America's Failed Criminal Justice Experiment with Rafael Mangual
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 тра 2024
- My guest today is Rafael Mangual. Rafael is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and Head of Research at their policing and public safety initiative. His new book is called "Criminal (In)Justice: What the Push for Decarceration and Depolicing Gets Wrong and Who It Hurts Most".
In this episode, we discuss the nationwide push for defunding and de-policing starting in the summer of 2020. We talk about the so-called root causes of crime. We talk about Ava DuVernay's documentary "13th" and Michelle Alexander's book "The New Jim Crow". We discuss the causes of mass incarceration. We talk about cash bail and bail reform. We also go on to talk about legalizing weed and much more.
#Ad
GiveWell spends over 20,000 hours each year researching charitable organizations and only recommends a few of the highest impact, evidence-baked charities they’ve found. And here’s the best part: GiveWell is free. GiveWell wants to empower as many donors as possible to make informed decisions about their donations. They publish all of their research and recommendations on their site FOR FREE, no signup required. They allocate your tax-deductible donation to the charity you choose without taking a cut. GiveWell reviews independent evidence to understand if a program is effective. They model the cost-effectiveness of the charities to estimate which charities have the biggest impact. They dig into a charity’s specific data, work, and implementation of the program.
Go to www.givewell.org and pick PODCAST and enter “Conversations With Coleman” at checkout.
#Ad
This episode is brought to you by MANSCAPED, who is the best in men’s below-the-waist grooming. MANSCAPED’s Performance Package 4.0 is the ultimate men's hygiene bundle! Join over 6 million men worldwide who trust MANSCAPED with this exclusive offer for you: Get 20% OFF @manscaped + Free World Wide Shipping with promo code 20COLEMAN at www.manscaped.com
#ColemanUnfiltered
Coleman Unfiltered addresses topics that have been on mute through the ages with silent shifts into polarities, by relentless questioning and observations in coordination with some of the brightest intellectuals of our generation.
The Unfiltered Community is an ode to the fans; an environment promoting sound tolerance of ideas to solidify the meaning of liberalism in a changing world.
It’s a concrete effort to have open, honest conversations on the most difficult social and political issues we’re surrounded with.
For in-depth discussions, unaired/unseen episodes, and bonus content on Conversations With Coleman, participate via a membership and gain access to raw, powerful human ideology.
Welcome to the new age’s most original intellectual revolution; let’s change the world, one conversation at a time.
Sign up Today - bit.ly/3B1GAlS
FOLLOW COLEMAN
UA-cam - bit.ly/38kzium
Twitter - bit.ly/2rbAJue
Facebook - bit.ly/2LiAXH3
Instagram - bit.ly/2SDGo6o
Podcast -bit.ly/3oQvNUL
Website - colemanhughes.org/
Limited Edition Merch - bit.ly/CWCMerch
#ConversationswithColeman #CWC #ColemanHughes #Podcast #Politics #society #Colemanunfiltered #Unfiltered #Music #Philosophy #BlackCulture #Intellectual #podcasting #podcastersofinstagram #UA-cam #podcastlife #music #youtube #radio #comedy #podcastshow #spotifypodcast #newpodcast #interview #motivation #art #covid #history #republicans #blacklivesmatter #follow #libertarian #art #socialism #communism #democracy #americafirst #blm #trending #capitalism #kag #indian #conservatives #media #elections
Glad you caught the show. Let me know what you think in the comments and I’ll reply as soon as I can. If you’re a regular listener and would like to show your support and gain access to exclusive talks with some incredible minds, check out the Coleman Unfiltered membership here: bit.ly/3B1GAlS
Actually, AmeriKa's "Criminal Justice" system has largely SUCCEEDED; in serving the interests of the "Criminal" element itself. Sadly, ALL 2 little JUSTICE to ANY of, what are more accurately seen as the world's "legal systems."
This was easily one of the most informative podcast guests you've ever had on. I'm truly humbled by just how much I was able to learn from Rafael. This is a topic that desperately needed data to cut through the layers of rhetoric people have internalized on all sides of the issue, and he certainly delivered. Excellent podcast, Coleman. Thanks for doing your diligence and shedding a much needed light on the downstream effects of policy choices, Rafael.
“Men may fight over necessities, but more often than not, they fight over trifles - in other words, over recognition”
- Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man
1992
I dont understand how Coleman doesn't have many times more subs. Some of the most thoughtful and informative conversations on UA-cam, held with true curiosity, civility, and courage to ask the hard questions.
I wish Coleman had asked a few more critical questions of the sort that he asked at the end of the discussion when marijuana came up. Rafael Mangual has his arguments, and many are compelling at face value, but over and over I found myself thinking of the obvious counter-arguments and wishing I could hear a response.
For instance, on mass incarceration, he repeatedly criticized those who compare our incarceration rates to those of other countries. And his arguments against the "what about Germany?" approach were good. But the biggest talking point on mass incarceration is not the comparison of the US vs. Western Europe, it's the comparison of the US now vs. the US 40 years ago. Incarceration rates *quadrupled* between the mid-70s and the mid-90s. Was that even mentioned? The correlation between incarceration rates and crime rates over time is weak, and to the extent it exists the magnitude of change in incarceration dwarfs the magnitude of change in crime. This warrants an explanation. Those who oppose mass incarceration cite mandatory minimums, longer sentences overall, and the practice of charging people with many more crimes at once than we used to (e.g. what seems like one offense in practice can result in 4 different charges). I wish I could have heard Mr. Mangual's response to this, or at least some kind of explanation for why we saw such a dramatic domestic increase in mass incarceration over roughly 20 years.
On plea bargaining, he says that sentences would be longer without it. This dodges the argument reformers make, which is that legislators have given prosecutors such powerful "tools" that the rational choice of a defendant facing massive sentences if found guilty is to take the plea. His argument basically amounts to the observation that criminal defendants usually make rational choices in court, which is not profound. The point of disagreement is not whether prosecutors offer deals that rational people will accept, it is whether our criminal statutes should empower prosecutors with such great negotiating leverage that 98% of defendants take the deal, and yet even with all these "good deals" incarceration rates kept going up.
I also would have liked to hear a response to the argument that violent crime is a young man's game, and that most people "age out" of crime, making long sentences unnecessary from a public safety point of view. That's a very common talking point among reformers.
Lastly, Mr. Mangual cites some figure about false conviction rates being extremely low. But surely he knows that most cases are not of the "whodunnit?" variety, where the (hypothetical) jury is tasked with deciding whether or not the defendant did the thing in question. More often the thing in question is ambiguous or disputed with respect to the law, and the jury would have to interpret the facts of the case in light of the law. For instance, someone is charged with a violent crime, and the jury (were there to be a jury) has to decide whether the defendant's undisputedly violent actions were justified. In these kinds of situations there's usually some lead-up to the conflict, some possible self-defense argument, some possible culpability from the other party, some possible mitigating factors for the defendant. These kinds of cases cannot ever end up in the "false conviction" statistics later on, because it is not the facts that are at issue, but rather whether the facts constitute a violation of the law. Again, I'm not stating a novel objection; this is a common argument among reformers. I wish we could have heard Mr. Mangual respond.
These are good points and questions. I just read his book last week, not as carefully as I could have, but I think he addresses your point about long criminal sentences with data on time served showing the median prisoner (from my memory), in the majority of cases convicted of a violent crime, serves something like 2 years, and even for murder and manslaughter (again, I hope my memory is at least in the ballpark on this stat) the median time served is something like 15 years. He also has stats on the median prior arrests (10 or so) and convictions (5 or so) of the typical prisoner. So the tl;dr; according to his data and judgement, is that most people would agree that 2 years is not sufficient to age out of crime for a person serving time for their 5th conviction.
On the last question I don't follow your objection. Is it that he is addressing the statistic incorrectly or is it that he is not addressing the right issue? It sees to me that I agree that the cases you describe should not never end up in the false conviction category. So he is correct in saying that false convictions are rare. Whether that's worth discussing is a different matter, but viewed in isolation it seems like a good thing.
I also think your question about the rate of incarceration over thee last 40 years is very very good. I think the "why" has a couple of straightforward answers that you mostly identified and are not much in dispute. But "why (or whether) that was necessary" was not addressed by Mangual and I don't have an answer to that tougher question either. The only part I see is that the homicide rate doubles from the 60s to the 80s. Given homicide strongly correlates to other categories of violent crime, a basic answer is we should have expected a doubling or so of the incarceration rate.
But I don't quite believe a basic answer or simple correlation is to be expected between levels of incarceration and levels of crime. There's a complex feedback loop between the two, with both incarceration and any deterrent or incapacitation effect operating on long lags. It's a little like watching two boxers or MMA fighters and counting strikes landed by each. Sometimes the whole pace of the fight slows down or speeds up and the two counts correlate. Other times one side gets an advantage and starts landing blows unanswered as the other fighter covers up or evades and so the correlation goes negative. The two counts are indisputably related, but correlation is too simple to measure the relationship appropriately.
@@manchasdos This is the type of discussion intellectuals and activist, on both sides, should be having with each other, but with the intention of having concrete policy changes, put in place to resolve these problems. One significant point that I have been trying to get across, among us Black people and Liberals, even with my limited knowledge and understanding, is the change in the nature of crime, specifically violent crime, in the last four decades, in Black communities. In the late 60's and into the 70's, when heroin was ravaging, Black communities, most violence was related to people involved with drugs. That changed in the 90's when children and women, began to be killed in significant numbers.
In the 70's the late Congressmen from Md. Parren J. Mitchell coined the phrase 'Us Killing Us Equals Genocide', around the same time the phrase Black on Black crime began to be used. The rate of homicides were high enough then. Black people at that time saw and spoke out against the obvious self-destruction we were engaged in. Even Hip-Hop in the 80's, understood that, and spoke out against this self-destruction, with their 'Stop The Violence Movement'. How does a Michael Eric Dyson, and others who were a part of H-H, at that time, now say "Black on Black crime is not a thing"? For me this is the most telling example of the inexplicable thinking that happens on the Left. It rivals Trumpism, in it's senselessness and denial of reality.
Culture is a major factor in violent crime. Violent crime is what most people are most concerned about and discussing, but many on the Left seem to be arguing about crime in general. A part of the activist/entertainment/media culture, among Black people, excuses violent crime, because they say, it is done out of survival. Many people who commit violent crimes, are the exception in their family. The culture that exist and the people themselves, who individually gravitate to violent culture are IMO, the most significant factors in violent acts. The majority of people don't go to this extreme, even in a struggle to make a living. To use the term survive, in a modern society, would be laughable, if the problem wasn't so grave.
Again, I wish this issue and others, would be handled by both sides with the seriousness that they deserve. As it stands now, both sides seem engaged in a symbiotic relationship of race, poverty, and politics hustling. When both sides agree on any issue, it should be publically proclaimed, so it can be seen as a resolution, and not be argued any further. It must be applied to the problem, and its maximum benefits gotten. We then move on to seriously argue, that which we still disagree on.
@@siriuslyspeaking9720 Great points and very well put, thank you.
@@manchasdos Thank you!
On the question of incarceration rates increasing along with plea deals, this seems only logical to me. Unless I misunderstand what the incarceration rate is measuring (what % of the population is incarcerated at any given time), plea deals being accepted almost every time would ensure a great deal of incarceration but for a shorter time. Since crimes that would result in long sentences are rarer than ones that result in short to medium sentences, it seems logical to me that the overall rate would go up due to a higher rate of plea deals being accepted versus going to trial (which would surely result in a fair few acquittals).
Further, most prosecutors only take cases they're sure they can win in order to advance their careers by virtue of an artificially inflated conviction rate. Some defendants might accept a plea they could have avoided altogether had they taken their chances (not just by acquittal, but by the prosecution opting not to prosecute after the deal was refused, or by pursuing at trial a lesser charge that would not result in jail time), thus causing the incarceration rate to go up.
It seems to me the issue with plea deals being taken so often is that justice is so rarely achieved. In order to entice someone to take a plea in a system so overloaded, the defendant would either have to remain ignorant of the pressure the system is under to clear cases, or the deal offered to the defendant would have to be significantly more favorable to the defendant than what they would get if convicted -- a bargain, in other words. If the rate of innocent people accepting pleas that included jail time is as low as I suspect, this means that 98% of the time some measure of justice is lacking for the victim(s) of the crime.
This is a great discussion. Thank you both.
As an aside, I lived near DC during the sniper attacks. I consciously refused to change my behavior, *because* I did some simple math and realized the risk was vanishingly small. At the time I was a law student taking criminal procedure, and I remember arguing in class that randomly stopping and searching white vans (which was happening all over the DC region, because the snipers were believed to be using a white work van - spoiler alert, they weren’t) could not be justified under any judicially crafted 4th Amendment exception, because the statistical risk was so small. It was not the majority view in the class.
The older sniper, John Allen Muhammad, was executed in Virginia in 2009. His accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo, who was a minor at the time, is serving multiple life sentences.
Thank you both 🙏🏽
Great discussion - and a really impressive understanding of the current situation from both contributors.
Thanks guys.
Highly interesting conversation. Thank you!
This is an incredible discussion. Like how you push back on some of his points and hats off he had really well thought out answers to your questions.
A great discussion, thank you. The only thing that nagged at me throughout was the apparent skirting of what I find to be the core argument against drug criminalization. That the criminalization of drugs leads to other crimes. He seemed to talk past the argument by talking about prison sentences. But a simple conviction of a federal offense leads to loss of opportunity. The job application question is about a conviction, not whether you served time in prison. And just the threat of that has consequences on your behavior as well. And that it being criminal impeedes our ability as a society to direct help towards any true underlying issues that may lead to drug use to escape or otherwise treat the issue. Perhaps that is just my core argument and not the mainstream one. But I believe that to be more the mainstream argument than it being directly about time served. So I was slightly disappointed about the discussion seeming to ignore the core argument by focusing on non-sequiturs (the fallout effects versus root cause). But it was good to hear those arguments nonetheless and I appreciated the interview.
The vast majority of people convicted for drug crimes were either A) Arrested for a more serious crime and pled guilty to a concurrent drug charge (drugs were found while arresting for aggravated assault, for example) to avoid the more serious conviction. Or B) selling or transporting the drugs.
So I guess my point is that there are fewer people in prison for being drug users than you might think. I understand people can change but many people would have to think twice about hiring someone if they had assaulted someone with a gun or knife a few years ago whether or not they ultimately pled guilty to a drug charge to avoid a longer sentance.
@@manchasdos
I think I agree with you. As an employer, drug use by itself is pretty easy to control for with random testing if necessary, but other criminal behaviors are much more of a concern and would generally be a red flag for other issues that would get in the way of them being a good employee.
@@deschain1910 Yeah. The whole issue of prisoner-reintegration is really tricky and complex. The idea that once someone pays their debt to society they should be free and clear sounds really attractive. But the risk to society that ex-prisoners show are real and fall very unevenly across class lines. Recidivism rates are really high, so you're asking a lot of an employer to hire a person who, for example, statistically speaking might have a better than 50% chance of committing another felony in the next several years. And then there's the issue of what parent in the world would ever want to live next to a convicted sex offender.
@@manchasdos my only push back is that the reason the recidivism rate would be higher is because the lost of opportunities due to having a criminal record. The inability to secure a good job or going to school.
Great discussion!🙏🏻
Thanks for this
I just tried listening to Lex Fridman trying to decipher the Chopra like vacuousness of Jordan Peterson. It was so painful. Lasted about 15 minutes that I'll never get back
Haven’t listened to that one, but I do enjoy Lex Fridman as well.
Very interesting conversation, thanks!
Wow just wow this video blew me away !!
Oh yay! I am so excited for this discussion. How did you know I was on a Fryer and Mangual kick?!!
X Ty care
Mangual states that the rate of serious crimes in US cities is much higher than in places like Germany, hence the vastly higher (8x+ depending on country of comparison) incarceration rate. Then later he states that 40-70% of US prisoners have antisocial personality disorder, while only 2-4% of the general population does. I find it hard to believe that the rate of antisocial personality disorder in other Western countries is 8 times or more smaller than in the US. So somehow these antisocial people elsewhere aren't committing crimes despite their messed up psychology? Doesn't add up. He also mentions high recidivism rates which I'd wager are due to criminal records prohibiting felons from being hired to work honest jobs. Make it illegal for employers to view criminal histories and watch recidivism plummet.
Coleman, would LOVE to hear from your girlfriend and her experience teaching in general/teaching those incarcerated.. please consider giving us an interview!!
Why do the incarcerated need teaching.
Interesting conversation and great life saving cause to invest in.
At approx 34min Mangual makes the point that just living within a radius of a shooting lowers students test scores.
No one chooses their parents or where they were born. It seems a host of policies around economics, policing, prison (which often makes you a worse criminal) and social emotional education need to developed an implemented.
38:42 police sirens are a bit on the nose haha
Maybe I didn't pay enough attention, but the guest seems to be glossing over why there are guilty pleas, which are legally but not actually admissions of guilt. And he seems to gloss over that a single act can result in ten felonies. And that probation and parole conditions are so ridiculous that people end up in prison for that, serving extra time not for the crime, but the paperwork.
Great discussion, but I had 2 points of contention:
1) I think it's a little quick to dismiss poverty as a whole to being linked to crime. You need to differentiate it into absolute and relative poverty. The Gini coefficient is the #1 predictor of crime we have. Nothing is more strongly correlated. The Gini coefficient measures the relative wealth distribution in a given area. The larger the difference in wealth distribution, the greater the crime. Could there be room for conversation about relative wealth inequalities and their relationship to crime, rather than absolute? And if not, how do you explain the #1 predictor of crime we have going somewhat at odds with what is being said?
2) There is a contradictory tone in regards to how to fix the crime issue. On one hand, Rafael states that a policy that takes 20 years to take effect is too hard of a pill to swallow yet in the same breath claims it's culture that is part of the cause at the very least, if not the cause. Well, culture is something that often changes generationally. Look up studies about abortion and crime. You see a significant drop in crime 20 years after abortion becomes legal. Culture is not something that changes rapidly, it's something that changes over a long period of time. To accept culture as the cause and saying we shouldnt have to wait 20 years to see a change is a bit hypocritical.
Actually for 2)
the point is first, you still need to do both. You need to treat heart attacks AND promote better diet
Secondly short term violence prevents long term culture change. Growing up in high crime area hard to do well in school.
We are actually doing OPPOSITE for long term. CRT based education n culture produce awful results.
@@muskepticsometimes9133 I agree regarding the CRT comment, putting an emphasis on race is exactly what is wrong with racism and exactly what MLK fought to be against.
I understand that you have to make changes that will have short term effects to change the long-term. I just didn't like how he said we cannot wait for long-term results but pin it on culture as being the problem.
I've looked at enough stats around crime to be very skeptical about Gini for a number of reasons. For one thing, it's somewhat of an odd comparison point because poverty can be measured on an individual level, but Gini needs to be defined over an (somewhat arbitrary) area, and no 2 people will agree on whether the right measurement is a local neighborhood, a city or an entire metro area. But each of those choices will give you wildly different Gini measurements.
Secondly - when I do see Gini measured, it's not really that strong as a predictor. I see NYC and LA consistently ranked in the top 10 of metros by Gini but those are low crime rate metros, for example.
3rd - how would the causality work? Living next to rich neighbors would make you more likely to rob them? I guess that's possible, but all the evidence points to the majority of crime being perpetrated by poor people on poor people who live around them. For example, take Manhattan. Harlem and East Harlem have much higher crime rates than other neighborhoods. The people who commit those crimes mostly live in those neighborhoods and they rarely go into the nearby, wealthy Upper West or East Side to commit crimes. It happens, but it's a small percentage of crime in Manhattan.
So where's the causality? Rich people nearby are making poor people shoot each other somehow? If the Upper East and West Side disappeared would the crime in Harlem and East Harlem disappear, too?
@@manchasdos best predictor w highest rsquare is percentage black. LA has few for a large city.
You being contradictory yourself on point 2) .. So does culture changes generationally or is it something that does not change rapidly? Decide yourself.
c1:10:
"Aclimatize" !!!
Wonderful reasonable discussion. Three issues not addressed concerning crime. 1. Age, how many criminals grow out of criminal behavior? 2. Mental health and 3. IQ. I read somewhere average IQ for anyone incarcerated over two years was 85? I personally know of a clinical psychologist who works in a state prison, he says it’s more like 80. Solutions?
Good question. Ref. Charles Murray and Jordan Peterson re: IQ. An IQ of 80 disqualifies you from service in the army, America's employer of last resort. Our society hugely rewards cognitive ability such that we are already developing a serious split based on smarts. How do you create a place for people that dumb without being insulting or patronizing? If they don't have a place, they can legitimately consider society as a whole as "other" and the legitimate target of predation. This is a wicked problem.
Those who should read this book won't. Those who will read it may not need to. It's frustrating, to say the least.
I'm more convinced than ever that school choice needs implemented. education and a belief in one's ability to climb the socioeconomic ladder (through that vehicle) is crucial in lowering crime, imo
I though episodes come out 1 week after what happened here?
This couldn't be in person smh it lost some quality
Crazy that Coleman had never heard of the DC snipers...a reminder of how very young the man is, & interesting that such an important case has all but fallen out of the modern zeitgeist. Did I write this entire comment only so that I could use the word zeitgeist? Did I badly misspell zeitgeist, only to use the red underline feature to correct it? Yes.
Someone should make a "western" movie set on the current south side of Chicago but everyone wears cowboy hats and boots.
I agree with many of the things that Mr. Mangual said. However, it did frustrate me when he was speaking of his living situation in New York circa the time he and his wife were expecting their first child. He said something along the lines of, "My wife and I were lucky. We've done well. We had the money to move/be safe/etc." Something like that. I'm not certain I agree that it was just 'luck' that enabled he and his wife to live in a better neighborhood. Many factors, such as personality (whether you are conscientious or neurtotic) or IQ play simply MASSIVE roles in longterm live success. There are simply too many studies over too many decades to say otherwise, despite how many who try. And so it frustrates me when people like Mr. Mangual won't point things like this out. He is very eloquent/rational about many topics of 'crime/or less success in life', but he and people like him absolutely shy away from all the studies done on people who ARE successful and why they are successful... which VERY often highlights things OTHER than race. Just my two cents.
Also: can one or both of you reach out to Senator Chuck Grassley and (soon to be) Senator John Fetterman so they can both witness an honest conversation about these issues? Hell, maybe you can get them to shake hands with each other on common ground. Would be something.
I could summarize a lot of the talk about prison in one sentence: going to prison is a big deal. You either do, or you don’t. When it comes to white collar crime, fraud, and now especially criminal elections fraud and fundraising fraud: the incapacitation factor is not being addressed. It needs to be. Now.
The decrease of reactive violence in humans over the millennia is remarkable. It would be even more remarkable if the decrease would have been exactly the same in all populations. At some point we will just have to accept it and move on from there.
Rafael is defending using drug laws a legamoron. I think legamorons are bad policy. They create resentment and undermine respect for the law.
"A legamoron is any law that could not stand up under widespread enforcement. Laws against marijuana use are a prime example. Rigorous enforcement of these laws on middle-class college campuses would cause a furor."
If the AI cannot explain itself, with an explanation that actually leads to the conclusion every time for every similar case, there's no ethical way to use it in the justice system. Might as well use a magic 8 ball.
The justice system is already a combination of tight deadlines, bored attourneys doing mandated pro bono work, opinionated judges ruling arbitrarily according to whether they've had their cup of coffee yet, ad hoc reasoning about the law based on relative levels of literacy and political leanings. Plea deals exist in a gray area that's negotiated for every person at a fast pace like it's haggling at an open air market. There's nothing about the system that is in the least consistent, foolproof, or even coherent. An AI can do no worse, even if it constantly made huge mistakes. Don't worry! If you have money to burn on legal counsel, the AI won't apply.
That's why no one uses fancy, blackbox AI in criminal justice. What they do use are very human-explainable algorithms, or even algorithms that were handcrafted by humans to be perfectly explainable. AI is a really bad word for what they're doing, there's no "intelligence" involved, it's usually more like a flow chart, ie "if defendant is younger than 25, add 2% to the flight risk, if history of prior arrest, add 3%, etc." It's tends to be very explainable.
@@cosmicmuffet1053 Even better, combine the two. Use an algorithm (AI is the wrong term here, it's more like a simple equation than a futuristic robot) to make a starting recommendation and then allow the judge to modify or overrule if he/she can provide a rationale. Mangual gives an example in his book of a detained defendant who was in a wheelchair and therefore a lower flight risk than the algorithm could have known. Perfectly fine for the judge to use discretion there, but judges using discretion based on their mood is what we want to avoid and where the algo comes in.
What’s the deal with the strangely low view count on this video?
I watched most of this... I didnt see anything about terrible education in lower income areas to the point i watched... Education doesnt teach skills, so ppl dont get good jobs or start businesses, so they sell drugs... Did he mention education as part of the problem??? Why do we learn shakespeare and not electricity? Education needs an overhaul
More “civil unrest” almost inevitably leads to more incarceration.
For all its wealth and lifestyle advantages, the States has more unrest than virtually any other western country - partly stemming from the race-antagonism industry, and partly from an explosion in class/income/lifestyle differentials.
Charles Murray did not get much wrong in “Coming Apart” - but generally people prefer to ignore what they actually know to be true …. and hope it all goes away. Presumably, by magic.
At least conyribute to yourself if you cannot yet contribute to "society" !
They sell pepper spray, tasers, and machetes at Dick’s. Not sure why they have machetes there. Scary.
Have you ever been camping?
A machete is a very valuable tool for the outdoors. Also, cracking open coconuts… mmmmm! And if needed, serves a damn nice deterrent to any oncoming problems that may arise while camping.
.. in some areas, you cannot be a cop if you score too high on an intelligence test. This makes perfect sense.
I’m doubtful about this claim. I believe it is a covert smear of the police. Along with the garden variety cops, there are many brilliant people who wish to become police and are admitted into the police force.
Nonetheless, I could imagine how the mediocre leadership of a small police department might decline admission to smart competitors who might, in time, take their jobs. But that is another story.
Source?
@@meganbaker9116 His wild imagination...
.. to be a cop, you have to obey the immoral order to invade a peaceful person's home, and arrest them for possessing safe and beneficial cannabis.
I hope you’re trolling. If not, you need to seek out a mental health professional as soon as possible.
Yeah I'm sure theres lots of cops kicking down the doors of otherwise law abiding citizens for smoking a joint.
Watch the video. That is BS
🤣
Every time I hear a person refer to marijuana as weed and be concerned when they're going to "legalize weed, Yo" I think "what a very limited person".
There's a difference between ones that smoke weed and ones taking Vicodin and Valium (my preferred goodie) as people that smoke weed or drink are trying to get away from themselves where just the opposite is true with the pain medication types of medications as they are trying to be more in touch with themselves; so if you're that unhappy with no diseases etc then the truth is you're really not that intelligent
Sam and Anna seen this.
Grow up, Coleman.
You're being coddled.
Interesting that you post that 5 minutes after a 2 hour discussion is posted. Why don’t you try listening first before commenting and demonstrating how ignorant you are.
Rationalization
🤔 lol. i mean, sure, i trust your opinion.
I'm generally in favor of weed legalization, however I must say I'm beyond tired of the constant fetishizing of how Marijuana is not only not bad, its the best thing since sliced bread that can fix anything at all that ails you.
@@Hummingbird_Singer
You see your comment personifies what I mean as it's mostly limited people that go for weed or alcohol because why do you need to "trust" me as you sarcastically say?
I mean, if you try to deride me by sarcastically saying "yeah I trust you" I mean I don't care if you trust me but you should trust yourself and take my words as is and figure out if there's anything to it but the fact that you feel that you have to try to trust somebody means that you don't trust yourself which means that you smoke a lot of weed or drink which means you are an inflicter on society.
Yuk