What about one that accommodates people who possess marijuana? What about a society that accommodates people who have opioid addictions and need medical help? I think you have a rather skewed idea of the majority of our prison population. I'll give you a hint, though: most of them aren't rapists, murderers, and child molesters.
> most of them aren't rapists, murderers, and child molesters.
I assume there are also a lot of people in prison that aren't rapists or murderers but still cause a lot of troubles if left to their own device. What should be done with these ones? I agree prison is cruel and inhuman and I'm all for better detention conditions, but I don't think it's realistic to suggest we should leave these people walk freely (or to suggest that they don't exist). What are the alternatives?
>"What about one that accommodates people who possess marijuana? What about a society that accommodates people who have opioid addictions and need medical help?"
Marijuana at least in the US, is an example of where society is actually changing to accommodate people:
Also the Opioid epidemic is finally getting the attention it deserves at the federal level in the US. I think we will see an end to the cruel policies that are in place:
We got Al Capone for tax evasion. Sometimes the laws you see as unjust are there for a reason. In California, for instance, a DUI has a part A and B so if they drop one part you always get convicted of the other.
Are you suggesting that most offenders of what are typically seen as 'minor' or 'victimless' crimes are actually guilty of more serious crimes, but for whatever reason cannot be caught or prosecuted?
He's saying that minor crimes are the element of indeterminacy that gives the legal system wiggle room to dole out arbitrary punishment when actual circumstances almost, but not fully warrant normal punishment.
A classic example is Al Capone caught for tax evasion. A more recent one is OJ Simpson jailed for some break-and-entering bullshit because everyone wants to punish him for those famous murders.
>" A more recent one is OJ Simpson jailed for some break-and-entering bullshit because everyone wants to punish him for those famous murders."
I'm sorry "breaking and entering bullshit"?
The crime was armed robbery and kidnapping. And it was OJ Simpson who said that nobody could leave the room which brought up the kidnapping charge. All of this actually happened. Nobody disputes these claims. Nothing to do with breaking and entering but much more serious crimes.[1]
If a family member of yours was robbed in their hotel room at gun point would it still be "bullshit"?
I saw a tv show that presented those facts, yes. It also features the Goldman family celebrating that he got any kind of jail time at all. And it was a long sentence too!
So are you saying he shouldn't have been jailed for armed robbery and kidnapping? That seems unreasonable. Or are you saying that the Goldmans shouldn't have been happy he was in prison? Maybe so, but that's got nothing to do with the criminal justice system.
Actually, my broader point is that there's substancial indeterminacy to the legal system and that society uses this wiggle room to dole out mob justice.
That may be true, but I don't see how it's relevant to OJ. He wasn't lynched or set up; he committed a crime and went to prison for it. I don't see how that's mob justice even if some people were happy about it.
This is me being an armchair "bird lawyer" without actual expertise, but it seems to me that his threatening people with a gun for them to stay in a room for a few minutes while he searched the place for the goods they thought stolen from him...
... well, it's not good. But is it kidnapping? My common sense tells me by then the system was biased against him. Mob justice, therefore, even if not from a wild, tar-and-feather variety.
>> I'll give you a hint, though: most of them aren't rapists, murderers, and child molesters.
> HINT = 15% of the prison population in California are sex offenders.
Rapists and child molesters would both fall under the sex offender category, meaning 85% of prisoners are not convicted of those crimes (according to your post, which lacks citation).
Are you indicating that more than one in three California prisoners are convicted of murder? It sounds like you’re making a case for more than 35% of prisoners as murderes (15 + 35 = 50%). I’m not comfortable with that assumption without links to data.
This definitely doesn't support their point, but the State of California's report[0] turns out to be generally fascinating. More to the point of this thread, sex offenders and murderers make up ~26% of their prison population.
I was myself confused by the comment I was replying to. I don't like when people say "hint, most people x".
I wanted to get better information about what the actual statistics were, because I didn't know what percent of the prison population were sex offenders, which was 15%.
I'm not sure what my position on this issue is. But it appears that a decent percentage of people in prison in California are serious criminals, and although some are definitely marijuana offenders that should probably be released, I don't think its fair to call that the majority of the people in the prison system.
