Canadians have access to good health care and education.

In America, I have no doubt in my mind I'd steal to pay for an operation on my kids. Hell, I'd rob a bank at gunpoint if it came down to it.

In Canada, I just walk into a Hospital.

csomar• 13 years ago

I don't think making such a public comment is a wise idea in a surveillance state. I also think stealing is wrong whatever is the reason[1].

[1] I don't have kids but got at some point seriously sick and broke.

ohwp• 13 years ago

The prison industry is what's wrong in the US. Most countries like to keep prisons empty, in the US some prisons like to keep all cells occupied.

Keeping prisons empty means that you educate prisoners about what they did wrong and how they can change there behavior.

unabridged• 13 years ago

In an effort to be more civilized we have inadvertently come up with more barbaric punishments than the past. Locking someone away for life for stealing is worse than cutting off a hand or tattooing the forehead.

mililani• 13 years ago

If you guys think this is a travesty, look up felony murder. I think it's unconstitutional, and people have been sentenced to life because of it.

mattsfrey• 13 years ago

In general this only applies to dangerous or violent felonies. In Colorado for instance, the applicable felonies are:

arson, robbery, burglary, kidnapping, sexual assault, or a class 3 felony sexual assault on a child

If somebody or a group of people are participating in these activities and somebody ends up dying, they should certainly be held liable for murder due to the reckless and malicious nature of the crimes being committed.

JungleGymSam• 13 years ago

Am I understanding this right? These people have been given extreme sentences because the law requires it? If that's true why are the judges in these cases not being called out for not protesting these kinds of convictions?

agildehaus• 13 years ago

Here's a woman who was sentenced to life in prison for having a 13 year old touch her breast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-xEdbEubjs

noonespecial2• 13 years ago

The takeaway? If you're considering a life of crime, be a freakin super-villain because they're going to sentence you like one anyway.

avenger1233• 13 years ago

+1, that's another angle to it for sure.

noonespecial2• 13 years ago

Well, we seem to be going all out defending the other amendments these days. I guess its time to add the 8th to our efforts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_...

ScottBurson• 13 years ago

Additionally, I don't understand why mandatory sentences aren't considered a blatant violation of the Constitutional separation of powers. Was it really the Framers' intent that the judiciary's traditional sentencing discretion could be overruled in this way? Maximum sentences are one thing, but Draconian minimums are quite something else. I wish some judges would simply refuse to impose them when they are obviously unjust, even at the cost of their judgeships. And yes, if the Eighth Amendment helps them do that, by all means let them invoke it.

I gather that at the federal level, minimum sentences are now once again considered recommendations; but that hasn't filtered down to the states yet.

whiddershins4• 13 years ago

One thing that disturbs me, after reading the comments here, and after hearing attitudes expressed by people in general: I think normal citizens massively underestimate how harsh these sentences are. Look around at your life and picture how much damage might be done by just a 6 month stint in jail. You would likely lose your job, you might lose your house, your kids. Even a month in jail would be a serious bummer for most of the people posting here.

Now, think, really picture, what a 3 year sentence would do. How hard it would be to recover from losing those years.

Now picture a 5 year, 7 year, 10 year, 15 year sentence. There is a reason Norway generally restricts its sentences to 21 years for even the most heinous crimes. The sentencing here in the US is truly draconian. It only seems proportional because we are measuring relative to what is already going on, so in context this stuff seems "not that bad."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_Norway

Kiro• 13 years ago

I don't understand this. For what reason are first-time offenders sentenced to lifetime?

mercurial2• 13 years ago

It's pretty disappointing to see so many comments praising what most people here would describe as "absurdly disproportionate sentences" and "probably something out of North Korea". Especially when the same people were up in arms not long ago about Aaron Schwartz.

jimmytidey• 13 years ago

From a European perspective some of these things might not even being custodial. European countries don't suffer higher crime rates because of their more lenient punishments.

I think the problem is that on a manifesto a three strikes proposal looks very good especially for those concerned about law and order, the reality is these horrible injustices..

hrktb• 13 years ago

He did not want to sentence her to die in prison, but his "hands [were] tied" because of her prior convictions for minor drug offenses three years earlier

This part struck me. There was grellas' comment on the Google vs Authors Guild thread were the judge decided to go against the 'mechanical' application of the law and took time to come up with a sensible interpretation to handle the case. It's crushing to think about a mother of two in prison for life for a crime the judge itself thought wasn't worth the sentence, potentially leaving her kids in the hands of an abusive husband (I hope they got sheltered at least)

smegel• 13 years ago

I'm blown away by this. I really thought three strikes laws only applied when the earlier crimes were extremely serious (basically murder or close).

Really drives home the idea that in some ways, America really isn't like the rest of the western world.

jmadsen2• 13 years ago

I think at the root of this is a very prevalent attitude among a many people in America toward "not letting people get away with things"

I don't think you can look at this in a vacuum - you need to see these punishments as simply another manifestation of this attitude. This is not a "this group vs. that group" thing; you may find this among "fire and brimstone" Democrats just as often as your "Limburgh Republicans".

I've often said the difference between these groups is: given 100 people asking for a free meal, the liberal will take satisfaction in feeding 99 hungry ones; this type of conservative will fret over the one person who "got away with" getting a free lunch he could have afforded himself.

(Side rant: these people tend to be among the loudest Bible-thumpers, and think "the Good Lord helps those.." is an actual biblical passage.)

Rehabilitation as a way of dealing with miscreants doesn't work in the US for the main part because there is too large a segment of the American populace who feel that these various programs equate to giving them a reward for bad behavior. Why should they (the convicted) get a free hand with job placement when no one else is "being coddled"?

(The wonderful quote "born on third base and thinks he hit a triple" always comes to mind here.)

So you see, Americans understand perfectly well all the logical and economic aspects of this issue. The fact is, it is built into our culture to punish people. We get satisfaction from it. We're not after what's best for the country, we're after revenge.

It's ugly, but I've been around for many years & I stand by that statement.

bsandbox• 13 years ago

I think people's sense of personal safety is a bigger driver than revenge. In general, people want a hard line on anything that impacts their sense of personal safety. In order to feel safe, people want punishment to prevent others from committing the same crime.

(Of course the flaw in this thinking is that punishment does not always prevent criminals from committing a crime).

rlanday2• 13 years ago

If you lock up a repeat offender, you can at least prevent that person from committing more crimes.

summerdown23• 13 years ago

I think the flaw in this thinking is that it's emotional. An alternative would be to do things that actually reduce crime statistics as proved by evidence, rather than things that people instinctively think might work.

rayiner6• 13 years ago

There is this attitude, but there is also the other thing: economic and racial social conflict. It cannot be ignored that in California, which has only 6.5% black people, almost 45% of offenders sentenced under three strikes laws are black. Americans not only hate letting people get away with things, but they have particularly little sympathy for policies that disproportionately affect racial minorities. This is the legacy of segregation and suburbanization: it's hard to care about what happens to people in other racial and economic demographics when you're living in a racially and economically homogenous suburb and never actually encounter these people except to hear in the news about crimes in their communities.

That said, I don't think these attitudes arise because Americans are bad people. America genuinely has a crime problem. London's murder rate is about 1.2 per 100,000. Chicago's is 15.9 per 100,000, while places like New Orleans and Detroit are around 50-60 per 100k. It's not particularly surprising Americans are less sympathetic than Europeans when it comes to punishment.

sologoub3• 13 years ago

Americans are fascinated with race. It's used as an explanation for practically every kind of social injustice. To me, economic situation is much more important here. After all, outside of a serious mental illness, a wealthy person will not go and try to break into someone else's house.

There are cultural aspects that have developed to support certain behaviors within an economic setting, there is plain ignorance, but all these can be addressed with proper economic support for the impoverished populations.

In California, LA stands as the biggest source of the 3-strikers[1], order of magnitude larger than other urban centers. Part of this is the sheer size of the population, part of it is the size of the economic strata occupied by the majority of 3-strikers. Of the 6.5% (is this even accurate?) "black people" you reference, what % live in utter poverty? Of the 55% of non-black 3-strikers occupy the same strata?

I don't have a source of these statistics, but to me it seems very intuitive that you will find that the vast majority come from the same economic situation, and race plays less of a difference than you might think.

As for the suburbs, I fail to see the reasoning - are you proposing that we limit the free choice of people of where they want to live? Most people I know who chose to live in suburbs and endure horrific LA traffic did so not because they do not want to be next to other races, they did it because they want their children to have a yard to play in and breath fresh air. Schools with a smaller classroom size are an issue too, but that goes back to the economic situation - large lots/more expensive houses result in greater tax income and therefore better schools.

Race is simply the most identifiable trait. Everything else, you have to actually work at finding root causes, this is why people gravitate to issues like that - it's easy, it's horrific and everyone immediately knows the solution. Unfortunately, that is also why we have made very little progress on the issues, despite making the subject socially-radioactive. Instead of feel-good/feel-bad rhetoric, it would be nice to see a tangible plan for improving the economic conditions in the blighted parts of LA for a change... If that happens, I'm willing to wager that crime will drop with poverty, and such horrific stories will become non-existent.

[1] http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/3_strikes/3_strikes_102005.htm (2005 analysis, so a bit out-dated)

jmadsen2• 13 years ago

The problem remains that we have a prison system that serves to punish, not rehabilitate.

If you take a defective part & try to fix its deficiencies, it has a better chance of fitting back into the machine it was intended for.

If you toss it into a box full of other rusty parts and let it sit neglected for several years, it is more likely to come out rusty & more defective rather than useful. If we were discussing machine parts, no one would ever argue otherwise.

If your entire policy is based around putting that part back in the box over and over, then blaming the part for being bad & eventually throwing it away, then you're not being honest about trying to fix the part.

A country that is as full of smart people as the US is, that has accomplished as many things as that country has done, and that cannot come up with a system better than what it has, cannot be honestly trying to "fix its parts".

I say it is that way because people are not interested in fixing the parts; that they simply want to throw them away. They want punishment, not improvement.

aquadrop• 13 years ago

I don't understand how mad those judges should be to send those people in jail for life... Life imprisonment for that... It's like the ultimate punishment (because death penalty isn't worth it) for evilest people. Or is it mad laws? I understand when two adults are sentenced for life because they were torturing and killing random homeless people just for fun (real example from my city). They are very dangerous to the society and should be kept away forever, that I understand. But I don't see how driving a company's truck is an immense menace for the society.

marvin2• 13 years ago

Wow. This is incredibly fascinating and frightening. I didn't believe that things were nearly this bad in the US...and that's saying something, seeing as I am very critical of lots of things that go on these days.

DominikR• 13 years ago

If I had to choose from facing life in prison (and maybe being raped there) and sharia punishment for stealing someones wallet I'd probably prefer having my hand amputated.

That's how irrational and absurd this law is, the Taliban look like humanists compared to that.

eliben• 13 years ago

The alternative has to be asked too. How many crimes have been avoided so far because past felons fear of committing that 3rd crime.

MarcusBrutus• 13 years ago

"After serving two years in prison during his mid-twenties for inadvertently killing someone during a bar fight, Aaron Jones turned his life around ...". To be honest, at that point I kind of wondered whether I was reading a parody piece or not. The 3-strikes laws are not totally irrational provided the legislators carefully decide what counts as a "strike". Even so, "inadvertently" killing someone during a bar fight should count as a strike in my book. Granted, having such laws in a legal environment where almost everything is a felony or can be charged as such, results in great many wasted lives and a huge societal cost. But it's the felony character of some of those underlying offences that should be questioned, not the three-strike principle per se.

m_mueller• 13 years ago

Because of that anchors bar I first thought, watching that video is what got someone behind bars for life - 'what, has America come this far already?'.

julesie• 13 years ago

I would encourage anyone who hasn't already, to watch the brilliant documentary 'The House I Live In' by Eugene Jarecki. It's available on Netflix (in the UK at least).

It follows the War on Drugs in the USA. As an outsider (Irish living in London) I found it genuinely eyeopening on a topic I knew next to nothing about. For example did you know that the only difference between cocaine and crack cocaine is the addition of baking powder and heat. Although the later will get you 100 times the sentence of the former. There are 19 year olds being put away for the rest of their lives for the possession of a few grams of this stuff.

I don't care what stand you take on the legalisation/criminalisation of drugs, that is insane!

Instead of trying to reduce the rate of reoffending once released, it seems many states go out of their way to marginalise convicts so that virtually no law abiding avenues of employment remain for them. Talk about a vicious circle. That's not evening taking into account the effect of incarcerated parents has on the generation that follows.

everyone• 13 years ago

I think the interesting discussion point here is this.. In the US the prison system is a huge, profitable and influential industry. As the pharma industry will encourage doctors to prescribe their medicines the prison industry will encourage and lobby the legal system to increase the amount of prisoners.

siculars• 13 years ago

I hate to say it but: Don't go to the Southern parts of the US. Don't go to Texas. Don't go to Florida. Don't go to the Carolina's. Certainly don't go to Mississippi, Alabama or Louisiana. If you live there now, leave.

nsxwolf2• 13 years ago

ACLU doesn't understand the difference between burglary and theft, apparently. Breaking into an occupied hotel room and stealing a wallet is hardly best described as "taking a wallet".

Burglary is a terrifying experience that can leave the victims with life long PTSD. This man is lucky he wasn't immediately shot to death by the occupants. Every day he spends in prison alive is still a gift after that.

shire• 13 years ago

This is sad, put your self in their shoe. It's hard to imagine a life like this. I wish things could change in this world and humans cared for one another.

w_t_payne2• 13 years ago

Well, gerrymandering is such a common practice in the US anyway, no reason it should not extend to this...

MikeTLive2• 13 years ago

three times you have been caught doing something we don't like. you will now be banished from the planet and into this concrete and steel facility.

a facility whose operation is a business and the more residents the more the business makes.

tell me.

why would a business ever want to not have a guaranteed permanent paying member?

MikeTLive2• 13 years ago

if prisons were by law NEVER private entities, and instead ALWAYS funded by and of the society from which the people interned were taken from, and that the cost of housing a person would not end with their life, would we be so quick to lock so many up forever?

solve the problem that led to the person doing what we do not like.

unless that problem is unique to this specific individual, removing the person will not stop the problem manifest on another individual.

we here are all smarter than this.

scottdw2• 13 years ago

This bothers me.

I know this is a bit of a 'libertarian fantasy', but I think the constitution ought to be amended to contain something like the following:

1) No person shall be subject to any criminal penalty exceeding one year of incarceration or $300 in fines for any non violent offense relating solely to the possession, sales, distribution, manufacture, or purchase of an intoxicating substance.

2) The purpose of this article is to limit the scope of criminal penalties that may be applied to "non violent drug offenders". It's provisions shall be interpreted with such intent in mind.

3) This article applies to all jurisdictions with the Several States, the United States, and any territories or possessions thereof

4) Any forfeiture of assets resulting from the conviction of a "non violent drug crime" must be limited to:

a) The intoxicating substances constituting the "core element of the crime"

b) Any asset materially and predominantly used for the manufacture, production, and possession of such substances.

Provided that such seized assets do not also have reasonable, fundamental, predominant, and legally authorized uses. In such case any seizure must be subject to the provisions of "eminent domain".

5) Congress, or the states, acting within the provisions otherwise authorized by this constitution, may adopt measures to ensure assets actually used in the commission of a "non violent drug crime", when not seized in accordance with this constitution, are only used in accordance to lawfully authorized purchases.

zanny2• 13 years ago

for any non violent offense relating solely to the possession, sales, distribution, manufacture, or purchase of an intoxicating substance.

I find it somewhat ridiculous as a species we even consider writing into the absolute law of the land anything to do with growing or selling plants that aren't fatally toxic. And even then, you don't need to say "don't sell toxic plants" you just need to say "don't hurt or kill other people with toxic plants". Or in general.

And the point is the general - don't be specific to intoxicating substance. Better yet, ask why the fuck someone is in jail without committing some violence. Implicit to a crime being nonviolent means all parties engaged (including those unknowingly, because committing fraud can still be a felony because you are harming the unknowing parties you actively lie to and deceive to benefit from).

If all parties are privy to something, you really need to sit back and ask why the hell you are throwing people in jail for participating it. If there are no losers without bringing police and prison sentencing into the picture, you are probably doing it wrong.

But I really hope something like this isn't worthy of a constitutional amendment. If anything, you should seek out and fix the direct empowerment in said document that enables rampant abuses of the legal system like this in the first place. Or you need to ask how the hell enough of a majority of your citizenry support it that may call into question the functioning of democracy, because if there is nothing wrong with the system then the people are to blame.

MrBra• 13 years ago

I hope someone who has the power to change things or at least partially do so will read this article and do something.

tbarbugli• 13 years ago

Life is undervalued in US, it is also interesting to see how these extreme measures have no effect in crime reduction.

A living death: Sentenced to die behind bars for what?

Related Stories