America's Fourth Largest City

[ArcturusMengsk]

The great effort that society has continually failed to make is to learn to administer punishment - which will always fail, but will nevertheless be the standard by which society deals with deviancy - dispassionately and without moral condemnation.

I agree with certain parts of your argument, but this makes no sense whatsoever. Morality itself is a social engineering construct. To say that we should strive to solve social problems through social engineering rather than moral condemnation is to ignore this fact.

Quite. I phrased that wrongly.

'Moral condemantion' is a justification of feeling of revenge, nothing more and nothing less. The penal apparatus, however much it should like to think of itself as a dispassionate administer of some pseudo-scientific method of personal repentance and 'salvation', is itself nothing more than a codified device by means of which individual feelings of revenge are taken up and made good upon by the state. I feel (and this is entirely a personal position) that this is rather self-evident, and that it ought to acknowledge what it is and not seek to justify itself upon any but emotional grounds. It is not a 'deterrent' to crime and never has been - it is in fact a liberal slogan that prison creates criminality, though I'd argue it's the act of exclusion itself, in any form, following from Foucault - and does more harm than good in trying to project itself either on scientific (i.e. the panopticon) or 'moral' grounds. Society has constructed an 'economy of the spirit' by which to mete out punishments according to their severity which has no root in the natural order, but which likes to believe that it does.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Addendum:

The modern penal concept is flawed because of an innate assumption grounded within its justification which can be traced back to the ideology upon which it is based: the notion of individual self-transformation, which is rooted in traditional liberalism. The penitentiary assumes the existence of an individual who controls his actions, who possesses 'free will', and so forth, and as such is designed to 'scientifically' bring that self back into accord with society by inflicting upon it carefully measured punishments. This is an ideological (Christian!) notion that, simply, doesn't jive with reality.

[Darth Wong]

Addendum:

The modern penal concept is flawed because of an innate assumption grounded within its justification which can be traced back to the ideology upon which it is based: the notion of individual self-transformation, which is rooted in traditional liberalism. The penitentiary assumes the existence of an individual who controls his actions, who possesses 'free will', and so forth, and as such is designed to 'scientifically' bring that self back into accord with society by inflicting upon it carefully measured punishments. This is an ideological (Christian!) notion that, simply, doesn't jive with reality.

That is a severe oversimplification. Other motivations for the conventional penal system include physical confinement to protect society from dangerous offenders and the concept of rational deterrent (humans, while not completely rational, still respond to rational deterrent more than they would to no deterrent at all).

[ArcturusMengsk]

Addendum:

The modern penal concept is flawed because of an innate assumption grounded within its justification which can be traced back to the ideology upon which it is based: the notion of individual self-transformation, which is rooted in traditional liberalism. The penitentiary assumes the existence of an individual who controls his actions, who possesses 'free will', and so forth, and as such is designed to 'scientifically' bring that self back into accord with society by inflicting upon it carefully measured punishments. This is an ideological (Christian!) notion that, simply, doesn't jive with reality.

That is a severe oversimplification. Other motivations for the conventional penal system include physical confinement to protect society from dangerous offenders and the concept of rational deterrent (humans, while not completely rational, still respond to rational deterrent more than they would to no deterrent at all).

To the contrary: our modern penal system, which is founded almost entirely upon Bentham's conception of the panopticon, is indeed intended to bring about an 'inner' change within the individual. We today justify it by an appeal to deterrence, but this is quite divorced from its original intent and structure, which has remained virtually intact since Bentham's design was taken up enthusiastically by the Victorians (hence the emphasis on observation and prediction rather than strict physical punishment). And, if we are going to justify it on different conceptual grounds, we would need to alter its very design accordingly.

[Darth Wong]

To the contrary: our modern penal system, which is founded almost entirely upon Bentham's conception of the panopticon, is indeed intended to bring about an 'inner' change within the individual.

And your evidence for this intent upon the part of everyone working in the modern penal system is ...?

We today justify it by an appeal to deterrence, but this is quite divorced from its original intent and structure, which has remained virtually intact since Bentham's design was taken up enthusiastically by the Victorians (hence the emphasis on observation and prediction rather than strict physical punishment).

That history is irrelevant to the modern system, unless you can show that it is exclusively manifest in the modern system.

And, if we are going to justify it on different conceptual grounds, we would need to alter its very design accordingly.

Show me how the design of the modern penal system is incompatible with the goal of protecting society from dangerous incarcerated offenders, or how it is incompatible with the idea of rational deterrent.

[ArcturusMengsk]

And your evidence for this intent upon the part of everyone working in the modern penal system is ...?

It's not. That's the point. Just as the laborer in the factory doesn't think about the profit of the shareholders when he is doing is job, neither does any individual within the penal system consider the purpose of the whole when they're doing theirs. On one level, the guard utilizes the surveillance system for his own personal protection, and yet the intent of that system is not, in fact, to ensure the guard's well-being but instead to instill within the prisoner a feeling of being under constant scrutiny and thereby instill within him, by virtue of force of habit, modes of thought which Bentham believed conductive to his personal 'transformation'.

That history is irrelevant to the modern system, unless you can show that it is exclusively manifest in the modern system.

It isn't 'history' precisely because it is designed into the prison - quite literally, it is built into the physical architecture of the building. It therefore cannot function otherwise; the feeling of surveillance absolutely must exist. That we have forgotten this purpose was very much Bentham's intent.

Show me how the design of the modern penal system is incompatible with the goal of protecting society from dangerous incarcerated offenders, or how it is incompatible with the idea of rational deterrent.

It isn't. But because it was not designed with that in mind it very often has unnecessary - and unwanted - side-effects. The prisoner takes the panopticon with him when he leaves, after all. If we were to design a penal system wherein deterrence is the justification it would almost certainly be more brutal than panopticism: but we do not, because doing such would be inhumane -- and we return to the panopticon.

[Darth Wong]

It's not. That's the point. Just as the laborer in the factory doesn't think about the profit of the shareholders when he is doing is job, neither does any individual within the penal system consider the purpose of the whole when they're doing theirs. On one level, the guard utilizes the surveillance system for his own personal protection, and yet the intent of that system is not, in fact, to ensure the guard's well-being but instead to instill within the prisoner a feeling of being under constant scrutiny and thereby instill within him, by virtue of force of habit, modes of thought which Bentham believed conductive to his personal 'transformation'.

You still have no evidence whatsoever for your position. Nor can you explain why a similar penal system has been adopted in various non-western societies. Your argument is based upon Anglo-Saxon ethnocentrism: in short, you believe that it must be possible to derive a complete theory of modern penal systems from a study of Western European history, as if the rest of the world either does not exist or is all derived from Western Europe.

It isn't 'history' precisely because it is designed into the prison - quite literally, it is built into the physical architecture of the building. It therefore cannot function otherwise; the feeling of surveillance absolutely must exist. That we have forgotten this purpose was very much Bentham's intent.

Who gives a fuck about Bentham? Do you think every country in the world is derived from English history?

If we were to design a penal system wherein deterrence is the justification it would almost certainly be more brutal than panopticism: but we do not, because doing such would be inhumane -- and we return to the panopticon.

Non sequitur. There is no reason to declare that deterrence is not a real motivation just because it is less extreme than it could theoretically be.

[ArcturusMengsk]

You still have no evidence whatsoever for your position.

Basic empiricism. The Western penal model is structured around surveillance; this is undeniable. It is a highly refined model dedicated to ensuring a 'hands-off' approach - and it is utterly flawed if intended to 'deter' crime, for the simple fact that it does not inflict injury upon the body of the incarcerated. Why would anybody believe that following a hands-off approach to crime is superior to corporal or capital punishment if they were not operating under the implicit assumption that it somehow affected an individual on a mental level? One inflicts physical harm upon an offender if looking to make him an example for others, and we all-too-often today hear about how prisoners have it 'easy'. The explicit purpose - by the designer, no less - of the Western penal system is to ensure that the individual no longer desires to reoffend. That this is no longer the justification used today is quite beside the point: it is an implicit assumption in the operation of the institution that the individual will be isolated and observed; no bodily contact whatsoever between the guard and the inmate is to occur unless absolutely required.

Nor can you explain why a similar penal system has been adopted in various non-western societies. Your argument is based upon Anglo-Saxon ethnocentrism: in short, you believe that it must be possible to derive a complete theory of modern penal systems from a study of Western European history, as if the rest of the world either does not exist or is all derived from Western Europe.

In short, I believe that those cultures which directly adopted the English penal system - namely, all of them - also adopted the same flaws inherent to it. Virtually the entire world today has adopted the English model; those who have not are called 'cruel'.

Who gives a fuck about Bentham? Do you think every country in the world is derived from English history?

No. I think - and history will back me up on this - that the Western-model penitentiary which is today used by almost every member of the United Nations, for instance, is directly inherited from Bentham's design and so implicitly assumes the purpose he designed it for. If one uses a church for a potlach it remains a church.

Non sequitur. There is no reason to declare that deterrence is not a real motivation just because it is less extreme than it could theoretically be.

It is a motivation today. It is not an optimized design towards this purpose.

[Lonestar]

So what's your explanation for the explosion in prison population then, since you seem to be dismissing economic factors with a wave of your hand?

War on drugs. Rise of the "Gangsta" Culture which encourages criminality amongst the largest demographic that ends up in prison. Stricter law enforcement activites, like Virginia's Project EXILE.

[Ender]

You don't need evidence to refute a logical fallacy, Ender. You need only point out that it is a fallacy. I can't believe you actually need this explained to you.

I initially read Shep's 95% statement as meaning that 95% of the people he dealt with, based on the way he continued with his second sentence. I gave him the benifit of the doubt and figured it was an example of poor communication, not an example of a logical fallacy. However, he has since gone on to demonstrate this was not the case, and he meant all crime, not just violent crime like his was.

Would it have been more appropriate if instead of a throwaway post, I explained what was wrong with the logic behind his statement?

Yes, it would have.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Freakonomics has a rather interesting chapter describing how most "street thug" criminality is less financially lucrative than a minimum wage job. Pyramid Schemes for the win!

I'm not sure what you mean by "whether or not it's undesirable". If you are referring to "Gangsta" culture, you aren't convincing me. I see young people from economically depressed areas of the DC Metro area doing entry level IT stuff, and they are smart enough to "turn off" the Gangsta crap when at work. Most bust their ass, too

As a student of anthropology and a fellow reader of Freakonomics you should notice this precisely proves Mengsk's point: there are more tempting prizes than merely your wage. Quite frankly, 'gangstas' are just taking the most locally relevant and accessible road to entrepreneurship and the "American Dream." Almost all of gangsta rap is precisely about this motif. Prestige is more important than the lucre in of itself. Sure working a decent job at a local place may pay better, but there your average urban poor minority is painfully aware of his lack of acculturation to polite society and chafes under the continued narrative of largely white ownership with few opportunities for advancement and personal initiative. To say nothing of the economic stagnation that often denies enough jobs to be filled in these areas. Again, most people will be too scared of the risks to actually become gang members. Not to mention, like any business, gangs demand only so much labor. If it doesn't demand labor, employment by it will not be available.

[Lonestar]

As a student of anthropology

Really? You're a Anthroplogy Major? I thought you were in engineering or something.

and a fellow reader of Freakonomics you should notice this precisely proves Mengsk's point: there are more tempting prizes than merely your wage. Quite frankly, 'gangstas' are just taking the most locally relevant and accessible road to entrepreneurship and the "American Dream." Almost all of gangsta rap is precisely about this motif. Prestige is more important than the lucre in of itself. Sure working a decent job at a local place may pay better, but there your average urban poor minority is painfully aware of his lack of acculturation to polite society and chafes under the continued narrative of largely white ownership with few opportunities for advancement and personal initiative. To say nothing of the economic stagnation that often denies enough jobs to be filled in these areas. Again, most people will be too scared of the risks to actually become gang members. Not to mention, like any business, gangs demand only so much labor. If it doesn't demand labor, employment by it will not be available.

I do not necessarily disagree with that statement, however to me this thread is less of a "why people turn to crime"(although that is a part) and more of "why is our prison population the size that it is?" discussion. And enacting harsher penalties than most Western countries do on people(and let's be honest, once you're in jail it's hard to get out of the cycle), or even enacting penalties on actions that have no penalties in other countries, in addition to the "normal order of buisness" of crime is what's increasing the size of our prison population.

I mean, aren't there several European countries that will imprison murderers for 20 years, whereas here we would put them away for life or kill 'em?

[K. A. Pital]

I mean, aren't there several European countries that will imprison murderers for 20 years, whereas here we would put them away for life or kill 'em?

That would be an argument, were violent crimes like murders a large part of the prison & jail population.

But the core problem is that the large population comes from nonviolent crimes. Yes, harsher punishment on nonviolent crimes (War on Drugs) is a factor. But one also needs to look at the size of the criminal pool instead of dismissing it out of hand as equal to other "Western" or even any other countries.

The truth is, the pool of criminals for nonviolent crimes may not be equal in America and some other Western country with a more lenient system, so the leniency is only one factor here.

[Lonestar]

The truth is, the pool of criminals for nonviolent crimes may not be equal in America and some other Western country with a more lenient system, so the leniency is only one factor here.

Well, duh don't we have over 3 times the (legal)population of the most populous West European country?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Really? You're a Anthroplogy Major? I thought you were in engineering or something.

I got self-respect! I'm just saying I've taken my share of upper level anthro - I could get the minor if I wanted to redline my schedule - and there's more even to economic exchange than pure dollar revenues and asset growth. You're right, I am on eng now. Really anthro, econ, et al is like study hall compared to the physical sciences.

I do not necessarily disagree with that statement, however to me this thread is less of a "why people turn to crime"(although that is a part) and more of "why is our prison population the size that it is?" discussion. And enacting harsher penalties than most Western countries do on people(and let's be honest, once you're in jail it's hard to get out of the cycle), or even enacting penalties on actions that have no penalties in other countries, in addition to the "normal order of buisness" of crime is what's increasing the size of our prison population.

I mean, aren't there several European countries that will imprison murderers for 20 years, whereas here we would put them away for life or kill 'em?

I agree with all that. I don't think Mengsk is saying anything about the U.S. atypical prison population, and more critiquing the fundamental sociology of Western penal systems in general.

[K. A. Pital]

Well, duh don't we have over 3 times the (legal)population of the most populous West European country?

You also have the highest per capita incarcerations which is an easy to use cross-national statistic.

[Lonestar]

Well, duh don't we have over 3 times the (legal)population of the most populous West European country?

You also have the highest per capita incarcerations which is an easy to use cross-national statistic.

And coincidently much tougher drug laws(Including a higher drinking age), than most West European nations do...and since it's hard to "get out of the cycle" once you're in, that leads to (shocker) an increase of repeat offenders.

[K. A. Pital]

And coincidently much tougher drug laws(Including a higher drinking age)

Yes, that's a great part of the problem. And so far this toughness hasn't accomplished much except, well, exploding prison populations. But this is not the same argument that you levied at first, since greater population does not explain greater per capita incarcerations.

[Darth Wong]

Basic empiricism.

The word "empiricism" does not mean what you seem to think it means. We are both working from the same empirical data; I simply object to your deductions. There is no reason to declare that every system which employs arbiters (judges) and imprisonment is necessarily based upon British history or the same motives, simply by virtue of incorporating some of the same methods of punishment. This is the same fallacy which leads Christians to believe that every penal cod which outlaws murder must be based on the Ten Commandments.

No. I think - and history will back me up on this - that the Western-model penitentiary which is today used by almost every member of the United Nations, for instance, is directly inherited from Bentham's design and so implicitly assumes the purpose he designed it for. If one uses a church for a potlach it remains a church.

Why don't you show me exactly how history backs you up on this?

It is a motivation today. It is not an optimized design towards this purpose.

It is not optimized for rehabilitation either. Did that occur to you?

[Darth Wong]

So what's your explanation for the explosion in prison population then, since you seem to be dismissing economic factors with a wave of your hand?

War on drugs. Rise of the "Gangsta" Culture which encourages criminality amongst the largest demographic that ends up in prison. Stricter law enforcement activites, like Virginia's Project EXILE.

Fair enough. Now could you be so kind as to explain to me how you are so certain that economic factors have zero impact?

[Lonestar]

Fair enough. Now could you be so kind as to explain to me how you are so certain that economic factors have zero impact?

I'm unwilling to say that economic factors have zero impact. I am saying that the "economic factors" sob story doesn't elicit much sympathy from me, if for no other reason that I've seen lots of folks from that type of background who made something of themselves, both inside and outside the military(Yeah, yeah, appeal to personal authority/experience, I know).

Funny story, the author of Freakonomics also notes that the decline in violent crime in the States coincides with right about when kids that would not have been aborted come of age, following Roe v. Wade. He notes that most people who have abortions are low income single mothers, which typically produce more criminals than other family units.


It's also fairly difficult to get out of "The system" once you are in. So if you're thrown in jail for drug possession, or owning/not registering a firearm(which is the driving force behind stuff like EXILE), you're more likely to remain a criminal after you get out. Or when you are sentenced to life imprisonment for murder/3-strikes/what-have-you, then you get wonderful situations like this

[Darth Wong]

Fair enough. Now could you be so kind as to explain to me how you are so certain that economic factors have zero impact?

I'm unwilling to say that economic factors have zero impact. I am saying that the "economic factors" sob story doesn't elicit much sympathy from me, if for no other reason that I've seen lots of folks from that type of background who made something of themselves, both inside and outside the military(Yeah, yeah, appeal to personal authority/experience, I know).

This is like saying that you know people who smoked and didn't get lung cancer, therefore the smoking/lung cancer connection is bullshit. You could be telling the complete truth but your conclusion would still be unjustified.

Funny story, the author of Freakonomics also notes that the decline in violent crime in the States coincides with right about when kids that would not have been aborted come of age, following Roe v. Wade. He notes that most people who have abortions are low income single mothers, which typically produce more criminals than other family units.

Doesn't that only further bolster the connection between income and crime?

It's also fairly difficult to get out of "The system" once you are in. So if you're thrown in jail for drug possession, or owning/not registering a firearm(which is the driving force behind stuff like EXILE), you're more likely to remain a criminal after you get out. Or when you are sentenced to life imprisonment for murder/3-strikes/what-have-you, then you get wonderful situations like this

The recidivism problem is well-known. But that hardly refutes the idea that the huge increase in the gap between rich and poor is related to the rise in crime rates.

[Lonestar]

[
This is like saying that you know people who smoked and didn't get lung cancer, therefore the smoking/lung cancer connection is bullshit. You could be telling the complete truth but your conclusion would still be unjustified.

Still doesn't mean the situation doesn't elicit much sympathy from me.

Doesn't that only further bolster the connection between income and crime?

Which would be why I very carefully said "I'm unwilling to say that economic factors have zero impact."

The recidivism problem is well-known. But that hardly refutes the idea that the huge increase in the gap between rich and poor is related to the rise in crime rates.

I, freely, admit that economic factors play a role. I also think that economic factors, in conjunction with the War on Drugs, a certain mindset promoted amongst the demographic that is most likely to wind up in jail, and very strict law enforcement initiatives have driven up prison size. All of these factors have taken off in the past twenty years. To blame one source where there are many forces at work(especially when it's financially more lucrative to turn to crime) is where I groan and shake my head.

[Darth Wong]

Still doesn't mean the situation doesn't elicit much sympathy from me.

Your personal emotional reaction is of no relevance. If you have some objection to the proposal that we try to limit the growing class divide in the country in an attempt to reduce its effect on crime rates, please present it. Otherwise this whole "personal sympathy" angle is nothing more than a red-herring.

I, freely, admit that economic factors play a role. I also think that economic factors, in conjunction with the War on Drugs, a certain mindset promoted amongst the demographic that is most likely to wind up in jail, and very strict law enforcement initiatives have driven up prison size. All of these factors have taken off in the past twenty years. To blame one source where there are many forces at work(especially when it's financially more lucrative to turn to crime) is where I groan and shake my head.

Taking the long view of history, resource shortfalls have been associated with wars and violence throughout all of human history, in every society on the face of the Earth. To reduce the economic factor to merely one of many competing equal factors in criminal conduct seems like an unjustifiable decision unless you have some compelling reason for this valuation. That doesn't mean it is the only factor, but legalizing marijuana wouldn't do shit to change this and I think everyone secretly knows it. So what are we going to do, legalize everything, from heroin to crystal meth? Similarly, the recidivism issue is real, but it's also not one that has a lot of practical solutions.

[Lonestar]

Your personal emotional reaction is of no relevance. If you have some objection to the proposal that we try to limit the growing class divide in the country in an attempt to reduce its effect on crime rates, please present it. Otherwise this whole "personal sympathy" angle is nothing more than a red-herring.

You seem to be implying that I am against trying to close the class divide, or to mitigate the problems of the class divide. If I interpreted that statement correctly, then it seems to be an odd one to make, especially as I am on-record as supporting at least one expensive method of mitigating the class divide.

Taking the long view of history, resource shortfalls have been associated with wars and violence throughout all of human history, in every society on the face of the Earth. To reduce the economic factor to merely one of many competing equal factors in criminal conduct seems like an unjustifiable decision unless you have some compelling reason for this valuation.

Who said anything about equal factors?