-----
"This small Indiana county sends more people to prison than San Francisco"
Implication - the county's law & order apparatus is dysfunctional and is oppressing the local population
-----
"This small Indiana county has more convicted drug dealers than San Francisco"
Implication - the county has a severe drug problem, and harsh efforts are needed to combat this problem
-----
"This small Indiana county catches more hard-drug-dealers than San Francisco"
Implication - either other counties are incompetent/indifferent in combating the selling of hardcore drugs, or this county is exceptionally good at achieving this goal.
-----
"This small Indiana county leads in the nation in narrowing the racial-incarceration-gap"
Implication - the county's law & order system is tough but fair, and should be a role model for others in pursuing White criminals just as vigorously as Minority criminals.
-----
The phrasing involved in "sending more people to prison" in particular, sweeps under the rug the fact that the people being sent to prison are dealing hard drugs, and spawning/enabling a generation of drug addicts whose lives are going to fall apart as a result. Instead of making the drug dealers the lead actors who initiated the subsequent chain of events, the headline is structured such that the county's justice system is portrayed as the lead actor instead. Neither wording is wrong, but they clearly bias the audience in different directions.
I trust the NYTimes more than any other American media source, but it's hard to deny that they too have their own spin that focuses more on one side of the story, more so than others.
> Donnie Gaddis picked the wrong county to sell 15 oxycodone pills to an undercover officer ... After agreeing to a plea deal, he was sentenced to serve 12 years in prison.
> From 2006 to 2014, annual prison admissions dropped 36 percent in Indianapolis; 37 percent in Brooklyn; 69 percent in Los Angeles County; and 93 percent in San Francisco.
> Prison admissions in counties with fewer than 100,000 people have risen even as crime has fallen
> Just a decade ago, people in rural, suburban and urban areas were all about equally likely to go to prison. But now people in small counties are about 50 percent more likely to go to prison than people in populous counties.
> “I am proud of the fact that we send more people to jail than other counties,” Aaron Negangard, the elected prosecutor in Dearborn County, said last year. “That’s how we keep it safe here.”
I think the implication of "Small towns are sending way more people to prison for petty drug crimes (like selling 15 pills to an undercover cop) than big cities" is supported by the article.
http://eaglecountryonline.com/local-article/couple-charged-d...
Dearborn County, Ind., which sends more people to prison per capita than nearly any other county in the United States
Per capita. Not absolute numbers.
The rural midwest is being ravaged by meth and opioid addiction and has no real prior experience with it. People find it shocking and support harsh treatment of the dealers bringing these problems to their communities. With a small population to begin with, the per-capita impact is higher.
Places like San Francisco have extensive experience with drug abuse since the sixties at least, the community is accustomed to it, and dealing small quantities is not seen as the biggest part of the problem so it's mostly dismissed, and where it is serious enough to send someone to prison, the impact on per-capita averages is much smaller.
I hate hard drugs because of the damage they cause, but it seems pretty clear to me (as an outside observer) that the United States' strategy of mass incarceration has been spectacularly unsuccessful in combatting the problem...
this is no longer true for me. they no longer even pretend to be unbiased. i have noticed a marked shift to the left in just the last 2-3 years. i'm considering cancelling my digital sub.
i trust the pbs newshour the most, followed by public radio and certain satellite channels (potus, etc.). honestly i find both left-wing and right-wing media to be 'trustworthy' i.e. at least more likely to be honest about their own agenda than someone like the nyt who fancies itself objective in their reporting if not their op/ed.
when i go to huffpo or breitbart, i at least know exactly what the game is. and of course there are still the 'adult' publications with certain identifiable leanings like reason, the review, the nation, mother jones, etc that are still excellent.
The Washington Post seems to be improving, and the LA Times wins a lot of awards, though I never find it interesting when I visit the site. With the NY Times, people who like it often say it is great with the exception of any reporting which covers their own field of expertise—which is an awful lot like finding out that the NYT is bad at doing its homework before reporting on most subjects, or doesn't know how to hire domain-specific experts and editors.
I understand your point about organizations being clear about their editorial bias, but the two you mentioned take a lot of mental energy.
I suppose all sources of journalism change over time (except maybe The New Yorker). The Atlantic goes through altering waves of insight and coherence, then periods where they have lead articles claiming that torturers are just misunderstood. Or, The Economist over the past few years which seems to me like it is written by well-meaning, enthusiastic, but extremely young students, being replaced by Bloomberg and Bloomberg Business wee when it comes to snippet-length but serious reporting.
> spawning/enabling a generation of drug addicts whose lives are going to fall apart as a result.
Bullshit. Even out of hard drugs like heroin, only 25% or less of users become dependent. Cocaine is much much lower. Heroin is the highest one.
Meanwhile, 32% of tobacco users become dependent and that is perfectly legal.
"This small Indiana county leads in the nation in narrowing the racial-incarceration-gap"
I will be surprised if the gap narrows it probably means the state is putting random people in jail. Black people are far more prone to drug crimes than whites.
That's a very strong claim. The following article says the opposite: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/30/white...
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim, or are you speaking from (biased) assumptions?
Prisons currently fail very badly at rehabilitation, and actually tend to make worse criminals. We should be spending less money on punitive unfair sentences and more on trying to make people productive members of society through good rehab and education programs. This would actually make society better. Fixing the root of the problem rather than ignoring it by just locking people away.
We should reserve prison for only those people from which we need to protect the general population, e.g. violent crimes. Though I do have a special place in my heart for locking away fraudsters and con artists.
I found this repugnant. Who more deserves prison than those two? But with reflection my views have softened. At least one of the two seems to have wanted to be good. He lived out his life in prison quietly, spending his time writing an ornithology book. I can no longer honestly say I believe that society as a whole was better served by jailing them. Perhaps they should have been given the chance to redeem themselves by becoming productive citizens, and the chance to earn back a measure of dignity. (Certainly repeat offenders should be deemed a menace and incarcerated for the public good.)
I feel the same confusion about Brock Turner, the Stanford swimmer who raped a woman behind a dumpster. There was a lot of outrage at his early release, but again I'm not sure the greater good is served by keeping him behind bars. I hope he will live in infamy for the rest of his days, as is just. But should he have stayed behind bars for longer, at the public expense? I can't give a really cogent reason why he should (I am not comparing his sentence to that of other rapists, or to that of other convicts by the way).
If prosecutors are chosen randomly they will little incentive to go after anyone. I think we must drastically reduce the tools these people have at their disposal.
In most countries, they are appointed.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/143/t...
> Eric Sterling: The Speaker convened the Democratic leadership, the Steering and Policy Committee, the chairs of the committees, and says we're going to put together an anti-drug bill. It is going to be a Democratic initiative and I want everybody involved. We're going to have a comprehensive anti-drug provision. And I want it out of committees before we go on our August recess, August 14 or 15. And this set off about a four week stampede. They were told, look, you've got one month to put together your anti-drug agenda and then you're going to go home in the middle of August and you're going to campaign the hell out of that agenda. And we're going to come back in September, we're going to take it to the floor, and we're going to vote on it. And this is what we're going to ride to electoral victory in November. That's the plan.
Does anyone know of cases where it's been applied in this way? It seems like this would be a new way of showing bias, and possibly reducing harsh prison sentences.
