This has been going on for decades and virtually every aspect of prisoner treatment has been challenged through civil rights lawsuits against the government. Not surprisingly, the government wins nearly all of these cases, and most are thrown out long before trial. No one - not the public, judges, politicians, or the media - seems to care. In the eyes of most, prisoners are, well, prisoners.
Have you read the Thirteenth Amendment which abolished slavery? Not only are prisoners comparable to slaves, they are slaves.
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"
The way I grokked is that this is the first thing really comparable to slavery since it "officially" ended. It's not a novel opinion; blacks are incarcerated at six times the level of whites (1). http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet
Statistics are what you make them, considering that blacks are more likely to victims of violence to other blacks, when they are not the majority, how can the outcome of incarceration rates be remedied?
Most people in the prison system are there for non-violent offenses. [1] In Chicago, blacks were arrested (before decriminalisation last year) for cannabis consumption at a rate of 15 persons for every 1 white person despite similar rates of cannabis consumption among blacks and whites. [2] People who have gone to prison for any of offense have a 40% chance of eventually going back to prison. [3] I would suggest that the change in incarceration rates starts with less racist policing.
I don't take drugs. I think there are good reasons for people to not take cannabis. I am strongly in favour of cannabis legalisation.
The amount of time and money spent dealing with cannabis is mind-boggling. About 50,000[1] Mexicans have been murdered in the recent drug wars. Some of those are because cannabis is illegal.
Cannabis prohibition is going to be viewed with horror in the future.
Well, because it's prison. By historical standards, this is pretty mild.
I'd like to know why we have so many awful laws on the books. Seems like we have so many, that most of us could be locked up, if they happen to irk the wrong people.
I'd like to know why we have so many awful laws on the books. Seems like we have so many, that most of us could be locked up, if they happen to irk the wrong people.
"Cop on the beat: the last true dictatorship in America." -- Jimmy McNulty (paraphrased).
When you have so many laws, everyone is a criminal. And when everyone is a criminal, those enforcing the laws become the ones who make them. Why is the speed limit still laughably low in most of the country? Most drivers are consistently driving 10-15 mph over the speed limit, at least where I live. It gives cops the ability to pull you over whenever they see fit.
Yeah, but no one goes to jail for speeding. And they can already pull you over whenever they want. This is how they catch dunk drivers. Swerving, driving too fast for conditions, driving erratically or all sorts of other subjective terms. They can set up a checkpoint and pull you over just because. Speed limits are really the least of it and don't serve your argument well.
Edit: I want to point out that I've defended speed limits here before because speed limits, like building codes, are created by engineers, not some arbitrary big government conspiracy. Like most laws, they are well thought out and for everyone's safety.
Speed limits in most areas start out as defined by engineers then manipulated to fit local opinion on how fast the road should be. I believe many areas allow public comment and petition to change the speed limit of local roads so if someone lives near by and is scared of the cars going 45mph then might raise a fuss enough to reduce it down to 25mph. (Obviously this isn't as much of an issue for state run/maintained highways)
There seems to be a variety of reasons. Two that come to mind:
- No matter how well you write it, it seems that law will always be subject to a certain degree of interpretation. You could even argue that good law intentionally leaves room for interpretation- see "reasonable person" clauses. This is because people are not black and white, and society changes over time.
- Some laws probably really are too broad, left that way to ensure you can pin people. As always when this subject comes up, I recall Al Capone, who was brought in on tax evasion (not mobstering)
More like, because it's happening to someone that is: a) 'one of us' and b) he's someone high profile, that is attempting to remain so even after going to prison. I have a feeling that if Weev was black or Asian it would still be a big deal to us[1]. I don't remember hearing much about Kevin Mitnik's issues with his jailers. I'm sure he had at least some.
[1] Though there is the remote possibility that it would be cared about 'less' because it would be seen as racial discrimination rather than just out right maliciousness, but I'm optimistic that this wouldn't be the case.
"White middle/upper class" are statistically much less likely to be personally affected by these prison policies. Nothing about Weev's treatment is unusual; it's just that nobody cares when it happens to "normal criminals" who are disproportionately not white or rich.
Humans are likely to ignore a problem that doesn't affect anyone they know or identify with.
| Humans are likely to ignore a problem that
| doesn't affect anyone they know or identify
| with.
That's what I was trying to hit on with 'one of us.' That we (the HN crowd) care mostly because he's part of the 'techno elite' so to speak. Less so because he's white/middle-class. It just happens that the 'techno elite' is (seemingly) disproportionately white (not sure about middle-class). It also doesn't hurt that we see him as a bit of a martyr because he got a prison sentence that we don't feel fit the crime (and therefore feel that he's drawn the ire of 'the man' so to speak).
