Image from "The Crime Report" |
By Michael Liebowitz
A Connecticut prisoner for some 25 years, Liebowitz was formerly housed at Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers, CT. He has been a free man since November 2022.
Since his release, he authored "View from a Cage: My Transformation from Convict to Crusader for Liberty" and currently hosts the podcast, "The Rational Egoist".
Today, he and the love of his life, Melissa, need our help. They haven't the resources to absorb the associated loss of income and the expenses that come from Melissa's cancer treatment. Please consider making a ten-dollar donation to help Melissa, her son and Michael. Donate here.
Along with Brett McCall, Liebowitz is also co-author of "Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime", available at Amazon. Dr. Stanton E. Samenow, PhD reviewed the work in a 3/12/21 article in Psychology Today magazine. In his review he writes, "I have found that Liebowitz and McCall are keen observers with a positive objective - to help others become more effective in helping people like themselves to change and become responsible human beings. This book is definitely worth a read."
Liebowitz is also a regular guest with Todd Feinburg on WTIC AM 1080. Podcasts of Todd's segments with Liebowitz can be heard, here.
Introduction
I would argue
that; strictly speaking, ending mass incarceration per se, should not be the
goal. Rather, what we ought to seek to
accomplish is a significant reduction of criminal behavior. After all, if we simply set out to eliminate
mass incarceration as our primary goal it would be simple enough to achieve:
just open the prison gates and release the bulk of the population. I highly doubt, however, that this “solution”
would be palatable to the general public.
The questions
are: Are there policies we can implement
that will dramatically reduce crime and if so, what are they? I firmly believe the answer to the first
question is yes and the purpose of this plan is to articulate and propose such policies.
Crime reduction will undoubtedly require
a bold and comprehensive plan. And while
due to my lack of resources I am unable to provide all the details I would like
to (such as cost, for example), I still think my plan meets these criteria.
It consists
of the following:
·
End the War on Drugs
·
Widespread Implementation of
Functional Family Therapy (FFT) and Multisystemic Therapy (MST); Hold Juveniles
Accountable
·
Widespread Implementation of
Evidence-Based Programs
·
Widespread Implementation of Core Correctional
Practices
·
Remunerate Correctional Officials and
Employees Based on Results, i.e., Reduced Recidivism
·
Privately Fund a Significant Portion
of Reform Programs
Let’s examine each of the plan’s components in turn.
End
the War on Drugs
I argued above that our primary goal ought not to
be ending mass incarceration, but to reduce crime. I pointed out the ease with which we could
shrink the prison population by releasing prisoners en masse, but that the
public would likely see this as undesirable. There is one type of offender, however, who
should be released and one type of crime that should be removed from the book:
drug offenders and drug offenses. These
two reforms would by themselves significantly reduce the prison population. Ending the “war on drugs”, however, would not
only do this, but it would also reduce crime, and not just crimes related to
sales and possession.
While there are both ethical and constitutional reasons
to end this war, here I’m going to limit myself to a pragmatic, i.e.,
consequentialist argument. Before
getting into that, however, let’s take a look at the history of the drug war
and some of the reasons for its commencement.
Surprising as it may seem to some, drugs were perfectly
legal for a large portion of this country’s history. Although considered “evil” and “immoral”,
their sale and consumption did not become the object of prohibition until the
late 1800’s. Even then, however, it was
only some states, not the Federal government, that banned them. The federal prohibition would have to wait
until the 20th century.
So, what changed? For
starters, the late 1800’s were marked by high degrees of moralism and
religiosity, with many calls for “vice” laws aimed at such “immoral” behaviors
as gambling and prostitution. This was
also a period of rapid changes in society characterized by large waves of
immigrants and the development of big cities. These changes led to a predictable backlash
from traditionalists wishing to maintain the status quo and part of this
backlash was the implementation of drug laws. Also, one must not underestimate the racial
impetus for these laws. There was a
widespread fear of Chinese opium dens, while later on, cocaine was associated
in the public mind with blacks and marijuana with blacks and Mexicans. Noticeably absent from these reasons is
evidence that society was in great danger from these substances.
The Federal government’s first major foray into drug
interdiction came in 1914 with the passage of the Harrison Act. Ostensibly a tax law, its real purpose was to
end the drug trade. It applied to both
opium and coca leaves, as well as their derivatives. But it was ultimately the Supreme Court’s
interpretation of the Harrison Act in Webb v. United States (1919) that made drug
use a crime and from then on linked the Federal government to drug laws.
Webb was a doctor who prescribed morphine to addicts in
order to prevent them from experiencing withdrawal. This was a practice, the Court ruled, that Harrison did not allow. This may be looked upon as the second major
shot in what would become the “war on drugs”.
Next came the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, which was
established in response to the widely held and false belief that drug use
caused criminal behavior. Then, in 1961
the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs set forth the idea that drugs posed a
threat to humanity. Following this, in
1971 President Nixon declared the war on drugs. With the creation of the Drug Enforcement
Agency in 1971, the drug war was cemented as a permanent fixture in American
life.
So what have been the consequences of this war? Consider the following:
·
More than a trillion dollars have
been spent.
·
$100 billion a year is spent fighting
this war, but supply, production and use
have not been diminished.
·
The U.S. alone spends $51 billion a
year.
·
The U.S. has the highest incarceration
rate in the world.
·
Almost 500,000 people are serving
time for drug offense in the U.S.
·
Prohibition has led to contaminated
drugs and no way to know the strength of those drugs.
As Lawrence M. Friedman wrote
in “Crime and Punishment in American History”, “The prisons are jammed top to
bottom with men and women convicted under drug laws.” Is this really the only way? I don’t think so.
Ending the war on drugs will likely lead to a substantial
reduction of the crime rate. If drugs
were completely legalized, “crimes” such as sale and possession would be
immediately eliminated. Also, the end of
prohibition will lead to a large reduction in the price of these substances,
thus crimes committed to finance expensive drug habits; crimes such as robbery
and larceny, for instance, will be rendered almost entirely unnecessary.
In my view the most serious crimes associated with the
drug war are those that result from the competition for control of the
all-too-lucrative black markets. From
bosses of international cartels to low-level gang members, a wide variety of
criminals have taken part in these battles. Who knows how many people have been assaulted,
robbed, kidnapped, shot or killed as a consequence? And how many of those were innocent bystanders;
“collateral damage” of this war?
While ending the drug war will undoubtedly diminish these types of crimes, I wish I could be confident of a more robust reduction. The reason I’m not is because I deem it unlikely that those who currently profit from the drug trade will suddenly get nine-to-five jobs, once the illegal drug trade is no longer an option. It seems more reasonable to suspect that they’ll find or create new illicit ways to make money. After all, the Mafia didn’t retire with the end of alcohol prohibition. Nonetheless, as we’ll see, there is some historical evidence (also from alcohol prohibition) that ending the drug war will cause a large drop in violence.
While ending the drug war will undoubtedly diminish these types of crimes, I wish I could be confident of a more robust reduction. The reason I’m not is because I deem it unlikely that those who currently profit from the drug trade will suddenly get nine-to-five jobs, once the illegal drug trade is no longer an option. It seems more reasonable to suspect that they’ll find or create new illicit ways to make money. After all, the Mafia didn’t retire with the end of alcohol prohibition. Nonetheless, as we’ll see, there is some historical evidence (also from alcohol prohibition) that ending the drug war will cause a large drop in violence.
It should also be noted that when freed from having to
pursue petty criminals, dealers, and addicts police will be able to focus their
efforts on more serious offenders. This
is likely to put another salient dent in the crime rate, in addition to those
already mentioned.
In our country’s history, the closest analogy we have to
the drug war is unquestionably alcohol prohibition. In 1919 Congress ratified the 18th
amendment and then passed the Volstead Act outlawing the manufacture and sale
of alcohol in the U.S.
With this prohibition came a high-crime
era with gangs fighting over the illegal alcohol markets. Volstead was passed because people correctly
believed that alcohol influenced violent behavior. However, it soon became obvious to most people
that the “cure” was worse than the disease. (This is similar to the fact that while drugs
can certainly be harmful, outlawing them has caused more problems than does
their use.)
Recognizing prohibition’s dismal failure, in 1933
Congress repealed the 18th amendment and the Volstead Act. Did the world come to an end? Were there dire
consequences? No, but there was at least
one positive outcome. Criminologist
Anthony Walsh notes; “The homicide rate started a steep climb after the
Volstead Act … was passed in 1920 (sic) as gangs fought over the lucrative
alcohol market. The rate started to fall
with the repeal of the Volstead Act in 1933, which effectively removed
criminals from the alcohol business”.
Why haven’t we learned from history? Why has the war on drugs lasted so long with
apparently no end in sight? I believe
this has more to do with some misconceptions about drugs than it does with
actual evidence. Let’s examine several
of these misconceptions.
·
Drug use causes crime
In 1961 the American Medical Association and the
American Bar Association issued a report in which they concluded that the
psychological and physical addiction to drugs, combined with the high cost of
those drugs, is what leads to crime; not drugs themselves. Also, numerous studies have shown that drug
use does not cause crime, although it may lead to the commission of more
serious crimes by those already living a criminal lifestyle. I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume that the
predominant reason drug use results in criminals engaging in more serious
illegal activity is the high costs of those drugs, resulting from their illegal
status.
·
Drug use causes violence
According to Anthony Walsh, there are three types
of violence linked to illicit drugs: systemic, economic – compulsive, and
pharmacological.
Systemic violence results from competition
between rivals for the drug trade. Think
cartels and gang violence.
Economic – compulsive violence is committed by
addicts to support their very expensive habits. A robbery committed to obtain drug money would
be an example.
Pharmacological violence results from the
properties of the drugs themselves. In
other words, simply ingesting the drugs makes it more likely that someone will
become violent.
The first two types of violence are a result of prohibition, not an argument for it. As for pharmacological violence, while not unheard of, it is rare. In fact, the use of alcohol, a legal drug, is far more associated with violence than is the use of illegal drugs.
The first two types of violence are a result of prohibition, not an argument for it. As for pharmacological violence, while not unheard of, it is rare. In fact, the use of alcohol, a legal drug, is far more associated with violence than is the use of illegal drugs.
· Drugs have harmful effects, such as addiction and overdoses.
Addiction is a serious problem, but most people
who try psychoactive drugs do not become addicted to them. There is simply no reason to suspect this
would change if these substances were legalized.
As for overdoses, they are far more likely under
a regime of prohibition than if drugs were legal. This is because at present, a person has no
reliable means of knowing the potency of the drugs they are buying, nor with
what contaminants the drugs bought were “cut” with. If drugs were purchased legally, however, both
the potency and ingredients would be listed on the package. Furthermore,
although undoubtedly partially due to the fact that more people drink than use
drugs, there are more deaths per year related to alcohol use than there are
related to drug use; with 110,000 and 19,000 respectively. Yet we don’t see too many people clamoring
for a “war on alcohol”.
·
Use will dramatically increase
While I cannot prove this will not occur, the available
evidence suggest it will not. Consider:
·
Countries that have decriminalized
marijuana use have not seen large increases in prevalence.
·
Many Western European countries have
liberalized their drug policies, yet consumption has not dramatically
increased.
·
The U.K. government conducted a
literature review of the approaches of other countries to drugs. They found “there is no apparent correlation
between the ‘toughness’ of a country’s approach and the prevalence of … drug
use.’”
·
In the early 1990’s the Czech Republic
decriminalized drug use. Then in 1998 they re-criminalized possession for use. Advocates of this move believed it would
reduce the availability and use of drugs. Shortly thereafter, “… the Czech government
decided to launch a scientific evaluation of the new drug law… The ultimate
goal was to measure the expected benefits and to explore potential unintended,
negative impacts.” The evaluation
showed that the new policy had no deterrent effect on problem users. The number of users actually increased.
Many countries have given up
their wars on drugs, instead initiating harm reduction policies such as syringe
exchanges, drug substitution, and decriminalizing personal use. The Czechs notwithstanding, most of those
countries have not returned to their previous policies (even the Czechs
reinstituted decriminalization in 2010).
Consider Portugal,
which “… decriminalized all drug use in 2001, investing instead in public
health services for people who use drugs. This has resulted in some very positive
outcomes, such as massive reductions in drug-related deaths and tumbling rates
of HIV and hepatitis infections.”
It is clear to me that the war on drugs must end. And surprisingly, to me at least, this is a
somewhat common conclusion:
America’s
approach to drug policy is disapproved of by 70% of U.S. citizens.
Over half of U.S. citizens
favor the legalization of marijuana.
“… nine UN agencies have so
far called for an end to the war on drugs.”
In 2014 the Global Commission
on Drug Policy recommended the
decriminalization of drug use and possession and “experiments” in legalization of illicit drugs.
So the war on drugs should end, but then what? While personally I believe that full legalization is the best way to go, it is certainly not the only available option. For instance, possession and use can be decriminalized, penalties can be reduced, mandated treatment can replace prison, and investment can be made in education and prevention. Certainly, all of these possibilities are better than what we currently have: A failed drug war that has led to violence, mass incarceration and broken families, in our country and around the world.
decriminalization of drug use and possession and “experiments” in legalization of illicit drugs.
So the war on drugs should end, but then what? While personally I believe that full legalization is the best way to go, it is certainly not the only available option. For instance, possession and use can be decriminalized, penalties can be reduced, mandated treatment can replace prison, and investment can be made in education and prevention. Certainly, all of these possibilities are better than what we currently have: A failed drug war that has led to violence, mass incarceration and broken families, in our country and around the world.
Typed from the author's hand written essay by Linda Johnson and edited by William Boylan.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Authors of comments and posts are solely responsible for their statements. Please email MiddletownInsider@gmail.com for questions or concerns. This blog, (and any site using the blogger platform), does not and cannot track the source of comments. While opinions and criticism are fine, they are subject to moderator discretion; slander and vile attacks of individuals will not to be tolerated. Middletown Insider retains the right to deny any post or comment without explanation.