(no title)
jvm | 6 years ago
If anyone's interested in actually learning about the causes of mass incarceration, I'd strongly recommend John Pfaff's _Locked In_: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01L6SLKK8/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
In short: a) It's not the war on drugs. b) It's not private prisons. c) It's not sentencing laws.
You could get rid of all of those and America would still lead the "free" world in incarceration.
dougmany|6 years ago
Pfaff is convinced that aggressive prosecution is the biggest cause of over-incarceration. His argument here is compelling. He notes that while incarceration rates began to climb in the 1980s as a response to rising crime, those trend lines continued through the Nineties, even though crime was steadily falling. Why did that happen? Examining all the relevant variables (crime reports, arrests, charges filed, and convictions), Pfaff found himself looking squarely at the prosecutor’s office. As less crime was reported, arrests dropped proportionately, and among those who were charged with a crime, conviction rates held steady. But prisons continued to fill, because prosecutors were filing felony charges against ever-growing percentages of their dwindling arrestees.
From https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2017/02/20/john-pfaf...
smokelegend|6 years ago
t34543|6 years ago
jimclegg|6 years ago
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
celticmusic|6 years ago
The motivations are better. No one is saying it's going to solve world hunger, but it's a good first step.
dragonwriter|6 years ago
The government won't lobby itself; the prison guards unions may, however.
the-pigeon|6 years ago
Next you need to find good people that strongly want to accomplish the organization's goals. And who are smart enough to actually do that.
And you need to make sure those leaders have adequate funding and time to make the necessary changes. As well as having a legal system that is at least half-way working correctly.
philwelch|6 years ago
Outlawing private prisons is probably a good step, but it's neither necessary nor sufficient to eliminate the vested interest in mass incarceration.
x86_64Ubuntu|6 years ago
jacobush|6 years ago
tyrust|6 years ago
a1369209993|6 years ago
Although the root fault is that a "guilty" plea costs the court less resources than a "not guilty" plea. If you wanted to solve this properly, you'd require that even if the defendant pleads guilty, there still has to be the full process of jury selection, presenting evidence and arguments (even if the defence's argument is "yeah, I did it") and deliberation (which, by design, gives twelve opportunities for someone to say "what the hell are we doing; this is clearly bunk" without that person being under threat of twenty-five-to-life for contempt of cop).
Edit: oh right, and you also need to make offering plea bargains (outside of state's-evidence cases) a twenty-five-to-life felony for the prosecutor.
JesseAldridge|6 years ago
"a major shift in prosecutor behavior that occurred in the mid-1990s, when prosecutors began bringing felony charges against arrestees about twice as often as they had before"