Mindblowing Stats from the "Land of the Free"

[BT]

Much of the difference between the US and other countries is due to our locking up people as criminals for drug offenses. This does little to actually deter drug traffic, and locking them up, rather than providing detox programs as they do elsewhere costs more than locking them up.

How do the drug laws in Canada differ from us?

And if illegal what is the difference in the sentencing guidelines.

[Universe Prince]

And you're not going to manoeuvre me into a pissing match with Prince over who writes better sarcasm.

Good. Because I'd win.





Oops. Did I say that out loud?

[Xavier_Onassis]

How do the drug laws in Canada differ from us?

And if illegal what is the difference in the sentencing guidelines.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Possession of a small amount of pot MIGHT get you a ticket in BC, like you get when you park illegally, I have heard.
Alaska has largely decriminalized marijuana as well. There are a lot of data about this available.

[Michael Tee]

<<How do the drug laws in Canada differ from us?

<<And if illegal what is the difference in the sentencing guidelines.>>

Illegal in both countries but I think where the U.S. really went off the rails were with mandatory federal sentencing guidelines, which were both tough and inflexible.  A couple of years ago, the U.S. sentencing guidelines were declared unconstitutional in the U.S. Supreme Court because the legislative branch was trying to use them to tie the hands of the judicial branch.  In order for the judge to deviate from the minimum sentences prescribed by the guidelines, he or she had to hold a "departure hearing" where arguments would be heard to determine if there were sufficient grounds to justify departure from the guidelines.   The system seemed to operate in a way where most convicted criminals got only one kick at the can, that is to say, "guideline sentencing."  Only the wealthy could afford the extra step of the departure hearing.  I think most U.S. criminal defence attorneys were of the opinion that the sentencing guidelines were fairly draconic.  A large part of the prison population were sentenced under the guidelines before they were declared unconstitutional.  I'm not sure whether the Court as presently constituted would in fact still be of the opinion that federal mandatory sentencing guidelines were unconstitutional.

Another big factor is the election of judges and prosecutors, which IMHO blurs the boundaries between the legislative and judicial branches.  Once judges and prosecutors have to run for office, they are subject to the same currents and popular prejudices that bring leglislators into and out of power.  So the electors now have a hand in choosing both the legislature and the courts which interpret the laws and the constitution, IMHO, a dangerous situation.  Popular passions are easily inflamed by random crimes and elected prosecutors and judges are more vulnerable to the pressure of those often negative "get tough on criminals" emotions.  If you're campaigning, you don't want a "soft on crime" rep, and it would be well to have a solid conviction rate.  Judges can't take a chance on letting some guy off with probation because he knows he'll be crucified if the guy re-offends; leniency could cost him his job.  Easier to just hand out the max and never have to worry what happens if the guy re-offends after he serves that max.

And last, I think you've just got a tougher, meaner attitude towards people, particularly the underclass, in some cases caused by religious fanatics and their views on "sin," leading to those ridiculous Texas sentences of 20 years for possession of a joint, etc.  Some of it is pure racial prejudice.

There are lots of factors as to WHY the U.S. has such a phenomenal incarceration rate, but since many of the convicts are non-violent perps of victimless crimes, other countries wouldn't incarcerate in many of the same cases.

[BT]

Not sure what federal sentencing guidelines have to do with state courts. Perhaps you could expand on that tangent.

[Xavier_Onassis]

There are also state sentencing guidelines.

[BT]

Selected State Sentencing Provisions

ALABAMA: As of 2001, the Alabama Judicial Study Commission was finalizing its creation of a permanent sentencing commission for the state.

ALASKA: Alaska has judicially-created "benchmark" guidelines for felonies, with moderate appellate review. Parole has been abolished for most (twothirds) felonies. There is no active sentencing commission for the state.

ARKANSAS: State courts employ voluntary guidelines for felonies. There is no appellate review. Arkansas has retained its parole system. There are guidelines which incorporate intermediate sanctions, with preliminary discussions for guidelines in juvenile cases. State sentencing commission was established in 1994.

DELAWARE: Delaware utilizes voluntary guidelines for felonies and misdemeanors. Parole has been abolished in the state since 1990. There is moderate appellate review of sentencing decisions. The state's sentencing guidelines incorporate intermediate sanctions.

DISTRICT of COLUMBIA: The district has created a temporary commission to study sentencing guidelines and report directly to the City Council.

FLORIDA: In Florida, guidelines were repealed in 1997 and replaced with statutory presumptions for minimum sentences for felonies. The state sentencing commission was abolished in 1998 after the adoption of the new statutory presumptive sentences. There is moderate appellate review of sentencing determinations. Parole has been abolished in the system.

IOWA: Iowa has established a legislative commission to study sentencing reform.

KANSAS: Kansas uses presumptive guidelines for felonies, with moderate appellate review. Parole has been abolished in the state. There are no guidelines for intermediate sanctions.

MARYLAND: Maryland's legislature created a permanent sentencing commission in 1998. There are voluntary guidelines for felonies, with no appellate review. Parole has been retained.

MASSACHUSETTS: In Massachusetts, there are presumptive guidelines for felonies and misdemeanors. A proposal is pending in the legislature for appellate review of sentencing determinations. Parole has been retained.

MICHIGAN: Michigan has been a member of the National Association of Sentencing Commissions since 1999. The state employs presumptive guidelines for felonies, with appellate review as authorized by statute. The state also maintains a restricted parole system.

MINNESOTA: The state has presumptive guidelines for felonies, with moderate appellate review. Parole has been abolished in the state. There are no guidelines for intermediate sanctions.

MISSOURI: Missouri uses voluntary guidelines for felonies, with no appellate review. Parole has been retained in the state.

NORTH CAROLINA: In North Carolina, there are presumptive guidelines for felonies and misdemeanors, with minimum appellate review. Since 1999, the state has incorporated a special dispositional grid for juvenile cases. Parole has been abolished in the state.

OHIO: Ohio uses presumptive narrative guidelines for felonies. There is limited appellate review. Parole has been abolished and replaced with a judicial release mechanism. The state legislature is also considering structured sentencing for juvenile offenders.

OKLAHOMA: In Oklahoma, presumptive guidelines are in place for felonies. The state has retained a limited parole system. Legislative proposals are pending for appellate review of sentencing determinations.

OREGON: Oregon has presumptive guidelines for felonies, with moderate appellate review. Parole has been abolished.

PENNSYLVANIA: Presumptive guidelines are in place for felonies and misdemeanors, with minimum appellate review. Parole has been retained.

SOUTH CAROLINA: The state employs voluntary guidelines for felonies and misdemeanors with potential sentences of one year or more.

TENNESSEE: There are presumptive guidelines for felonies, with moderate appellate review. Parole has been retained. The sentencing commission was abolished in 1995.

UTAH: The state uses voluntary guidelines for felonies and select misdemeanors (sex offenses). There is no appellate review. Parole has been retained in the state. The state also uses voluntary guidelines for its juvenile sentencing.

VIRGINIA: Virginia has voluntary guidelines for felonies, with no appellate review. Parole has been abolished. The state is studying juvenile sentencing guidelines.

WASHINGTON: The state employs presumptive guidelines for felonies, with moderate appellate review. Parole has been abolished in the state. Special guidelines for juvenile sentencing are in effect.

WISCONSIN: In Wisconsin, the state employs voluntary guidelines for felonies. Legislative proposals are pending, which do not contemplate appellate review. The proposals also contemplate the abolishment of the state's parole system, as well as the creation of a new permanent sentencing commission.

http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/sentencing-and-sentencing-guidelines

[Michael Tee]

There are probably studies showing how many current inmates were sentenced under mandatory guidelines, federal OR state, which have since been declared unconstitutional.  I should have indicated that the Federal Government had no monopoly on mandatory minimum sentencing statutes.  Sentencing, of course, is best left to the judge's discretion, since he or she has the best opportunity to consider all of the relevant factors.  It's impossible to craft a "one size fits all" policy on sentencing due to the wide range of human variables.  A vengeful conservative legislature is almost a guarantee of overflowing prisons. 

Personally, I like the system, formal or informal, that seemed to function in the U.S.S.R. - - if a sentence of more than 15 years is needed to make the guy pay for  his crime, it's cheaper and faster to just have him shot and spare the people the cost of his upkeep.  I have no idea what percentage of the prison population is serving sentences of 15 years or more, but that would certainly seem to be one way of solving the problem, at least for those convicted of major crimes of violence or massive economic rip-offs.  Besides, it's the one sure way I know that guarantees a zero rate of recidivism.

[Amianthus]

Personally, I like the system, formal or informal, that seemed to function in the U.S.S.R. - - if a sentence of more than 15 years is needed to make the guy pay for  his crime, it's cheaper and faster to just have him shot and spare the people the cost of his upkeep.

If we did that, I'm sure our numbers would be more in line with other countries. Even though the US has a death sentence, the number of people executed each year is trivial. Most end up becoming a permanent addition to the numbers you quoted.

[Michael Tee]

<<. . . the number of people executed each year is trivial. >>

Yes, trivial in respect of the total prison pop, but big in comparison with most other countries in the world.

But if the policy were put into effect, you'd have to compare the remaining U.S. prison population with the prison pop in other countries, minus those who would have been executed under U.S. rules, to see which country is the more repressive.  IMHO, the U.S. would still come off as one of the most repressive regimes in the entire world.

[Amianthus]

Yes, trivial in respect of the total prison pop, but big in comparison with most other countries in the world.

There were 42 last year. China had over 470.

[sirs]

OUCH

[Michael Tee]

Ami:  <<There were 42 [executions] last year. China had over 470.>>
Ami's monkey:  <<OUCH>>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My exact words were:  <<Yes, trivial in respect of the total prison pop, but big in comparison with most other countries in the world.>>

MOST other countries.  You know, "most" as in "not all but most?"  This should not really be such a difficult concept to grasp, but apparently, for some, it is.

Obviously, some countries have more executions than the U.S. and I think, as most people probably know, China is one of them.  So is the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  So is . . .  uh, well, that seems to be it, folks.  Apart from China and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, no other country in the WORLD executes as many people every year as the "Land of the Free," the good old U.S.A., which by some strange coincidence, also seems to have the most people locked up in cages as well.  Freedom, it's wonderful.  no sir, can't help lovin all that freedom.  Are you glad that you're free?  I'M glad that you're free.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_exe-crime-executions

[Amianthus]

Like I said, we have more people in prison because we're more effective at catching and convicting criminals.

Apart from China and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, no other country in the WORLD executes as many people every year as the "Land of the Free," the good old U.S.A.

Well, there is also Iran (317), Pakistan (135), Saudi Arabia (143).

When you express executions as a percent of the population, there are many more countries that execute a higher percent of their population than the US.

[Michael Tee]

<<Like I said, we have more people in prison because we're more effective at catching and convicting criminals.>>

What laughable bullshit.  Better at imposing mandatory prison sentences for victimless crimes, maybe.  Better at expressing racial prejudice in arrest, detention and sentencing policies, for sure.  Convicting criminals in an Anglo-Saxon judicial system which unlike all others begins with a presumption of innocence and requires the prosecution to prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt, excluding evidence obtained by torture, force or coercion of any kind, direct or indirect?  GIVE ME A BREAK.  Get real.  In France and most Continental countries, the accused is presumed guilty and has to prove his innocence.  There are no Miranda rights.  Even Canada didn't have Miranda rights until about 20 years ago.  Yeah, you're real good at convicting criminals.