Lindvaettr wrote:While I agree that he shouldn't have been released (given his continuing record), I wouldn't say assume it was because of drug users.
According to the Bureau of Prisons, there are 207,847 people incarcerated in federal prisons. Roughly half (48.6 percent) are in for drug offenses. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are 1,358,875 people in state prisons. Of them, 16 percent have a drug crime as their most serious offense.
101,014 in federal prison
217.420 in state prison
That's a total of 318,434 people locked up because somebody was trying to get high and somebody else had a problem with it. I blame drug laws for early releases because many states carry heavy mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes. During the "Just Say No" crack hysteria of the 80's, shitloads of draconian laws went down in almost every state to specifically ensure that convicted drug felons couldn't get "early release."
By my calculations and intuitions, if so many assholes didn't keep trying to solve drug abuse by "cracking down even harder," we wouldn't be in a situation where dangerous criminals were being let go early while drug users find themselves tangled up in stupid "tough on drugs" policies that keep them locked up for most of their sentences.
If it weren't for our draconian drug laws, there would be ~318,434 places to put assholes like this one and lots of out-of-work prison guards just
itching for a new job. It's pretty appalling that they let him go not once but TWICE, the second time after he'd violated the terms of his first release. If cornered and asked why they did something so pants-on-head incompetent, the people who made this decision would start whining about "overcrowding" and how there just isn't enough funding to keep guys like this locked up.
Every once in a while, declare peace. It confuses the hell out of your enemies. (76th Rule of Acquisition)