Comment by tshile | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tshile | Hacker News Reader

Wait, are we actually supposed to get worked up over this? The ACLU so clearly tip toed while writing the descriptions of these cases as to clearly walk a line between lying about the case and giving us the context needed to understand why these people are in jail for life.

"Patrick had no violent criminal history and had never served a single day in a Department of Corrections facility" - Right, but he obviously had a drug problem since he did NA in prison and probably got in trouble previously, just not enough to go to the Department Of Corrections facility (what his crimes and punishments were are left as an exercise to the reader)

The other stories have similar issues. Blame it on the abusive and threatening boyfriend, not the previous drug convictions and a three strikes law. Life in prison for borrowing a truck from a friend that accidentally reported it stolen?

Look, innocent people get in trouble for things they didn't do. Not innocent people get in trouble for things they didn't do, but were just in the wrong place at the wrong time due to the other things that they did do. It's an unfortunate part of the system and I'm all for things that minimize overcharging and punishing innocent people.

But anyone who can't read between the lines on these is either a sap or just believing what they want to. They even led into it with a statistic about race to soften you up. There are three strikes laws for a reason. There's massive amounts of context missing from these. It's a shame, I generally like the ACLU and what they do, but this is awful.

Three strikes on drug convictions is unfair - especially given the disparity in sentencing for crack cocain vs. other drugs. Do you have any idea how many privileged celebrities would be in jail (some for life) if drug crimes were enforced fairly and uniformly?

So for drug convictions it's unfair? possession or distribution? what about manufacturing? is the crime for possession change depending on amount? what about the type of drug?

i think the way our country approaches the issue of drugs is not only pointless but down right dumb. about as dumb as breaking the law 3 times when you know that there's a three strikes rule on the books. i just don't have sympathy for people that can't learn from their mistakes. these laws are in place for a reason, these people knew they were in place, and now we're all supposed to feel bad for them about their decisions making? sorry, i don't buy it.

as for celebrities, i don't think we can really model the entire country around how they're treated. i'd prefer they be treated like everyone else too, but money buys lawyers and not all lawyers are created equally.

Let's stick with drug possession. Up until 2007, first time conviction on possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine, a drug supposedly used predominantly by blacks (supposedly, but not really), would result in a mandatory sentencing of 5 years [1]. If you were lucky and got caught with powder cocaine instead, you would have to have 500 grams in your possession to suffer a similar fate. This was the 100 to 1 sentencing disparity that was reduced to 18:1 in 2010 [2].

That's not all. Roughly 80% of those convicted for possession of crack cocaine are black, only 10% are white [3][4]. Yet crack cocaine usage within both races is about the same [5].

If you analyse conviction rates vs use for different classes (rich vs poor), I bet you'll find similarly outrageous numbers.

1. http://famm.org/Repository/Files/FS%20Brief%20History%20of%2... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Sentencing_Act 3. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/08/03/data-show-rac... 4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/racial-disparity-dr... 5. http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/quicktables/quickconfig.do?34481-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com