Change Needed in U.S. Incarceration Philosophy?
4 Comments Published by Billy Joe Mills on Wednesday, April 23 at 5:41 PM.
The New York Times published an article entitled Inmate Count in U.S. Dwarfs Other Nations’. Author Adam Liptak wrote:
We have a higher rate than Russia: 751/1000 vs. 627/1000. However, I have to wonder how much of our higher incarceration rates are attributable to us being unduly harsh and how much is attributable to our superior law enforcement abilities? We also have a higher financial capacity to imprison lots of people. In other words, perhaps other countries would be imprisoning more people if they had the resources to do so.
The U.S. dominates in many arenas, but in this one we would be wise to be humble and look for solutions from overseas.
The United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population. But it has almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners. Indeed, the United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a relatively recent and now entirely distinctive American approach to crime and punishment. Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.First, I think it's a fallacy to believe that the trend of an increasing prison population will continue. It's on an unsustainable, financially and politically, path. Second, America ought to reconsider its broad philosophy of incarceration. Morally and financially it makes more sense to rehabilitate than it does to punish in the hopes of sating some schadenfreude or of some ethereal notion of retributive justice. I am a pragmatist and a utilitarian. What makes the most sense though is fixing what might be the biggest problem in the United States and the root of many evils: poor rural and urban education systems. I'm too busy to find the data, but there is a high correlation between lack of financial prospects because of lack of education and likelihood of imprisonment.
We have a higher rate than Russia: 751/1000 vs. 627/1000. However, I have to wonder how much of our higher incarceration rates are attributable to us being unduly harsh and how much is attributable to our superior law enforcement abilities? We also have a higher financial capacity to imprison lots of people. In other words, perhaps other countries would be imprisoning more people if they had the resources to do so.
The U.S. dominates in many arenas, but in this one we would be wise to be humble and look for solutions from overseas.
Labels: Billy Joe Mills, law, prison
I disagree about it being unsustainable politically. I'll try to post on that later. Still working.
I liked reading the article. I had a few more explanations for the high incarceration rate here, but the article already covered them.
I am not sure what to make of retributive justice in a utilitarian framework. I personally do not feel much desire to avenge wrongs committed against me, and I also agree with you that a retributive system probably isn't the best way to reduce future crime levels.
However, desire for revenge does seem to be a rather strong and deep part of the makeup of most people. By denying the revenge and denying this desire, we reduce their utility levels.
Ideally, we could convince everyone that their desire for revenge, while sometimes useful, is sometimes counterproductive. But until we've done that, I'm not sure how large a role retribution should play in our legal system.
If you pressed me to make a decision right now as world dictator, I think I would implement some sort of plan that very slowly and gradually decreases the role of retribution. But I'd be more focused on fighting the things that cause crime and cause people to want revenge in the first place.
The politicization of the prison system is tied into the fact that politicians keep getting votes by using the same tired “get tough on crime” rhetoric. It doesn’t get trotted out all that much these days as we have terrorism to frighten voters with. Either way it taps into the same macho, swaggering, brain dead philosophy from the school of anyone will tell you anything you want to know if you hit them hard enough. The idea is that by being tough and harsh and manly you can dissuade potential criminals from breaking the law. As for those that are already criminals, they can’t be helped. They are, as Mulkasey states in the article, among the most violent offenders, the worst of the worst. They are beyond the help of society. They can’t change. The best we can do is lock them up and keep them well away from the rest of us good, decent, hard-working Americans.
In a world of Republican political memes, there are no Jean Val Jeans, no good people driven to extremes by desperation. If you’re a criminal, you’re not worth saving, and if you’re in prison, you must be a criminal.
Fear causes people to behave irrationally, reacting rather than reasoning. It pushes them to seek protection wherever they can find it and ignore any other priorities or beliefs they may have. As long as fear gets votes, fear will be a major part of political discourse regardless of how detrimental it may be to the country as a whole.
Side note: I’m a big fan of colorful charts. So thanks to Billy Joe for those. They make me happy.
The link to the interactive map isn't working anymore, but here's one that is working right now:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/04/22/us/20080423_PRISON_GRAPHIC.html