Yeah, so I'm back from being AWOL. Partly, I wrote another long response to some financial questions from Alex, but largely I was just busy. I'll post it sometime soon.
Last night was fun; two recently graduated Clayton seniors took Brian and me out to the Cheesecake Factory. And then Brian and I stood out in the Galleria parking lot forever chatting about politics. I really shouldn't do that on a worknight. I was so tired this morning that I didn't have time to make my lunch, and I forgot to grab my wallet. (Fortunately, I didn't get pulled over. Although, somebody stole my tags, which isn't cool, and somebody hit my bumper and drove off but didn't leave a note, so now I have this huge scratch that is very visible on my back bumper. It's very annoying.) So, my lunch was literally a granola bar and some oreos I had stashed in my desk.
There is a good article from the American Prospect's website about the ridiculousness of our prison system. Normally, either the fact that something is morally wrong or the fact that something is a huge waste of money is enough to get people to do something. But it is really amazing that the way our criminal justice system currently operates is both, yet if anything the trend is one of aggrevation, not amelioration.
10 comments:
Uh, what do you propose to do about the prison population? If you look around, you will notice that the crime statistics are DOWN at the same time that the prison population is UP.
Kind of a neat correlation, eh?
We need MORE and LARGER prisons.
Why hello, this is one of the public policy areas I find most interesting. In short, over the last 10-20 years, violent crime has been decreasing in the US. Over a similar time frame, the number of Americans behind bars has increased dramatically. However, the increase is due to non-violent offenders, not violent offenders. "Crime" in the sense of breaking the law is not down. The majority of American citizens have broken some law, and tens of millions of Americans have committed "serious" crimes that carry multiple year prison sentences. They simply have yet to be arrested, tried, and convicted.
This is bad for a number of reasons. In short, we have been undermining the Constitution, wasting tax dollars, tearing apart families, creating a criminal underworld drawing in children and poor people, inflaming racial tensions, distracting law enforcement from the real dangers facing society, undermining our democratic institutions, and creating an "us versus them" mentality of productive citizens vs. evil criminals.
Regarding solutions, the single biggest thing is to end the drug war. More resources should be devoted to supporting families, educational opportunities, and basic healthcare, and the privatization of prisons should be reversed. Finally, released prisoners should have access to employment and educational services, and they should not be disenfranchised
Yes, there is a correlation between imprisoning people and reduced crime rates. This works all the way to its natural conclusion--imprison everyone. Even those who haven't broken the law yet are potential criminals. Also, be careful about correlations. The drop in violent crime correlates very nicely with the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision. Unwanted children and poverty are both disproportionate indicators of being convicted of a crime (and please note that there is very little correlation between committing a crime and being convicted for it, particularly non-violent crimes).
Each sentence I just wrote is an essay in itself, and I don't know how familiar you are with the underlying facts and data of our prison system. But I think perhaps the best test (morally) is the family test. The criminal justice system should treat people the way that you would ask a child or spouse or parent to be treated. Ask Governor Bush of Florida if his daughter should be in prison, denied access to federal education assistance and never allowed to vote in her entire life.
The best test economically is the willingness to pay test. How much will you pay, both in terms of taxes to build and operate courts and prisons, and in terms of opportunity costs of decreased productivity and taxes because millions of people are locked up? Related to that, who should pay? The vast majority of the "benefits" of locking up criminals accrue to wealthy individuals. Wouldn't it make sense to make a separate tax system (like FICA) for prisons, except make it progressive instead of regressive?
In summary, I respectfully disagree with both the tone and content of your comment. By the way, it's easy to state opinions when you do so anonymously. Did you purposefully not leave any identifying info?
Nate--Tell me, how do you feel about your tags being stolen and your car hit?
Just annoying? Or should there be recompense?
Or do you just accept it?
And having a name or not doesn't make having an opinion any easier or harder. You can call me Charles.
Hey Charles,
In short, it's rather annoying. I wouldn't mind taking a baseball bat to a headlight or two.
That's why I believe very strongly in an independent criminal justice system. If victims are allowed to assign punishment, that cycle of vengeance would quickly escalate out of control. (As a Christian, I also feel we are called to forgive rather than judge, but I usually try to make a secular argument when dealing with the criminal justice system.)
Also, this idea that basically everybody in prison are criminals who have victimized people is one of the main misconceptions of our current system. Countless crimes are "victimless", in the sense that nobody was hurt. Yet, in punishing them, the convicts are hurt, their families are hurt, and society at large is hurt. In dollar terms alone, the cost is staggering. Victimless crimes also tend to be the kind that are prosecuted least fairly. Only very rarely do rich, famous, or well-connected individuals serve time for nonviolent victimless crimes, and whites of all stripes are disproportionately less likely to be arrested, charged, convicted, or imprisoned than blacks and hispanics.
In my case, though, there was a victim. But note that my immediate gut response is to turn a non-violent petty theft, minor property damage, and abandonment of an accident scene into a much more violent affair. It might make me feel better, but society just can't deal with crime that way. An orderly, dispassionate, civil, equitable judiciary is critical to securing our economic and individual rights. If found, the individual should probably get a misdemeanor conviction, pay a fine, and be put on probation. The police shouldn't spend 1,000 man hours looking for the guy, and society shouldn't pay for a 10 year stint at a medium security prison.
Yet people who do less than steal tags or hit cars and don't leave a note are serving more serious sentences than the hypothetical I just described in the previous sentence. In my opinion, that's what is absolutely ridiculous. Of course there should be serious prison sentences for the small minority of people who commit murders and rapes and securities fraud and compromise national security and so forth. It's the other three quarters or so of the prison population that I have a problem spending money and manpower on to prosecute and incarcerate.
What do you think?
Nate--Well, I can see about 8% of what you are saying in a logical sense. The other 92% is internal stuff that can never be hashed out logically.
The 8%? Blacks are disproportionately arrested, tried, and convicted. Why? Because they commit the most crimes in proportion to the population. I also tend to agree that the more laws you have, the more criminals will be created--especially the white collar stuff.
However,I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "victimless" crimes. I need you to clarify that. Do you consider yourself a victim when your license plates were stolen? Does blood have to be spilled before there is a victim? And maybe there are levels of victimhood in your thinking--say maybe you're more a victim if you are gutted and your intestines strewn around the kitchen than say suffering a black eye during a mugging?
Society should absolutely deal with petty crime in a way that hurts. I guarantee an ass-whipping over a stolen plate would be more of a deterrent than probation. It is the lingua franca of the streets.
But you have to be built that way internally to do that. Doesn't seem to be in your range of responses to do that.
Do you own a gun? Just curious.
Starting at the bottom, nope, I don't have a gun. I've actually never fired a weapon, although there is an indoor shooting range on the way downtown that I have been tempted to drop by sometime. I remember when I was at Boys State one of the speakers asked us who had guns in their house, and I think about 90% of the guys raised their hands. I did have a friend once who kept a gun under a pillow for a while, but that's about as close as I get.
So about internal vs. external stuff. I would say that my propositions are fairly reasonable assumptions, but maybe I should spell them out. Generally speaking, I am arguing that spending less money on taxes is good, that having voting rights is good, that having access to federal education dollars is good, that not undermining several Constitutional Amendments is good, that letting people do what they want as long as they don't hurt other people is good, that protecting families is good, and that ending policies which discriminate along racial and economic lines is good. Research that is readily available shows that our system is currently doing all these and more.
On one point, you're simply incorrect. There is no data to suggest that any racial or ethnic subgroup of Americans commits more crime than the population as a whole. Do you really believe that, or are you just trying to get a response?
Regarding 'victimless', I am defining it as an act which violates the law but not another person. For example, an executive that lies in financial reports harms people because employees may lose their jobs and investors may lose their money. And it's pretty obvious how things like murder and auto theft harm people. But many drug crimes, for instance, don't infringe on anyone else's rights, and are therefore victimless crimes. Another example, which occurs more infrequently, is statutory rape, although issues dealing with minors are a little different in that there is an argument that minors don't have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. Prostitution is a big area for victimless crimes, although some would argue that the women (and men) involved aren't really making a free choice but are instead forced to do it. I'm not saying there are different levels of victimhood (black eye versus murder); I'm saying that many of the people who get arrested, tried, convicted, and imprisoned didn't hurt anybody at all.
One belief I do have that is as much internal as based on external data is that the government cannot legislate morality. When it tries to keep people from doing things they want to do anyway, it requires a great deal of expense and intrusion into people's lives. It also has the problem of determining exactly who gets to make up the rules. I don't know about you, but I for one would not like to live under the rules of Leviticus. I also wouldn't like to live under the Saudi royals. Why is alcohol legal and cocaine illegal? Why is Ritalin prescribed to kids while marijuana is illegal? Why can 18 year olds have sex but 17 year olds can't (or whatever your state's age is)? The vast majority of Americans have sex by age 20, yet the average age for first marriage is much higher. For that matter, divorce is a huge problem for families today. Maybe the government should just outlaw it?
One last comment I would make is that I don't think the amount of punishment is much of a deterrant. Prison sentences for drug crimes have gone up dramatically over the last couple decades, yet drugs are as available as ever. What does matter is the probability of being caught. And let's be clear, a lot worse things happen in prison than getting an ass-whipping.
Nate--Very thoughtful responses. You hold dear to you some beliefs that I can see have been carefully considered even if the belief hinges on perceptions that aren't universally held.
I agree that less government is better government. I tend to be able to govern my activities in a societally responsible way (save a few speeding tickets and I did shoot a gator last weekend, but that's another story), so I don't much like the government horning in on something I've already figured out for myself.
I don't necessarily need to be governed tightly--but not everybody thinks like I do nor like you. I wouldn't ever be a pimp. I wouldn't have sex with a 13 year old; I wouldn't do or sell drugs. That's and internal choice based on my morals. And I'm happy to support a government that draws a moral line. I have a teen-aged daughter and a teen-aged son and you have no idea what the moral relativism that you espouse creates inside of young people.
Well, not true, because you are obviously a product of such. Drugs, prostitution, statutory rape, all of those things are not victimless crimes in my experience. Committing those crimes is like welcoming a tumor into your brain--tendrils shooting everywhere, intruding into all of your daily life activities, bringing pain and heartache to anyone that is involved. Creating trauma that will never be erased. Debasing God's creation.
Do you think the government should just be hands off in these matters? Shoot up, snort, smoke freely? Fuck who you want, where you want? What, then, would you do? Maintain your personal orthodoxy or be swept away with the rising tide? Extrapolate on that scenario for a minute--add a wife, children, and family and friends into that. Your son getting a hooker for his 16th birthday? Why not?
Maybe extreme examples, but maybe not.
As far as what I meant to say about blacks and crime--they commit more crimes in my neck of the woods than whites. Period. Percentage of the population wise, I bet you would find blacks committing far more crimes than what they should be.
Don't know if you've ever been punished before, but didn't it make you want to stop whatever you were doing wrong? Effecive, efficient use of the death penalty (and don't give me that sop about more blacks than whites, etc.) saves lives. Killer's tend to kill multiple times.
Get back to me on how your world would like if government would stop legislating morality.
Hey, it seems like you've thought through a lot of stuff, too.
You may not be expecting this, but I'm basically a libertarian when it comes to social issues. The questions you set out for what the government should keep its hands off of I essentially say yes, they should keep their hands off of it. When the state tries to prevent people from doing things like having sex or putting chemicals in their body, it causes a lot of problems, which have been quite thoroughly researched. The clearest example is alcohol prohibition in the 1930's. It caused more violence, more crime, more intrusion into people's lives, and cost a lot of money and manpower. It's not just that I think it's wrong for the state to control people, it's also that it is simply unable to do so. This second point is critical because it's not based on a personal belief, it's based on evidence of what has really happened when the government tries to regulate personal behavior.
That's not to say there shouldn't be rules for personal behavior that doesn't harm others. The rules, simply, should be established and enforced by family, not the state. And by extension, the communities in which families live, such as churches and civic and fraternal organizations. Do I think people should do less drugs and have less sex and eat less fatty foods and get more exercise etc etc? Absolutely. But making laws about them doesn't help, and it causes a number of unrelated problems (things like funding criminal organizations, costing taxpayers money, and undermining the Constitution).
This world would be a place where people are not labeled criminals for personal choices they make and would not be denied access to important parts of society simply because they paid $50 for a blow job or snorted some coke. For example, one of the worksites my agency is associated with doesn't even allow people with misdemeanor convictions to work with them doing maintenance and custodial work. If you can't be a janitor making $7 an hour, what job are you going to find? As another example, several million people have been permanently barred from voting (disenfranchised) due to felony convictions. That's not just while in prison, that's for the rest of their lives after they're released. Not only is that double jeopardy, but more importantly, how does that help society? If you exclude people from the political process, they will resort to violence and crime, especially if they are being excluded from the workforce at the same time.
Rather than punish people for these victimless crimes, punishment should only be used for crimes which impact other people. For example, you can go to a bar and buy alcohol. You probably wouldn't want your kids to drink, so you would want anybody else who gives them alcohol to be punished. And it's dangerous having people drive drunk, so that's criminal. But just having a drink at a bar isn't criminal, and it shouldn't be. That's how marijuana and a host of other substances should also be treated. Don't make their use and possession illegal; make the bad things people supposedly do while on them illegal, just like driving drunk. In terms of numbers, alcohol kills more Americans every year than all the major illicit drugs combined.
I think it's a little ironic that you view my approach as moral relativism when I'm actually making a very principled case. The state cannot and should not tell people what to do unless your actions affect other people. And while that's a necessary precondition, it's not sufficient in and of itself to justify government action. There has to be some sort of benefit to society before the government can act, and the government has to be successful in realizing the benefit at a cost less than the benefit. (note that 'cost' here does not necessarily just mean dollars, but anything that society would have to give up to realize the benefit) It may also seem more relativist because I am purposefully not speaking in Christian language, which would lend more absolutism to my analysis. Personally, I think that people are happier and healthier when they practice moderation in their affairs, whether we're talking sex or drugs or MTV or anything else. But there are worse consequences when the government tries to force people to do things or refrain from doing things.
I freely admit that not everybody shares the same personal values and philosophies I hold. I actually rather like that; life would be very boring if we all had the same perspectives--although, everybody would own a Mac, so that would be a plus :) But seriously, there are a lot of people that feel that a tit for tat kind of response is a good way to handle being wronged. There's even some fun economic analysis in game theory looking at tit for tat strategies of cooperation in decision-making. And I think it's a pretty natural human response to want revenge or vengeance, to feel that inflicting pain (whether physical or otherwise) will make the situation better.
I just don't think that's a good way to handle things in a civilized society. There's always something bad someone has done that justifies doing something to somebody else. That cycle has no end.
I'm not at all saying that serious criminals (murderers and rapists and people who commit fraud and so forth) shouldn't be punished severely. I'm saying that crime is not a very big problem. There really aren't that many hardcore criminals. Most people in jail don't need to be there. They are otherwise ordinary, productive, tax-paying citizens who happen to have gotten caught smoking pot or paying for sex or petty theft (for example, to support a drug habbit). Now, if your kid does something you don't like, you're free to whip his ass or not. But the government shouldn't imprison him, and my tax dollars shouldn't be wasted, if what he did is bad for him but didn't infringe on someone else.
Oh, also, I have a serious problem with authority. When I get punished for something, it makes me want to rebel even more, not stop doing it. The trick, of course, is to not get caught :)
Hey, I forgot to ask about the gator. Was it good? I have some friends who like it, but I've never had any alligator myself.
You two are fascinating.
Post a Comment