Dear Reader: (I started this before the disgraceful verdict was rendered in San Francisco. I'll write about that very soon.) Here we go again. An article in our rural area newspaper suggests that the"mass incarceration" "evident" in the numbers (some 2.2 million imprisoned nationally) must be proof of catastrophic and unjust dysfunction in the criminal justice system itself. In this case it is maintained that overly zealous and socially unenlightened prosecutors intimidate the accused into plea bargains for reduced penalties for crimes they did not commit. Yeah, it happens but for the most part most of those accused of felonies are up to their neck in prior and present offenses.
I worked in four NY state prisons for 20 years with intensive contact with state prison inmates as a law librarian and with frequent access to their "rap sheets". Most of them, though not all, were habitual criminals.
The number of persons incarcerated in the U.S. is a direct result of the rate of committed crime in the U.S. If incarceration disproportionately effects certain areas, mostly in U.S. cities, it is because that's where many, many crimes occur, at the hands moreover of residents of those areas, not of some imaginary invading horde. The victims are of course very often those who reside in these unfortunate areas. Those who do not reside there cannot but be aware of the daily outrages in such areas due to local news coverage of both that and crime in less dangerous areas.
We must make a fundamental decision in this country to emphasize the protection of those any sane society protects as a matter of course - the innocent and law abiding,especially senior citizens and children - so that this consideration becomes paramount. We have paid an enormous, unconscionable price for our well intentioned but proven over time to be wrong headed overconsideration of the "rights" of purposeful lowlifes. They CAN be controlled; it takes political will to do so but it can be done. The positive living, law abiding majority must protect itself and the most vulnerable it contains, against victimizers, no matter the dubious and self serving excuses the perpetrators consistently advance.
We can start by dividing our prison systems into two levels only: the first would be for those whose crimes do not mandate their permanent divorce from society. These should be involuntarily committed to shock incarceration facilities for 6 months of militarily disciplined rigor coupled with intensive group therapy designed to impress upon them society's resolve that they accept individual responsibility for their behavior, featuring instant consequences for negative behavior and positive reinforcement for improvement. They need, for the benefit of those among them who truly do not know the fundamentals of positive living, to see what it is. In this setting any plausible expression of "fronting" on the part of inmates must result either in reconsignment to the beginning of the program or exile to the second level for those proven incorrigible. For graduates,it would be their choice thereafter to pursue or disdain what they have been taught and the consequences would accrue to them individually. Failure to pursue positive lives must assuredly result in consignment to the second level. I worked, with pride, in Shock Incarceration for seven years and I know it renders justice to tax payers, crime victims and yes, to inmates.
The second level would be for those whose vicious crimes or resistance to correction make it necessary for them to be kept in permanent custody.This would be accomplished by confining them to prisons for life (for those convicted of unforgiveably cruel crimes)or to inescapable electronic surveillance until very advanced age cures them of the lust for such perverse excitement or profit. The death penalty would be administered only to those whose guilt is beyond ANY doubt, whose crimes warrant it and would be accomplished by the fearful method of electrocution. Society and crime victims are due some retribution after all; it was a beneficial thing to see the fear in Ted Bundy's countenance as he fully realized what was about to happen to him in the chair.
Along with this must be a sea change in our drug laws. Sure, low level drugs open the door to much worse substances but so does alcohol. We tried to outlaw alcohol and that didn't work. Legalize all the recreational drugs and then make the laws against the truly destructive ones draconian indeed. Singapore offers us a good example, in their treatment of all drug offenses, for the course we must follow in prosecuting the heartless distribution of the obviously and assuredly lethal drugs. Use of such drugs rates assignment to the first level. Distribution must result in assured tenure in the second level.
Our democracy is an experiment and we must face the fact that some of it has been counterproductive. We must of course continue to protect inherent human rights confirmed by our Constitution but we must summon the moral courage necessary to take in hand those who make a cynical mockery of those rights and to deny them any gain from their unempathetic and unsympathetic misdeeds. Mayor Guiliani demonstrated, in a New York City virtually prostrate with crime and degradation, that this is only common sense. Jack
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well said, John/Jack. Your prescription is eminently sensible. I agree that most drugs should be legal. Let people make their own choices, and if they choose so wrongly that they inflict harm on others, then let them face the consequences. How liberally to apply the death penalty is no easy question to answer, but I would err on the side of Texan severity rather than Massachusetts-style squeamishness. I definitely agree with the Giuliani philosophy that every violation of the law, no matter how seemingly trivial, should be met with some kind of punishment. Lastly, I think our society is in desperate need of changing its attitude to law enforcement. Hollywood turns out endless movies and tv shows, and the media reports endless bogus stories, that undermine respect for law enforcement, and that does a disservice to everyone, especially the people who live in violent communities, and who therefore need the help of the police more than the rest of us.
Thanks Dr. Waddy: The reestablishment of common sense in the west reminds me of the rehabilitation of victims of physically disabling accidents. Too many of us must relearn things which used to be routine. Massachusetts was not squeamish about providing Willy Horton, who had stabbed a boy so savagely that his body was found virtually bloodless, a compassionate "furlough"from prison, during which he went on another subhuman rampage. Using common sense, the real America denied Horton's friend, Gov. Dukakis, the Presidency. Dukakis's avatar, Andrew Cuomo, is mulling the freeing of one of the 1970's Brinks robber/murderers because he is moved by his good conduct in prison. But that won't afford renewed life to the executed Brink's guards and should be legally impossible. It would be a factor if Cuomo pursues his absurd pipedream of ultimate authority. An organized boycott of those entertainment venues which insist on relentlessly negative portrayals of law enforcement professionals would be a good thing. The country has about put the rout to the antimilitary crowd and we can do the same to the pro criminal crowd.
Post a Comment