Let me quote Cornel West:

Brother Martin Luther King, Jr., what would you say about the new Jim Crow? What would you say about the prison-industrial complex? What would you say about the invisibility of so many of our prisoners, so many of our incarcerated -- especially when 62% of them are there for soft drugs and not one executive of a Wall Street bank gone to jail? Not one!

Martin doesn't like that.

Not one wiretapper. Not one torturer under the Bush administration -- at all.

This show consistently hits the nail on the head, and hilariously so!

*controversy *law *drugs

Adding video to channels (Controversy, Drugs, Law) - requested by MrFisk.

Whats really terrifying is how easily dismissed this tends to be, and how predictable and inevitable the path we're walking...

Its almost cliche but could it possible be more appropriate:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for

Martin Niemöller

Best line of the segment @ 17:31: "...as well as viewers like you!" That's a real satirist. Guy's got balls.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Sesame-Street-Little-Children-Big-Challenges-Incarceration

Sesame Street: Little Children Big Challenges: Incarceration has been added as a related post - related requested by notarobot.

What's really terrifying is how often people make silly Nazi analogies on the internet.

Our prison system is broken but not because of how it treats prisoners. It's broken because it's not acting as an effective deterrent. The whole point of prison (or any other punishment) is to deter people from committing crimes. Our current prison system isn't accomplishing that.

If we replaced prison with immediate execution (no more sitting on death row for years), crime rates would probably go down. If we increased surveillance and enforcement, crime rates would probably go down. If we made prison nicer and tried to rehabilitate instead of punish criminals, would crime rates go down? Good question. If I knew that prison would be a safe and comfortable experience, I'd definitely be more inclined to break the law. If my current living conditions were bad enough, I might even be inclined to break the law just to gain the benefits of such a prison. Free food, free shelter, free healthcare. Not a bad deal if you don't have to worry about being beaten, raped or killed. I'd love to see what would happen if all the prisons in the U.S. were as posh as the Halden Prison in Norway.

When your country starts incarcerating its citizens at an enormous rate, unprecedented in the world, dwarfing that of a country like China, yeah i can't imagine where those comparisons would come from.

I want a number... You feel so strongly about this give me a god damn number... how many innocent people should be executed to sate your desire for rapid executions?... How many each yer?... 5? 10? 20?... Of course we'll never really know will we.

Maybe you should actually watch the video... or i don't know spend 10 minutes on google... If your concerned about prisoners getting free health care or *gasp* free food!!!! Well your in fucking luck!... because increasingly they aren't getting any of either... Shelter???? don't count on it...

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/columnists/jacquielynn-floyd/20140424-the-crime-of-un-airconditioned-texas-prisons.ece

WTF am i wasting my time discussing this with a guy advocating a police state and as far as i can tell medieval era punishments...

Do you actually work for Geo Group?... be honest you do don't ya.

You should read my complete post before posting reactionary statements. I never said current prison conditions are ideal. I said prison isn't working as a deterrent to criminals. As I said before, there are three potential ways of fixing that: make the punishment more severe, increase surveillance and enforcement or make prison safer and more comfortable in an attempt to rehabilitate criminals. The first two options are practically guaranteed to produce results. People litter, jaywalk, pirate and break traffic laws all the time because they know they can get away with it and even if they get caught, the punishment will be relatively minor. Conversely, it's much harder to get away with major crimes and the punishments are far more severe, which is why major crimes are committed far less often than minor ones. History has proven that fear is a very effective deterrent. Convince people that there are significant consequences for their actions and they'll think twice before doing something stupid.

Rehabilitation is less proven. If prison were comfortable, safe and enlightening, it could reduce crime rates as criminals are taught the error of their ways and spread their new-found wisdom amongst other potential criminals. Or it could increase crime rates as prisons become a refuge where the desperate get free food, shelter, healthcare and other conveniences.

The ideal solution would be to ensure that only qualified parents are allowed to reproduce. The majority of criminals are the result of poor upbringings, with negligent, ignorant and/or abusive parents unwilling or unable to train their children to become productive members of society. In an ideal world, there would actually be prerequisites to parenthood. Aspiring parents would need to meet certain criteria like minimum income, education and a clean record. If these requirements were somehow enforceable, crime rates would drop drastically.

@Jerykk

Wouldn't a much better way to get the crime rate to go down be, oh I don't know...not criminalizing illnesses like substance addiction and instead getting those people the medical/psychological help they need?

Or maybe--and I'm just going out on a limb here--constructing a more equitable society so that people don't feel so disenfranchised that crime seems like a better way to accrue wealth than slaving at some minimum wage job where you'll never actually make enough to afford anything above the subsistence level?

Maybe we might want to consider these kinds of suggestions before we start executing people for jaywalking or sterilizing people "unqualified" for parenthood.

Also, I love how your answer to the problem of too many American's being incarcerated is more surveillance and enforcement so we can catch more people and put them in prison. I'm amazed no one has thought of this solution. Bravo.

Substance addiction isn't an crime. Possessing illegal substances is a crime. If you consume an illegal substance, you are breaking the law.

As for creating a more equitable society... sounds great! Where do we start? Oh, right, it's not quite that simple after all. Too many people, not enough money to go around. Why are there too many people? Anyone, no matter how unqualified, can have as many children as they want. Barely make enough money to support yourself? No problem, go ahead and have some kids anyway! Can't afford to put your kids through college? Ah well, it's not like education plays an important role in the job market anyway! I'm sure your kids will do just fine when they grow up and aren't qualified to do anything but the most menial of jobs, at which point they'll probably start a family of their own and ensure that the cycle of stupidity continues.

Teaching people to make responsible decisions (like not living beyond your means or starting a family when you clearly can't support it) is the first step towards fixing society's many ills. Reactionary measures aren't going to cut it. Sure, we could triple the minimum wage but then there would be even fewer jobs available and they'd be even harder to get. We need to address the root of the issue and that's unqualified people being allowed to have children. Fix that and everything else will be much easier to handle.

What a terrible, trerrible load of shit!
By your logic, the middle ages must've been free of any crime. You know, the time where we did chop off hands of thieves, where we executed people real quick for all kinds of offenses.
You can argue for executions all you want but the terrible truth is that it never worked as a deterrent. When every country in the world had the death penality, people still got murdered and raped. And guess what, today you are less likely to get murdered or raped than in the good old days.
That shit never worked and it doesn't work today.
The only thing you'll achieve by making prison a worse place is making sure you'll release more broken, antisocial individuals into society. I guess that'll make everything better. I don't see how it can backfire to throw people into a terrible place where they'll be traumatized and abused, hammering home the message they're not a part of our civilized society, and then releasing them back into our communities. I mean, surely, they'll be model citizens then.

Why don't you just say it, man? You'd like to have Judge Dredd patroling the streets. If we'd just shoot everybody who might commit a crime, nobody will ever commit one. Right?

Most people commit crimes because they think they can get away with it, not because they think they can do the time. A lot of people commit crimes without thinking about the consequences or simply not caring about them.

I sure wish the world was as simple as Jerykk. No, really, I don´t mean that in a bad way, I really wish the world was a lot simpler than it is.

So, Jerykk, you seriously don´t commit crimes (like jaywalking...) because you´re afraid of jail conditions?

Are there maybe some other rules in the particular society you live in that your parents and educators may have failed to point out to you?

Trying to stop people you don´t like from reproducing. To save the world. Is that an official -ism?

I read your first post... and your second which for the most part was like reading the first one again, although without the zeal for rapid executions. Speaking of replying and not reading...

Never did get an answer to how many innocent people you'd be willing to sacrifice to see that "justice' was enacted that much faster?.

What your argument has lacked in its entirety is any sort of facts beyond what you seem supremely confident would work.

Correct me where i'm wrong... i'm genuinely asking here... Lets get the whole list of what exactly your advocating... as the solution to solving the prison problem.

Rapid executions... i'm assuming some kind of limit to appeals and time to issue them? (despite over 140 people being exonerated since 1973)

Dramatic increase in government surveillance... Because you know... its not like a right to privacy was one of the founding principles of this country.

Forced Sterilizations?... I'm really curious how else you'd enforce your breeding policy... or would you simply lockup the parents if they didn't meet the criteria you think appropriate, and had a child anyway? May fine them into oblivion?

Dramatically stricter sentencing?.. because lets be honest those jaywalkers have had it too easy for too long!... guessing this means you'd be advocating dramatic bulding projects... more prisons... more guards... MUCH more from the sounds of it. I'm sure companies like Geo Group would LOVE to provide that service... they're doing just awesome so far!...

And finally prison conditions... despite it being extraordinarily expensive to warehouse people for profit like we are... Doing just a TERRIBLE job of doing it and already sending an unprecedented number of people to prison... you want more.. because THAT will deter crime.

You want conditions to be 'adequate' yes? Indoor-plumbing... clean water... etc... just not TOO adequate lest they get to comfortable at 'casa de prison' system and never want to leave!...So things like AC or 'clean food' might be optional?... and of course... they should be billed for any treatment?.. .maybe have to 'work off the cost'?

Did i miss anything?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

So good. So true.

Innocent people being convicted has nothing to do with prisons. That's a problem with our legal system (and one that would be need to be remedied before enacting any major changes to the punishments for conviction).

As for the other things, I've already covered them pretty extensively in my previous posts. The punishment for illegal breeding would either be execution or forced sterilization. Sounds harsh but the ends justify the means in this particular case. We already do it to animals and animals breeding is a lot less dangerous than people breeding.

Another great piece by John Oliver.

@Jerykk It would be good if your comments were sarcastic, unfortunately your passion shows they are not. Many of your points comprise of disturbingly inconsiderate, unsustainable and uneducated core values.

Pay attention to @Januari previous post. All the areas seeking clarification on what you advocate, these are most of the areas you should review and consider alternatives with someone who is rational, compassionate, realistic and a critical thinker. Your suggested solutions are horrific.

you realize your entire argument is promoting a police state yes?
and that somebody referencing "nazi" is a fairly appropriate response in regards to your "solution".

breeding programs?........
/drops mic and walks away

my god he cant be serious....

Are you a James Bond villian?

Look at yourself, here you are, argueing basically for eugenics and executing the untermenschen who breed illegally. Oh sorry, I confused terms here, "unqualified parents" not untermenschen, "crime prevention" not eugenics. I'm sorry, you just sounded so incredibly aryan here, I did nazi the mistake I made. Call it a Freudian slip.

Not to speculate, but the bitch who mentions the sugar seems like a lawsuit chaser. Or at least vindictive and ready to lie. Like finding a finger in a McDonald's burger...oh wait that belonged to the people trying to sue McDonald's. The hard part is that the prison can't defend itself if this isn't true. People won't believe them anyways.

John Oliver sure as hell didn't need any proof to suck her tits. (And abdominal wounds do tend to ooze...just saying...)

In fact his blatant discrimination shows itself when he attacks the guy who made a joke--yeah the joke was tasteless, but it was made to emphasis a point, which it absolutely did. Did John make note of the valid point? That inmates sometimes lie? Fuck no. Did the other guy take a more balanced position, even admitting that some inmates claims are true? Yeah.

@Jerykk

You seem to subscribe to the idea of government spending being fixed and a zero sum game. It's not. If a prison rehabilitation program prevents a former criminal from re-offending and he finds gainful employment, then not only does the country derive potentially lost tax revenue but they avoid the cost of future incarceration. There's a good chance that's a net positive, even though there's initial money put down.

Your mentality fits a uniquely American approach to social problems that many in the rest of the developed world (Europe, Australia, Japan) would find strange, possibly even pathological. Being that, government spending should be kept to a minimum, and every policy should be based on market incentives (in this case threats), even in cases where taking a different approach would produce a better result. Now I studied economics and would be one of the first to say that this is clearly a better approach in many situations. But not all cases.

Your statement here is a good example:

"History has proven that fear is a very effective deterrent. Convince people that there are significant consequences for their actions and they'll think twice before doing something stupid.'

This is intuition, but your intuition is wrong. Firstly codified law does little 'convincing'. How many offenders do you think know the likely sentence of their crime before they are caught? If you agree then how likely do you think say a doubling of the prison term for shop-lifting going to have any effect?

There's no reason to test this because the data exists already when comparing pre and post juvenile offenders. The potential punishment leaps but the risk of re-offending barely changes.

As for more serious crimes, if the graveness of the death penalty is such a strong deterrent, then why does the US lead the charts among developed countries for murder and incarceration rates despite being one of the few that have it? Not to mention, the ones that do, Singapore and Japan barely ever use it.

Frankly, the whole notion that you can rationally deal with a person who is committing a crime (who is fundamentally acting irrational in committing the crime in the first place) is ludicrous.

Let's be serious. Your idea of punishment being a deterrent sounds nice but is not supported by any actual real world data. Meanwhile Scandinavian countries which do focus on rehabilitation have seen substantial drops in recidivism. There's the 'trust me it will work this time' and there's the 'supported by actual evidence' approach.

@Jerykk You're trolling (and you're doing a great job of it actually) but I know a lot of people who actually believe what you wrote here so I'd like to address it.

First, if you're going to make possession a crime, you're making all addicts into criminals and guaranteeing they're not going to get the medical help they need thanks to our privatized prison system. The answer here is obvious--stop making possession of small amounts of narcotics a crime.

Second, there is PLENTY of money to go around. Let's start with the U.S. military budget. How much has been spent on the F-35 again, a warplane which has been in development for over 10 years and still can't actually fly without potentially blowing itself out the sky? Or how about we actually tax corporations instead of giving them an effective 0% tax rate and allowing them to shelter all their money offshore? Or maybe we could raise taxes on the top 1% earners in the country instead of reducing them by 37% like we have over the past 10 years.

In any event, the money is there, but what do we do with it? Well, we could create a nationalized health care system for starters and finally and truly ensure that everyone has access to affordable health care. We could also make education free up to at least the high school level and institute some national standards (in terms of equipment, staffing, and facilities) that reduces the inequality in schooling that currently exists. And since you're worried about all those people having babies maybe we could distribute free birth control and teach people (in the now free schools) about family planning?

What do you think?

Good points, Redsky.

However, there hasn't been nearly enough research on the effects of rehabilitation to claim that it consistently reduces recidivism. You mention Scandinavian countries in particular. How many of those rehabilitated prisoners were guilty of violent crimes? If you want to reduce recidivism, the death penalty will offer guaranteed results.

As for the U.S.'s murder rates, they aren't the highest among first-world countries. Higher than European countries, sure, but Europe is tiny. Russia is more comparable to the size of the U.S. and it has almost double the murder rate. China claims to have a 1.0 but I'd question the reliability of any data provided by that government.

I'm also pretty sure that most criminals recognize the severity of their crimes. If they aren't insane, they'll know that jaywalking will result in a far lesser penalty than murder. What it comes down to is risk versus reward. If breaking the law is the most convenient way of getting what they want and the likelihood of them getting caught is low, they'll break the law. That's rational behavior. It's the reason why people people slow down when they see a cop on the freeway instead of speeding like they would normally do. It's the reason why people won't hesitate to download a pirated movie but would think twice before trying to steal a movie from Best Buy. If someone wants to rob a liquor store and they see a cop inside, they will most likely not rob that particular liquor store. Not all criminals are psychotic murderers. On the contrary, most criminals are perfectly sane and break the law on a regular basis. They just make sure that the risks are low enough so they don't get caught.

Severe penalties mean nothing if they aren't enforced and increasing surveillance increases the likelihood of enforcement. Increasing surveillance wouldn't be cheap but then, rehabilitating criminals isn't cheap either. Getting rid of the prison system entirely and replacing it with efficient executions (nothing overly elaborate like lethal injections) would cut costs dramatically and allow for greatly expanded surveillance and enforcement, in addition to dramatically increasing the risk for any given crime. If the penalty for speeding was death and there were more cops patrolling the roads and freeways, I guarantee 99.9% of drivers would stop speeding. There's no hard data for this, of course, but that's because no country has ever attempted it.

Venezuela currently has over ten times the murder rate of the U.S. It was the first country in the world to abolish the death penalty. Now, the country is riddled with corruption. Laws have no meaning because they are not enforced so criminals do whatever they want without fear of reprisal.

How do you define "small" when it comes to narcotics? If I have a pound of cocaine, is that small? What about meth? PCP? LSD? Heroin? Narcotics are banned because they are harmful. Not just to yourself but to others. They are also addictive. Do you really think a junkie will be satiated by the small portions allowed by your proposed law? Nope. They'll always be looking for more and will do anything to get it. That's why drug-dealing is such a profitable business. A better solution is execution. If you're convicted of possession or abuse (no trial necessary if there's irrefutable evidence), you're dead. No further expenses beyond the execution (via cow puncher or some other cost-effective means) and body disposal (incineration seems most efficient). Zero chance of relapse.

As for money, sure, we could cut military funding. That would give us some money, though most of it would go towards rehabilitating criminals and paying off our numerous debts. We could increase taxes on the rich, even though they already pay the majority of taxes in the country. We could increase taxes for everyone, which we would inevitably need to do if we want top-quality education and healthcare for everyone.

As to your other points, we already have free healthcare. Well, relatively free in the form of Obamacare. We already have free education too. Public schools are free and available in almost every city. Said schools already offer sex education as well. The issue isn't really about education. Any dunce knows that having unprotected sex will result in babies. The problem is apathy. Some people just don't care. They don't think in the long-term. They don't plan ahead. They don't consider the long-term repercussions of their actions. All they care about is the here and now. It's not hard to find a condom. It's much harder to convince an apathetic and irresponsible person to actually wear it. You can tell them about the risks but if they don't think the condom is comfortable or convenient, they won't wear it. On the other hand, put a gun to their head and they'll definitely wear it.

@Jerykk

I'll address by paragraph.

(1)

Wait, so I'm confused. Not enough research on my claim yet the death penalty apparently offers guaranteed results despite evidence to the contrary that I suggested?

Firstly I think you might be trying to make a bit of a straw man. I'm not saying that there should be no penalty. Some penalty obviously discourages some crime. But the argument is more over whether harsher sentences and mandatory minimums as this video discusses are helping, which I would argue they are not for the reasons outlined previously.

As for evidence of rehabilitation reducing recidivism, take for example:

http://ijo.sagepub.com/content/12/1/9.refs (see PDF)

Page 1
Finland, Norway and Sweden all have ~50-70 locked up per 100K, among the lowest. US has 716.

Page 2-3
Norway recidivism - 20%
US recidivism - 52%

I await your evidence to the contrary.

(2)

I'm talking per capita. Per capita the US certainly does have the highest among first world countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country

Sort by per capita and find me a developed country higher than the US please.

Russia is not a first-world country (that's actually a Cold War term, more correctly not a a developed country). I'm Russian, I assure you, I would know

Russia's GDP/capita is $14K USD, versus the US's $52K. Not even a close comparison.

(3)

But do criminals proportionalise justice? Like I asked, do you think anything but a small minority (likely white collar criminals) accurately know the likely sentence of a crime before they commit it? If they don't what's the purpose of making them more severe?

Nobody is proposing there be no penalty. Even Scandanavian prisons are a penalty. The question is, does the threat of 30 over 15 years locked up (should they even be able to decipher legal code to know this) actually make a difference? I would argue not, hence the argument for harsher sentences is illogical.

People are generally good at gauging the likelihood of being caught (ie your pirating example) but that's not what I was talking about (the scale of punishment being a deterrent).

(4)

I don't think what you're proposing is practical or logical. No society is going to accept the death penalty as a punishment for speeding. It's an irrelevant argument to make.

Again, why the need for elaborate ideas never before attempted? Why not just adopt a model that has already worked, such as the Scandinavian one? It seems like you're trying to wrap your mind around a solution that fits your preconceived notion of incentives and no government assistance like I suggested in my first post.

(5)

Venezuela is a developing country. Crime is largely a result of economic mismanagement by Chavez leading to joblessness and civil unrest.

There are plenty of countries with which to compare the US with. Obvious choices would be Australia or the UK. Anglo-Saxon countries, similar culture, comparative income/capita. Or really any European country. Your comparison would suggest tp me you're trying to stretch your argument to fit.

No, the only thing the death penalty guarantees is that you will spend ridiculous amounts of money.

It is much more expensive to execute a prisoner than it is to incarcerate them.

Unless, of course, you do away with all that pesky "due process" nonsense and just shoot the bastards on the spot. That seems like a great solution, especially since no-one on death row has ever been exonerated and certainly not proven innocent after they were executed....

@RedSky

1) I never said that wasn't any research showing that rehabilitation can reduce recidivism. I said there's not enough research. The cultural and economic situation of a small European country isn't quite analogous to the current state of the U.S. Also, how does the death penalty not eliminate recidivism entirely? You can't commit crimes if you're dead. Thus, guaranteed results.

2) So by "first-world," you're basically talking about Europe. Does Greenland qualify? They have a murder rate of 19.4. I'll concede that the U.S. has a higher murder rate than Europe. Is that due solely to how we deal with criminals? Possibly, but I doubt it. It certainly doesn't prove that increasing surveillance, enforcement and punishment wouldn't reduce crime rates.

3) Like I said before, most criminals are fully aware of the severity of their crimes. The problem is that they think they can get away with it. Harsher penalties mean nothing without the enforcement to back them, which is why I suggested increasing surveillance and enforcement in addition to harsher penalties. You need both in order to provide an effective deterrent.

4) If you can provide more data than Scandinavia's recidivism rates, I'll gladly accept that rehabilitation can work in the U.S. But even then, rehabilitation will never reduce recidivism completely whereas death would. Is it realistic to expect the U.S. government to enact the death penalty for all crimes? No, not at all. It's unrealistic to expect them to enforce breeding restrictions too. That doesn't change the fact these things would reduce crime rates. If we're stuck on realism, the likelihood of the government ever adopting a rehabilitation policy like in Norway's is pretty low.

5) One could just as easily argue that crime in Venezuela is a result of drug trafficking dominating the country, resulting in corrupt police and politicians that let the cartels do whatever they want. You exclude third-world countries because they undermine your argument. Third-world countries have a lot of poverty, yes, and nobody is going to deny the correlation between poverty and crime. However, they also suffer from a distinct lack of police surveillance and enforcement, either because the police are corrupt or there simply aren't enough to sufficiently enforce the law in all areas.

If there's irrefutable evidence that a suspect is guilty, a trial is an utter waste of time and taxpayer money. Executions themselves don't have to be expensive either. Get rid of death row, get rid of fancy lethal injections. Just break the criminal's neck and dump him in a hole or incinerate him. That would be far, far cheaper than providing him with food, shelter, medical care, etc, for the duration of his sentence.

The reliability of our judiciary system is another matter entirely and separate from the matter of punishment. It's definitely flawed and would need to be reworked before enacting any of the changes I've proposed.

Ok, now I know you're either trolling or an idiot.

So, on one hand, we can do away with the foundation of every judicial system in the developed world and basically bring in Judge Dredd (adding in cruel and unusual punishment just for good measure).

And on the other hand, we need to fix the judiciary system so that it's 100% completely infallible.

Congratulations! You've somehow managed to present two ideas; both completely and utterly retarded and at the same time contradicting each other.

That's actually impressive in its stupidity.

To be fair, Judge Dredd was pretty effective at reducing crime.

So is the Punisher.
But you know what? THEY'RE COMICBOOK CHARACTERS!
Are you a teenager? You sound awfully like one. All those half-assed ideas how to fix very, very complex problems (they just don't care, don't let them breed!) and that disturbing rage (just execute everyone!), all that looks so familliar. So much misanthropy and so little understanding of the world. The only people I've ever seen like that are teenagers and people so far in the political right wing, they make Neonazis seem progressive.

Please tell me, are you pro-life?

1) Northern Europe is the closest comparison income wise to the US besides Japan which is culturally very different. I don't think it's unreasonable to aggregate these countries in comparing. There isn't going to be a perfect example, but Russia is very far from it.

Your argument about the death penalty is a null point because what you're proposing is impractical and thus not worth debating.

2) & 3) Greenland has a GDP per capita of 22K and is a highly idiosyncratic example given its population density. I think that's pretty much self evident. If Greenland is your best example I think I've proven my point.

I have no doubt that greater surveillance and enforcement will reduce crime rates. I'm not disputing that. Technology will naturally improve this through the likes of ever improving facial recognition. But I don't think a UK style CCTV policing system would be affordable given that the US is less densely populated in cities. As for enforcement, I don't think there's been a lack of money thrown in that direction. The issue, as this video points out, is more that if it was targeted at violent rather than drug offenders the overall benefit to society would be greater. There I would not disagree.

4)

Germany and the Netherlands are other examples where it has worked:

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/11/14/some-european-prisons-are-shrinking-and-closing-what-can-america-learn

What you're proposing (visa vi death penalty) is something no democratic country has accepted (or will, I think). What I propose is at least accepted by to a large extent by many European developed countries. The US may shift eventually if it is recognised the current policies have been consistently failing.

5)

Yes there are many reasons why Venezuela is not a fair example. I think you make my point. Surveillance and enforcement are both necessary to reduce crime. Of course if you pick countries distinctly lacking in them then it supports your case.

But I'm arguing about which would be better given the baseline of current US policy. I think you would agree that both surveillance and enforcement are of a much higher standard in the US, with largely meritocratic and corruption free police forces. If that's the case then other developed countries, with roughly similar incomes and therefore tax revenues to afford comparable police force standards are a good reference. Venezuela is not.

1) The problem is that the U.S. is so large that even a single state is often larger than entire European countries. As such, there's a large amount of income and crime disparity between states. Michigan, for example, has a high crime rate because it contains Detroit, which would qualify as a third-world country by most standards. Other states have significantly lower crime rates. Just as in Russia, some regions are far more prosperous (and safe) than others.

For example, Minnesota has a comparable population to Norway. As of 2012, it had a murder rate of 1.8, which is admittedly higher than that of Norway. However, Louisiana had a murder rate of 10.8 and actually has a smaller population than either of the aforementioned regions. The murder rates per state ranged from 1.1 to 10.8. That's a huge range in this context. Both states are part of the U.S. If the U.S. only consisted of one state, the murder rates would be radically different based on which state it was. That's the inherent problem with comparing small countries to the U.S. The sample size of the European countries is so small that you can't derive any meaningful data for comparison.

2/3) A large amount of violence is the result of drugs. Either people committing crimes to obtain drugs, people committing crimes because they are on drugs or cartels committing crimes to distribute drugs and maintain their stranglehold on the market. Would legalizing narcotics alleviate these issues? Maybe. They might also cause a rise in other issues, like traffic accidents. Alcohol already causes an absurd amount of lethal and non-lethal accidents on the road and no doubt legally-obtainable PCP, cocaine, heroin, meth, LSD, etc, would only exacerbate that.

Clearly, you've never read the comics. Literally millions of people are murdered on Dredds watch (not counting the ones he's killed himself)

True, but the murder rate would be even higher if the Judges weren't around.