Why Do Drug Dealers Serve Longer Sentences Than Rapists?
Start writing a post
Health and Wellness

Why Do Drug Dealers Serve Longer Sentences Than Rapists?

A look into the War on Drugs and the American Criminal Justice System

11767
Why Do Drug Dealers Serve Longer Sentences Than Rapists?

“Drug dealers get heftier and longer sentences than rapists, which is perplexing considering that people ask for drugs, but no one asks to get raped. It’s the American Justice System in a nutshell.” This quote has been floating around the internet for years now, and it represents a common conception held by Americans. In 2009, the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network reported that out of every 100 rapists, two will spend a single day in prison. Contrastingly, the United States Bureau of Justice Statistics found that as of September 2014, 50% of sentenced inmates in federal prison were serving time for drug offenses.

This information, startlingly high incarceration rates of drug offenders, is partly credited to the seemingly endless, trillion dollar effort that is the War on Drugs. This campaign began nearly 45 years ago when President Nixon declared, in 1971, “America’s public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new, all-out offensive.” Nixon funded one of America’s first treatment programs, stating to Congress, “As long as there is a demand, there will be those willing to take the risks of meeting the demand.” The President’s policies reflected the temperance view and the disease view of addition. Though rooted in good intentions, and given ample time, resources, and effort, the war Nixon began nearly half a decade ago seems to still exist today. At that, it’s a war that has largely been unsuccessful, a war that we are losing.

That’s not to say that we haven’t been fighting it. Since 1971, sentences on drug offenses have gotten stricter, millions of offenders have been fined and jailed, and rehabilitation efforts have been made for those who face drug abuse problems. The problem is the government has taken the approach of locking their people up and throwing away the key, which, by any means, cannot be regarded or celebrated as successful.

CNN points out the biggest indicator that this movement has been a failure: “The US has the largest prison population in the world, with around 2.3 million behind bars. More than half a million of those people are incarcerated for a drug law violation … Have US drug laws reduced drug use? No. The U.S. is the Number one nation in the world nation in the world in illegal drug use.” CNN mirrored the War on Drugs to the Prohibition, an infamously flawed, doomed effort. “As with the Prohibition, banning alcohol didn’t stop people from drinking, it just stopped people from obeying the law.”

The vastly large number of people we have imprisoned would almost be deemed as a success for the US government if the high incarceration rates correlated with a decrease in drug use and distribution. But as CNN reported, no such correlation exists. We have thrown not billions but trillions of dollars at a problem that has failed to cease significantly. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University reported that an estimated 13% of state budgets go towards dealing with drug abuse but allocated only four cents out of every dollar spent for treatment and prevention.

Our efforts on reform have been few and far between. Ethan Nadelmann, head of the Drug Policy Alliance (A New York City based policy and lobbying group) says his group’s most remarkable accomplishment was the passage of California’s Proposition 36 in 2000, which requires treatment instead of incarceration for drug offenders and has already kept nearly 100,000 people from going to jail or prison. The act doubled money for drug treatment purposes and saved taxpayers money by reducing prison populations. Nadelmann and the DPA pushed for this act, and continue to push for it in other states, because they do not support the government strategy of making an intense effort to put too many people behind bars and not doing very little to reduce the availability of drugs.

If such measures were taken in all fifty states, things would be drastically different. Addiction is a disease. Putting drug addicts in jail is only locking them away for a set period of time before they are released and inevitably use again. Focusing efforts on rehabilitation instead of incarceration would allow for addicts to get the help that they need. It would not solve the problem over night, but it would drastically reduce incarceration rates, saving us resources and money.

Nadelmann stated, “The true challenge is learning to live with drugs so that they cause the least harm. An effective strategy needs to establish realistic objectives and criteria for evaluating success or failure, and must focus on reducing the death, disease, crime and suffering associated with both drug use and drug policies.” Successfully winning against the war on drugs won’t be easy, but it won’t be a success at all if the government continues to see incarceration as the best answer to this lethal and dangerous problem. As Einstein famously believed, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

Our well-meaning efforts in this war have been insane, unsuccessful, and borderline laughable. We’ve spent a trillion dollars and have made a small, barely noticeable dent in an ongoing epidemic. If we don’t act now to restructure our laws and the American Criminal Justice system as a whole, this could get much, much worse.

Report this Content
This article has not been reviewed by Odyssey HQ and solely reflects the ideas and opinions of the creator.
Student Life

Social Media Or Soul Media

To the generation that cares way too much about affirmation.

897
Emma Smith
  • This semester I am taking the ever so famous class, Writing 101. Walking into it, I had heard the horror stories about each major assignment. I have to admit, it’s not a class that I am fond of. But, major assignment #2 got me thinking, we had to create a research question based off of a topic that we are interested in.

Two weeks prior, I watched a very interesting documentary on Netflix. Miss Representation was recommended to me by one of my friends and I have to say the topic is absolutely mind blowing. Social Media and Female Body Image. How Social Media makes girls see this unnatural perfection of ‘beauty’ that really doesn’t exist. But female body image isn’t the only thing affected by social media.

Keep Reading... Show less
Featured

Sex And The Church

A letter to fellow believers.

2209
Amanda Hayes
  • I know many of you just read that title and thought it was scandalous to see something so “risque” in the same setting as something holy. Well guess what – sex is part of that. Everyone seems to think they are separate, which makes since because most people treat them as though they are complete polar opposites. Shall we think this through?

Who created the Church body? God. Who created the body? Also God. If we know God to be the creator of all things, we cannot leave sex out of that equation. God created sex, people! Praise Him! Like all great things, the world has twisted and perverted it. The world has stained it so badly that even many church congregations see it only as stained and keep quiet about that part of God’s word. Many people know that God told Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28), but a lot of people overlook the entirety of Song of Solomon. The entire book is dedicated to telling of the love and sex between man and wife. God blessed us with the gift of intimacy, one to be shared between husband and wife. Church if we teach of sex as the blessing that it is, more people will start treating it as such. If we stop viewing sex as this unspeakable act, the temptation would be lessened. With the fall of man, humans naturally desire things they should not have. So if more people speak of it with gladness and praise, and do not hide it in the darkness as if it were vile, fewer people would be drawn to it for the wrong reasons. More people would appreciate it for what it is: a gift from God.

Keep Reading... Show less
Tumblr

Chick-fil-A, I love you.

Keep Reading... Show less
Featured

An open letter to my father

What you did sounds dumb to me

3117
An open letter to my father
The Truth About My Parents' Divorce

Considering im 18 now & you're one of the best men i've ever met since you have a child; me. I want you to know that I love you, more than anyone, I love you. I don't forgive you for the way you hurt my mother. I'm hurt because you broke our family. Thing went down hill the day you found Laquita. You we're distant & shortly after my mother turned into the coldest, saddest women to walk past me. She's my best friend & so are you. Not one day goes by where I don't wonder what she did wrong. How on earth could you trade your family & the women who loved you unconditionally for a home wrecker? Sounds dumb to me.

Keep Reading... Show less
Featured

Is God Reckless?

Exploring the controversy behind the popular worship song "Reckless Love"

3290
Is God Reckless?


First things first I do not agree with people getting so caught up in the specific theology of a song that they forget who they are singing the song to. I normally don't pay attention to negative things that people say about worship music, but the things that people were saying caught my attention. For example, that the song was not biblical and should not be sung in churches. Worship was created to glorify God, and not to argue over what kind of theology the artist used to write the song. I was not made aware of the controversy surrounding the popular song "Reckless Love" by Cory Asbury until about a week ago, but now that I am aware this is what I have concluded.The controversy surrounding the song is how the term reckless is used to describe God's love. This is the statement that Cory Asbury released after many people questioned his theology regarding his lyrics. I think that by trying to clarify what the song was saying he added to the confusion behind the controversy.This is what he had to say,
"Many have asked me for clarity on the phrase, "reckless love". Many have wondered why I'd use a "negative" word to describe God. I've taken some time to write out my thoughts here. I hope it brings answers to your questions. But more than that, I hope it brings you into an encounter with the wildness of His love.When I use the phrase, "the reckless love of God", I'm not saying that God Himself is reckless. I am, however, saying that the way He loves, is in many regards, quite so. What I mean is this: He is utterly unconcerned with the consequences of His actions with regards to His own safety, comfort, and well-being. His love isn't crafty or slick. It's not cunning or shrewd. In fact, all things considered, it's quite childlike, and might I even suggest, sometimes downright ridiculous. His love bankrupted heaven for you. His love doesn't consider Himself first. His love isn't selfish or self-serving. He doesn't wonder what He'll gain or lose by putting Himself out there. He simply gives Himself away on the off-chance that one of us might look back at Him and offer ourselves in return.His love leaves the ninety-nine to find the one every time."
Some people are arguing that song is biblical because it makes reference to the scripture from Matthew 28:12-14 and Luke 15. Both of these scriptures talk about the parable of the lost sheep and the shepherd. The shepherd symbolizes God and the lost sheep are people that do not have a relationship with God. On the other hand some people are arguing that using the term reckless, referring to God's character is heretical and not biblical. I found two articles that discuss the controversy about the song.The first article is called, "Reckless Love" By Cory Asbury - "Song Meaning, Review, and Worship Leading Tips." The writer of the article, Jake Gosselin argues that people are "Making a mountain out of a molehill" and that the argument is foolish. The second article, "God's Love is not Reckless, Contrary to What You Might Sing" by author Andrew Gabriel argues that using the term reckless is irresponsible and that you cannot separate Gods character traits from God himself. For example, saying that God's love is reckless could also be argued that God himself is reckless. Reckless is typically not a word that someone would use to describe God and his love for us. The term reckless is defined as (of a person or their actions) without thinking or caring about the consequences of an action. However, Cory Asbury is not talking about a person, he is talking about God's passionate and relentless pursuit of the lost. While I would not have chosen the word reckless, I understand what he was trying to communicate through the song. Down below I have linked two articles that might be helpful if you are interested in reading more about the controversy.


Keep Reading... Show less

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Facebook Comments