> the problem is that the damage caused by imprisoning them is so much larger than the improvement experienced by everyone else.
Is it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the US prison population just 0.00730843528654% of our country's total population? 0.99269156471346% of the US population experiencing lower violent crime is a larger improvement than the crimes suffered in prison. Wouldn't it be more effective if we just decriminalized drug possession and just ended the drug war entirely?
Quote: "According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), 2,266,800 adults were incarcerated in U.S. federal and state prisons, and county jails at year-end 2011 – about 0.94% of adults in the U.S. resident population.[4] Additionally, 4,814,200 adults at year-end 2011 were on probation or on parole.[8] In total, 6,977,700 adults were under correctional supervision (probation, parole, jail, or prison) in 2011 – about 2.9% of adults in the U.S. resident population."
This means your provided figure is (a) wildly exaggerated as to its accuracy, using far more digits than its source can justify, and (b) flat wrong to an astonishing degree.
> Wouldn't it be more effective if we just decriminalized drug possession and just ended the drug war entirely?
Absolutely, many agree including me. But your figures are still wrong.
How is this wrong when even children benefit from keeping violent criminals isolated from the general population? Besides accounting for just adults still doesn't detract from my main point: the vast majority of people in the US benefit from keeping violent felons locked up
Is it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the US prison population just 0.00730843528654% of our country's total population? 0.99269156471346% of the US population experiencing lower violent crime is a larger improvement than the crimes suffered in prison. Wouldn't it be more effective if we just decriminalized drug possession and just ended the drug war entirely?