On holiday until recently (no doubt in some tropical paradise), cranky reader capt. america wrote in concerning this article in the NYT fishwrapper. His question is a follow-up to the incarceration post from last week. He wishes....
...to debate how the US got to be the most criminal - or most effective against criminals - country in the world.---
Thoughtful reader freedom2learn weighed in with her opinions regarding my suggestion that we re-societize(is that a word?) most non-violent "criminals".
---How would you feel if a drunk/ drug addict was arrested several times and released back into society where he ends up killing your child with a car or a desperate attempt to get some cash for drugs?
I don't think these losers would pay child support or in any way contribute to society. They would live on government money either way.---
Ed's take: the US got to be the most criminal of all civilized countries for a variety of complex reasons that are too arcane to investigate, but to sum it up, the US is the most free, unscrutinized society on Earth. Moreover, constitutionally, our police force is reactive, not preventative. Add to that a heterogeneous(different races, creeds, values, beliefs, religions, economic statuses, perceived social strata, etc) population of 300million, most of whom are told at some point that they deserve some of what others have, and you have the perfect storm for criminality. (That's not a rationalization or a justification, but an explanation)
The reason you don't see high crime in for instance Japan, China, Germany, etc. is because they are generally homogeneous societies. They have common religion, rearing, values, beliefs, and economic statuses....with very little diversity. There is little perceived economic injustice. Lazy Americans tend to confuse, with the encouragement of liberals, poor decision-making and shiftlessness with injustice, therefore they are owed something from society.
High crime rates are just something you have to live with in a capitalist, open society where people are free to succeed or fail. It's society's failures(aka democrat voting base) who turn to crime to right that perceived wrong.
To capt's second point, we also have the best police force in the world...effective in spite of the constitutional restraint. My problem is in sentencing. Violent criminals need to be off the streets...period. But there are other, more effective ways of punishing 1st time drunk drivers, 1st time drug offenders, flashers, pick-pockets, dead-beat dads, shop-lifters, etc. Public humiliation, community service, retribution, maybe rehab of some sort. All of these deter more effectively than prison. All prison does to these people is make them violent when they get out.
To freedom's how-would-you-feel-if question... I would be justifiably livid, bordering on homocidal, if a drunk driver, 1st time offender or 10th time offender, killed a member of my family. Would I want him safely tucked away in prison? No, because I would want to kill him myself. (and I'm only half joking about that) Until a guy harms somebody, he's not a violent criminal and those other methods should be tried. Not all drunk drivers are dependent on the state for their livlihood. Most of them, I'd bet, do pay taxes, child support, alimony, whatever, and their imprisonment might make dependents out of their families.
I could go on and on but you get my points. Consider the discussion open and have your take...
18 comments:
I definitely think that we are wasting money on people who commit insurance fraud, or launder money, or accept bribes. Having people like Richard Scrushy and Don Leiberman sitting in jail is a waste of our money. I can't really think of a solution for punishing them, but I seriously doubt they should sit in jail. They didn't really harm anyone, they just scammed them.
In the case of Seigleman and Scrushy, certainly there should be some seizure of assets if it is allowed....I don't know that it is. Besides, Scrushy overvalued HealthSouth by billions, which he doesn't have. I think they need to do some time, because they did hurt the investors who lost lots of money because of Scrushy's lies. And Seigleman betrayed the public trust by taking bribes or somehthing so he should do time for that, but gamblers, potheads, jaywalkers...these guys aren't hurting anybody but themselves, and until they do, why waste money on incarceration given that the prisons are overcrowded as it is. Nevermind that the whole drug-war is a political farce rather than a solution to a problem. It does way more harm than good.
I think your analysis on why the US is 'the most criminal of all civilized countries' is pretty good, Ed. Not kidding.
PS: Italy. Tropical paradises are boring.
Are we talking about first time offenders or are we talking about criminals who have broken the law at least three times? Do 1st time DUI's go to jail anywhere?
By time drug dealers go to jail for any length of time they've usually been watched - sometimes for years. Detectives don't usually waste their time or resources busting the small timer.
Have you ever lived near a drug dealer? They go to jail for 2 days and they're back at it. They ARE harming the communnity.
Then we could take into consideration the amount of crimes that were committed because someone was under the influence of some sort of drug, or drugs/drug money was involved in some way even if they don't have drug charges against them. That would probably account for a huge amount of the prison population. Being tougher on drugs - not easier - might lighten the load on prisons. I'm not doubting politicians use the "war on drugs" for their own best interest, but I don't see how being softer on drug crimes would help anything.
I don't think prisons are full of middle class family guys who went out, had a few beers after work and got pulled over on the way home.
People like Scrushy and Seigleman (sorry about missing the name last time) don't do anything to harm society. They aren't in danger of hurting or killing anyone. Strap a collar on them and make them fend for themselves for the rest of their lives. Making them sit in jail is a waste of our money. Why not let them do a ton of community service, have to earn a living, and keep a watchful eye on them. And definitely take some of their assets.
Given that the prison population is exploding, and that many states are spending 5-10% of their budget on corrections alone, something is clearly broken. Personally, I couldn't give a rip what percentage of the population is incarcerated, except that it costs taxpayers money that could be better spent on school vouchers, water resources, roads, etc.
My point is that if other forms of punishment are not the answer for non-violent criminals, ie incarceration is the only acceptable punishment, then how much should taxpayers be willing to cough up? Should we just continue to build more and more prisons? How much of the budget for law enforcement and incarceration is too much?
Believe me, I'm not turning soft and liberal. I look at this as a fiscal problem as much as a social one. Something has to change. The current system is unsustainable.
Kevin, I think the point of putting guys like that in jail is to be more of a deterrent to other CEO's and crooked politicians, not necessarily to punish them. The harm they do isn't physical, rather they cause distrust among investors. Think about the economic disaster that would befall America if investors could not trust what they were investing in. We would all be keeping our money in mason jars buried in our back yards. There are necessarily serious rules and regulations governing CEO and elected-official conduct, as well as serious punishment for breaking the rules, precisely becuase the public trust in investment is the cornerstone to a free-market economy. Without it, we may as well live in Iran.
In a very real way, crooks like Scrushy and Seigleman, profoundly threaten our way of life much more than crack-heads, rapists, or drunk drivers.
Well spoken, Ed. We usually have very different views, but your last paragraph is dead on. My compliments.
Thanks capt. I appreciate that.
What is your take? Should we incarcerate more or less? Why is 1% of our adult population in jail? Is that number about right, or are sentencing guidelines and 3-strikes programs too draconian?
How would you solve the overcrowding problem? Is it a corrections failure or a societal failure?
Scrushy deserves jail. sometimes drug addicts could use rehab and they have a better chance then people who steal hundreds of millions. if you try and help first time drug offenders it might help. http://www.drugrehabreferral.com/
People don't die when they lose money. They die when they are hit by drunk or intoxicated drivers. People who don't even have to be violent, can still kill people when under the influence. The same cannot be said for money launderers, people that accept bribes, people that counterfeit money. Yes they are committing crimes, but there has to be a cheaper way other than jail to punish them. And that is what this whole debate is about, is it not?
It would be interesting to see what your anarchist friend thought about this.
He's in the middle of a job change so is probably unable to spend much time in thought, but I'll send him an e-mail just the same.
Hey freedom,
Isn't your state's primary not until early April? The republican nomination will be wrapped up but the dem. may still be open. What will you do if Hillary and Obama are neck and neck still? Suicide vote like Rush is telling everybody to do in order to perpetuate the dem chaos as long as possible?
April 22. In the PA primary we have
to vote within the party of registration. It just so happens I've neglected to change my affiliation since I realized I wasn't liberal years ago:-) so I am still registered as a democrat - I feel dirty - ANYWAY....Yeah,I am thinking I might vote for Hillary.
I should add - I won't vote for her in the general election.
Freedom, there are two kinds of American voter....those who have had epiphanies and realize the truth that is conservatism, and those who still wander in the wilderness.
My epiphany came on election night 1980 as Reagan hammered Carter. I was in a house with my liberal, democrat family and their friends watching the returns. I was 18 when I realized I was the only republican in my entire family.
A vote for Hillary in PA is a vote for continued democrat chaos. The more they fight amongst themselves the more money they spend and the less time the MSM has to attack McCain.
On the prison topic.... I think Ed is right - the currest system is unsustainable. I'm still not convinced that non-violent offenders need to be on the street though. I suppose I can't think objectively on the issue.
On one hand, people like my husband are more at risk because of the over crowding.
On the other hand, I know what it's like to live next to drug dealers. My kids couldn't play outside because it wasn't safe. On the upside they got an upclose and personal lesson on what happens when you over dose on drugs - thanks to the dead guy in my back yard. It isn't pretty. Law abiding, tax paying citizens shouldn't have to tolerate it. I live in a pretty nice neighborhood(extremely low crime) and I've seen what one house can do to the area. If all of these worthless pieces of garbage are back on the streets what will happen to the mediocre neighborhoods?
Post a Comment