Category: Jutice

By on

This might just be a wild hair up my ass but I keep thinking there is a better way to deal with criminals we can’t actually catch or prosecute — particularly those involved in the illegal drug trade. Pablo Escobar famously had more money than he could ever spend — loosing hundreds of millions of dollars to decay because he hid his money so poorly. And, despite the worms eating the dollars, he still had billions left to spend.

To start out with, let me acknowledge that Pablo Escobar was an asshole. He murdered people. There is no doubt about it. And the general resume for someone involved in the illegal drug trade would be someone similar in ilk to Escobar. They deserve stiff prison sentences more than their ill gotten money. The people hurt by these criminal deserve justice.

The problem is catching them and/or prosecuting them isn’t always successful. The criminal eludes justice and gets to keep his money which largely goes unspent and whatever money is spendable goes to mostly dubious ends. The victim doesn’t get any justice or restitution for what happened to them without prosecution.

The government wants somewhere in the neighborhood of 46 billion dollars to deal with illegal drugs. Some of this goes to drug treatment but at least 11 billion goes directly into enforcement. The question, then, is do we get a good return on this investment. Illegal drugs, for as long as I can remember, seem to be doing just fine. Yes, there is something to be said for there being no price on justice. The criminal justice system is taking the hard way out here — there has to be punishment for the criminal or there is no justice. Perhaps, but getting a financial settlement is better than nothing at all.

This means if a person wants a return to society with the ability to spend some of their cash legally, the drug dealer will surrender all of their hidden cash, pay a very stiff fine from those funds, pay any taxes due based on this money and get out of drug dealing. Since a lot of these dealers are sitting on pile of cash and are pretty tired with running from the law, they might jump at a chance to get out of the game.

Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But, then, much of the justice system is imperfect. What we are aiming for is a reduction in crime. If this takes some people out of drug dealing, it is better than getting nobody out of drug dealing.

Won’t this only encourage people to commit crimes if they aren’t punished for their crimes? Maybe but then, it is illegal now and a lot of people seem to be willing to take the risk. I think the government would have some discretion in how they move forward. Focus would be on the big dealers with large amounts of hidden cash. Also removing the bigger names from the drug trade might have some impact on the food chain for trafficking in drugs.

The problem here is that the government since the 1960’s has been fighting a losing war with illegal drugs — mostly because a significant portion of the citizenry want to use them which makes the illegal trade of drugs profitable. This doesn’t look like it is going to change any time soon. I am betting that some of these people are tired of running and would like a way out. Right now, there is no realistic exit — it is death or jail. Letting them get out with something might make them think differently.

And their is precedent for this — the Sackler family. The Sacklers unleashed Oxycontin onto the American Public with devastating effect. The government, in order to get something out of this criminal family, made deals that involved financial penalties. It was far from a perfect deal, particularly for those families who lost loved ones to addiction. On the other hand, the Sacklers were able to hide a lot of their money and delay the legal process that they might never have gotten anything if they waited for justice. Again, the settlement wasn’t perfect, but it was something and something is better than nothing.

Maybe we forego punishment over an imperfect pay off.

By on

The people who get into an uproar about things, have a new thing to get into an uproar about. Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein pal and sex trafficker, was transferred to a cushier section of her prison. The concern here is she getting special treatment because she is well-connected and rich. This is probably true and is concerning. Why should rich prisoners get better digs than their poorer cell mates? The story is she is being rewarded for good behavior. Nice. I am assuming that the less heeled inmates have this same opportunity.

Although using her influence to get a leg up is troubling, it isn’t as troubling as the indifference to her fellow inmates safety. The Daily Mail describes her new environment as being similar to what Maxwell “experienced when she attended boarding school as a young girl,” This is much better than her present home which is called the “Snake Pit” because inmates in the Snake Pit have a greater risk of experiencing violence. I get that this is the honor section of the prison and that inmates lucky enough to get in have a bit more freedom and possibly comforts. But this is altogether a different problem here. Personal safety should be about the same throughout the prison. Yes, some prisoners will experience violence, it is inevitable. But, come on, anything called the Snake Pit must have an incredible level of violence. This is inherently unfair to the poor and unconnected.

Defenders of the system will say that it is behavior, and only behavior, that matters. Money or influence has nothing to do with it. I don’t think anyone believes that, but OK a perception of fairness has to be presented so the public will think that some effort was made to be fair. It is difficult to create fair processes when some people come from money. Money always gives people an advantage. These people can have lawyers working for them to get better deals, filling out the proper paper work, and do everything to make sure that their client is getting the best deal possible. Being raised in British boarding schools gives Maxwell insight into the type of behavior that is rewarded and the behavior that is punished. She knows how the game is played and has the resources to play it.

Honestly, if personal safety wasn’t involved, I could live with the perks of the honor system and the questionable selection process that unfairly gives the richer inmate a better chance of rewards than the poorer inmate. It is unfair and wrong but you got to choose your battles and, right now, nobody’s much interested in taking the money advantage away from the rich. But there is a difference between a nicer living accommodation and personal safety. Why should one sexual trafficker get a better chance of surviving prison than another sexual trafficker?

This points to a bigger problem than the rich and powerful getting better treatment. Being beat up or raped or killed is not a part of a person’s sentence nor should it be. But it seems to be largely accepted that violence exists in prisons and that if you wind up in one, you are at risk of experiencing it and, as a society, we are largely OK with that. Indeed, the threat of prison rape for men is seen as a possible determent for young men who might be thinking of straying from the straight and narrow. The general public isn’t particularly interested in stopping it and there is some general benefit seen from the threat of it and, really, who wants to pay additional tax money so that prison inmates are safer. We live in a country where Governors turn down federal money to feed poor school children because they don’t believe in the Welfare State. If poor children can’t get money, you can be sure that it is hopeless for prisoners.

In the meantime, congratulations to Maxwell who is now a little safer from violence. She might be a person who could shed some light on this problem and do some good with the rest of her life. But, somehow, I don’t see that happening.