[Shivetya]

Prison boom is easy to explain.

Politicians like to be seen doing something. Punishing bad people is easy. Building prisons is the cost but politicians don't pay this cost and people don't understand the financial cost of the prisons nor the cost it inflicts on those imprisoned and their families.

Politicians also like to control people. You do this through laws and regulations. Combined with punitive measures you coerce people into thinking and behaving as you need them. Those who don't or are less desirable; poor who don't fund campaigns and such; are easy targets.

Politicians also want to put groups against each other, distracting both sides from all the other activities that the politician may be engaged in.

TL;DR Politicians crave power and money, it is simple to "protect" the people by making it easier to put people in jail claiming a problem solved.

[jordigh]

But the politicians aren't the ones doing the sentencing. They just write the laws. The Slate article suggests that it's the judges who are handing out increasingly Draconian sentencing. Why are judges doing that?

[phire]

Judges and prosecutors are elected too (it varies from state to state) so technically they are politicians too.

[jordigh]

Aren't they frequently appointed or they run unopposed?

[admiun]

If you're interested in this, John Oliver did a piece on elected judges: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poL7l-Uk3I8

[adrusi]

They're "supposed to" be appointed. This is the way it used to be and the way it constitutionally has to be at the federal level. But I think more than half of states have elected judges.

True, they often run unopposed, but that doesn't free then from political pressure; if they make an unpopular decision, any lawyer could opt to run against them by simply campaigning as not the other judge. They would usually win and get a fantastic résumé boost.

[Amezarak]

> if they make an unpopular decision, any lawyer could opt to run against them by simply campaigning as not the other judge

In many localities there is no requirement that a judge have any prior legal training or experience.

So anyone, not just any lawyer.

[phire]

It varies from state to state (perhaps even county to county) In some places they are appointed, in others they are elected.

When they are elected, even if they run unopposed they still tend to act tough on crime. If a judge or prosecutor started acting weak, the could very quickly find themselves opposed in the next election.

[Fargren]

One reason for this are mandatory minimum sentences. And in that case, it is the politicians who made the sentencing, in a way.

[TDL]

Often times judges have their hands tied. Many minimum sentencing laws were passed in the late '80's & throughout the '90's in response to the crime waves of the era. Judges simply can't give lower sentences in many instances even if they want to. In my opinion, this is a significant contributing factor.

[spacemanmatt]

Make no mistake, prosecutors are politicians.

[happyscrappy]

Actually a lot of judges were very opposed to mandatory sentencing because it removes a lot of their power.

[baddox]

All those things are true in other democratic countries as well, but most of them don't have anywhere near the incarceration of the United States.

[happyscrappy]

The US is by far the most violent western nation.

[bzbarsky]

Except for homicide, this is not true nowadays. See http://economicpolicy.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/67/347.a... for a recent study on the subject, which notes your opinion as a "common perception" that does not match the actual data.

[pm90]

Also by far the most populous.

You have to think about this in the context of history. The US has largely been diverse throughout most of its history. Most developed countries are largely dominated by one race.

[ta0967]

i don't understand this argument, can you elaborate? it looks like you're suggesting that usa is a nexus of interracial violence and other race-motivated crimes.