586

Altimont owns Carmen’s Corner Store in Hagerstown, Maryland, a community where around 20 percent of people rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to buy their groceries. But a federal agency decided that Altimont can never accept SNAP as a form of payment at Carmen’s.

That decision isn’t because Altimont has done anything wrong as a business owner, but rather because of unrelated crimes from 2004, for which he’s already served his time.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) permanently bans anyone with drug, alcohol, tobacco, or firearms convictions from participating in the SNAP program—a harsher punishment than the agency dishes out to those who have actually defrauded the program. That’s not just irrational, it’s also unconstitutional, which is why Altimont teamed up with our organization, the Institute for Justice (IJ), to file a federal lawsuit against the agency on Tuesday.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 58 points 1 year ago

You would think that an idea to reduce recidivism and thus reduce crime, like rehabilitation over punishment, would be popular in a democratic system, it's a real problem that it isn't. A bunch of states are dealing with this as there's a backlash for bail reform.

People just think punishing crime more reduces crime more and it's not (necessarily) correct. And in a democratic system we reward what people think is true over what is true.

[-] Furbag@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

It's silly because it doesn't matter how bad the punishment is if every criminal from petty to professional thinks "I'll never get caught". They aren't even considering a possibility of failure, and thus the consequences will never be a deterrent to their actions.

Once they get to prison, no amount of human rights abuses is going to magically make them into upstanding citizens. But somehow people think that if prison is a bad place nobody would want to go back. While that's true, it's a naive point of view from people who have never stopped to think about how someone freshly released from jail earns money or pays rent or buys necessities.

If, as a society, we truly care about reducing crime and not just punishing criminals out of a sense of twisted vengeance, we should be prioritizing rehabilitation and reform, rather than letting prisoners who could otherwise be saved languish in a system that seems to be okay with criminal gangs having total control of the social hierarchy on the inside.

[-] Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

They definitely consider failing. They just don't care because crime is the most realistic option with those facing poverty or addiction. Sure DUI, and shoplifters probably think they won't get caught but I guarantee you'll find the best paralegals on the planet in the most dangerous cities in the US.

[-] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 year ago

You can thank the Prison Industrial Complex for sponsoring the Republican "Tough on Crime" propaganda. Reactionary idiots think there's a one step solution to all of society's ills, and if it doesn't work, it's the other political party that made it fail!

[-] snooggums@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Dems are fully on board with the tough on crime bullshit, even if they do stand against discriminatory punishment. They want to be tough on everyone equally.

[-] NounsAndWords@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

People just think punishing crime more reduces crime more and it’s not (necessarily) correct. And in a democratic system we reward what people think is true over what is true.

This is one of those rare instances that (to them) punishment is openly the point. It doesn't matter that there are ways to save money and increase everyone's quality of life in the process. And it doesn't hurt that an entire industry has grown to steal money from the state to punish these people and a small portion is put back into advertising/lobbying to make sure the cycle continues.

[-] centof@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

In addition to people somewhat naturally wanting to punish crime, A lot of people like to feel superior to others in any way they can. That way they can be internally excuse their own shortcomings.

Ex: I may be unsuccessful but at least I'm not a druggie, criminal, black, or a heathen. Too many Americans would rather hate and suppress someone in different circumstances rather than help them out.

[-] sab@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

I'm afraid a lot of people don't even care if it's working - they just think being "though on crime" makes society masculine and cool (and preferably white). They'd vote for it even if they knew it's bad policy.

[-] Spaghetti_Hitchens@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

It's very sad that in the US we have a justice system for protecting the rich and a revenge system for punishing everyone else.

[-] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It's definitely not popular when prisoners are the only people we can legally treat as slaves.

[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I got my first degree in criminology and can assure you that science has known since the late 70's that increased punishment and harsher prison environments causes more crime.

Criminals do not weigh things logically before deciding to do crime. It's environmental and cultural.

[-] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago

It is popular in democratic systems.

.

.

.

...

Get it?

this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
586 points (98.8% liked)

politics

18894 readers
6008 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS