With gay marriage decided, what will be the next big left-led social change?

[Dick Whitman]

All true, and there are now efforts to in place to not have potential employers, including government employers, ask job candidates about their criminal record.

That effort's heart is in the right place - one of the reasons that recidivism is high is that these guys don't have any legitimate means of making a living on the outside, so they fall back into it, particularly drug dealing.

What's interesting is that there is a lot of evidence to suggest that these laws actually harm black applicants without records because employers assume that they have a higher likelihood of having a criminal record than the white applicant.

 

[Riptide]

So we're supposed to let all the hard-core drug criminals out because of the 1-in-5-million guy who went on to be a music star? What that will get us is maybe one more music star and probably a few thousand needless murders and thousands more kids hooked on drugs because "dealers gonna deal." Sounds like an Obama-Kerry negotiation. No thanks.

This problem is decades-old, and you know that.
You just want to wipe the butthurt in public again.

 

[old_tony]

This problem is decades-old, and you know that.
You just want to wipe the butthurt in public again.

What butthurt? The "Oh, no!!!! People are in prison! Sure, they did terrible things but prison is mean" kind of butthurt? That's your's, not mine.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Sounds like a leading question.

I'd just prefer for the argument in favor of prison/sentencing reform to be something other than an emotional argument about how many kids we could send to pre-K.

That's designed for simpletons. Make an argument that we can make reforms without making our cities and towns less safe. Make an argument that it will be good for these poor neighborhoods to have more folks who would otherwise be in prison, living among them.

But I think that's part of the argument, and not an emotional one. I think that people would be surprised to find out that, for the most part, these guys are just ... guys. So, yes, I think that in many, many cases, the neighborhoods would be better off with them living among them.

 

[YankeeFan]

I think there have been numerous examples of individuals -- let's use Johnny Cash for example -- who have been involved with drugs and/or been locked up who went on to do great things and been wonderful influences.

I would bet that many of the social workers who help run diversion programs to get users to stop are former addicts and maybe convicts.

I would never argue otherwise.

That's still not an argument for decriminalization of drugs, or lessening sentences.

Give me some specifics. What are the proposals?

It's easy to be for "prison reform" and an end to "mass incarceration" in theory. And, that's where the proponents of these reforms want to make the argument. They want a consensus that something needs to be done, before they tell us what they intend to do.

It might be a good strategy, but it doesn't work for me.

Is there some magic formula that is only going to let out the good guys, who are ready to turn their lives around, but keep the guys who would go on to commit further crimes in jail? If so, show us the plan. I'd be all for that.

 

[Ace]

So we're supposed to let all the hard-core drug criminals out because of the 1-in-5-million guy who went on to be a music star? What that will get us is maybe one more music star and probably a few thousand needless murders and thousands more kids hooked on drugs because "dealers gonna deal." Sounds like an Obama-Kerry negotiation. No thanks.

Yes. That's exactly what I said, T. Thanks for putting it so succinctly.

 

[old_tony]

That effort's heart is in the right place - one of the reasons that recidivism is high is that these guys don't have any legitimate means of making a living on the outside, so they fall back into it, particularly drug dealing.

What's interesting is that there is a lot of evidence to suggest that these laws actually harm black applicants without records because employers assume that they have a higher likelihood of having a criminal record than the white applicant.

"Blacks give blacks a bad name" is whitey's fault.

 

[Dick Whitman]

"Blacks give blacks a bad name" is whitey's fault.

Why don't you just let 'er fly already? You'll feel better afterward.

 

[YankeeFan]

That effort's heart is in the right place - one of the reasons that recidivism is high is that these guys don't have any legitimate means of making a living on the outside, so they fall back into it, particularly drug dealing.

What's interesting is that there is a lot of evidence to suggest that these laws actually harm black applicants without records because employers assume that they have a higher likelihood of having a criminal record than the white applicant.

That's interesting, and kind of forked up.

And, a shirtty economy, with plentiful cheep labor, artificially increased by illegal immigration, is not helping matters.

In a robust economy, employers are no so choosy.

 

[MisterCreosote]

I think we also have to look at recidivism. If locking people up for a short period would keep them from committing further crimes, then I'd be all for short sentences.

This is a whole lot of number soup, but: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rprts05p0510pr.cfm.

Basically, almost 70 percent of prisoners in the study were rearrested within 3 years; and 77 percent were rearrested within 5 years. However, the longer they'd been free, the less likely they were to commit more crimes.

But, there's also the racial disparity in drug arrests as opposed to drug users, which you can't really ignore, for several reasons. I.E., there are five times more white drug users than black, but blacks make up 10 times more drug arrests than whites.

 

[doctorquant]

What's interesting is that there is a lot of evidence to suggest that these laws actually harm black applicants without records because employers assume that they have a higher likelihood of having a criminal record than the white applicant.

A law that's "on the right side of history" could have unintended negative consequences for the very people it's supposed to help? Color me shocked!

 

[Ace]

I would never argue otherwise.

That's still not an argument for decriminalization of drugs, or lessening sentences.

Give me some specifics. What are the proposals?

It's easy to be for "prison reform" and an end to "mass incarceration" in theory. And, that's where the proponents of these reforms want to make the argument. They want a consensus that something needs to be done, before they tell us what they intend to do.

It might be a good strategy, but it doesn't work for me.

Is there some magic formula that is only going to let out the good guys, who are ready to turn their lives around, but keep the guys who would go on to commit further crimes in jail? If so, show us the plan. I'd be all for that.

If you and Tony think a hard stance on dangerous drugs and the people who peddle them is necessary and warranted, should we be sending more doctors and Big Pharma executives to prison since millions of people in this country are addicted to and abusing prescription drugs?

Do we really want pill mills in our neighborhoods?

I will hang up and wait for your answer.