It seems to me in retrospect that the most objectionable thing in the common war-on-drugs narrative is overly long sentences for mere possession. From what I’ve read lately on the data on crime prevention, it seems that longer sentences have very little deterrent effect, while likelihood of getting caught and at least getting a “slap on the wrist” type punishment is far more important.
It seems like a night in jail for possession, or two nights for public consumption/intoxication (for which one is inherently more likely to get caught) would go a long way. This is part of the “progressive DA” theory of things that might actually be correct. The problem is that cops feel disrespected when the courts don’t follow through on their arrests with long prison sentences. They feel like they’re wasting their time, and so they stop doing their jobs.
The burning question is: how do we get cops to understand that the deterrent effect of catching someone is worth their time and effort even if that person doesn’t go on to be thrown in prison for an extended period of time?
I agree with the "swiftness is more important than severity" theory of deterrence, but in the case of "mere possession", there's some common misunderstandings out there.
The way people end up arrested and convicted for possession is typically that they were doing something else criminal - they were speeding at over 100 mph, they beat up their girlfriend, they robbed someone, they were DUI, etc..
When the cops apprehends someone who has just done one of those violent and / or irrational acts, they very often find more serious illegal drugs in their possession, in many cases because they were using that drug (which may have led to the criminal behavior in the first place).
But then the legal process takes some odd twists (typically speaking). It's often much easier to prove and bust someone the drug possession than it is on the other charges, which might require witnesses, juries, evidence gathering, etc.. So very often, the criminal takes a plea deal where they plead guilty on possession in exchange for lowering or dropping the more serious charges that attracted police attention in the first place.
So cops are really not out there looking for simple possession all that much, and in many jurisdictions, that's partly because the mayor / DA / Police Chief have deprioritized drug crimes. I guess we, as a society, could try to get them to do that more, but arresting addicts and casual users who are using in the privacy of their own home or not bothering anyone at a party would be very resource-intensive and probably not supported by most of society.
So it's very hard to get out of the status quo of "wait until the junkie steals something, then bust him for drugs".
Your question carries an implicit assumption that arrest and booking has independent deterrent value, which is just demonstrably not the case when criminals who are released within a day or two constantly commit fresh crimes. 5-year prison terms might be overkill, but there clearly needs to be *something* more than just a slap on the wrists to establish deterrence.
I read it a while ago and can’t remember details enough to point to a specific section, but I remember my overall takeaway being: increasing the chance of getting caught is a far more cost-effective form of deterrence than increasing sentence length, and longer sentences can have other negative effects because longer sentences make it much harder for people to reacclimatize to functioning in society.
I'm not arguing whether likelihood of punishment is more important than severity of punishment. I'm arguing that severity *still matters* such that a mere "slap on the wrist," even if 100% certain, is insufficient to establish deterrence because it just becomes part of the cost of doing business.
It probably depends on whom you're trying to deter. Hardened criminals and people who expect to go to prison eventually for serious crime are not going to be deterred whatsoever by being arrested and booked. A parent with a job to hold probably will be deterred by that sort of penalty.
For most crimes, it's really the former (the hardened criminals) that we ought to be talking about, so I agree you need some meaningful severity (and probably incapacitation) to have any impact.
For drug crimes and DUIs, however, you can probably move the needle by ramping up the certainty of arrests and bookings and light penalties that disrupt your normal parenting life or make it possible for you to be fired.
But see my other comment on why that might be hard to do. I don't think the public is going to be behind raids at Coachella trying to arrest people who are taking ecstasy and dancing, or intrusive searches into homes where people are taking ketamine they got from a friend's prescription.
I should have a more complete reply tomorrow evening, but in the meantime-reread that article. Read it carefully, then read between the lines.
Part of the issue here, and the reason why I'm taking some time to temper my anger at the staggering ignorance and arrogance of your initial post, is this: you are like Scott Alexander and David Roodman in that you do not know many felons. I know too many.
There aren't a lot of people in jail for mere possession. There are a lot of violent criminals in jail on drug charges because those are easier to prove and are often the thing a defended chooses to plea bargain down to if they might otherwise be convicted of a violent crime.
As to prison, I'm massively in favor of corporal punishment as replacement but lets get real, are we really going to start lashing blacks in the public square?
Great read. I was born in the late 70s and remember the crack epidemic (and the pressure by minority communities) to “get tough.” I’m pretty libertine in regards to drugs, but I agree that we have to get the story right. Subscribed!
We (in the US) have been putting people in prison for drug possession less and less over the last few decades as well. In many liberal jurisdictions, jail time for personal-use possession is extremely rare unless you've been arrested for a violent crime and took a plea deal.
Drug users commite crimes to find money to by expensive illegal drugs.legalization of all drugs will destroy drug dealers and their crimes .drug users could cultivate their drugs like opium or buy from drugstore for 2 dollars. Not to commite crimes not sleep on the streets
All of the most important categories of street drugs, meth, cocaine, opioids, are much cheaper now than they were decades ago. Relative to incomes, drugs are probably cheaper in the US than they are in Europe or Latin America. But it seems like we have more drug-related crime than most of the world, despite cheap prices.
No, they are not- and they certainly should not be treated like it. That is not what Lehman is saying, though. The harm from drugs has often been met with resistance from the very communities devastated by it. I see this now when talking with thousands of parents of addicts. The majority breathe a sigh of relief when their (adult) child is arrested; they know there is a chance for help and recovery that isn't happening through decorated meth pipes, dilaudid scripts handed out like candy, and 'meeting them where they are at'. Those suffering (not all users) need help and hope of recovery.
"No, they are not- and they certainly should not be treated like it"
I agree that drug use and the types of criminality we usually picture (assault, robbery, rape, etc) are two different things. But if you're driving a car while drunk, or smoking crack while pregnant, or meth-binging rather than parenting, we probably need to call those behaviors criminal, as well.
There also seems to be a connection between "standard criminality" and drug use. It's hard to say how much each causes the other, but at the end of the day if you arrest criminals for assault, robbery, rape, etc most of you're arrestees are going to be drug users.
I guess I'm trying to say that fighting crime and fighting drugs are going to have an awful lots of overlap, and are easily confused for each other.
The "war on drugs" was a failure for the same reason the Vietnam war was a failure, for the same reason the "war on poverty" was a failure. They employed the wrong strategy, used the wrong weapons, and had suspect motives. People like drugs, they make people feel good. Most people ("weak minded people", in my opinion) can't see any more compelling motive than to "feel good." The Vietnam war demonstrates that people would rather be "enslaved" by their own race (religion and culture) than "liberated" by another. The "war on poverty" kept people locked in poverty, by giving them "bread and circus" and an excuse (critical race theory) instead of a functional education. They should have fought those "wars" with education.
It seems to me in retrospect that the most objectionable thing in the common war-on-drugs narrative is overly long sentences for mere possession. From what I’ve read lately on the data on crime prevention, it seems that longer sentences have very little deterrent effect, while likelihood of getting caught and at least getting a “slap on the wrist” type punishment is far more important.
It seems like a night in jail for possession, or two nights for public consumption/intoxication (for which one is inherently more likely to get caught) would go a long way. This is part of the “progressive DA” theory of things that might actually be correct. The problem is that cops feel disrespected when the courts don’t follow through on their arrests with long prison sentences. They feel like they’re wasting their time, and so they stop doing their jobs.
The burning question is: how do we get cops to understand that the deterrent effect of catching someone is worth their time and effort even if that person doesn’t go on to be thrown in prison for an extended period of time?
I agree with the "swiftness is more important than severity" theory of deterrence, but in the case of "mere possession", there's some common misunderstandings out there.
The way people end up arrested and convicted for possession is typically that they were doing something else criminal - they were speeding at over 100 mph, they beat up their girlfriend, they robbed someone, they were DUI, etc..
When the cops apprehends someone who has just done one of those violent and / or irrational acts, they very often find more serious illegal drugs in their possession, in many cases because they were using that drug (which may have led to the criminal behavior in the first place).
But then the legal process takes some odd twists (typically speaking). It's often much easier to prove and bust someone the drug possession than it is on the other charges, which might require witnesses, juries, evidence gathering, etc.. So very often, the criminal takes a plea deal where they plead guilty on possession in exchange for lowering or dropping the more serious charges that attracted police attention in the first place.
So cops are really not out there looking for simple possession all that much, and in many jurisdictions, that's partly because the mayor / DA / Police Chief have deprioritized drug crimes. I guess we, as a society, could try to get them to do that more, but arresting addicts and casual users who are using in the privacy of their own home or not bothering anyone at a party would be very resource-intensive and probably not supported by most of society.
So it's very hard to get out of the status quo of "wait until the junkie steals something, then bust him for drugs".
Your question carries an implicit assumption that arrest and booking has independent deterrent value, which is just demonstrably not the case when criminals who are released within a day or two constantly commit fresh crimes. 5-year prison terms might be overkill, but there clearly needs to be *something* more than just a slap on the wrists to establish deterrence.
I’m largely going off this: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/prison-and-crime-much-more-than-you
I read it a while ago and can’t remember details enough to point to a specific section, but I remember my overall takeaway being: increasing the chance of getting caught is a far more cost-effective form of deterrence than increasing sentence length, and longer sentences can have other negative effects because longer sentences make it much harder for people to reacclimatize to functioning in society.
I'm not arguing whether likelihood of punishment is more important than severity of punishment. I'm arguing that severity *still matters* such that a mere "slap on the wrist," even if 100% certain, is insufficient to establish deterrence because it just becomes part of the cost of doing business.
It probably depends on whom you're trying to deter. Hardened criminals and people who expect to go to prison eventually for serious crime are not going to be deterred whatsoever by being arrested and booked. A parent with a job to hold probably will be deterred by that sort of penalty.
For most crimes, it's really the former (the hardened criminals) that we ought to be talking about, so I agree you need some meaningful severity (and probably incapacitation) to have any impact.
For drug crimes and DUIs, however, you can probably move the needle by ramping up the certainty of arrests and bookings and light penalties that disrupt your normal parenting life or make it possible for you to be fired.
But see my other comment on why that might be hard to do. I don't think the public is going to be behind raids at Coachella trying to arrest people who are taking ecstasy and dancing, or intrusive searches into homes where people are taking ketamine they got from a friend's prescription.
I should have a more complete reply tomorrow evening, but in the meantime-reread that article. Read it carefully, then read between the lines.
Part of the issue here, and the reason why I'm taking some time to temper my anger at the staggering ignorance and arrogance of your initial post, is this: you are like Scott Alexander and David Roodman in that you do not know many felons. I know too many.
There aren't a lot of people in jail for mere possession. There are a lot of violent criminals in jail on drug charges because those are easier to prove and are often the thing a defended chooses to plea bargain down to if they might otherwise be convicted of a violent crime.
As to prison, I'm massively in favor of corporal punishment as replacement but lets get real, are we really going to start lashing blacks in the public square?
Great read. I was born in the late 70s and remember the crack epidemic (and the pressure by minority communities) to “get tough.” I’m pretty libertine in regards to drugs, but I agree that we have to get the story right. Subscribed!
Prisons are full of drugs.the most of drug users started drugs because are illiegal.look what happened in portugal since 2001.
Drugs are still illegal in Portugal.
Fwiw - they are also illegal in most countries around the world, some of which have very low amounts of drug problems.
Drug possesion for personal use is not a crime and they don't put you in prison.they have 50 percent less junkies in 20 years
We (in the US) have been putting people in prison for drug possession less and less over the last few decades as well. In many liberal jurisdictions, jail time for personal-use possession is extremely rare unless you've been arrested for a violent crime and took a plea deal.
Drug users commite crimes to find money to by expensive illegal drugs.legalization of all drugs will destroy drug dealers and their crimes .drug users could cultivate their drugs like opium or buy from drugstore for 2 dollars. Not to commite crimes not sleep on the streets
All of the most important categories of street drugs, meth, cocaine, opioids, are much cheaper now than they were decades ago. Relative to incomes, drugs are probably cheaper in the US than they are in Europe or Latin America. But it seems like we have more drug-related crime than most of the world, despite cheap prices.
Well, you need to self-publish it. With KINDLE, there is no excuse not to be a published author (even if you don't make a lot of money at it).
Drug users are not criminals
No, they are not- and they certainly should not be treated like it. That is not what Lehman is saying, though. The harm from drugs has often been met with resistance from the very communities devastated by it. I see this now when talking with thousands of parents of addicts. The majority breathe a sigh of relief when their (adult) child is arrested; they know there is a chance for help and recovery that isn't happening through decorated meth pipes, dilaudid scripts handed out like candy, and 'meeting them where they are at'. Those suffering (not all users) need help and hope of recovery.
"No, they are not- and they certainly should not be treated like it"
I agree that drug use and the types of criminality we usually picture (assault, robbery, rape, etc) are two different things. But if you're driving a car while drunk, or smoking crack while pregnant, or meth-binging rather than parenting, we probably need to call those behaviors criminal, as well.
There also seems to be a connection between "standard criminality" and drug use. It's hard to say how much each causes the other, but at the end of the day if you arrest criminals for assault, robbery, rape, etc most of you're arrestees are going to be drug users.
I guess I'm trying to say that fighting crime and fighting drugs are going to have an awful lots of overlap, and are easily confused for each other.
100% agree, Wigan.
They broke a law, so they are criminals.
Anyway, using drugs makes people a lot more likely to be criminals.
Not every drunk driver get in an accident every time they drink and drive. But drunk driving is still illegal.
America success rates with wars against non people is a zero. War against drugs, war on poverty, war on terrorism
The "war on drugs" was a failure for the same reason the Vietnam war was a failure, for the same reason the "war on poverty" was a failure. They employed the wrong strategy, used the wrong weapons, and had suspect motives. People like drugs, they make people feel good. Most people ("weak minded people", in my opinion) can't see any more compelling motive than to "feel good." The Vietnam war demonstrates that people would rather be "enslaved" by their own race (religion and culture) than "liberated" by another. The "war on poverty" kept people locked in poverty, by giving them "bread and circus" and an excuse (critical race theory) instead of a functional education. They should have fought those "wars" with education.