Much of the system (including punishing probation) is designed to give racists a lot of discretion to oppress ethnic groups they dislike. Intention of rank-and-file may be to rehabilitate, but that doesn't matter if the intention of the lawmakers and higher-ups is to keep certain ethnic groups in jail (while maintaining a pretense of impartiality.)

What racists?

Nixon, the drug war, and lots of little laws that aim to harass and incarcerate blacks were enacted, and still exist, purely out of racism. There are audio recordings that prove the intention. Many more recent policies do the same as well, but less overtly.

"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

-former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman

https://www-m.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-ri...

There are reasons to be skeptical of this quote.

As user GatorD42 pointed out when this was brought up before:

>...Baum claims Ehrlichman said that to him in 1994 while he was researching for a book he published in 1996 about the drug war. He didn't include the quote in that book, but instead published it in 2012 and again in 2016, after Ehrlichman had died (in 1999).

If the quote was said by Ehrlichman, it doesn't actually describe the drug polices of the Nixon administration. While Nixon is remembered for "war on drugs", the actual substance of his policies seem to be different than what people think it was:

>...I have been fortunate over the years to discuss the distorted memory of Nixon's drug policies with almost all of his key advisors as well as with historians. Their consensus is that because he was dramatically expanding the U.S. treatment system (by 350% in just 18 months!) and cutting criminal penalties, he had to reassure his right wing that he hadn’t gone soft. So he laid on some of the toughest anti-drug rhetoric in history, including making a White House speech declaring a “war on drugs” and calling drugs “public enemy number one”. It worked so well as cover that many people remember that “tough” press event and forget that what Nixon did at it was introduce not a general or a cop or a preacher to be his drug policy chief but…a medical doctor (Jerry Jaffe, a sweet, bookish man who had longish hair and sideburns and often wore the Mickey Mouse tie his kids had given him).

http://www.samefacts.com/2011/06/drug-policy/who-started-the...

> Why do you think the intention to rehabilitate in the US isn’t sincere?

High recidivism (shows it's at least a failure), focus on punishment (mandatory minimums, etc...) for things like drug possession, cruel bail system, "tough on crime" judges, legalized prison slavery, heavy use of solitary confinement, outright criminal levels of cruelty, normalized prison rape, stigmatization of felons, etc...

They had prisoners fight california wildfires for slave wages. They justified it as it was voluntary and they were learning a skill.

Felons can't become firefighters in california.

I feel like you just answered your own question. If it was sincere, it wouldn't be so easy to have the system reset you back to step 1 in the 'rehabilitation'.