More handpicked essays just for you.
Effects of illegal drugs on communities
Movements against police brutality
Movements against police brutality
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
There are more people in prison and jails today just for drug offenses than were incarcerated for all reasons in 1980. The absence of significant constraints on the exercise of police discretion is a key feature of the drug war’s design. It has made the roundup of millions of Americans for nonviolent drug offenses relatively easy. Furthermore so long as a police officer has reasonable suspicion that someone is engaged in criminal activity and dangerous, it is constitutionally permissible to stop, question, and frisk them even in the absence of probable cause. Police officers also have the habit of following vehicles in the hopes that they make an illegal drive procedure so they may stop them. The average person feels obligated to let the police …show more content…
search them, therefore consent searches are valuable tools for the police only because hardly anyone dares to say no. Most people that are stopped and searched in the war on drugs are perfectly innocent of any crime.
Hugh cash grants were made to those law enforcement agencies that were willing to make drug-law enforcement a top priority. Ten years into the war on drugs, police departments now had Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) in most major cities. These units were originally formed to handle hostage situations, hijackings, or prison escapes, but it all changed in the 1980’s when law enforcement agencies now had access to military equipment and cash especially for conducting drug raids. Today the most common use of SWAT teams is to serve narcotics warrants, usually with forced, unannounced entry into the home. Dozens of people have been killed by police in the course of these raids, including elderly grandparents, and those who are completely innocent of any crime. The Regan administration let states and local police keep the drugs and money that it seized. This turned into a monetary gain and the drug market became profitable for law enforcement. Suddenly police department could increase their budget on drug bust alone simply by taking the cash, cars and homes of people suspected of drug use or sales. The actual owner did not have to be charged with a
crime. A person can be found innocent of any criminal conduct and the property could still be subject to forfeiture. Once property is seized, the owner has no right of council and it is up to them to prove the property’s innocence. In 2000, Congress passed the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act which was meant to address many of the egregious examples of abuse of civil forfeiture. Many are incarcerated due to poor representation. They innocent people often plea due to mandatory minimums. Some plead guilty without really understanding their legal rights. Nearly all cases are pleaded out. And then there is the incentive for people to snitch in order to get a lesser sentence. Then there is the matter of time served for nonviolent crimes. There are some that get longer sentences due to mandatory minimum, than those who commit violent crimes. A murderer can serve less time than a nonviolent drug user that was unfortunate to be arrested with a certain amount of crack on their persons. People that are labeled felons does not depend on time served, but the conviction itself. And once this label is put on you there is a stigma that is attached for good, I won’t go into great detail as I have already touched on this previously.
In the early hours of the night on June 1993, Whren and Brown were driving the Pathfinder truck in a high drug region. In the same locale, two plainclothes police officers with unmarked police car were mandated with the task to patrol the area in the District of Columbia. It’s at this juncture that the police officers observed that the Pathfinder truck in which Whren and Brown were driving had stopped at a crossing stop sign for an extraordinarily long time (Whren v the United States, 1996). Without even signaling, Whren turned right sharply and sped off on realizing that the police officers had made a U-turn towards them. Similarly, as this was in violation of the traffic rules the police officers raced after them and stopped them at the side of the road at a red light. Notwithstanding, Whren was found to hold two plastic bags of what seemed like crack cocaine in his hand when the police came to the vehicle. Whren and Brown were thus incarcerated on federal drug charges. Before the trial, counsel for the defense progressed to overturn the possession of drug evidence. They contended that the police were in violation of the fourth amendment of the constitution as the police had wrongly used the pretext of a traffic stop to investigate possible drug crimes
In 1990, there was a total of 2,245 murders in New York, but over the past nine years, this total has been less than 600 (NYCLU). However, there has not been evident proof that the stop-and-frisk procedure is the reason of the declination of the crime rate. Indeed, stop-and-frisk contributes to some downturn of crime but the number is not high enough for the citizen and police to rely on. Specifically, only 3% of 2.4 million stops result in conviction. Some 2% of those arrests – or 0.1% of all stops – led to a conviction for a violent crime. Only 2% of arrests led to a conviction for possession of a weapon (Gabatt, A., 2013). In other words, the decrease in crime due to stop-and-frisk is mostly due to the discovery of possessed of weapons. Therefore, stop-and- frisk is not an effective procedure to use because it does not represent a huge impact in people’s safety (Gabatt, A., 2013). The author has done research about how police base their initiation towards the procedure of stop-and-frisk. Researchers have found that stop-and-frisk is a crime prevention strategy that gives a police officer the permission to stop a person based on “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity and frisk based on “reasonable suspicion” that the person is armed and dangerous. This controversy is mainly because of racial profiling. “Reasonable suspicion” was described by the court as “common sense” (Avdija, A., 2013). Although, the
In Douglas N. Husak’s A Moral Right to Use Drugs he attempts to look at drug use from an impartial standpoint in order to determine what is the best legal status for currently illegal drugs. Husak first describes the current legal situation concerning drugs in America, citing figures that show how drug crimes now make up a large percentage of crimes in our country. Husak explains the disruption which this causes within the judicial system and it is made clear that he is not content with the current way drugs are treated. The figures that Husak offers up, such as the fact that up to one third of all felony charges involve drugs, are startling, but more evidence is needed than the fact that a law is frequently broken to justify it’s repeal.
Mandatory minimums for controlled substances were first implemented in the 1980s as a countermeasure for the hysteria that surrounded drugs in the era (“A Brief History,” 2014). The common belief was that stiff penalties discouraged people from using drugs and enhanced public safety (“A Brief History,” 2014). That theory, however, was proven false and rather than less illegal drug activity, there are simply more people incarcerated. Studies show that over half of federal prisoners currently incarcerated are there on drug charges, a 116 percent percentage rise since 1970 (Miles, 2014). Mass incarceration is an ever growing issue in the United States and is the result of policies that support the large scale use of imprisonment on
The War on Drugs is believed to help with many problems in today’s society such as realizing the rise of crime rates and the uprooting of violent offenders and drug kingpin. Michelle Alexander explains that the War on Drugs is a new way to control society much like how Jim Crow did after the Civil War. There are many misconceptions about the War on Drugs; commonly people believe that it’s helping society with getting rid of those who are dangerous to the general public. The War on Drugs is similar to Jim Crow by hiding the real intention behind Mass Incarceration of people of color. The War on Drugs is used to take away rights of those who get incarcerated. When they plead guilty, they will lose their right to vote and have to check application
This supports the conservative’s claim that the war on drugs is not making any progress to stop the supply of drugs coming into America. Conservative writer for the magazine National Review, William Buckley, shows his outrage towards the Council on Crime in America for their lack of motivation to change the drug policies that are ineffective. Buckley asks, “If 1.35 million drug users were arrested in 1994, how many drug users were not arrested? The Council informs us that there are more than 4 million casual users of cocaine” (70). Buckley goes on to discuss in the article, “Misfire on Drug Policy,” how the laws set up by the Council were meant to decrease the number of drug users, not increase the number of violators.
The past quarter century of American history has been profoundly impacted by the “war on drugs.” Ever since the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 was passed by President Richard Nixon, the number of yearly incarcerations for drug violations has grown exponentially. America’s drug policies have cost billions of dollars and imprisoned hundreds of thousands of Americans, yet rates of drug, property, and violent crime have failed to decrease. Yassaman Saadatmand summates the consequences of Nixon’s policies: “Not only has the drug war failed to reduce violent and property crime, but it has also shifted criminal justice resources (the police, courts, prisons, probation officers, etc.) away from directly fighting violent and property crime.” The issue is further complicated by racial inequalities in the rates of drug use and crime. Whereas Whites consist the majority of the population of any state, they are outnumbered by African-Americans in both state and federal prisons (E. Ann Carson 2013). This incongruity is paralleled with many other races, such as an overrepresentation of Native Americans and an underrepresentation of Asians in rates of drug use. What causes this imbalance? What purpose do the higher rates of incarceration for certain minorities serve? As this topic is explored, it becomes evident that the racial disparity in drug crime is perpetuated by America’s legacy of bigotry and racism, capitalism, and a cycle of poverty.
Do you remember the first time we met? I do as I cannot shake the memory. It was love at first sight. I’ll never forget the feeling I had. A warmth overcame my body as you stoked a fire in my heart. It was like I had spent my life drowning in the sea around me and you were that breath of fresh air as I pulled myself out. My cares and concerns melted away. I was complete. You were exactly what I had been missing in my life. My better half you completed me you made me whole. Your touch, your scent, your glistening radiance I took it all in. I felt its force enter my body working its way to the very center of my soul. It felt like a real living breathing thing coalescing within my life force touching parts of me I never knew existed. You awakened some innate primal desire and I needed you at all times.
This essay will be focusing on the incarceration and war on drug of black community and minority in the United State. The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander discuss who the war on drug effect minority in American. What will be discuss in this paper or the question I will be answering are How has the War in Drugs impacted low-income people and communities of color, particularly African Americans? How has the Drug War disenfranchised a large segment of the American population? How have race and class influenced the functioning of the criminal justice system, especially in relation to policing, the enforcement of drug laws, and sentencing? Do you agree or disagree with Alexander’s contention that the current criminal justice system has resulted in a “New Jim Crow”? Why or why not?
When societies finally become comfortable with reality, they begin to abandon the murderous laws that impede their growth. Currently, the social stigma and legislated morality regarding the use of illicit drugs yield perhaps the most destructive effects on American society. Drug laws have led to the removal of non-violent citizens from society- either directly by incarceration or indirectly by death - which is genocidal in quantity and essence. I base my support of the decriminalization of all drugs on a principle of human rights, but the horror and frustration with which I voice this support is based on practicality. The most tangible effect of the unfortunately labeled "Drug War" in the United States is a prison population larger than Russia's and China's, and an inestimable death toll that rivals the number of American casualties from any given war, disease or catastrophe.
can become a major source of income, not only for the inmate, but also for
TYNAN, SARAH. "Symposium Report: The Fourth Amendment And Modern Practices: Drug Sniffing Dogs And Stop-and-frisk." Criminal Law Brief 8.2 (2013): 74-78. Criminal Justice Abstracts with Full Text. Web. 14 Apr. 2014.
A 2012 poll showed that 58% of Americans are in favor of decriminalization of drugs like Marijuana, as opposed to 12% back in 1969. [1] Many Americans feel that the war on drugs has failed, and that our police officers and other federal institutions could be making better use of their time, effort, and fiscal resources. The cost of this war on drugs has become so great. Not only does the war cost billions to enforce, but countless lives are lost as the cartels become more violent in their pursuit of power.
...pamine release, or pleasure from things they once did. The drug user is only able to experience pleasure if the drug is in their system. This is how a drug addict or drug dependents brain works. This lack of pleasure does not last forever. Through a detox period the person will regain those normal feelings of pleasure. However many can not last long enough to realize the sensations do come back on their own after a time.
Not only has the drug war failed to reduce violent and property crime, but, by shifting criminal justice resources (the police, courts, prisons, probation officers, etc.) away from directly fighting such crime, the drug war has put citizens’ lives and property at greater risk, Benson and Rasmussen contend. “Getting tough on drugs inevitably translates into getting soft on nondrug crime,” they write. “When a decision is made to wage a ‘war on drugs,’ other things that criminal justice resources might have to be sacrificed.” To support this conclusion, Benson and Rasmussen compare data on drug law enforcement and crime trends between states, and debunk numerous misconceptions about drug use and criminality.