One thing to add to this.

I was once told that the median age of ADMISSION for someone sentenced to life without parole under PA’s 3-strike laws was... 40.

Forty. Look at those graphs. Forty.

Just when they are fundamentally changing away from what we punish them for.
That said, at the end of 2013, ~50% of all ppl aged 65+ in prison had been ADMITTED at age 55+ (only 50.4% of 65+ had served over 10 yrs), a much higher % than in the past (ie, in earlier studies a much greater % of those 65+ had been admitted when much younger).

This matters.
The US, at least, has a sizable cohort of older ppl who have not aged out of crime to the degree expected, and it’s not entirely clear why.

Some have tied it to life-long complications w elevated drug use in the 1960s-80s... tho that also implicates how we CHOSE to address that.
But it is an imp, non-trivial wrinkle to the “everyone old in prison was admitted when young.” That’s less true today than in the past.

Which is NOT—NOT!—to say admitting older ppl therefore makes sense!! Still likely generally a bad idea!

But need to frame solutions better:
Lots of bills to cut aging in prison are of the “if you’re x yrs old, have served at least y yrs, then more parole.”

But a lot of x > 65 (and esp x > 55) have fairly short y’s-served (since bills usually set y at 15-20).

Again: comforting story will yield disappointing results.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with John Pfaff

John Pfaff Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JohnFPfaff

11 Mar
I realize that states really are passing new and tougher laws against protests these days, but I'm beginning to fear our coverage is focusing on the wrong aspects. Here are two examples, from OK and KY.

OK: "You can now drive over protestors!"

Well...

huffpost.com/entry/oklahoma…
The CIVIL immunity piece is new, and important, but the criminal part tracks the pre-existing defensive force language pretty much exactly. I don't see how this adds anything new to OK law, just re-iterates it.

This happens a lot! What is "carjacking"? GTA + assault. Etc. etc.
Or in KY, we recently saw outrage over "can't insult cops" in a riot bill.

What that provision did was just codify SCOTUS's fighting-words exception, setting the standard for cops at a "reasonable person"... an issue on which SCOTUS is basically silent and state courts split.
Read 7 tweets
10 Mar
OT1H, good to see the most punitive Western European country acknowledge this.*

OTOH, the minister acknowledged this while apparently introducing new, longer sentences.

Also, "most punitive in Western Europe" = rate 5 times higher than ours.**

thetimes.co.uk/article/longer…
* Crosses fingers, prays hard that no one says "but if you add up all the separate rates for the UK...."

** International comparisons always are merged jail-prison pops, since most places don't run separate pre- and post-systems. Which makes solid comparisons... tricky.
As a general matter, pre- and post-conviction measures shouldn't be added together, since pretrial is more about the flow in than the daily population.

That 639 rate for the US is based on the jail ave daily pop of 750K, not the annual admissions volume of 10,000,000.
Read 4 tweets
5 Mar
This is bad, but there's something much worse lurking in this bill.

It makes knowingly providing supplies that can be used as weapons a Class D felony. One to 5 years in prison.

If you think this isn't terrible, let's talk about water bottles.
You're a Good Samaritan. You bring some water bottles to a protest, both for people to drink, as well as to pour in people's eyes when the police launch tear gas that is banned in war but legal for domestic policies.

But you also know people might throw them.
Now, "knowing" is an important word here. Under the narrowest reading, you have to be practically certain (but not desire!) that they be used as a weapon.

A broader reading? You just have to be practically certain that they COULD be used as a weapon. Everyone meets this def.
Read 9 tweets
3 Mar
First, the payout is $50,000/year. Which... each year in prison may reduce life expectancy by up to two years. So the longer the unjust incarceration, the less likely the person will get the full (too-little) payout.

MS law doesn't pay for pre-trial detention, which... here?
Flowers has spent twenty years behind bars, but is only getting paid for ten. Guessing that must be because the incarcerations he endured between reversal and re-conviction don't "count."

I can see* the logic in the usual case, but... here? Seems distinctly unjust.
The logic, of course, is that pre-trial detention ALWAYS carries the risk of being wrong. It's ALL ABOUT locking ppl up before we know their guilt.

Ofc, if the state had to pay for its errors in all cases, maybe it'd think A LOT MORE CAREFULLY before upending someone's life.
Read 5 tweets
16 Feb
Also, just struck me: this was a misdemeanor.

Tho framed in the article as a restorative justice case, this sort of thing—charge, wait, programming, dismiss—is how the ENTIRE misdemeanor system in NYC operates.
The conventional framing is an “ACD”: adjournment in contemplation of dismissal.

The case is held open (the A) to see if the def does certain things (the C), in which case it is dropped (the D).

Thousands and thousands of times per year. This wasn’t some unique outcome!
I mean... I’m not one to deny the racism inherent in our crim justice system! But the handling of this case looks like pure routine misdemeanor.

Now, there’s a lot to criticize even abt the ACD—like good luck getting a job or an apt or a loan during the A—but that’s a dif issue.
Read 6 tweets
16 Feb
To those outraged by this—and... everyone apparently is—two questions:

1. What does accountability entail here? Are you mad that sensitivity classes were inadequate, or are you upset at the lack of retributive vengeance?

Don’t say “this is bad.” Clarify “what is right.”
So much of the “white ppl get this while Black ppl get that” outrage never specifies what the right outcome should be... which means we default to the usual mindless punitiveness for all.

If you are (1) unhappy but (2) want change, need to give a positive account of that future.
Second, to those saying “harshness to the Coopers is the path to leniency for all,” two questions:

1. That runs head-long into the one-way Willie Horton ratchet. Never easy to go back down. What would make this case different?
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!