Illogical and false comfort of profiling
Although I cannot find wording of the recent change in Federal policies regarding housing assistance for felons, I am quite sure that I heard on the NPR news this weekend a change in policy allowing for some felons to be eligible for HUD housing. If I heard or listened correctly this change would extend non-discrimination policies to includes some felons. No one could be automatically excluded from being given HUD housing because of a history of being a convicted felon. Those processing applications will now be able to consider type of crime on which one was convicted, length of time since conviction, and other alleged indications of whether it is safe to have that person as a tenant in public housing.
On the surface, discrimination against convicted felons makes sense. No one wants to increase their chances of having a neighbor do something which makes the housing complex in which one is living more dangerous. Yet, all the statistics indicate that (1) merely having a history of being a felon does not insure that one is going to commit another crime and (2) treating people as less than does not make them more likely to become a law abiding, safe member of the community. In fact all the research indicates just the opposite – treating people as less then and excluding them from mainstream society may make it more likely that they return to behavior which they already know.
There are also many state and federal laws regarding those on the sexual offender lists restricting where they can live or work. Just recently there was a public outcry when it was discovered that someone on the sexual offender list was working as an Easter Bunny in a shopping complex. The assumption frequently is that if someone is on the sexual offender’s list he or she would present a stronger potential danger than one is is not on the sexual offender’s list. However, making this assumption is illogical for a number of reasons. Let us, for example, consider what sorts of offenses might result in one being on the sexual offender’s list. The potential offenses include:
A teenager posting nude photos of himself or herself. (According to Human Rights Watch, a 15-year-old girl in Pennsylvania was charged in 2004 with spreading child porn after taking nude pictures of herself and putting them on line.)
Visiting a prostitute.
Peeing in public. (At least 13 states require sex offender registration for urination in public.)
Flashing your breasts. You can get arrested for indecent exposure in California if you flash your breasts in front of a lot of people in order to gratify yourself or offend somebody else…
Having consensual sex with a teenager, even if you're a teenager, too. At least 29 states require teenagers who have had consensual sex with each other to register as sex offenders…
Sleeping with your sister even if sister is 15 and you are 16.
Giving a child a hug even if the person hugging is a teenager hugging another teenager.
The above list was contained in an article entitled, “ 7 Surprising Things That Could Make you a Sex Offender” by Erin Fuchs in business insider.com
I could add to this list such offenses as:
Having sex with an underage prostitute even if the prostitute lied about her/his age.
Exposing oneself.
Someone else downloading child porn on one’s computer even if it could be proved that one had no knowledge of this.
Being accused of having sex with one young child by one’s spouse during bitter divorce and one pleads guilty upon advice from an attorney because it would be traumatic for the child to testify in court.
A judge fearful of having a decision overturned even if he/she did not believe the person had committed a crime. (Judge was fearful because of prevailing judicial atmosphere which surrounds accusations of sexual offense.)
A emotionally immature 19-year-old having sex with a willing 15 (almost 16) year-year-old but who the court and other experts determined had been heinously harmed for life.
These are actual cases in which I have testified as a professional counselor.
Currently there has been a suggestion, even from a presidential candidate, that all Muslims be prohibited from immigrating to this country. This is based on the fact that radical Muslims have been responsible for most of the terrorist acts.
Deciding that all Christians are against human rights because certain radical Christians seem to be responsible for the recent “religious freedom” laws in several states in the United States.
In all of these cases, there is a very elemental error of logic. If one took a basic logic class one would learn that there are two types of logic: deductive and inductive. An example of a deductively valid argument is:
1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Socrates is mortal.
An example of an inductive argument would be:
1. Every day to date the law of gravity has held.
Therefore:
2. The law of gravity will hold tomorrow.
One can say of this inductive argument that it is a strong argument. One would not say that it is logical.
(check out any introductory logics book or web sites such as “logicalfallcies.info”
Thus, one could say:
1. Some of those on the sexual offenders list are dangerous.
2. All dangerous sexual offenders are on the sexual offenders list.
We would have made a very weak inductive argument. The truth is that most dangerous rapes are committed by a family member or someone else that the family knows.
On the other hand we could say that:
1. All sexual offenders on the sexual offender lists are human.
2. Jake is on the sexual offenders list.
3. Jake is human.
We have made a logical argument but one which does not tell us anymore than the argument about Socrates tells us. We could just as easily say that:
1. All teenagers are sexual.
2. All sexual offenders are sexual.
3. All teenagers are sexual offenders.
Obviously it is not true that being sexual determines who is a sexual offender. There are many “holes” in this argument. All who are listed as sexual offenders are not dangerous criminals. Violent and, thus dangerous, sexual offenders act out of a need to control and not primarily a need to be sexual. Most teenagers are sexual although some are asexual. All teenagers who are sexual do not have a need to control.
We could also say:
1. The majority of convicted felons are black.
2. John is black.
3. John is a convicted felon.
This would be an illogical argument. If a majority of convicted felons are black, police are more likely to profile, arrest and convict blacks. We have acted in a way to make this a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The basic truth of logic is that profiling, while sometimes understandable and temporarily comforting, does not make the community a safe place. Yet, we continue to violate the basic laws of logic to provide ourselves a temporary illusion of safety. The truth is that, long term, these illusions make the community less and not more safe.
Whether we talking about the international terrorist situation, wars between nations, dangerous sexual behavior, street crime, or dangerous drug use profiling has not and will not serve us. Particularly as we in the United States listen to and evaluate the words of those running for all political offices in this country it would serve us well to listen carefully and to apply the basic laws of logic to what is being proposed.
Written April 4, 2016
Although I cannot find wording of the recent change in Federal policies regarding housing assistance for felons, I am quite sure that I heard on the NPR news this weekend a change in policy allowing for some felons to be eligible for HUD housing. If I heard or listened correctly this change would extend non-discrimination policies to includes some felons. No one could be automatically excluded from being given HUD housing because of a history of being a convicted felon. Those processing applications will now be able to consider type of crime on which one was convicted, length of time since conviction, and other alleged indications of whether it is safe to have that person as a tenant in public housing.
On the surface, discrimination against convicted felons makes sense. No one wants to increase their chances of having a neighbor do something which makes the housing complex in which one is living more dangerous. Yet, all the statistics indicate that (1) merely having a history of being a felon does not insure that one is going to commit another crime and (2) treating people as less than does not make them more likely to become a law abiding, safe member of the community. In fact all the research indicates just the opposite – treating people as less then and excluding them from mainstream society may make it more likely that they return to behavior which they already know.
There are also many state and federal laws regarding those on the sexual offender lists restricting where they can live or work. Just recently there was a public outcry when it was discovered that someone on the sexual offender list was working as an Easter Bunny in a shopping complex. The assumption frequently is that if someone is on the sexual offender’s list he or she would present a stronger potential danger than one is is not on the sexual offender’s list. However, making this assumption is illogical for a number of reasons. Let us, for example, consider what sorts of offenses might result in one being on the sexual offender’s list. The potential offenses include:
A teenager posting nude photos of himself or herself. (According to Human Rights Watch, a 15-year-old girl in Pennsylvania was charged in 2004 with spreading child porn after taking nude pictures of herself and putting them on line.)
Visiting a prostitute.
Peeing in public. (At least 13 states require sex offender registration for urination in public.)
Flashing your breasts. You can get arrested for indecent exposure in California if you flash your breasts in front of a lot of people in order to gratify yourself or offend somebody else…
Having consensual sex with a teenager, even if you're a teenager, too. At least 29 states require teenagers who have had consensual sex with each other to register as sex offenders…
Sleeping with your sister even if sister is 15 and you are 16.
Giving a child a hug even if the person hugging is a teenager hugging another teenager.
The above list was contained in an article entitled, “ 7 Surprising Things That Could Make you a Sex Offender” by Erin Fuchs in business insider.com
I could add to this list such offenses as:
Having sex with an underage prostitute even if the prostitute lied about her/his age.
Exposing oneself.
Someone else downloading child porn on one’s computer even if it could be proved that one had no knowledge of this.
Being accused of having sex with one young child by one’s spouse during bitter divorce and one pleads guilty upon advice from an attorney because it would be traumatic for the child to testify in court.
A judge fearful of having a decision overturned even if he/she did not believe the person had committed a crime. (Judge was fearful because of prevailing judicial atmosphere which surrounds accusations of sexual offense.)
A emotionally immature 19-year-old having sex with a willing 15 (almost 16) year-year-old but who the court and other experts determined had been heinously harmed for life.
These are actual cases in which I have testified as a professional counselor.
Currently there has been a suggestion, even from a presidential candidate, that all Muslims be prohibited from immigrating to this country. This is based on the fact that radical Muslims have been responsible for most of the terrorist acts.
Deciding that all Christians are against human rights because certain radical Christians seem to be responsible for the recent “religious freedom” laws in several states in the United States.
In all of these cases, there is a very elemental error of logic. If one took a basic logic class one would learn that there are two types of logic: deductive and inductive. An example of a deductively valid argument is:
1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Socrates is mortal.
An example of an inductive argument would be:
1. Every day to date the law of gravity has held.
Therefore:
2. The law of gravity will hold tomorrow.
One can say of this inductive argument that it is a strong argument. One would not say that it is logical.
(check out any introductory logics book or web sites such as “logicalfallcies.info”
Thus, one could say:
1. Some of those on the sexual offenders list are dangerous.
2. All dangerous sexual offenders are on the sexual offenders list.
We would have made a very weak inductive argument. The truth is that most dangerous rapes are committed by a family member or someone else that the family knows.
On the other hand we could say that:
1. All sexual offenders on the sexual offender lists are human.
2. Jake is on the sexual offenders list.
3. Jake is human.
We have made a logical argument but one which does not tell us anymore than the argument about Socrates tells us. We could just as easily say that:
1. All teenagers are sexual.
2. All sexual offenders are sexual.
3. All teenagers are sexual offenders.
Obviously it is not true that being sexual determines who is a sexual offender. There are many “holes” in this argument. All who are listed as sexual offenders are not dangerous criminals. Violent and, thus dangerous, sexual offenders act out of a need to control and not primarily a need to be sexual. Most teenagers are sexual although some are asexual. All teenagers who are sexual do not have a need to control.
We could also say:
1. The majority of convicted felons are black.
2. John is black.
3. John is a convicted felon.
This would be an illogical argument. If a majority of convicted felons are black, police are more likely to profile, arrest and convict blacks. We have acted in a way to make this a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The basic truth of logic is that profiling, while sometimes understandable and temporarily comforting, does not make the community a safe place. Yet, we continue to violate the basic laws of logic to provide ourselves a temporary illusion of safety. The truth is that, long term, these illusions make the community less and not more safe.
Whether we talking about the international terrorist situation, wars between nations, dangerous sexual behavior, street crime, or dangerous drug use profiling has not and will not serve us. Particularly as we in the United States listen to and evaluate the words of those running for all political offices in this country it would serve us well to listen carefully and to apply the basic laws of logic to what is being proposed.
Written April 4, 2016
RSS Feed