The Politics of Prison, Criminology and Justice

[Ashliana]

As everyone is aware, the United States' primary answer to criminal justice is our extensive use of prisons. As you may not know, historically--exclusive, long term detention or incapacitation of criminals has not been the norm. In the past, we used alternatives such as corporal punishment and more extensive use of capital punishment.

As crime has become a political issue in American politics, both sides have wanted to appeal to voters claiming they'll be "tough on crime." A significant issue to consider are the assumptions that an average voter, unfamiliar with the legal system or criminality in general, might make and the knee-jerk reactions to politicized coverage of crime.

Reagan created and popularized the "war on drugs," under the mindset that harsh punishments and mandatory sentences, taking away the judge's intended discretion, would dissuade or deter people from using illegal substances. It has surged the U.S. prison population to the highest in the world, in both terms of absolute numbers and in percentage of our population, and much evidence points to that long sentences are simply expensive and not especially effective, and that prison actually further hardens criminals because of the environment.

The deterrence model of crime prevention assumes several things--that the crime is a choice, that the potential offender is even aware of the potential penalty, and that potential offenders are aware of and can take example from other people being punished.

The war on drugs is largely based on the "deterrence" model of punishment. Generally, deterrence is thought to have three qualities that aid in its success: the probability of punishment, the celerity (speed) of enforcement of the punishment, and the severity.

The probability of punishment factor is hard to improve without infringing upon civil liberties. More pervasive use of monitoring of citizens could help in the evidence collection needed for prosecution, but at the cost of making assumptions about people which have given no reasonable suspicion.

As we exist in a due process model of law, in which the more serious crime a person is accused of, the more legal protection and review they get before being punished, there is very little we can do to speed up the process besides simply expanding the court system--a costly measure.

Finally, we come to the severity of the punishments--the measure most concentrated on by Reagan's policies, which have continued to this day. We have increasingly placed more and more people, including non-violent drug offenders, at higher rates than anywhere else in the world. In addition to the enormous expense of the prisons, as mentioned previously, evidence exists pointing to the further hardening of these criminals and the devastating, disproportionate impact it has on the poor.

People familiar with crime and criminality will tell you that the police mainly focus their efforts on highly visible street crime--which the poor commit. Arguably, much more damage to society is done through white collar crime such as fraud, and much drug use is done in the privacy of suburban homes, as opposed to urban city streets.

In the end, I lament the politicization of the criminal justice system--it's no longer about what's best for society--it seems to have become what's the most popular to the uninformed voter. People often decry the ACLU's efforts to say, protect the free speech or due process of a pedophile or the burning of a flag. It isn't because they're anti-American--it's exactly the opposite. Those rights were not created to protect the majority--the majority doesn't need protecting.

The uninformed voter seems too willing to discard the principle that "people should be able to say what is politically or socially unpopular" when it conflicts with a personal position. I, for one, am grateful that people exist that seek to not let our protections of the minority disappear in a fit of hysteria or political pandering.

I know some of you have strong opinions on the justice system, our legal system and especially our political parties. What do you think? What's your stance on crime? On drugs? On civil liberties?

[ClydeR]

The probability of punishment factor is hard to improve without infringing upon civil liberties. More pervasive use of monitoring of citizens could help in the evidence collection needed for prosecution, but at the cost of making assumptions about people which have given no reasonable suspicion.

As we exist in a due process model of law, in which the more serious crime a person is accused of, the more legal protection and review they get before being punished, there is very little we can do to speed up the process besides simply expanding the court system--a costly measure.

Finally, we come to the severity of the punishments--the measure most concentrated on by Reagan's policies, which have continued to this day. We have increasingly placed more and more people, including non-violent drug offenders, at higher rates than anywhere else in the world. In addition to the enormous expense of the prisons, as mentioned previously, evidence exists pointing to the further hardening of these criminals and the devastating, disproportionate impact it has on the poor.

Wow. I never thought of it like that.

If I were thinking about committing a crime, the probability of getting caught would impact my decision more than the probable punishment if I were caught.

[TheEschaton]

I agree that the justice system is too political. I met the DA of Middlesex the other day, and the words out of his mouth were simply not believable.

Furthermore, on a philosophical level, which I won't get into now, I think the adversarial system is no good for the criminal system, as it subverts the truth and often is a miscarriage of justice, due to unequal resources on either side. I think an inquisitorial system would work far better, but of course, that is leftist and socialist, and supposedly does not protect the rights of the defendant as much, despite the fact that most European countries use them, and have much less people in jail. ;)

-TheE-

[radamanthys]

The use of silencers became all but nil. The reason? If you're caught with a silencer (I believe during the commission of a crime), it's a mandatory 20 years.

And it worked.


Aside from that, drug laws are stupid, and they're costing too much in money and human lives. The war on drugs is killing far more children than the actual drugs are. Think about that.

[Gan]

I agree that the justice system is too political. I met the DA of Middlesex the other day, and the words out of his mouth were simply not believable.

Furthermore, on a philosophical level, which I won't get into now, I think the adversarial system is no good for the criminal system, as it subverts the truth and often is a miscarriage of justice, due to unequal resources on either side. I think an inquisitorial system would work far better, but of course, that is leftist and socialist, and supposedly does not protect the rights of the defendant as much, despite the fact that most European countries use them, and have much less people in jail. ;)

-TheE-

Shit. This is the second post from you today that I've agreed with. :help:

[Gan]

As everyone is aware, the United States' primary answer to criminal justice is our extensive use of prisons. As you may not know, historically--exclusive, long term detention or incapacitation of criminals has not been the norm. In the past, we used alternatives such as corporal punishment and more extensive use of capital punishment.
As well as such programs as community service, boot camps for first offenders, and substance abuse treatment programs. Not to mention that historically, prisons were a place where no 'rights' existed and the norm was a day of hard labor instead of spending 8 hours in the rec yard lifting weights with a medical pass. While the duration of sentence may have been shorter, the payment exacted in the form of prison living conditions and labor practices were quite different than they are currently.


As crime has become a political issue in American politics, both sides have wanted to appeal to voters claiming they'll be "tough on crime." A significant issue to consider are the assumptions that an average voter, unfamiliar with the legal system or criminality in general, might make and the knee-jerk reactions to politicized coverage of crime.
Read, sensationalism from media outlets and politicians on campaign.


Reagan created and popularized the "war on drugs," under the mindset that harsh punishments and mandatory sentences, taking away the judge's intended discretion, would dissuade or deter people from using illegal substances. It has surged the U.S. prison population to the highest in the world, in both terms of absolute numbers and in percentage of our population, and much evidence points to that long sentences are simply expensive and not especially effective, and that prison actually further hardens criminals because of the environment.
Parallel to this new sentencing mindset (and the politicization of drug use by religion (read prohibition)) was also the reformation of prisons in general. During this time in Texas was evidence as witnessed by the Ruiz v. Estelle verdict and the subsequent mandatory direct supervision of the state prisons and its effect on housing, treatment, and parole of state prisoners. Its not a direction I was totally in support of while dealing with it first hand as a prison guard in the 90's.


The deterrence model of crime prevention assumes several things--that the crime is a choice, that the potential offender is even aware of the potential penalty, and that potential offenders are aware of and can take example from other people being punished.
Meaning all criminals are rational actors. I dont agree with this in all cases. But I do agree that most criminals think of the consequences at least once before the commission of the crime (implying premeditation which is sometimes very difficult to prove).


Finally, we come to the severity of the punishments--the measure most concentrated on by Reagan's policies, which have continued to this day. We have increasingly placed more and more people, including non-violent drug offenders, at higher rates than anywhere else in the world. In addition to the enormous expense of the prisons, as mentioned previously, evidence exists pointing to the further hardening of these criminals and the devastating, disproportionate impact it has on the poor.
It seems that the deterrence experiment has effected longer sentences. Institute a harsher prison life with more manual labor and one might see deterrence statistics favor the change. One could even postulate directing said labor to the benefit of society instead of just 'breaking rocks'.



People familiar with crime and criminality will tell you that the police mainly focus their efforts on highly visible street crime--which the poor commit. Arguably, much more damage to society is done through white collar crime such as fraud, and much drug use is done in the privacy of suburban homes, as opposed to urban city streets.
That is indeed an arguable point. And one I dont agree with in that one cant equate the risk and loss of a savings account to the loss of a spouse killed in a drugstore holdup. I agree that white collar crimes need more focus for punitive ends. But I do not agree on the other part.


In the end, I lament the politicization of the criminal justice system--it's no longer about what's best for society--it seems to have become what's the most popular to the uninformed voter. People often decry the ACLU's efforts to say, protect the free speech or due process of a pedophile or the burning of a flag. It isn't because they're anti-American--it's exactly the opposite. Those rights were not created to protect the majority--the majority doesn't need protecting.
As much as I pick on the ACLU - the spirit they represent is undeniably Democratic. I just dont agree with the giving of liberties to actors not deserving through my eyes, which is something they zealously defend.



The uninformed voter seems too willing to discard the principle that "people should be able to say what is politically or socially unpopular" when it conflicts with a personal position. I, for one, am grateful that people exist that seek to not let our protections of the minority disappear in a fit of hysteria or political pandering.
I think you're shortchanging the 'uninformed voter' too much. This almost smacks of clinging to guns and religion rhetoric.



I know some of you have strong opinions on the justice system, our legal system and especially our political parties. What do you think? What's your stance on crime? On drugs? On civil liberties?
Crime - no one is above the law. The difficulty is the making of laws that fairly represent all of our society and ones that can be flexible enough to evolves as our society evolves.
Drugs - I'm torn on this issue in that drugs that do not affect the masses in their consumption do not usually result in harm to others in ones own home. Yet the nature of drugs and the addiction that usually accompanies said consumption has a huge detrimental affect on societal values and the rights and liberties of others that might fall victim to said addicted behavior.

Civil Liberties - are a gift from our society to those who participate in it. Infringe on the society and you infringe on your right to those liberties.

[Audriana]

People familiar with crime and criminality will tell you that the police mainly focus their efforts on highly visible street crime--which the poor commit. Arguably, much more damage to society is done through white collar crime such as fraud, and much drug use is done in the privacy of suburban homes, as opposed to urban city streets.

That is indeed an arguable point. And one I dont agree with in that one cant equate the risk and loss of a savings account to the loss of a spouse killed in a drugstore holdup. I agree that white collar crimes need more focus for punitive ends. But I do not agree on the other part.

Reminds me of that Chappells show skit where the drug dealer is treated like a corporate executive and vise versa (tried to find it, but I couldn't).

[Stanley Burrell]

Ashliana isn't a chick?

[radamanthys]

Nope.

She's a man, baby.

[Whimsi]

Ashliana isn't a chick?

I only have the hand picture to go on. Her/his hands are either manly female hands or feminine man hands. Can't decide. I have seen him/her answer to bitch and cunt in other threads but then again, she/he might respond to asshole and bastard too. Not that those two names can't apply to women too.

/confused

[Gelston]

He has said he was a he.

[Whimsi]

I tend to skip over most of his/her posts so I must have missed that.

[crb]

Don't support the ACLU, they're not for freedom, they're for government enforced equality (not the same thing).

Support the Cato Institute - actually for freedom.

Oh... and AShliana, read up on the politics of the california prison guard union. Bask in the glow of the goodness of organized labor (the only legal type of abusive monopoly in this country is a union).

[Audriana]

Ya... those fucking unions with their pushes for insane bullshit such as safe working environments and decent working hours...

I agree that it perhaps has gone out of control, but the base idea of a union is a very very good thing.

[BigWorm]

Don't support the ACLU, they're not for freedom, they're for government enforced equality (not the same thing).

Support the Cato Institute - actually for freedom.

Oh... and AShliana, read up on the politics of the california prison guard union. Bask in the glow of the goodness of organized labor (the only legal type of abusive monopoly in this country is a union).

Okayy

[Gan]

Ya... those fucking unions with their pushes for insane bullshit such as safe working environments and decent working hours...

I agree that it perhaps has gone out of control, but the base idea of a union is a very very good thing.

WARNING UNION DERAILMENT IMMINENT!

This would be true as if we did not have other agencies, legislation, and shit loads of personal injury/litigation attorneys just chomping at the bit to sue businesses who egregiously violate said decent working hours or safe working environments.

Face it, Unions are overrated and outdated. The most I think they're good for is just jacking up wage rates which in turn makes our goods and services non-competitive and or retardedly expensive as the increased costs are passed along to the customer.

[crb]

Ya... those fucking unions with their pushes for insane bullshit such as safe working environments and decent working hours...

I agree that it perhaps has gone out of control, but the base idea of a union is a very very good thing.
Sure it was, in 1910.

[Warriorbird]

Right, right... because those laws ALWAYS get obeyed, everybody knows what they are, and it is really easy to get a prosecutor's attention.

Enforcement is simple and frequent!

Companies never do anything wrong!

Mmm, Koolaid!

If you're going to fault unions for anything... fault them for raising wages too high. Fault companies for not giving their workers enough incentive to not join.

[crb]

Okayy
Okay? I thought everyone knew this.

A union is a labor monopoly.

A monopoly is deemed abusive when they use their marketshare to squash their competitors or force other companies to do things. For instance, forcing a company to hire only union workers, or subcontract with union contractors, etc.

If a company, like say Microsoft said, any Office Suite software that is not MS Office will not work on Windows. Well... they'd get ass rammed by the justice department.

Unions are the exception, in exchange though for granting them this exception they fall under the regulation of the Federal Government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft_Hartley_Act

[crb]

Right, right... because those laws ALWAYS get obeyed, everybody knows what they are, and it is really easy to get a prosecutor's attention.

Enforcement is simple and frequent!

Companies never do anything wrong!

Mmm, Koolaid!

If you're going to fault unions for anything... fault them for raising wages too high. Fault companies for not giving their workers enough incentive to not join.
Not every state is a right to work state Warrior Bird. Unfortunately, not joining isn't always an option. Yay liberals!

[crb]

...and in anycase moving back to the point... read up on the California Prison Guard Union, seriously. Then come back and defend unions.

[Warriorbird]

Right, right... because one union doing something wrong totally means that they're all bad.

They're prison guards... shouldn't you automatically love them because you're a reactionary?