This is, in a way, a very sensible article.

Yes, America has far too many people in undifferentiated prison masses. Of course, it is hard to compare population/incarceration rates with many populous and lawless areas or simply vast and sparsely populated areas. It says nothing bad about the US that we lock up many more people per capita than they do in, say, Somalia. Locking up nobody is not a great alternative.

However, we do lock up too many people. Way too many people. This isn't to say that we necessarily punish too many people. Lithwick and such would have us provide gourmet vegan, vegetarian, halal and kosher meals to violent prisoners, and let the drug addicts roam the streets.

We already take into account mental illness, as well, when we decide to imprison those who are competent criminals. So, another problem with her analysis.

But we need reform. We need more 'dynamic range' in our punishments. We can't simply put a time scale on imprisonment and use that for everything. Drug addicts, perhaps, should be given a chance at rehabilitation, an ankle bracelet, and perhaps something like a breath-a-lyzer in their cars. Thieves and white collar criminals can be put on a repayment plan and perhaps some form of house arrest, for certain kinds of crimes. Assaults, on the other hand, probably demand some kind of incarceration. However, multiple instances of stranger rape, murder or attempted murder, demand prompt execution. That will also lower the prison population and make it a less 'hard' place for first time violent offenders.

Why precisely is it that you so eagerly leap to conflate recreational drug users with "addicts"? Or do you even know? Is the guy who was busted for buying a quarter ounce of ditch weed for personal relaxation the same to you as the meth or heroin junkie who probably commits four separate property crimes a week to feed his (physically-based) fix? Do you know anything about drug use statistics? Do you understand the federal drug schedules? Do you blithely support a system which purports to equate not only mescalin and psilocybin, but even the demonstrably harmless marijuana plant, with things like heroin and GHB? Or are you just spouting off about things based on a Newsweek article you read back in the 90s?

The fact is that community supervision is still an expensive proposition, no matter what, POs are severely overworked with real offenders, and there is fundamentally no compelling need to monitor the overwhelming majority of "drug" users, who of course happen to be recreational users of THC. I assure you, there are quite literally tens of millions of such "addicts" in this country alone (although the term is supremely absurd in that marijuana, like many entheogens, is virtually incapable of producing any physical dependencies, as shown time and again in clinical studies). That said, I guess your proposed ankle monitoring regime for them could produce some direct economic benefits to a couple of communities wherever the devices themselves are manufactured, as doubtless new factories and lines of production will have to be brought online to meet the skyrocketing demand. Of course, the devices themselves are probably manufactured in Southeast Asia or Latin America like everything else, meaning the benefits will accrue there, and I suppose to the small handful of major shareholders in this country....c'est la vie.

Oh yeah, speaking as one who has previously worked in the criminal justice system, if you seriously believe that mental illness is appropriately evaluated and considered at any stage in most cases, be it pleading, trial or sentencing, I have some bridges to sell you. There are severely mentally ill--even severely retarded--people on death row in several jurisdictions. Your flippant disregard of this serious issue is at least consistent with your overall approach, though.

I also find it amusing that while you so adamantly oppose the notion of "drug addicts roam[ing] the streets", even though most of them have never committed a violent or property crime and have thus not caused any negative impact on their community, you practically trip over yourself rushing to extend a fig leaf to the white collar assholes who empty the life savings of millions of hardworking taxpayers, thereby causing a widespread rain of financial ruin and general misery which endures long after their acts are discovered. What percentage of these assholes do you believe will ever repay even 10% of what they stole? I'm guessing here and now it's probably south of 1%--the professional licenses, certifications and other tools of privilege which permitted them to commit their crimes in the first place are invariably denied them upon release out of sheer necessity, and I much doubt the motivational speaker circuit can support all of them. But hey, nice pipe dream.

Finally, while I'm not opposed to capital punishment per se, I find it laughable that the "hang 'em high" types such as yourself are always clamoring for execution as the ultimate punishment. The execution is the end of their punishment, that's it, it's over, they're not around to suffer any more. What's worse, a humane, painless and quick death administered under highly scrunitized conditions, or being left to rot in an American prison in virtual anonymity for 50 years, subject to the caprices of the guards and other inmates? If your true goal is retribution, why do you rush to get the thing over with?

Let's just say I'm hoping not to see any "BenK for Circuit Court Judge" fliers on my windshield any time soon.

"Lithwick and such would have us provide gourmet vegan, vegetarian, halal and kosher meals to violent prisoners, and let the drug addicts roam the streets."

Please cite the section in the article where Lithwick says she wants to do this.

"We already take into account mental illness, as well, when we decide to imprison those who are competent criminals. So, another problem with her analysis."

Not really, at least not very well. As the joke goes, "The bar for competency is so low you have to dig to find it." The vast majority of mentally ill people -- and I'm talking about people who have serious, chronic, diagnosed, illnesses, have no hope of a finding of incompetency. Indeed, they usually can not even hope for a "guilty but mentally ill" plea which would (in some states) simply require that they receive more treatment while in the prison system. You see, that costs money, so the law is written very tightly and the prosecutors and judiciary are arm-twisted into seeing that virtually no one will qualify.

That is a fundamental problem, not just in our society but in all. It is easy to write laws, even constitutions, that "guarantee" certain things. But if society does not give a hoot, and refuses to provide resources, then all the words on paper are hollow. The "right" to have counsel if facing imprisonment is another good example. Most states across the country are beyond *crisis* state when it comes to providing counsel for the indigent. Few people care, there is little or no political drive to correct things, etc.

As one final example, the federal government has just this week declared (after intensive study) that Houston's jails are unconstitutionally deficient in many areas -- including care (not necessarily 'treatment' but just keeping safe) for the mentally ill. The sheriff will issue platitudes, paperwork will be shuffled, they may try a different 'service provider' --- but in the end the inmates will see no change and in a few years we'll be right back, again, with the same complaints. Simply, because society generally doesn't care, and those who do care are stymied by reactionary types who view any type of reform/improvement as "coddling criminals." For example, claiming that Lithwick wants "gourmet vegan, vegetarian, halal and kosher meals." I don't recall her saying that, or even implying it.

Recall the movie "Brubaker", where the reforming warden complained that the roof caved in because of contractor fraud and that the prisoner deserved at least a roof. The prison board member played by good 'ole Wilford Brimley replied "And next you'll want to be giving them warm bubbly baths and such." That attitude is alive and well in the U.S.A.

I never said the death penalty was the ultimate punishment. I merely said it was the appropriate response to several classes of crimes and that it would take people out of the prisons.

You have plenty of other topics in your post; I'm sure mental health isn't perfectly dealt with in the system, but the justice system does consider it, and not all mentally ill people are incompetant to understand their criminal and even violent acts.

It's virtually all solved if drugs are legalized. A HUGE amount of crime is associated with criminalization of drugs--far in excess of the direct crimes of making, selling, using or possessing drugs themselves. And if drugs were legal their legal pricing would allow addicts to use without any overarching need to rob and steal (or at least not nearly as much).

It's strange to think that civilization requires colossal, brutal, and expensive organizations above us to protect us from....plants. It's strange to think of the "puritan" fear of plant products from the same population that believes that their "god" put the plants here in the first place.

Maybe in his second term Obama can put his political capital on the line to bring some sense to this question. People have a "god given" right to trade plant products....and also their own bodies--as in prostitution.

Then you create a whole new job, as people roam the streets picking up the dead and dieing every morning.

Then you in your anti-God rant prove you don't have any idea what is taught but simply make up things in order to prove your lack of reason.

Why would there be a huge increase in people dying if drugs were legalized or decriminalized? Maybe you feel that many more people would be using drugs. There is no evidence that there would be a large increase in the number of drug users. Actually, there is evidence that we would see a decline in drug use. Countries that have decriminalized heroin, for example, have seen the number of users decline over the years. If crack or heroin were decriminalized (or even partially legalized) there is no way I would ever use either. Would you? Would your family or friends?

Name a country that has "decriminalized heroin" then we can continue our discussion.....

TruettCollins:

Then you create a whole new job, as people roam the streets picking up the dead and dieing every morning.

Then you in your anti-God rant prove you don't have any idea what is taught but simply make up things in order to prove your lack of reason.

LOLOLOLOL!!! What a melodramatic imagination you have ;)

Virtually all people who have any interest in drugs already take them--as much as they please. If anything, as the subversive appeal of them is eliminated by legalization, eventually fewer people would show an interest.

TruettCollins:

Then you in your anti-God rant prove you don't have any idea what is taught but simply make up things in order to prove your lack of reason.

Holy rollers like you were also responsible for the prohibition of alcohol. The result of enacting that godly vision:

1) MORE people drank during prohibition than otherwise, and there were MORE speakeasys then than there are bars and taverns now.

2) We are ONLY NOW, ninety-some years later, PERHAPS turning the tide of the criminal enterprise called the mafia--whose wealth and brutality were spawned by prohibition.

Why don't you get your preacher's cattle prod out of your ass so you can have the chance to actually think for yourself?

truett: The Netherlands. Addicts can get it in prescription form. The rate of heroin use there has been on the decline for some time now. The NL also decriminalized pot years ago and now have one of the lowest rate of teen use of marijuana in Europe (oh yeah, it's lower than the US as well).

What's really weird is that the same people who don't believe recreational drug users should be locked up support laws that provide jail time for people who smoke in bars and restaurants.

Just to say... I agree, it is easy to make laws but hard to keep them alive...