Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
If you prosecute property crimes, you don't get a lot of property crimes, because prosecutions for that crime act as an effective deterrent and then the courts aren't overwhelmed with property crime cases even if the few cases they do get are full jury trials. You only get widespread property crime cases when you don't prosecute them.

By contrast, drug use has no theft victim to report the crime and then even harsh penalties don't act as a deterrent because detection rates are low and addiction is a stronger motivator than the spoils of petty theft. So you would stop prosecuting recreational drug use (compensating by increasing addiction treatment programs etc.), and thereby also eliminate all of the associated crimes as drug cartels murder over territory and drug users commit serious robberies to afford street drug prices that otherwise wouldn't cost more than a bottle of aspirin, avoiding the need to prosecute those either.

At which point crime goes down and you can spend more resources prosecuting the remaining cases.

> You only get widespread property crime cases when you don't prosecute them.

Which you won’t be able to do if the cost of prosecuting someone increases several times (i.e. no plea bargains anymore).

> you would stop prosecuting recreational drug use

Aren’t these already (realistically) misdemeanors at most in a lot of places?

Even in the best case e.g. lets say case load decreases by 25% that doesn’t seem enough to balance things out.

I’m confused, though. Are you suggesting legalization? Or just saying that law enforcement should ignore drug traffickers and dealers (because they will certainly continue engaging in violent crime if it’s the latter)

To truly minimize drug related crime you’d need legitimate drug companies to start selling OxyContin/etc. in the candy section at Walmart.

> Which you won’t be able to do if the cost of prosecuting someone increases several times (i.e. no plea bargains anymore).

Well sure you can. It just costs more. But since you're still doing it, the deterrent is still present and then the expensive cases you have to prosecute remain rare.

> Aren’t these already (realistically) misdemeanors at most in a lot of places?

Not for the sellers they're not.

> Are you suggesting legalization?

Yes.

If you could go buy codeine or lisdexamfetamine for $5/bottle from the pharmacy counter at Walmart then there are no more drug cartels, no more drug cartel murders, no more street pushers lacing what was supposed to be MDMA with fentanyl that causes people to OD or get addicted to opioids, fewer addicts robbing people for drug money, higher deterrence for other crimes because police aren't spread so thin, less poverty and desperation because fewer kids have fathers in prisons or coffins, fewer neighborhoods held hostage by drug gangs.

That's a whole lot of crime that just goes away.

More to the point, consider where we are in terms of efficiency. It costs on the order of $100k/year to incarcerate someone. Every one of those drug murders you prevent is saving twenty million dollars worth of keeping someone locked up for two decades. That pays for a lot of two day jury trials for petty theft.