The Problem of Felon Disenfranchisement

That's true, but the wording of the sentence just bothers me.

The LAW didn't increase the prison population. People IGNORING THE LAW did. They have every chance in the world to obey it . . . and for whatever reason choose not to. This isn't some biological need like food or sex. It's something people choose to do that they could live perfectly happy lives not doing.

 

This.
Drug laws are draconian. I get it. Don't do the drugs. Don't sell the drugs. Pretty simple, when you eliminate the hand-wringing.
And do you think every criminal stops and thinks, "Wow, I better not do this ... I might not get to vote one day."

 

Oh, they do.

Trust me, they do.

Mandatory minimums. Mandatory sentences.

 

Gee, I wonder if arrest rates for simple possession are skewed by race as well?

Uh oh.

www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/nyregion/30about.html

www.precinctreporter.com/community/inland-empire/186-marijuana-arrest-stats-according-to-race

www.hrw.org/news/2009/03/02/us-drug-arrests-skewed-race

www.drugpolicy.org/issues/race-and-drug-war

 

Define "skewed".

 

"The 20-page report, "Decades of Disparity: Drug Arrests and Race in the United States," says that adult African Americans were arrested on drug charges at rates that were 2.8 to 5.5 times as high as those of white adults in every year from 1980 through 2007"

 

I'm hesitant to contribute further because already this thread seems to be "trending political" and I don't want to nudge it even further in that direction. Nevertheless, one could make the case that even if arrests/convictions skew toward African-Americans, for particular drugs that might not necessarily be a bad thing. The reasoning would be that certain drugs are especially destructive and exacerbate other dangers/risks in low-income/minority communities. Please note that I am not making that argument, but I am not prepared to dismiss that argument out of hand. Further, I doubt seriously whether marijuana is such a drug. On the other hand, I doubt seriously that mandatory minimum sentences were established with the idea of gradually suppressing voting among minorities. Further, like many of you I am troubled by the idea that a felony conviction disqualifies one permanently from full political participation.

 

With an overall marijuana incarceration rate that has doubled since 1991, at last national count in 2007 whites were arrested at 195 per 100,000 while blacks are at 598 per 100,000 for possession of marijuana. In general, youths age15 to 24 made up over half of all possession arrests.

www.precinctreporter.com/community/inland-empire/186-marijuana-arrest-stats-according-to-race

 

Does that mean the results are skewed though? Or are they representative?

What should the number be? Until we know this, we don't know if they are skewed.

 

You know, these allegedly skewed sentences for drug possession might be disenfranchising felons at the ballot box. Somebody should start a thread on that.

 

Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I meant that I doubt that marijuana is one of those "especially destructive" drugs ...

 

But if African Americans are being arrested at higher rates for the less injurious drug, why try to rationalize their arrest rate for the more destructive drugs?