Breakdown In Civil Order

[lpetrich]

I concede that I myself have been a crime victim. Someone stole the front wheel of my bicycle. I was out doing something, and when I returned, the wheel was gone. I had to walk my bike back home and buy a new wheel. I also resolved to try to lock both wheels, or at least the front wheel if I couldn't lock both of them.

That left me with two thoughts, two thoughts that reflect issues that are persistently ignored in all sides of the debate about criminal justice.

1. Many criminals are hard to catch. Police forces need to be *much* more efficient. We'll likely need a lot more surveillance and automated law enforcement.

2. Crime victims are ignored and left to suffer all too often. They deserve help in recovering from crimes' effects on them and their property. If someone who was stolen from is willing to state under penalty of perjury that something was stolen from them, then they deserve compensation for what was stolen from them. I include "under penalty of perjury" because scammers who file fraudulent claims can be punished for that.

 

[lpetrich]

Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2023 | Prison Policy Initiative
Helpfully making this distinction:

Jails vs. prisons: What’s the difference?

They’ve got a lot in common, but they’re far from the same thing.

Prisons are facilities under state or federal control where people who have been convicted (usually of felonies) go to serve their sentences. Jails are city- or county-run facilities where a majority of people locked up are there awaiting trial (in other words, still legally innocent), many because they can’t afford to post bail. To make things a little more complicated, some people do serve their sentences in local jails, either because their sentences are short or because the jail is renting space to the state prison system.

Then

In 2021, about 421,000 people entered prison gates, but people went to jail almost 7 million times. Some have just been arrested and will make bail within hours or days, while many others are too poor to make bail and remain behind bars until their trial. Only a small number (about 87,500 on any given day) have been convicted, and are generally serving misdemeanors sentences of under a year. At least 1 in 4 people who go to jail will be arrested again within the same year — often those dealing with poverty, mental illness, and substance use disorders, whose problems only worsen with incarceration.

Then going into "Nine myths about mass incarceration"

The first myth: Private prisons are the corrupt heart of mass incarceration

In fact, just 7% of all incarcerated people are held in private prisons; the vast majority are in publicly-owned prisons and jails.
Some states have more people in private prisons than others, of course, and the industry has lobbied to maintain high levels of incarceration, but private prisons are essentially a parasite on the massive publicly-owned system — not the root of it.

Nevertheless, a range of private industries and even some public agencies continue to profit from mass incarceration.

Then,

The second myth: Prisons are “factories behind fences” that exist to provide companies with a huge slave labor force

Simply put, private companies using prison labor are not what stands in the way of ending mass incarceration, nor are they the source of most prison jobs. Only about 5,000 people in prison — less than 1% — are employed by private companies through the federal PIECP program, which requires them to pay at least minimum wage before deductions. (A larger portion work for state-owned “correctional industries,” which pay much less, but this still only represents about 6% of people incarcerated in state prisons.)

But prisons do rely on the labor of incarcerated people for food service, laundry, and other operations, and they pay incarcerated workers unconscionably low wages ... Moreover, work in prison is compulsory, with little regulation or oversight, and incarcerated workers have few rights and protections. ... Forcing people to work for low or no pay and no benefits, while charging them for necessities, allows prisons to shift the costs of incarceration to incarcerated people — hiding the true cost of running prisons from most Americans.

Exploitation in prisons and jails | Prison Policy Initiative

Incarcerated people and their families are literally a captive market that private companies — with the collusion of the facilities — are all too eager to exploit. We are bringing these practices to light and fighting back.

Like exorbitant charges for phone calls and electronic messages.

 

[lpetrich]

The third myth: Releasing “nonviolent drug offenders” would end mass incarceration

It’s true that police, prosecutors, and judges continue to punish people harshly for nothing more than drug possession. Drug offenses still account for the incarceration of over 350,000 people, and drug convictions remain a defining feature of the federal prison system. And until the pandemic hit (and the official crime data became less reliable), police were still making over 1 million drug possession arrests each year, many of which lead to prison sentences. Drug arrests continue to give residents of over-policed communities criminal records, hurting their employment prospects and increasing the likelihood of longer sentences for any future offenses.

Nevertheless, 4 out of 5 people in prison or jail are locked up for something other than a drug offense — either a more serious offense or an even less serious one. To end mass incarceration, we will have to change how our society and our criminal legal system responds to crimes more serious than drug possession. We must also stop incarcerating people for behaviors that are even more benign.

There is also the possibility that prosecutors overcharge many people in the hope of getting a plea bargain out of them.

The fourth myth: By definition, “violent crime” involves physical harm

The distinction between “violent” and “nonviolent” crime means less than you might think; in fact, these terms are so widely misused that they are generally unhelpful in a policy context. In the public discourse about crime, people typically use “violent” and “nonviolent” as substitutes for serious versus nonserious criminal acts. ...

In reality, state and federal laws apply the term “violent” to a surprisingly wide range of criminal acts — including many that don’t involve any physical harm. In some states, purse-snatching, manufacturing methamphetamines, and stealing drugs are considered violent crimes. Burglary is generally considered a property crime, but an array of state and federal laws classify burglary as a violent crime in certain situations, such as when it occurs at night, in a residence, or with a weapon present. So even if the building was unoccupied, someone convicted of burglary could be punished for a violent crime and end up with a long prison sentence and “violent” record.

So excluding "violent" crimes from criminal-justice reform causes a *lot* of trouble. It's necessary to look at the kind of offense.

 

[lpetrich]

The fifth myth: People in prison for violent or sexual crimes are too dangerous to be released

Of course, many people convicted of violent offenses have caused serious harm to others. But how does the criminal legal system determine the risk that they pose to their communities? Again, the answer is too often “we judge them by their offense type,” rather than “we evaluate their individual circumstances.” This reflects the particularly harmful myth that people who commit violent or sexual crimes are incapable of rehabilitation and thus warrant many decades or even a lifetime of punishment.

Recidivism data do not support the belief that people who commit violent crimes ought to be locked away for decades for the sake of public safety. People convicted of violent and sexual offenses are actually among the least likely to be rearrested, and those convicted of rape or sexual assault have rearrest rates 20% lower than all other offense categories combined. One reason for the lower rates of recidivism among people convicted of violent offenses: age is one of the main predictors of violence. The risk for violence peaks in adolescence or early adulthood and then declines with age, yet we incarcerate people long after their risk has declined.

If people calm down with age, then releasing them after 5 or 10 years should suffice.

The sixth myth: Reforming the criminal legal system leads to more crime

The specter of “rising crime” has re-emerged as a central issue among elected officials, political candidates, and in media commentary, but their explanations and exaggerations of recent crime trends don’t add up. ... As in the past, many in law enforcement and on the right have been quick to blame recent reforms for shifts in crime trends and to resurrect the same “tough on crime” policies that failed in the 80s and 90s. But claims that recent changes in crime were the result of reforms — such as bail reform, changes to police budgets, or electing “progressive” prosecutors — are simply not supported by the evidence.

noting
Violent crime and public prosecution | The Munk School

We find no evidence to support the claim that progressive prosecutors were responsible for the increase in homicide during the pandemic or before it. We recommend that further statistical analyses of data on violent crime be supplemented by qualitative research and direct evidence about the practices of prosecutors in cities that recorded divergent patterns in homicide.

The Red State Murder Problem – Third Way In 2020, "red" states have 40% higher murder rates than "blue" states.

The Two-Decade Red State Murder Problem – Third Way Over 2000 - 2020, it was 23% higher on average.

Releasing people pretrial doesn’t harm public safety | Prison Policy Initiative - "When these states, cities, and counties began releasing more people pretrial, there were no corresponding waves in crime."
Expert Report of Michael R. Jones, PH.D. | American Civil Liberties Union
Don’t Blame Bail Reform for Gun Violence - Center for American Progress - "There is no evidence linking bail reform to the rising rates of violent crime in the United States."

"Moreover, the increases in certain types of crime were seen in cities across the country, most of which have not enacted bail reforms. "

 

[lpetrich]

Most US police forces have NOT been defunded. Despite 'defunding' claims, police funding has increased in many US cities - ABC News - "Of 109 budgets analyzed, 91 agencies have upped police funding by at least 2%."

2022-08-03-TMI-Truth-in-Crime-Statistics-Report-FINAL-2.pdf

In this report, we examine three false narratives presented by politicians and the media to explain the 2020 nationwide increase in homicides: the expansion of bail reform, practices of progressive prosecutors, and attempts to defund the police. Our analysis reveals that the empirical data contradicts these narratives. Our data suggests that pandemic-induced instability and inequality are the primary drivers of recent increases in homicides.

Consider what happened when San Francisco prosecutor Chesa Boudin was recalled. His recallers blamed him for the city's crime rate, but when he was recalled, the crime rate went up. His recallers never conceded that they might be wrong to blame him.

Overall crime rates are at historic lows, despite public perceptions that say otherwise.
Americans Say Crime is Up. Is It? | The Marshall Project
NCVS Dashboard: Multi-Year Trends Crime Type
Many Americans Are Convinced Crime Is Rising In The U.S. They’re Wrong. | FiveThirtyEight

Much of the criminality of half a century ago was due to inhaling lead from leaded gasoline. Banning tetraethyl lead successfully lowered the crime rate nearly 20 years later in many places in the world.

Back to prisonpolicy.net - "These false claims are deliberately stoked to undo the hard-won, evidence supported, common sense reforms that have only begun put a dent in mass incarceration."

 

[lpetrich]

The seventh myth: Crime victims support long prison sentences

Policymakers, judges, and prosecutors often invoke the name of victims to justify long sentences for violent offenses. But contrary to the popular narrative, most victims of violence want violence prevention, not incarceration. Harsh sentences don’t deter violent crime, and many victims believe that incarceration can make people more of a public safety risk. National survey data show that most victims support violence prevention, social investment, and alternatives to incarceration that address the root causes of crime, not more investment in carceral systems that cause more harm. This suggests that they care more about the health and safety of their communities than they do about retribution.

CRIME SURVIVORS SPEAK: NATIONAL SURVEY OF VICTIMS’ VIEWS ON SAFETY AND JUSTICE -- 2022
and
Reforms Without Results: Why states should stop excluding violent offenses from criminal justice reforms | Prison Policy Initiative - "Why states should stop excluding violent offenses from criminal justice reforms"

"What do victims of violent crime really want? Results of a 2022 national survey of over 1,500 people who reported crime victimization within the past 10 years" - the numbers:

• 18% - Prefer holding people accountable by putting them in prison
• 75% - Prefer holding people accountable through options beyond prison, such as restorative justice, community service, and treatment for mental illness or substance use disorders
• 10% - Prefer investing more in prisons and jails
• 80% - Prefer investing more in mental health treatment
• 19% - Prefer requiring completion of the full sentence regardless of rehabilitation
• 72% - Prefer incentives for pre-release rehabilitation, like earned time credits towards shorter sentences
• 21% - Prefer keeping people in jails instead of using alternatives to incarceration
• 71% - Prefer reducing jail populations by releasing those who can safely await trial in the community or serve their sentence through diversion, community service, or treatment programs

Moreover, people convicted of crimes are often victims themselves, complicating the moral argument for harsh punishments as “justice.” While conversations about justice tend to treat perpetrators and victims of crime as two entirely separate groups, people who engage in criminal acts are often victims of violence and trauma, too — a fact behind the adage that “hurt people hurt people.” As victims of crime know, breaking this cycle of harm will require greater investments in communities, not the carceral system.

Like violence-interruption programs, like Stand Up to Violence (SUV) - JohnJayREC.nyc — John Jay College's Research and Evaluation Center at the Jacobi Medical Center.

 

[lpetrich]

The eighth myth: Some people need to go to jail to get treatment and services

It’s absolutely true that people ensnared in the criminal legal system have a lot of unmet needs. But jails and prisons are no place to recover from a mental health crisis or substance use disorder.

They often don't have such services, like medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction.

That means that rather than providing drug treatment, jails more often interrupt drug treatment by cutting patients off from their medications. Between 2000 and 2018, the number of people who died of intoxication while in jail increased by almost 400%; typically, these individuals died within just one day of admission.

Similarly, jails often put people with mental health problems in solitary confinement, provide limited access to counseling, and leave them unmonitored due to constant staffing shortages. The result: suicide is the leading cause of death in local jails, with death rates far exceeding those found in the general U.S. population.

...
Most importantly, jail and prison environments are in many ways harmful to mental and physical health. Decades of research show that many of the defining features of incarceration are stressors linked to negative mental health outcomes: disconnection from family, loss of autonomy, boredom and lack of purpose, and unpredictable surroundings. Inhumane conditions, such as overcrowding, solitary confinement, and experiences of violence also contribute to the lasting psychological effects of incarceration, including the PTSD-like Post-Incarceration Syndrome.

A good rebuttal to those who claim that jails and prisons are absolutely cushy places, where people can live like trust-fund babies.

 

[lpetrich]

Finally,

The ninth myth: Expanding community supervision is the best way to reduce incarceration

Community supervision, which includes probation, parole, and pretrial supervision, is often seen as a “lenient” punishment or as an ideal “alternative” to incarceration. But while remaining in the community is certainly preferable to being locked up, the conditions imposed on those under supervision are often so restrictive that they set people up to fail. The long supervision terms, numerous and burdensome requirements, and constant surveillance (especially with electronic monitoring) result in frequent “failures,” often for minor infractions like breaking curfew or failing to pay unaffordable supervision fees.

In 2021, at least 128,000 people were incarcerated for non-criminal violations of probation or parole, often called “technical violations.” These supervision violations accounted for 27% of all admissions to state and federal prisons. Probation, in particular, leads to unnecessary incarceration; until it is reformed to support and reward success rather than detect mistakes, it is not a reliable “alternative.”

...
The high costs of low-level offenses

Most justice-involved people in the U.S. are not accused of serious crimes; more often, they are charged with misdemeanors or non-criminal violations.

...
Probation & parole violations and “holds” lead to unnecessary incarceration

Often overlooked in discussions about mass incarceration are the various “holds” that keep people behind bars for administrative reasons.

...
The most recent data show that nationally, almost 1 in 5 (19%) people in jail are there for a violation of probation or parole, though in some places these violations or detainers account for over one-third of the jail population. This problem is not limited to local jails, either; in 2019, the Council of State Governments found that nearly 1 in 4 people in state prisons are incarcerated as a result of supervision violations. During the first year of the pandemic, that number dropped only slightly, to 1 in 5 people in state prisons.

For example, with ankle monitors, help people use those devices, and if something seems to go wrong, try to find out what's going on without being punitive about it.

 

[lpetrich]

Misdemeanors: Minor offenses with major consequences

The “massive misdemeanor system” in the U.S. is another important but overlooked contributor to overcriminalization and mass incarceration. For behaviors as benign as jaywalking or sitting on a sidewalk, an estimated 13 million misdemeanor charges sweep droves of Americans into the criminal justice system each year (and that’s excluding civil violations and speeding). These low-level offenses typically account for about 25% of the daily jail population nationally, and much more in some states and counties.

Out of proportion to the severity of their offenses. Ankle monitors and similar technologies would be much better in such cases, often much cheaper.

Misdemeanor charges may sound trivial, but they carry serious financial, personal, and social costs, especially for defendants but also for broader society, which finances the processing of these court cases and all of the unnecessary incarceration that comes with them. And then there are the moral costs: People charged with misdemeanors are often not appointed counsel and are pressured to plead guilty and accept a probation sentence to avoid jail time. This means that innocent people routinely plead guilty and are then burdened with the many collateral consequences that come with a criminal record, as well as the heightened risk of future incarceration for probation violations. A misdemeanor system that pressures innocent defendants to plead guilty seriously undermines American principles of justice.

“Low-level fugitives” live in fear of incarceration for missed court dates and unpaid fines

Courts can issue "bench warrants" for missed court dates and unpaid fines.

But bench warrants are often unnecessary. Most people who miss court are not trying to avoid the law; more often, they forget, are confused by the court process, or have a schedule conflict. Once a bench warrant is issued, however, defendants frequently end up living as “low-level fugitives,” quitting their jobs, becoming transient, and/or avoiding public life (even hospitals) to avoid having to go to jail.

 

[lpetrich]

Then discussing youth offenses like truancy, and immigration offenses.

Beyond identifying how many people are impacted by the criminal justice system, we should also focus on who is most impacted and who is left behind by policy change. Poverty, for example, plays a central role in mass incarceration. People in prison and jail are disproportionately poor compared to the overall U.S. population. The criminal justice system punishes poverty, beginning with the high price of money bail: The median felony bail bond amount ($10,000) is the equivalent of 8 months’ income for the typical detained defendant. As a result, people with low incomes are more likely to face the harms of pretrial detention. Poverty is not only a predictor of incarceration; it is also frequently the outcome, as a criminal record and time spent in prison destroys wealth, creates debt, and decimates job opportunities.

It’s no surprise that people of color — who face much greater rates of poverty — are dramatically overrepresented in the nation’s prisons and jails. These racial disparities are particularly stark for Black Americans, who make up 38% of the incarcerated population despite representing only 12% of U.S residents.

Concluding with

The United States has the dubious distinction of having the highest incarceration rate in the world. Looking at the big picture of the 1.9 million people locked up in the United States on any given day, we can see that something needs to change.

 

[lpetrich]

Violent criminals are fearless in California

The most violent and fearless criminals I've known were libertarians.

Without going too much into my checkered past, I've known more than a few. Quite a lot, really.

They didn't tend to have any particular philosophical, religious, or political leanings. They tended to go with the flow, saying anything that got them what they wanted at the moment. When I describe them as libertarians, I don't mean Libertarians. They simply don't think that laws or social norms or ethical codes apply to them. Small l libertarian.

 Dark triad - psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism

All three dark triad traits are conceptually distinct although empirical evidence shows them to be overlapping. They are associated with a callous–manipulative interpersonal style.[9]

• Narcissism is characterized by grandiosity, pride, egotism, and a lack of empathy.[10]
• Machiavellianism is characterized by manipulation and exploitation of others, an indifference to morality, lack of emotion, and a strategic focus on self-interest.[11]
• Psychopathy is characterized by continuous antisocial behavior, impulsivity, selfishness, callous and unemotional traits (CU),[12] and remorselessness.[13]

High scores in these traits have been found to statistically increase a person's likelihood to commit crimes, cause social distress, and create severe problems for organizations, especially if they are in leadership positions.[14] They also tend to be less compassionate, agreeable, empathetic, and satisfied with their lives, and less likely to believe they and others are good.[15]

Unfortunately for the USA, that sort of libertarianism has taken over the Republicans. That's the TeaParty wing of the GOP. American Values, rule of law, basic democratic institutions, all that stuff is for losers. People who aren't as smart as Trump and his compadres.

So their screaming about crime is pure virtue signaling. They may recognize how much they have in common with the more hardcore sort of criminal, with their main difference being that they are good at staying on the right side of the law, or at least seeming to do so.

 

[lostone]

Some people have complained that they are no longer allowed to browse in stores. The staff keep asking them what are they looking for and tell them to leave if they say they are just browsing. Security concerns, I suppose, but don't you sometimes just browse when shopping?

 

[steve_bank]

Yesterday in Tacoma 14 and 15 year old pursued by police. One shot a cop.

No big deal, kids have always been shooting cops....

 

[steve_bank]

Some people have complained that they are no longer allowed to browse in stores. The staff keep asking them what are they looking for and tell them to leave if they say they are just browsing. Security concerns, I suppose, but don't you sometimes just browse when shopping?

Many items are now locked. I bought batteries yesterday and somebody had to unlock the rack.

We pay for it in higher prices.


I get my meds at Walgreens in downtown Seattle. At one point people walked into the store and blatantly walked out with goods, crossed the street. and started selling the stuff they stole. saw it myself.

Our city council is still stuck on progressive ideology, but residents are becoming more outspoken.

In utter irony after discerditng police and trying to dismantle the police the city council is pointing a finger at police for not hiring enough officers. Few want to be a cop in Seattle compared to the usual number of applicants.

 

[bilby]

Some people have complained that they are no longer allowed to browse in stores. The staff keep asking them what are they looking for and tell them to leave if they say they are just browsing. Security concerns, I suppose, but don't you sometimes just browse when shopping?

I don't think that's got much to do with security; Rather it's a reaction to online shopping.

Internet shopping has the same goods as a regular store, but they tend to be much cheaper, because the internet doesn't maintain physical stores with physical inventory that customers can go and examine and touch and try on to see if they want to buy.

Smart shoppers can get the expensive benefits of shopping at a bricks-and-mortar store, and the cheap prices of buying online, by browsing at the store to find the perfect item, and then going home and buying that item online.

Obviously, the owners of the bricks-and-mortar stores are the big losers from this behaviour, and so many of them react by trying to discourage people from browsing unless they are going to make an immediate purchase.

Of course, that's not an effective strategy, and just alienates customers who might have actually bought from the shop. But it's an understandable human reaction to recognising that people are abusing the social contract by letting you pay to provide them with a service, when they have no intention of reciprocating by paying you for the merchandise you are trying to sell.

 

[Tigers!]

I concede that I myself have been a crime victim. Someone stole the front wheel of my bicycle. I was out doing something, and when I returned, the wheel was gone. I had to walk my bike back home and buy a new wheel. I also resolved to try to lock both wheels, or at least the front wheel if I couldn't lock both of them.

That left me with two thoughts, two thoughts that reflect issues that are persistently ignored in all sides of the debate about criminal justice.

1. Many criminals are hard to catch. Police forces need to be *much* more efficient. We'll likely need a lot more surveillance and automated law enforcement.

2. Crime victims are ignored and left to suffer all too often. They deserve help in recovering from crimes' effects on them and their property. If someone who was stolen from is willing to state under penalty of perjury that something was stolen from them, then they deserve compensation for what was stolen from them. I include "under penalty of perjury" because scammers who file fraudulent claims can be punished for that.

No. 2 is so true.

 

[Tigers!]

The fourth myth: By definition, “violent crime” involves physical harm

The distinction between “violent” and “nonviolent” crime means less than you might think; in fact, these terms are so widely misused that they are generally unhelpful in a policy context. In the public discourse about crime, people typically use “violent” and “nonviolent” as substitutes for serious versus nonserious criminal acts. ...

In reality, state and federal laws apply the term “violent” to a surprisingly wide range of criminal acts — including many that don’t involve any physical harm. In some states, purse-snatching, manufacturing methamphetamines, and stealing drugs are considered violent crimes. Burglary is generally considered a property crime, but an array of state and federal laws classify burglary as a violent crime in certain situations, such as when it occurs at night, in a residence, or with a weapon present. So even if the building was unoccupied, someone convicted of burglary could be punished for a violent crime and end up with a long prison sentence and “violent” record.

So excluding "violent" crimes from criminal-justice reform causes a *lot* of trouble. It's necessary to look at the kind of offense.

I once had the unfortunate chance of meeting a shotgun wielding bandit leaving a bank. He was trying to get out as I was trying to get in. I received no physical harm but having a shotgun pointed cms from your face is a violent act. It affects your sense of security and safety very badly.
Violence is not just physically based.

 

[lostone]

I've had my home robbed twice, many years ago, in a different address. I knew who did it, but had no way of proving it. The police were worse than useless. Your neighbors are you most likely thieves. All the cops do is search your home for drugs, and victimize you all over again.

The same person also stole my license plates once. That time they caught him, when he gave the tags to a neighbor's kid to play with after he had finished using them. I was summoned to court two or three times, but he never had a lawyer and the trial was postponed. I got tired of taking time off work , and when he finally got a lawyer, the lawyer came to me begging me to drop the charges in the name of the state, the state having filed the charges, and not wanting to make a permanent enemy who might next try to burn my house down, I agreed.

The system does not work well.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've had my home robbed twice, many years ago, in a different address. I knew who did it, but had no way of proving it. The police were worse than useless. Your neighbors are you most likely thieves. All the cops do is search your home for drugs, and victimize you all over again.

Yup--we had a string of burglaries around here some years back. The only houses hit were houses I would evaluate as having no meaningful defender--weak, and people I would evaluate as very unlikely to be armed. Chance?? or someone living nearby who saw who was living there?

 

[lostone]

If you have low-life neighbors, the chances are strong that they observe your comings and goings very closely, and have learned your habits.