More jails?
I caught just a brief part of an interview on NPR as I was driving a short distance in the car. The person being interviewed sounded like a law enforcement person in Chicago who was understandably concerned about the number of gun related deaths in Chicago. He was clear that:
· Something must be done to reduce the number of deaths.
· It is too easy for young men and women such as 17-year-olds to get a gun.
· If a 17-year-old does illegally get a gun and hurt someone then that person needs to go to prison for up to 3 years.
· The threat of prison should be a deterrent.
· If you break the law you need to be punished.
It is difficult to find current, accurate statistics on the number of juveniles who are incarcerated in the United States on any given day or the total number in jails, prisons, juvenile facilities, or on parole/probation. An article in the Washington Post, “Wonkbook: 11 facts about America’s prison population dated August 13, 2013 by Ezra Klein and Evan Soltas states:
- The U.S. prison population is more than 2.4 million.
- That's more than quadrupled since 1980.
- That means more than one out of every 100 American adults is behind bars.
- About 14 percent of the prison population is in federal prison -- that's the group Holder is talking about.
- The single largest driver in the increase in the federal prison population since 1998 is longer sentences for drug offenders.
- The average inmate in minimum-security federal prison costs $21,000 each year. The average inmate in maximum-security federal prisons costs $33,000 each year.
The National Institute of Justice web site reports in the year 2015 that:
· Within three years of release, about two-thirds (67.8 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
· Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
I could not any statistics for 17–year-olds, some of whom are in adult prisons and some of whom are in juvenile facilities. I also could not find any statistics for 17-year-olds convicted of gun-related crimes. Since the person on the radio being interviewed was using a 17-year-old example I wanted to know if he knew something about incarcerating 17-year-olds as opposed to other ages which makes incarcerating more effective for that particular age group. I also could not locate any information specific to 17- year-olds convicted of and incarcerated for gun-related offenses.
Obviously, there has been a belief in the United States for many years that punishment will serve as an effective deterrent. Yet, there is no evidence that when the motive is punishment that the majority of humans are likely to make positive changes as a result of punishment. Whether we are dealing gun violence, drug offenses, violent sexual acts or, as a nation, those we label as terrorists, punishment is not very effective. I am well aware of the argument which supports the use of the nuclear bombs to help end World War II. I am also well aware of the role that nuclear weapons, the threat of nuclear weapons and the fear of nuclear weapons has played in international relations since that time. If we look long term I think a good argument could be made that the use of nuclear weapons was not effective although their use provided a relatively brief reduction of violence.
We have to ask why punishment does not act as a deterrent. Actually any parent who is paying close attention will testify that punishment is likely to bring the following results:
· An incentive to not get caught next time – to learn to be better at hiding the activity next time.
· A resolve to prove that no one can stop them from doing X behavior. Thus an increase in the undesirable behavior.
· A cessation of behavior out of fear of getting caught and not because the person has internalized the belief that the behavior is wrong/immoral/unethical. It might be argued that fear of punishment might sometimes buy enough time for the young person to develop a code of ethics/moral rules which includes the prohibition of the original behavior.
· A lifetime of shame which has a negative impact on overall health and a fear of pursuing many heathy behaviors. This may also be more likely to result in low self-esteem with a consequent goal of escaping oneself through the use of numbing behavior or proving oneself by gaining money or other means of power.
When a parent, school, community or nation reacts to negative behavior with negative behavior the basic rules of mathematics do not apply. Minus 1 plus minus 1 does not equal a positive 2. It is a clear negative 2. Yet, somehow we persist in pretending as if this experiment will eventually have different results. Some have suggested that repeating the same behavior over and over again expecting different results is the classic definition of insanity.
Let us think this through.
· N person commits V behavior.
· Y person reacts with V behavior.
· N person will learn that V behavior is undesirable.
One of the arguments which the person I overheard in the radio interview stated was that breaking the law is wrong. Why can’t humans agree that breaking the law is wrong? What if the law being immoral? Should we still obey it, only challenge it in court or? Some examples of immoral laws in this country have been:
· In many states until fairly recently it was legal to beat one’s wife with a stick no bigger than one’s thumb.
· In many states and still in some countries one can be jailed or even killed for having sex with a person of the same sex.
· Using a bathroom of the gender which with one identifies has been illegal in many places.
· Marrying someone of a different race has been illegal in the United States until fairly recently.
· Using complicated business bankruptcy laws to avoid paying big debts is often legal.
· Having child pornography on one’s computer even if one did not download it is illegal.
One can google legalzoom.com and look for a list of crazy laws still technically on the books.
An argument can also be made that everyone breaks some laws some of the time. A counter argument might then be made that any reasonable person can distinguish between a just law and an old law which has yet to be technically removed.
The point is that society frequently rewards people for being brave enough to violate some laws which are later deemed to be wrong or unnecessary.
Then, of course, there are laws which condone violent behavior done in the service of a larger cause – protecting the interest of the society or nation even if that interest maybe disputed by other nations. At the same time if representatives of other countries behave similarly toward the United States it may be condemned.
In short there are many reasons why punishment will not deter or stop violence or other negative behavior long term.
We then have to ask what behavior is more likely to deter, reduce or stop violent or other destructive behavior. Clearly it is not enough to suggest that something does not work. We need to make positive proposals based on diagnosing the various issues which need addressing. These include:
· Mental illness.
· Substance abuse/addiction.
· Addiction to power, money, or other things outside oneself.
· Other mental issues such as sociopath or other conditions which prevent a person from considering the needs or rights of others (unable for a variety of reason to behave on a higher level the Maslow hierarchy).
· The people who have not been taught the ability to formulate a set of values which take into consideration the long-term effects of their behavior. (In one experiment which proved very successful a basic philosophy course was offered to a group of homeless people.)
Once an initial diagnosis has been made it can be used to further explore options for treatment/teaching. Of course one must remember that there may be multiple diagnoses and/or that the primary diagnosis may be inaccurate. One always has to stay open to the fact that we are not able to teach or otherwise treat certain people who, left to their own devices, may be unable to live in society. The key here is the term “unable.” These individuals may need to be in a closed, monitored environment. The goal is not to punish but to protect both them and the individuals they might otherwise injure.
Further as a family, community, or nation we may want to consider leading by example – finding respectful, non-violent means of problems solving.
My experience is that once I take some action off the list of possible actions, one I decide that no matter what, X behavior is not an option, then I am going to have to come up with a different option. That is precisely what we are hoping for and/or expecting from the millions of people we incarcerate. We/society wants them to agree that no matter what:
· Using an addictive drug is not an option.
· Looking outside of myself to fill my internal void is not an option.
· Putting my needs above that of another person is not an option.
· Violent behavior is never an option or is only an option under B circumstances and is not limited to one group of people.
· Teaching (instruction and by example) is the primary goal.
· Punishment is never, ever an option.
Written October 29, 2016
More jails?
I caught just a brief part of an interview on NPR as I was driving a short distance in the car. The person being interviewed sounded like a law enforcement person in Chicago who was understandably concerned about the number of gun related deaths in Chicago. He was clear that:
· Something must be done to reduce the number of deaths.
· It is too easy for young men and women such as 17-year-olds to get a gun.
· If a 17-year-old does illegally get a gun and hurt someone then that person needs to go to prison for up to 3 years.
· The threat of prison should be a deterrent.
· If you break the law you need to be punished.
It is difficult to find current, accurate statistics on the number of juveniles who are incarcerated in the United States on any given day or the total number in jails, prisons, juvenile facilities, or on parole/probation. An article in the Washington Post, “Wonkbook: 11 facts about America’s prison population dated August 13, 2013 by Ezra Klein and Evan Soltas states:
- The U.S. prison population is more than 2.4 million.
- That's more than quadrupled since 1980.
- That means more than one out of every 100 American adults is behind bars.
- About 14 percent of the prison population is in federal prison -- that's the group Holder is talking about.
- The single largest driver in the increase in the federal prison population since 1998 is longer sentences for drug offenders.
- The average inmate in minimum-security federal prison costs $21,000 each year. The average inmate in maximum-security federal prisons costs $33,000 each year.
The National Institute of Justice web site reports in the year 2015 that:
· Within three years of release, about two-thirds (67.8 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
· Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
I could not any statistics for 17–year-olds, some of whom are in adult prisons and some of whom are in juvenile facilities. I also could not find any statistics for 17-year-olds convicted of gun-related crimes. Since the person on the radio being interviewed was using a 17-year-old example I wanted to know if he knew something about incarcerating 17-year-olds as opposed to other ages which makes incarcerating more effective for that particular age group. I also could not locate any information specific to 17- year-olds convicted of and incarcerated for gun-related offenses.
Obviously, there has been a belief in the United States for many years that punishment will serve as an effective deterrent. Yet, there is no evidence that when the motive is punishment that the majority of humans are likely to make positive changes as a result of punishment. Whether we are dealing gun violence, drug offenses, violent sexual acts or, as a nation, those we label as terrorists, punishment is not very effective. I am well aware of the argument which supports the use of the nuclear bombs to help end World War II. I am also well aware of the role that nuclear weapons, the threat of nuclear weapons and the fear of nuclear weapons has played in international relations since that time. If we look long term I think a good argument could be made that the use of nuclear weapons was not effective although their use provided a relatively brief reduction of violence.
We have to ask why punishment does not act as a deterrent. Actually any parent who is paying close attention will testify that punishment is likely to bring the following results:
· An incentive to not get caught next time – to learn to be better at hiding the activity next time.
· A resolve to prove that no one can stop them from doing X behavior. Thus an increase in the undesirable behavior.
· A cessation of behavior out of fear of getting caught and not because the person has internalized the belief that the behavior is wrong/immoral/unethical. It might be argued that fear of punishment might sometimes buy enough time for the young person to develop a code of ethics/moral rules which includes the prohibition of the original behavior.
· A lifetime of shame which has a negative impact on overall health and a fear of pursuing many heathy behaviors. This may also be more likely to result in low self-esteem with a consequent goal of escaping oneself through the use of numbing behavior or proving oneself by gaining money or other means of power.
When a parent, school, community or nation reacts to negative behavior with negative behavior the basic rules of mathematics do not apply. Minus 1 plus minus 1 does not equal a positive 2. It is a clear negative 2. Yet, somehow we persist in pretending as if this experiment will eventually have different results. Some have suggested that repeating the same behavior over and over again expecting different results is the classic definition of insanity.
Let us think this through.
· N person commits V behavior.
· Y person reacts with V behavior.
· N person will learn that V behavior is undesirable.
One of the arguments which the person I overheard in the radio interview stated was that breaking the law is wrong. Why can’t humans agree that breaking the law is wrong? What if the law being immoral? Should we still obey it, only challenge it in court or? Some examples of immoral laws in this country have been:
· In many states until fairly recently it was legal to beat one’s wife with a stick no bigger than one’s thumb.
· In many states and still in some countries one can be jailed or even killed for having sex with a person of the same sex.
· Using a bathroom of the gender which with one identifies has been illegal in many places.
· Marrying someone of a different race has been illegal in the United States until fairly recently.
· Using complicated business bankruptcy laws to avoid paying big debts is often legal.
· Having child pornography on one’s computer even if one did not download it is illegal.
One can google legalzoom.com and look for a list of crazy laws still technically on the books.
An argument can also be made that everyone breaks some laws some of the time. A counter argument might then be made that any reasonable person can distinguish between a just law and an old law which has yet to be technically removed.
The point is that society frequently rewards people for being brave enough to violate some laws which are later deemed to be wrong or unnecessary.
Then, of course, there are laws which condone violent behavior done in the service of a larger cause – protecting the interest of the society or nation even if that interest maybe disputed by other nations. At the same time if representatives of other countries behave similarly toward the United States it may be condemned.
In short there are many reasons why punishment will not deter or stop violence or other negative behavior long term.
We then have to ask what behavior is more likely to deter, reduce or stop violent or other destructive behavior. Clearly it is not enough to suggest that something does not work. We need to make positive proposals based on diagnosing the various issues which need addressing. These include:
· Mental illness.
· Substance abuse/addiction.
· Addiction to power, money, or other things outside oneself.
· Other mental issues such as sociopath or other conditions which prevent a person from considering the needs or rights of others (unable for a variety of reason to behave on a higher level the Maslow hierarchy).
· The people who have not been taught the ability to formulate a set of values which take into consideration the long-term effects of their behavior. (In one experiment which proved very successful a basic philosophy course was offered to a group of homeless people.)
Once an initial diagnosis has been made it can be used to further explore options for treatment/teaching. Of course one must remember that there may be multiple diagnoses and/or that the primary diagnosis may be inaccurate. One always has to stay open to the fact that we are not able to teach or otherwise treat certain people who, left to their own devices, may be unable to live in society. The key here is the term “unable.” These individuals may need to be in a closed, monitored environment. The goal is not to punish but to protect both them and the individuals they might otherwise injure.
Further as a family, community, or nation we may want to consider leading by example – finding respectful, non-violent means of problems solving.
My experience is that once I take some action off the list of possible actions, one I decide that no matter what, X behavior is not an option, then I am going to have to come up with a different option. That is precisely what we are hoping for and/or expecting from the millions of people we incarcerate. We/society wants them to agree that no matter what:
· Using an addictive drug is not an option.
· Looking outside of myself to fill my internal void is not an option.
· Putting my needs above that of another person is not an option.
· Violent behavior is never an option or is only an option under B circumstances and is not limited to one group of people.
· Teaching (instruction and by example) is the primary goal.
· Punishment is never, ever an option.
Written October 29, 2016
RSS Feed