The people advocating to release ~1 million violent criminals are least likely to suffer at their hands. Hand on heart, nobody wants to leave next to a convicted murderer or drug dealer.
Mass incarceration is a symptom, abolishing it is not a cure.
Mass incarceration is a symptom, abolishing it is not a cure.
> Newsom and the CDCR are prioritizing the 4,800 people who are within 180 days of finishing their sentences for the first round of rolling releases by the end of July, and then those with a year or less left to serve who are living in high-risk prisons like San Quentin. People in jail for violent offenses and perpetrators of domestic abuse are not eligible for release.
https://time.com/4596081/incarceration-report/
That said, I agree that reforming drug policy in particular would also be a great way to reduce mass incarceration.
That said, I do agree that there's a large amount of people in prison that shouldn't be there, and the US prison system ensures people stay or return to prison later on.
that said, I don't think most people who aren't a part of that world would want to live next to an actual dealer. in some ways the "retail" folks can be the worst to live near. if they sell out of their home, it brings a lot of undesirable traffic to the area.
"Let's not let the cure be worse than the disease".
The issue is not nearly as cut and dry as you express. Not all prisoners are violent criminals. Even violent criminals get released at the end of their sentence.
Mass incarceration is an efficient stick when the better solution is an effective carrot.