Drug Policy Needs More Centrists (NYTimes OP-Ed)

[Telarus]

Because there is no link between the two.  Nothing in either of those links provides any proof that their is a concerted effort to arrest non-violent drug offenders solely for the purposes of putting them to work and padding their wallets. 

Honestly, and with all due respect, it smacks of conspiracy theory the way it is presented.  It's a belief statement, but there is no cause and effect proven. 

Do you really believe that corporate prison owners do not utilize lobbyists, amongst many other things?

And what standard of proof are you going by here? What criteria needs to be fulfilled to qualify as proof for you?

A concerted, intentional, and systematic effort to ramp up non-violent drug convictions in order to fill prisons with cheap labor.  Because that is what is being inferred, implied, etc.  I mean, from the evidence that was provided, you could infer that the system would be ramping up ANY conviction to increase the number of prisoners and feed them into this labor system. 

This thread is about drug policy, if there is evidence that this is a systematic effort to get non-violent (I would add non-trafficking) offenders in prison to be cheap labor, I would like to see it.  Not rogue judges, bad apples.  I don't argue that at all.  I'm talking about what is being inferred now in this thread that this is a system, a gang of players knowingly trumping up, ramping up non-violent drug charges for the cheap labor.

Who needs all of that when it is known that the system will repeatedly break down in the specific ways noted. I mean, that shit seems repeatable enough to define a statistical predictive model around, but I sure don't have the training to do so.

This thread is about Drug Policy, and at this point in time Drug Policy is influenced by for-profit prison lobbying money.

(Are there lobbyists for the Rehabilitation industry? Probably... Do they carry the same weight in DC? .... lol  )

I really respect RWHN, but I think we just see/experience a different slice of America than he does.

[AFK]

Uh, sure.

I would just suggest that this theory doesn't hold up to the numbers.  The latest numbers I can find, 2002, from BJS, suggests that folks in jail for drug possession make up 11% of the total population.  http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/dcf/correct.cfm  THat's all drugs, not just Marijuana. 

So, the numbers just don't support a theory that we are throwing non-violent (non trafficking) drug offenders in jail so we can put them to work.  The numbers just aren't there to drive such an engine.  There certainly are quite a few in jails and prisons who committed other offenses, violent offenses, or trafficking drugs, maybe they have some sway with this whole thing, but your average joe getting caught with a joint is simply not the fuel for this. 

[East Coast Hustle]

I'm not sure how you can make that judgment with those numbers?

11% of the total US prison population is a LOT of people. And given that prisons typically don't allow violent offenders to do that sort of work, a more relevant number would be what percentage of all non-violent offenders are in prison for drug offenses. Either way, 11% of the total US prison population is a huge labor pool.

[AFK]

It would be more telling if there was data that showed the actual makeup of these prisoners doing this work.

AND, if there was some evidence that showed an organized and concerted attempt to get more of these kinds of prisoners, specifically the non-violent drug offenders, to feed into this system. 

Again, my professional experience is different, where the trend is to divert as much as possible non-violent, non-trafficking drug offenders from the jails and prison systems. 

[East Coast Hustle]

I suspect that if the data is available, we'd see a large variation on those numbers between states. Places like New England and the PNW are probably much more likely to send non-violent drug offenders to diversion programs (whether or not the offense was trafficking-related is irrelevant in this context) than places in the south and midwest. I also suspect there would be a discrepancy between states that run their own prison systems and states that farm it out to private contractors.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Because there is no link between the two.  Nothing in either of those links provides any proof that their is a concerted effort to arrest non-violent drug offenders solely for the purposes of putting them to work and padding their wallets. 

Honestly, and with all due respect, it smacks of conspiracy theory the way it is presented.  It's a belief statement, but there is no cause and effect proven. 

Do you really believe that corporate prison owners do not utilize lobbyists, amongst many other things?

And what standard of proof are you going by here? What criteria needs to be fulfilled to qualify as proof for you?

A concerted, intentional, and systematic effort to ramp up non-violent drug convictions in order to fill prisons with cheap labor.  Because that is what is being inferred, implied, etc.  I mean, from the evidence that was provided, you could infer that the system would be ramping up ANY conviction to increase the number of prisoners and feed them into this labor system. 

This thread is about drug policy, if there is evidence that this is a systematic effort to get non-violent (I would add non-trafficking) offenders in prison to be cheap labor, I would like to see it.  Not rogue judges, bad apples.  I don't argue that at all.  I'm talking about what is being inferred now in this thread that this is a system, a gang of players knowingly trumping up, ramping up non-violent drug charges for the cheap labor. 

"Since 2000, private prison populations have increased 120%, while in the same time period, the overall prison population only increased 16%. Gee, I wonder how that happened."

Whether private prison companies and inmate prison labor companies benefit a single entity or whether inmate prison labor companies are independent and just riding private prison industry's coattails is really besides the point. They have the same interests: increase the number of people in prison, increase the time served in prisons, and prevent changes in policies that effect their bottom line.

They have specifically mentioned drug policy in their annual reports, and left a paper trail in their dealings with ALEC:

In 2003, Allen became the Texas House Chairman of the Corrections Committee and began peddling the Prison Industries Act and other legislation beneficial to CCA and Geo Group, like the Private Correctional Facilities Act. Soon thereafter he became Chairman of ALEC's Criminal Justice (now Public Safety and Elections) Task Force. He resigned from the state legislature in 2006 while under investigation for his unethical lobbying practices. He was hired soon after as a lobbyist for Geo Group.

Alex Friedmann, associate editor of Prison Legal News, says prison labor is part of a "confluence of similar interests" among politicians and corporations, long referred to as the "prison industrial complex." As decades of model legislation reveals, ALEC has been at the center of this confluence. "This has been ongoing for decades, with prison privatization contributing to the escalation of incarceration rates in the US," Friedmann says. Just as mass incarceration has burdened American taxpayers in major prison states, so is the use of inmate labor contributing to lost jobs, unemployment and decreased wages among workers—while corporate profits soar.

http://www.thenation.com/article/162478/hidden-history-alec-and-prison-labor

The evidence is mounting on this side of the argument, RWHN. It looks like you can't even remotely refute a single one of these points, so you've been reduced to trying to reframe this as having nothing to do with private prisons or asking for evidence based on criteria you refuse to supply (I asked you point blank).

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

Just one more thing that I don't think many people are aware of.

Did you know that federal prisoners are forced to work?

MANDATORY WORK REQUIREMENT FOR ALL PRISONERS           
      Pub. L. 101-647, title XXIX, Sec. 2905, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat.
    4914, provided that:
      "(a) In General. - (1) It is the policy of the Federal Government
    that convicted inmates confined in Federal prisons, jails, and
    other detention facilities shall work. The type of work in which
    they will be involved shall be dictated by appropriate security
    considerations and by the health of the prisoner involved.
      "(2) A Federal prisoner may be excused from the requirement to
    work only as necessitated by -
        "(A) security considerations;
        "(B) disciplinary action;
        "(C) medical certification of disability such as would make it
      impracticable for prison officials to arrange useful work for the
      prisoner to perform; or
        "(D) a need for the prisoner to work less than a full work
      schedule in order to participate in literacy training, drug
      rehabilitation, or similar programs in addition to the work
      program."

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C307.txt

[AFK]

The evidence is mounting on this side of the argument, RWHN. It looks like you can't even remotely refute a single one of these points, so you've been reduced to trying to reframe this as having nothing to do with private prisons or asking for evidence based on criteria you refuse to supply (I asked you point blank).

There is still nothing in the link you provided that points to a link between a practice of imprisoning non-violent drug offenders and this private prison labor force.  I mean, that was the whole point of this thread of the discussion being started, right? 

This is why I suggested that there was, generously, a tenative link to the topic of this thread.  I'm still not seeing a link.  And nobody is providing a link between the two issues.  Show me something that says we are throwing more non-violent drug offenders into prison to feed this labor system. 

Again, my experience is that non-violent drug offenders are being diverted from jails and prisons wherever possible and appropriate.  Maybe there is something nefarious going on in certain states.  Okay, if so show me, I certainly would not be on board supporting some kind of inmate-mill.  Fabricating or trumping up non-violent charges to pad wallets.  But, my issue is, so far, no one has provided this evidence.  What is happening is people are saying, "look at this awful shit" and inferring that it is linked.  But that doesn't pass the smell test. 

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

The evidence is mounting on this side of the argument, RWHN. It looks like you can't even remotely refute a single one of these points, so you've been reduced to trying to reframe this as having nothing to do with private prisons or asking for evidence based on criteria you refuse to supply (I asked you point blank).

There is still nothing in the link you provided that points to a link between a practice of imprisoning non-violent drug offenders and this private prison labor force. 

I'll quote what I just posted, since you apparently are having reading comprehension issues.

Whether private prison companies and inmate prison labor companies benefit a single entity or whether inmate prison labor companies are independent and just riding private prison industry's coattails is really besides the point. They have the same interests: increase the number of people in prison, increase the time served in prisons, and prevent changes in policies that effect their bottom line.

And here it is from the horse's mouth, which I posted previously in this thread:

The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them.

[AFK]

So what is the specific demand created by incarcerating non-violent, non-trafficking drug offenders? 

And are we know in an argument for legalization of all drugs or is the track of this discussion still marijuana?  Because that will produce two very different numbers for my prior question. 

More to the point, what is the population of non-violent, non-trafficking drug offenders in these prisons? 

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

More to the point, what is the population of non-violent, non-trafficking drug offenders in these prisons? 

Drug policy includes trafficking laws, so you'll need to explain why this narrow frame of reference is relevant.

Of the inmates residing in federal prisons as of September 2011, and for whom offense data are known, more than half (101,929 or 50.4%) were serving sentences for federal drug offenses—including simple possession.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42066.pdf

[AFK]

I thought we were talking about these private prisons?  What is that population in the private prisons? 

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I thought we were talking about these private prisons?  What is that population in the private prisons? 

Again, your frame of reference is obfuscatingly narrow.

Let's look at the change in population of private prisons compared to the change in the overall prison population:

"Since 2000, private prison populations have increased 120%, while in the same time period, the overall prison population only increased 16%."

[East Coast Hustle]

I still fail to see how making a distinction between non-violent posession charges and non-violent trafficking charges is relevant to the discussion.

[AFK]

Well, I'm assuming the thesis behind all of this is if we just legalized all of the drugs, these people wouldn't be in prison and being used as slave labor, right?  Or is it something else?  It's the only connection I can actually find between this prison story and drug policy. 

If so, then from my perspective we are talking about non-violent offenders.  Further, this thread was begun on a premise of a centrist drug policy, one that I tend to agree with.  A drug policy that isn't for legalization, but is also not for a law enforcement-only approach.  I've mentioned time and again in these discussions that I am for law enforcement reforms.  Namely, reforms that divert non-violent, non-trafficing offenders from prisons.  I throw non-trafficking in as a qualifier because trafficking results in drugs winding up in the hands of youth.  Nevermind that trafficking drugs has an overall negative impact on communities, much more so than a single individual drug user. 

I may be wrong, but I'm assuming Telarus and Net are not suggesting that violent drug offenders, or drug offenders also convicted of other crimes should not be in prison.  Correct me if I'm wrong.

Now, as I've shown earlier, the percentage of non-violent, non-trafficking offenders in prisons is a small percentage compared to all other crimes.  2002 data showed it was just under 11%.  Certainly still a significant number, and perhaps one that should be smaller through reforms, but it isn't what proponents of legalization will often sell us, trying to paint a picture of prisons overcroweded with people who were just smoking a joint. 

So if it is only 1 in 10 who are in for possession, what are the other 9 in for?