In a recent cover story in The Economist, the author observes that for a country that styles itself as the “Land of the Free,” the U.S. incarcerates more people than any other Western country—at a rate of one in every 100 people at any given time, and a rather shocking one in nine young African-Americans males. Although not noted in the article, the “tough on crime” trend that began around 1970 can be attributed to the first Nixon administration, when the right played to public alarm over anti-war youths rampaging in the streets, increased drug use, riots in urban ghettos and confrontations with police. Since then, crime and punishment has been politicized to the point where it is observed that:
“… crime became an emotive political issue and voters took to backing politicians who promised to stamp on it. This created a ratchet effect: lawmakers who wish to sound tough must propose laws tougher than the ones that the last chap who wanted to sound tough proposed. When the crime rate falls, tough sentences are hailed as the cause, even when demography or other factors may matter more; when the rate rises tough sentences are demanded to solve the problem. As a result, America’s incarceration rate has quadrupled since 1970.”
I disagree with the articles’ premise that white collar crime is not really all that serious and should not end in prison sentences, but there is considerable merit in the criticism of locking-up people who did not know they even committed a crime, based on arcane laws that nobody realizes are still on the books. There is also merit in the criticism of filling prisons with and incarcerating for long periods non-violent drug offenders, including small-time dealers; when are we going to admit that the cost-to-benefit ratio for the “war on drugs” is vastly skewed to cost? And how many young people have smoked pot or did some minor “accidental” property damage that are “crimes” only because they were caught doing it, not because there was a “victim” involved?
Improving economic and educational opportunities for the most vulnerable demographics, shortening the sentences and “humanizing” the prison experience for non-violent offenders seems to be something a majority of the public is aghast at. Either you’re brain is wired this way or that way. It would rather see someone like Joe Arpaio humiliate prisoners (many of them merely victims of another one of his traffic violation “sweeps”) for his own perverted pleasure, and harden them even more against his version of a “law and order” society.
I have this other idea, and it goes something like this: People in this country, mainly white, view incarceration as a convenient means to reduce the number of the people (mainly minority) who have to be reckoned with when passing out the nation’s spoils. Crazy, I know; but that is the net effect of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment