I can't stress enough how damaging the drug war has been to our justice system. It's not only unfair to the (mostly poor minorities) that get caught up in the war, but is unfair to everyone else that receives slower service from the federal court system as a result of dockets clogged with drug cases.
That said, the lede of the article is dumb. The article complains about the drug war and plea bargaining, but Ronald Thompson's plight is not the result of those things, but rather of an overzealous gun control law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10-20-Life. Under this Florida law, the fact that Thompson fired a gun during what was otherwise a felony assault resulted in a mandatory 20 year sentence.
Indeed, the fact that many people who would otherwise oppose the drug war support gun control laws like this shows a deeper problem with American society than just the drug war. Whether we're calling for longer prison sentences for bankers or people convicted of gun crimes, we just love putting people in prison.
I think this is happening because of a general perception that too many people are "getting away" with breaking the law. It doesn't seem to matter that we're criminalizing everyday life and that many of the folks who actually deserve these penalties are untouchable due to money or politics, the sense of injustice is enough to make you want to just clamp down on everything. This means that for the few people that can exercise influence over the police and judicial system, the upside (votes, funding, whatever) from damaging it further far outweighs the miniscule chance that they themselves will get caught up in its workings.
It seems like it's caught in a death spiral. And it bothers me tremendously that, as a decent guy, I'm actively afraid of our judicial system.
There's no reason to turn everything into some "untouchable due to money or politics" angle. There is a simple reason why people perceive that harsh response to crime is necessary: http://www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/vcrime500.j.... The violent crime rate in the U.S. peaked in the early 1990's at about five times the per capita rate in 1960. Florida's law was passed in 1997 or so.
I'd agree that that "untouchable" idea is perhaps too easy to reach for, but I really do think it's germane to this particular problem. You seem to be well-informed on the subject, perhaps you could comment on this:
It seems to me that for a reasonably well-off person, being incorrectly or even maliciously accused of [random crime] may be inconvenient but you can probably throw comparatively small amounts of money at it until it goes away in the natural course of things (unless you're particularly unlucky). For a regular wage-earner with minimal savings, that same scenario can be a nightmare of missed time at work and incompetent or uninterested representation. If there's any truth to the accusation, the first case probably ends worse for the subject and the second case ends catastrophically.
This, in my mind, speaks directly to why even well-meaning lawmakers would be willing to contribute to the systemic damage that's been happening: their "sense" of how the legal system works is strongly skewed by the experiences they and their friends and family have had. I've had friends in both situations and the contrast was really stark.
On the massive increase in violent crime 1960-199x, wasn't that actually heavily localized in urban areas? We moved near Oakland, CA in the early 90's and it was completely unlike the various areas we had lived in previously. Though I suppose that wouldn't change the effect it had on general perceptions, with broadcast and then cable news delivering the worst of the nation every night.
Every negative impact that the post 9/11 terrorism scare has had on America has been inflicted 10 or 100 times over for decades due to the war on drugs. Even with all the horrible NSA revelations it still remains the biggest threat to liberty and uncorrupted rule of law in the western world.
I do not know the historical details of this Florida law, but gun control laws are generally a way to get votes from blacks who are afraid of drug gangs. (It is an exercise for the reader to figure out which demographic group bears the brunt of this law.)
That said, the lede of the article is dumb. The article complains about the drug war and plea bargaining, but Ronald Thompson's plight is not the result of those things, but rather of an overzealous gun control law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10-20-Life. Under this Florida law, the fact that Thompson fired a gun during what was otherwise a felony assault resulted in a mandatory 20 year sentence.
Indeed, the fact that many people who would otherwise oppose the drug war support gun control laws like this shows a deeper problem with American society than just the drug war. Whether we're calling for longer prison sentences for bankers or people convicted of gun crimes, we just love putting people in prison.