> the street-level shoplifter will be the target of most policy interventions here, which is the least effective and least humane strategy.
Getting a low-level criminal or junkie off the street, alive, is worth a lot. You can then offer them a chance to turn their sentence into rehab or something if they don't need jail.
And there's no reason we can't go for the higher ups too, there's (jail)time for everyone!
> Getting a low-level criminal or junkie off the street, alive, is worth a lot.
Off the street and on to Riker's Island. A jail so dangerous that it has a high likelihood of being put into federal receivership in the next year. People are safer on the street. Full stop.
Probably mostly positive actually. Removing people who either have poor self control or little ability to find productive work means they don't teach those habits to their children and those around them.
This does not mean the answer is executions though, as people's lives and happiness have value even if they're scumbags.
> What are the aggregate consequences of such policies to society?
Might ask yourself the same question about shoplifting gangs being let loose
And if Riker's is a problem, then deal with that specific problem. Not prosecuting people seems to be one level removed from it. (yes, they are connected, but for example, not sending pre-trial people there could be a start)
That sounds insightful but it is wrong - Vancouver BC lost 3500 people on its streets last year.
But there's no reason to put people in expensive and dangerous prisons when minimum security facilities will do. When you're drying people out and have the only supply around for 50km they aren't going to leave.
It could be wrong, I have no idea from a statistical prospective. You would have to analyze the people who are arrested and figure out what are the mortality rates in those narrow demographics, which is not my field. We can assume maybe 20 people will die on Riker's this year[0] our of ~5865[1], so it's not a low rate. I am mostly motivated to counter the "people better off in jail" narrative, which is horrible and pernicious.
Another thing is that your hypothetical minimum security facility does not exist in NYC and is not going to be built, so we are dealing with Riker's for all pretrial confinement unless you are a child or very mentally ill.
Prison is not permanent housing. Moving someone from the street, to prison, then back to the street, takes away a lot of the resources that they may have been using to keep themselves alive. Temporary shelter may be gone. Connections to people who can help them may be gone.
If someone dies on the street as a result of imprisonment, they're counted as a street death, but they're really a prison death.
The goalposts were fine where they were, that prison can be and in these cases is a better alternative to leaving people on the street.
> a lot of the resources that they may have been using to keep themselves alive
They are dying in an open air drug encampment. Any resources they had were sold for drugs in the first few days.
> Temporary shelter may be gone.
They're probably under a tarp, but maybe they had a place at one of the indoor drug encampments. None of these are the slightest help, and to go back to any previous shelter is death.
> Connections to people who can help them may be gone.
Any people you knew while living in a drug encampment are toxic or worthless at best. Any "help" you were getting at the time is the type that kept you there.
> If someone dies on the street as a result of imprisonment, they're counted as a street death, but they're really a prison death.
Your analysis ignores the people who get better as a result of a criminal-sanction enforced dry-out and that a significant number (25% maybe) of street users who don't make it into prison (it's a good thing in this context) will die on the street each year.
Yes, minimum security is better than maximum and non-criminal rehab better again, but you said it won't be built so it's good for you to know that even Riker's Island is better than leaving junkies on the street - for the junkie!
Only if you narrowly define 'people' to mean the tiny minority of people who are thieves, and exclude the overwhelming majority of people who aren't thieves. Thieves are safer on the street but everybody else is safer with thieves off the street. You've got your priorities skewed.
This is a reasonable comment if you're talking about stabbings or murders but not shoplifting. Allowing people to steal from retail stores with impunity doesn't make anyone unsafe.
Realize that I'm not arguing for impunity, just that incarceration should be off the table.
Allowing people to commit any forceful or violent crime makes everyone feel less safe but also encourages the crime to escalate.
> just that incarceration should be off the table.
Nope. Nobody takes options off the table or the opposition adjusts. If we say we won't imprison people for X then X becomes a freebie. You see it in SF where shoplifting under $1k isn't pursued, in Vancouver where vandalism isn't pursued and you can pitch a tent up against someone's building, etc. Without involuntary incarceration you can't even force someone into detox or rehab.
We should try to have better options but we've got to stop the sabotage of our system. If you can't present a better alternative to incarceration (for everyone holistically) then you can't complain.
California is starting to clean up its DAs, a bit, British Columbia is cracking down. Eventually we'll have the use of our legal system again.
Getting a low-level criminal or junkie off the street, alive, is worth a lot. You can then offer them a chance to turn their sentence into rehab or something if they don't need jail.
And there's no reason we can't go for the higher ups too, there's (jail)time for everyone!