Prosecutors call for stiffer drug penalties

[neversickanymore]

Prosecutors call for stiffer drug penalties
By Howard Monroe
Published: December 9, 2015

INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) – An Indiana lawmaker is ready to author a bill that will help prosecutors put away drug dealers for longer periods of time.

Prosecutors laid out their agenda for the upcoming 2016 legislative session Wednesday morning, saying drugs are behind the violent crime problem.

“To be clear, if these people were in prison the murder rate would go down, its that simple,” said Aaron Negangard, the Dearborn and Ohio County Prosecutor.

Fifty-four prosecutors from across the state laid out their plans to go after drug traffickers by imposing stiffer penalties.

“We need to be able to say, this is a bad guy, and this bad guy needs to go to prison,” said Negangard.

They said the rising crime and murder rate in the state is linked directly to illegal drugs. The prosecutors said the state’s murder rate has grown more than 32 percent since 2010 which they attribute to drugs.

“There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that violent crime is tied to drug trafficking,” said Terry Curry, the Marion County Prosecutor.

They also are going after meth labs and want to require a prescription to buy pseudo-ephedrine.

“How many people need to die to make this a serious issue?,” asked Negangard.

The folks at the Wheeler Mission see these drug issues everyday.

“The guys who are addicted. It goes beyond that, in our estimation they’re enslaved,” said Steve Kerr, the Chief Development Officer for Wheeler Missoin. “Its not their choice. They’re literally enslaved to the drug or alcohol that they’re using, and just stopping is not an option.”

He says the legislation will help change the men’s lives.

“Something has to break the cycle, between the availability, right now its just so readily available and so something needs to break that cycle. So anything that can be done through a legislative system to break that we’re all in favor of that, absolutely,” said Kerr.

When the state rewrote the criminal code a few years ago, some sentences were lowered for drug offenders. But there’s already support for the stiffer penalties.

“We’re not going to arrest our way out of this, but we need to make those criminals know that if they’re driving through Indiana or driving to deal in Indiana that the law is going to come down on them, hard,” said Sen. Jim Merritt, who plans to author a version of the prosecutors’ demands.

The prosecutors are now asking to make the penalties mandatory. They said the law currently has no teeth.

Continued here http://wishtv.com/2015/12/09/prosecutors-call-for-stiffer-drug-penalities/

....................................................................................................................

Wow.. it seems like there is no escaping the insanity. Prohibition is the cause of the violence.

Prosecutors laid out their agenda for the upcoming 2016 legislative session Wednesday morning, saying drugs are behind the violent crime problem.

“To be clear, if these people were in prison the murder rate would go down, its that simple,” said Aaron Negangard, the Dearborn and Ohio County Prosecutor.

The war on drugs is sustained by a circular logic in which the damage generated by this policy is attributed instead to drug-related activities in order to justify it, a perverse inference that generates never-ending violence.

~Ricardo Salinas

Its not even close to "that simple." Here is some work and resultant conclusions about this subject.

NSFW:

Results

Juvenile Arrests

Ten study variables were directly associated with juvenile arrest rates. Fifty percent of these factors were related to family structure and parenting style with juvenile arrest rates being significantly higher in those counties which possessed greater rates of divorce and single parent households. Higher rates of reported child abuse and neglect, a high rate of out of home placements, or children under the custody of social service agencies, and an excessive percentage of teenage births were more apparent in those counties with greater juvenile arrest rates. Juvenile arrest rates were significantly higher in more densely populated and urbanized counties, and in those counties reporting greater rates of children living in poverty. School dropout and child homicide rates were much more pronounced among counties with larger juvenile arrest rates. Combined, these ten factors are capable of statistically explaining 71% of the total variance in the counties' juvenile arrest rates.

Results from the stepwise regression indicate that two of these ten variables possess enough statistical power to account for nearly half of the total variance in juvenile arrest rates. Together the percentage of the population residing in urbanized areas and the rate of single parent households account for 41% of the variance. Counties with a greater number of single parent households, and a large urban population, tend to have significantly higher juvenile arrest rates when compared with counties with a larger percentage of dual parent urban, or rural, households and counties with a greater percentage of single parent rural households.....


It should be noted that several of the most commonly held assumptions concerning juvenile arrests were not supported by this analysis. Contrary to prior research neither age, nor race, or gender exerted a significant main effect upon the counties' juvenile arrest rates. The arrest rates for counties with larger male, or African-American, or juvenile populations did not differ significantly from the arrest rates of counties with lower male, or African-American, or juvenile populations. Neither age, nor gender, nor racial composition can be postulated as a single, and sufficient, explanation for the differing arrest rates among the counties....

Results from the stepwise multiple regression reveal that of the eleven variables only two emerged as significant indicators of delinquency petition filing rates. As with the juvenile arrest rate percent of urbanization, and the rate of single parent households, serve as the most salient indicator or predictor variables when explaining why filing rates for delinquency petitions vary among the counties.

Family, School, Community, and Economic Factors Associated with Juvenile Crime in North Carolina: A System Impact Assessment

How many single parent or no parent households have you all created to "protect" the public with your simpleton approach? How much more violence and crime do you intend to send our way?

Since you all seem to be totally in the dark, here is a clear explanation of how your mistaken simpleton approach has and will create and promote the very issues it is intended to address.

THP: Ten Economic Facts about Crime and Incarceration in the United States.

The Hamilton Project



Looking at these two studies we see that the effects witnessed on a child from having a parent incarcerated are often the very predictors of that child engaging in adult criminality. Another strong example of the criminal justice system sustaining and promoting the very behavior its supposed to prevent.

Effects of long term parental incarceration

A variety of long-term effects of parental incarceration on children have been identified. The long-term impact varies with a variety of factors, including the developmental level of the child.

Incarceration and infants. A small number of women (6%, U.S. Department of Justice, 1994) are pregnant at the time of their incarceration, but few prisons in the United States permit mother to keep their infants with them during incarceration (Gabel & Girard, 1995). In most cases, mothers of newborn infants are permitted only a few days of contact before they must relinquish their infant and return to prison. As a result, there is little opportunity for the mother to develop a bond to the baby or for the baby to become familiar with the mother and form an attachment to her a critical developmental task for both mothers and infants. As Myers et al. (1999) note, after the mother's is released, she comes home to an infant or young child with whom she has not developed an emotional bond and who is not attached to her, with the likely result that the children will have emotional and behavioral problems.

Incarceration and young children. Even if a child-parent attachment bond has already developed, as in the case of infants who have been in their mother's or father's care for the first 9 to 12 months of life, the disruption associated with parental incarceration will likely adversely affect the quality of the child's attachment to their parent (see Thompson, 1998, for a general discussion of the effects of separation on attachment in non-incarcerated samples). Even less drastic changes such as job loss, divorce, or residential re-location have been found to adversely affect the quality of the infant or toddler child-parent attachment quality (Thompson, Lamb, & Estes, 1982; Vaughn et al., 1979). Insecure attachments a consequence of adverse shifts in life circumstances in turn, have been linked to a variety of child outcomes, including poorer peer relationships and diminished cognitive abilities (Sroufe, 1988). In light of the results of this research on separation and attachment, it is not surprising that when their parents are incarcerated, young children (ages 2 - 6 years) have been observed to suffer a variety of adverse outcomes that are consistent with the research on the effects of insecure attachments (Johnson, 1995). In fact, according to one estimate (Baunach, 1985), 70% of young children with incarcerated mothers had emotional or psychological problems. Children exhibit internalizing problems, such as anxiety, withdrawal, hypervigilance, depression, shame and guilt (Bloom & Steinhart, 1993; Dressler et al., 1992). They exhibit somatic problems such as eating disorders. And, perhaps most clearly, young children exhibit externalizing behaviors such as anger, aggression, and hostility toward caregivers and siblings (Fishman, 1983; Gaudin, 1984; Johnston, 1995; Jose-Kampfner, 1995; Sack et al. , 1976).

Incarceration and school-age children. School-age children of incarcerated parents exhibit school-related problems and problems with peer relationships. Sack et al. (1976) reported that over 50% of the children of incarcerated parents had school problems, such as poor grades or instances of aggression, albeit many of these problems were temporary. Among the younger children (6-8 years old) in the Sack et al. (1987) study, 16% exhibited transient school phobias and were unwilling to go to school for a 4-6week period after their parent's incarceration. In another report, Stanton (1980) found even higher rates of school problems: 70% of 166 children of incarcerated mothers showed poor academic performance and 5% exhibited classroom behavior problems. Another school-based problem is that children are sometimes teased or ostracized by other children as a result of their parent's incarceration (Jose-Kampfner, 1991). As Reid and Eddy (this volume) note, as children reach adolescence, suspension and dropout rates are higher for these children (Trice, 1997).

Source EFFECTS OF PARENTAL INCARCERATION ON YOUNG CHILDREN



Childhood Predictors of Adult Criminality
Results Aggressive children were less intelligent, less popular, rejected more by their
parents, had parents who believed in punishment, were less identified with their
parents’ self-image and were less likely to express guilt. As adults, more aggressive
children with parents who were less well educated, experienced more marital
disharmony and who seldom attended church were most at risk for arrest.
http://rcgd.isr.umich.edu/aggr/arti...mann_etal.EarlyPred.CrimBehavMentalHealth.pdf


How much violence and crime have you all sent our way during your never ending blunder. How much life have you stolen and how many families have you help ruin?

Prosecutor Aaron Negangard is on Facebook and you can take a look at the insanity of the drug sentences there.

 

[belligerent drunk]

Yeah, put more people in jail. That'll do the trick.

 

[aihfl]

How ironic, considering at the Federal level, they're rolling back penalties for nonviolent drug offenders. I like the line "We're not going to arrest our way out of this" but that sure sounds like the intent to me. My guess is that they have corporate prisons in Indiana and the senator that's going to write the money owes that/those corporation(s) a favor because they need more inmates for a bigger bottom line.

 

[ro4eva]

I'm not sure you guys can be trusted to say that "this is the bad guy" and/or that "this bad guy needs to go to prison."

Why should we trust you when:

- There is overwhelming evidence that many of you are completely crooked (e.g. the prosecutor in Alabama who for decades knew that cops planted drugs on innocent people who were then locked away as drug dealers)?

- You refuse to allow yourselves to be drug tested, yet love to do so to others?

- It's clear that all three branches of government have long been infiltrated by corruption?

- It's clear that the private prison industry is thriving solely because of the war on drugs?

- Absolutely no tangible progress has been made with respect to the initial goals set forth 44+ years ago?

- You don't seem to comprehend the difference in terms of acute and long term health risks between the consumption of a plant such as Cannabis and a semi-synthetic Opioid such as Diacetylmorphine (Heroin)?

- You've managed only to further alienate society from law enforcement?

- This war has racked up a tax payer bill totaling over $1,000,000,000,000 USD since it formally began?

You guys are a regressive burden to countless Americans and to actual liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And I'd love to see that your disgraceful war on (certain) drugs is permanently ended a.s.a.p. And you should count yourselves lucky if you manage to come out of this unscathed (unlike the countless non-violent individuals whose lives you've unjustly ruined).

 

[aihfl]

- There is overwhelming evidence that many of you are completely crooked (e.g. the prosecutor in Alabama who for decades knew that cops planted drugs on innocent people who were then locked away as drug dealers)?

I think it is a racket as more state prisons are privatized. Higher incarceration=higher profits=campaign contributions.

 

[manboychef]

its actually closer to 37trillion dollars spent just this year. (includes federal state and local) sure wish that was spread out towards rehabilitating people and helping homeless.

 

[Jabberwocky]

And now it's 39

 

[cj]

What else is new. Prosecutors always want stiffer penalties and more people in prison.

 

[ro4eva]

its actually closer to 37trillion dollars spent just this year. (includes federal state and local) sure wish that was spread out towards rehabilitating people and helping homeless.

Seriously?

I mean, have they actually spent ~$37,000,000,000,000 USD just this year?! Is it not ~$37,000,000,000 USD (~37 billion)?

I ask because, well, that's an insane amount of money (so is 37 billion, but I digress).

What else is new. Prosecutors always want stiffer penalties and more people in prison.

Ring around the same fucking rosie, huh?

 

[Carl Landrover]

Ring around the same fucking rosie, huh?

Was going to say something similar.

They want stiffer penalties because drugs are bad mmkay. More people in jail means less drug related violence.

Then a few years later they say prison is too crowded because of drug offenders, they have a high rate of recidivism and low rate of actually being rehabilitated. It's just not working, soften the prison penalties.

Then a few years later opinion switches back. The article mentions meth, so this is possibly a result to the rise of popularity of a new drug in the community and the criminal element that comes along with it, like gangs and at a higher level the cartels. The "drug violence" almost always stems from the drugs being illegal not the drugs themselves. However, they are going back to the thinking that the more people you lock up the less drugs and drug related violence there will be. Unfortunately prison alone will not change that. It's where a lot of gang connections are made and many inmates are not being properly rehabilitated to reenter society. Furthermore this thinking does nothing to change the fact that there is a demand for these drugs. There will continue to be a demand for these drugs. People will pay money for these drugs. Lock up four dealers and four more pop up. All the customers of the locked up dealers are going to go through someone else. The demand will continue to be there.

 

[SixBuckets]

Pretty rich to invoke slavery when you're advocating to put more men in US prisons.

 

[manboychef]

its 37trillion. It includes state local and federal. This also includes all the money spent on prisoners of the drug war. It also includes military operations that are meant to stamp out drug manufacture, in south america and in the middle east. It is mind boggling hunh?

 

[ro4eva]

its 37trillion. It includes state local and federal. This also includes all the money spent on prisoners of the drug war. It also includes military operations that are meant to stamp out drug manufacture, in south america and in the middle east. It is mind boggling hunh?

That is an incomprehensibly ludicrous amount of money. Good lord!

 

[manboychef]

that is just this year....consider every year before that, and if they simply kept their hands out of drug manufacturing countries we wouldn't need to be spending in the trillions.

 

[ro4eva]

that is just this year....consider every year before that, and if they simply kept their hands out of drug manufacturing countries we wouldn't need to be spending in the trillions.

My goodness, it's like a tax payer black hole. Blows my mind as to how in the world the status quo remains after several decades if they've failed to achieve any long term goals originally set out by the Nixon Administration (who ironically happened to be a crook after all).

 

[belligerent drunk]

That sum really is mind-boggling. Imagine if that were used to actually improve the quality of life/education/whatever. Holy hell. Maybe then nobody would even want to get high because life would be so good (it's a joke, of course!).