Mass incarceration

[zoogs]

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/27/8661045/prosecutors-mass-incarceration

 

But prosecutors are enormously powerful in the criminal justice system. They decide which laws will actually be enforced, with almost no checks on that power outside of elections. For instance, in 2014 Brooklyn District Attorney Kenneth Thompson announced that he will no longer enforce low-level marijuana arrests. Think about how this works: Pot is still very much illegal in New York, but the district attorney flat-out said that he will ignore an aspect of the law — and it's completely within his discretion to do so.

What a chart. I can see how the political process makes it easy for "tough on crime" to win. With as much that will always be at DA's discretion, that builds up and results in these sobering statistics.

Feel-good campaign platitudes =/= sound outcomes.

[BigRedBuster]

I am all for decreasing the amount of incarceration.

 

However....in concert with that we need to be studying seriously why the graph of violent crimes in America is just about the inverse of that.

 

We need to fully understand that so we can continue the trend or understand it if it starts to rise again.

[Moiraine]

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/27/8661045/prosecutors-mass-incarceration

 

But prosecutors are enormously powerful in the criminal justice system. They decide which laws will actually be enforced, with almost no checks on that power outside of elections. For instance, in 2014 Brooklyn District Attorney Kenneth Thompson announced that he will no longer enforce low-level marijuana arrests. Think about how this works: Pot is still very much illegal in New York, but the district attorney flat-out said that he will ignore an aspect of the law — and it's completely within his discretion to do so.

What a chart. I can see how the political process makes it easy for "tough on crime" to win. With as much that will always be at DA's discretion, that builds up and results in these sobering statistics.

Feel-good campaign platitudes =/= sound outcomes.

 

 

Is there a per capita chart? 'Cause this chart is pretty meaningless.

[84HuskerLaw]

There were very few federal crimes back then so would not be many prisoners as a result. Now there are thousands of offenses and many more prosecutions, etc.

 

It is not within the basic discretion of a prosecutor to simply declare he or she will no longer prosecute entire types of crimes or crimes within particular categories. Just as a President or Govornor or other authority cannot simply grant en masse pardons, paroles, clemency or other similar executive or prosecutorial actions. The executive and prosecutorial authorities do not have carte blanche to decide what particular laws will be enforced or not. They have some general level of discretion in any particular case, based on the particular facts which may be mitigating or exonerating or otherwise warrant not taking legal action. They have charging discretion but again these 'choices' must be soundly based upon the law, the particular facts and the evidence available. Simply deciding to not prosecute particular crimes or particular types of offenses or more importantly particular types of offenders (such as by race, religion, etc.) is NOT within the perview of the general term 'prosecutorial discretion'.

[zoogs]

Good point, Moiraine. I didn't notice that.

[JJ Husker]

 

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/27/8661045/prosecutors-mass-incarceration

 

 

 

 

But prosecutors are enormously powerful in the criminal justice system. They decide which laws will actually be enforced, with almost no checks on that power outside of elections. For instance, in 2014 Brooklyn District Attorney Kenneth Thompson announced that he will no longer enforce low-level marijuana arrests. Think about how this works: Pot is still very much illegal in New York, but the district attorney flat-out said that he will ignore an aspect of the law — and it's completely within his discretion to do so.

 

 

What a chart. I can see how the political process makes it easy for "tough on crime" to win. With as much that will always be at DA's discretion, that builds up and results in these sobering statistics.

 

Feel-good campaign platitudes =/= sound outcomes.

Is there a per capita chart? 'Cause this chart is pretty meaningless.

Yeah, it would be more meaningful if it was per 100,000 or something like that. Still it has increased rather significantly per capita. 1980 pop was 226M so about .15% of the population. Now it is about .47% so a threefold increase. Actually that percentage doesn't seem too unreasonable. That's about one person for every 200. Putting it in perspective, that would be about 2 people from my high school graduating class, I can see that. Seems like probably at least 1 in 200 across society are slimebags.....and yet many of them aren't in prison.

[BigRedBuster]

[jimk]

 

 

This shows Title IX is a joke and we aren't arresting enough women!