The US Is Putting More White People In Prison, And Meth Could Be To Blame

There's been a huge shift in the racial makeup of U.S. prisons in the past decade, The New York Times reports.

The Sentencing Project analyzed prison populations from 2000 to 2009, finding the rates of incarceration for blacks dropped sharply during that period: 30.7 percent for black women and 9.8 percent for men.

The report also found a major spike in incarceration rates for white men and women during the same period, according to The Times. The rate for white women increased 47.1 percent for white women and 8.5 percent for white men.

Rates of incarceration dropped slightly for Hispanic men but jumped 23.3 percent for Hispanic women.

A dramatic shift in a prison population is highly unusual, the Sentencing Project's director Marc Mauer told The Times. From the Times:

"But the trend is clear, Mr. Mauer said, adding that no single factor could explain the shifting figures but that changes in drug laws and sentencing for drug offenses probably played a large role. Other possible contributors included decreasing arrest rates for blacks, the rising number of whites and Hispanics serving mandatory sentences for methamphetamine abuse, and socioeconomic shifts that have disproportionately affected white women."

Two companies, Singapore Press Holdings Limited (SPH) and MediaCorp, own all general circulation newspapers [TEXT OMITTED BY WIDEAWAKE:] MediaCorp is wholly owned by the government investment company.

So two companies own the print media for a market of 5 million. In the US, it's more like four for 300 million people.

What a dishonest omission. For shame. Since you're willing to lie by omission to defend Singapore, I'm done here.

"Lie by omission"? Please. Quite a bit of handwringing here.

Are you claiming your omission of a key half of my quotation was accidental?

I don't see any meaningful difference between a Singaporean newspaper being officially owned by the Republic of Singapore and the New York Times being unofficially owned by the Democratic Party.

Dance, clown, dance.

OK,that's funny. Maybe you really are the ambassador from Singapore, in which case please accept my apology for making a humorous comment to another poster which, from its content and context, was pretty clearly not about you as an individual but the nature of a set of posts. That you see my comment to the other poster as being about you indicates that you missed the point of the post entirely.

I have no interest, and expressed no opinion regarding the contentions you or the other poster made regarding Singapore. Its a lovely country and from what I have heard a wonderful place to visit and even work as an expat.

You've got to admit that making multiple posts with detailed attempts at refuting every negative comment some other poster made regarding Singapore in a thread that wasn't even about Singapore can fairly be characterized as "cheerleading."

And it is true, isn't it that in Singapore that in certain contexts criticism of government officials is illegal?

So are you an agent of the government of Singapore?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.