If you really don't see anything wrong with having the largest prisoner population in the world
The U.S. also has a very high crime rate compared to China and the European countries. More criminals means more people in prison.
The American legal system is like the bad parent who alternates between being over-lenient and being violently strict. Much of the time policing is actually far too lax. Most people selling drugs are never caught, most gang killings are never tracked down, and most home burglars are never captured. This lax policing allows too much crime, and eventually the police are forced to react. They do so in a blunt and ham-fisted manner. Cops break into the wrong homes in an attempt to make headline grabbing drug busts.
Think of it in terms of math: which has a higher prisoner population, the country that catches the perpetrator of 98% of crimes, or the country that catches perpertrators only 10% of the time? The answer is the second country has a much higher criminal population. The lower probability of getting caught increases the amount of crime, which means total jail population is much higher.
Asian countries like Singapore and China on the other hand are the consistently stern parent. In Singapore there is a 99% chance of getting caught if you murdered someone. Thus there are virtually no murders, and a very small prisoner population.
Both sides of the law and order debate need to realize that American law enforcement is simultaneously too tax and too heavy handed. This is not a contradiction, its the reality.
Many American cities (Philadelphia, Baltimore) have homicide rates that have been unseen in Western civilization since medieval times. This is a huge problem. It needs to be addressed. Any proposed reform that tries to lower police abuse without also lowering the crime rate will result in failure ( and by increasing crime, will in the long term actually increase police abuses).
> The U.S. also has a very high crime rate compared to China and the European countries. More criminals means more people in prison.
That's a natural result of outlawing so much victim-less behavior. If for example, drugs were legal, much of that crime would simply disappear and our prisons would be much less crowded.
Neither Singapore nor China allows drugs, yet their crime rate is much lower and their prisons much less crowded. Most European countries also outlaw drugs.
Here in Taiwan, there are some very strict drug laws on the books, and yet weed and club drugs are pretty common, as they are in Singapore. Unlike the US, though, enforcement of drug laws isn't a high priority. There are people in jail for drug selling and production, but very few for casual use.
There are people in jail for drug selling and production, but very few for casual use.
The U.S. is the same way: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/demand/speakout/10so.htm
"The Michigan Department of Corrections just finished a study of their inmate population. They discovered that out of 47,000 inmates, only 15 people were incarcerated on first-time drug possession charges."
No, it's not the same. Even a cursory look at the issue shows that much of the US prison population is due to "3 strikes" laws. By looking only at first time possession charges, that entire group is missed.
Furthermore, police in the US have the power to seize cars, seize money, and quite number of other things without warrant, based upon the suspicion of drugs being involved. They can't do that here.
That doesn't even negate my point. The point is we're declaring a class of people criminals because we don't like them, rather than because they've harmed anyone. This creates a black market for goods which then attracts even more crime and creates more serious criminals.
If you want to see less criminals, start requiring that crimes have actual victims. Consenting adults trading goods and services, whether they be drugs, sex, or anything else, should not simply be declared criminals.
How Singapore and China deals with the issue isn't even slightly relevant to the issue.
Imagine the crime rates if we declared coffee drinkers criminals. We'd have to jail a lot more people and build a lot more prisons because you cannot stop people from engaging in victim-less behavior that they enjoy.
The U.S. also has a very high crime rate compared to China and the European countries. More criminals means more people in prison.
The American legal system is like the bad parent who alternates between being over-lenient and being violently strict. Much of the time policing is actually far too lax. Most people selling drugs are never caught, most gang killings are never tracked down, and most home burglars are never captured. This lax policing allows too much crime, and eventually the police are forced to react. They do so in a blunt and ham-fisted manner. Cops break into the wrong homes in an attempt to make headline grabbing drug busts.
Think of it in terms of math: which has a higher prisoner population, the country that catches the perpetrator of 98% of crimes, or the country that catches perpertrators only 10% of the time? The answer is the second country has a much higher criminal population. The lower probability of getting caught increases the amount of crime, which means total jail population is much higher.
Asian countries like Singapore and China on the other hand are the consistently stern parent. In Singapore there is a 99% chance of getting caught if you murdered someone. Thus there are virtually no murders, and a very small prisoner population.
Both sides of the law and order debate need to realize that American law enforcement is simultaneously too tax and too heavy handed. This is not a contradiction, its the reality.
Many American cities (Philadelphia, Baltimore) have homicide rates that have been unseen in Western civilization since medieval times. This is a huge problem. It needs to be addressed. Any proposed reform that tries to lower police abuse without also lowering the crime rate will result in failure ( and by increasing crime, will in the long term actually increase police abuses).