Just Like You
Speaking of crime and punishment, here’s a thread on prison and recidivism.
In short, we’re told – by a civil rights lawyer who claims that “cops and prisons are killing us all” – that neither custodial sanctions nor more lenient attempts at correction have much impact on rates of reoffending. This is then presented, by the same lawyer, as a reason not to imprison the predatory and murderous, who are apparently deserving of our sympathy. Unlike, one assumes, their numerous victims, and future victims.
And so, we arrive at the strange logic that if a person has been arrested many times for behaving like an animal, many times, and has consequently, belatedly, ended up in prison, thereby allowing the law-abiding some relief from his predation, then this is a bad thing. For which, we, not he, should feel bad.
As noted in the discussion, there’s a reliance, not least among progressives, on the notions of deterrence and rehabilitation as being how one determines whether prison is fitting or effective, or even an obsolete institution, something to abolish. But an antisocial moron with poor impulse control is likely to remain so until he dies, or is killed while engaging in criminal activity.
The concepts of punishment and incapacitation – of stopping a monster’s sociopathic activity and sparing others violation and misery, if only for the duration of his imprisonment – don’t seem to figure highly in progressive circles. Where, as we’ve seen, all kinds of contortions are very much in fashion.
Among the replies and linked tangents are some common, if unconvincing, suppositions. For instance, that habitual violent criminals – say, the kinds of creatures who gleefully sucker-punch elderly women because they happen to be of East Asian descent – will somehow be morally redeemed by “affordable housing” and “access to healthcare.”
Oh, and more “theatre” for schoolchildren.
Update, via the comments, where Darleen adds,
In reply to which, pst314 quotes Theodore Dalrymple:
Dalrymple: “Ah, but it does me good.”
Prisoner: “What do you mean?”
Dalrymple: “When you are in prison you are not burgling my home.”
At which point, readers may register that the limited effect of imprisonment – and lenient alternatives – on rates of reoffending could be construed in ways that, shall we say, diverge from progressive orthodoxy. One might, for instance, infer that those incarcerated for serious criminal savagery – and who, on release, continue being criminal savages – are irredeemable, and therefore undeserving of pretentious sympathy. One might even infer that the wellbeing of such creatures is no longer a concern.
Update 2:
In hindsight, this post has become the first part of a trilogy of sorts. See also parts two and three.
Well, what any deity makes of those who repeatedly terrorise random strangers for shits and giggles, I leave to others. Mortal forgiveness and goodwill, however, are definitely finite, limited resources, and probably best spent where it matters, on the deserving.
Regarding recidivism, here’s a piece reminding the reader that a small number of incorrigible monsters commit an awful lot of the crime that the rest of us experience, and do it over and over again, until they’re forcibly stopped. Say, by being shot, or banged up in a dungeon. Much to our progressive lawyer’s dismay, no doubt:
In short, before ending up in prison, the vast majority of the perpetrators, our supposed victims, have at least five prior arrests, with almost half having 10 or more, and one in seven, 20 or more:
What’s the phrase I’m looking for? Oh yes. The nature of the beast.
Do you have illustrative stories that you’d like to relate, a la Theodore Dalrymple’s famous essays?
“they found that 1% of people were accountable for 63% of all violent crime convictions, and 0.12% of people accounted for 20% of violent crime convictions.”
I have seen reports that about 5% of the populace commits about 90% of all crimes. Remove that incorrigible 5% from society and the rest of us become much safer.
I have one dark thought, though: We have all seen numerous news reports in which when a thug is killed by his intended victim, numerous friends and family and neighbors publicly express outrage that he was killed. This leads me to think that for every violent thug there are many sympathizers who should also be removed from society. (Much as for every actual communist there are many liberal sympathizers and facilitators.)
Well, I’ve long since lost count of the self-styled progressives who would have us ignore all reality, and any number of contradictions, in order to mimic their own pretensions:
And,
For instance.
I recall when a person from the travelling community was stabbed to death with his own screwdriver during a struggle with his intended burglary victim (a pensioner whose home he had broken into) the response from his family was to proclaim that he was “Too good for this world”.
I recall when a person from the travelling community
And their behaviour in the victim’s street after the event. The real victim, not the chancer who came to grief.
Ding Ding Ding!
But you will never have enough prisons, prison guards, or even helicopters to accomplish this. The simple solution of just removing that 5% or whatever from society would work as a maintenance measure in an otherwise functional society.
What we have now is a much deeper and broader cultural problem that has been allowed (Mrs. Taxis my AP History teacher speaks from the grave, “By whom?”) to grow roots and fester such that more extreme measures will be required. Essentially something nearly equivalent to post-WWII level efforts to reform Japanese society. The broader problem is that we no longer have a functioning rule of law. The legal system at all levels is corrupted with favors for approved groups/classes and punishments for the disapproved ones. This should have been clear to anyone who studied the pandemic and related history that occurred in the third decade of the 21st century. Though many of the signs were there even decades before that.
Folly is one of the few constants in human behaviour. How else to explain the delusion that man is perfectible?
To forgive is divine . . . and therefore not one of my prerogatives.
Mortal forgiveness and goodwill, however, are definitely finite, limited resources, and probably best spent where it matters, on the deserving.
“Forgiveness” is an individual action, not a function of the state, justice is. There’s a reason Lady Justice is blindfolded. Even the Bible admonishes about letting feelings or biases sway one from the path of justice. e.g. Leviticus 19:15
On the general subject, this came to mind, in particular the following:
Seen some years ago, it’s an episode that lingers.
But hey, just like you. So no biggie.
If anything, things have only gotten worse. He din do nuffin!
Scenes like the above, of which there were many, may explain why progressives disliked the series, dismissing it as “copaganda” – a term also used by the lawyer quoted in the post. I suspect the actual objection is not so much, as claimed, that the series portrayed the police in a sanitised or flattering light, as the officers were rarely the focus of the viewer’s attention.
The stars of each episode, if that’s the right word, were usually the lawbreakers. They, not the police, held the attention. They were generally the ones driving events, whether those events were alarming or farcical. And so, the series offered a glimpse into the mindset of the criminals – the recurring patterns of malevolence and selfishness – in their own words and by watching their own actions.
And obviously, we can’t have that. It makes pretentious sympathy much more difficult to muster.
A man can dream, can’t he?
This trap for burglars inexplicably reminds me of the final sentence of Mark Twain’s “The Facts Concerning the Recent Carnival of Crime in Connecticut”:
Isn’t it puzzling how liberal polices that encourage rampant crime will in turn lead normal people to think thoughts they never thought before even in jest?
And note the implication that liberals are not normal people.
In the view of leftists, it is verboten to notice that criminals have volition. One must always portray them as helpless victims buffeted about by chance and “injustice”.
In my former life, when I was a prosecution lawyer, I remember one defending solicitor saying to me “You know, they claim that prison doesn’t work and is not a deterrent. If that’s true, why is it that they all want to be let out on bail?”.
Science!
Busting the myth criminals don’t have agency.
Very much so. My memories of watching the series include just how often the ‘stars’ were authors of their own misery and degradation, to say nothing of their victims’ misery and degradation. That, the utter selfishness, and the failure, or refusal, to learn obvious lessons.
And yet we see endless excuse-making by progressives, who will perform farcical contortions to conjure excuses for the incorrigible, while expecting us to gush with sympathy, or pretend to gush with sympathy, for people who will never be inclined to repay the compliment. And who, given the chance, would fuck us over too.
See also the last item here.
Like the habitual criminals they excuse, the opinionators seem indifferent to just how morally grotesque their own behaviour is.
Re Cops, even back then…what was it, early-mid 1990’s? I was quite surprised that such a show ever got on the air. Of course it was Fox…but that was then-Fox. Even I was taken a bit aback at how many of the cops on the show casually referred to “good guys” and “bad guys”. But that was then-WTP. Not that he was a lefty but he was still much closer to his 20 years of schooling/propaganda/Narrative-ing.
A reason to go to Liverpool.
We started watching in, I think, the early 2000s, but the series first aired in 1989.
The Jewish Bible has no prison system – except as temporary holding before sentencing.
Prison is a complete disconnect from any personal responsibility to the damaged parties and society – it’s basically a suspension of normal socialization and its responsibilities. This is the exact opposite of what must be driven home to the criminal, namely:
-You are responsible for what you do.
-We are not going away – you must accommodate us, not the other way round.
Biblical/Rabbinic law assesses damages in 5 areas:
There is no concept of incapacitation by drugs or alcohol as a mitigating factor.
For major crimes it is typically not possible for the criminal to pay the assessed damages. So they are “sold” into indentured service. Which means:
This system does a much better job of getting those messages through – you are responsible and you must live among us – while providing missed socialization opportunities and lessons.
The system pays for itself, rather than society paying for warehouses that breed more criminality.
There is recompense for the victims.
There is strong, publicly present deterrence and social pressure.
For criminals who progress to murder/manslaughter:
Watched many episodes of US show “The First 48” about investigations of homicides. Number 1 cause of murder: robbery or carjacking. Either victim fought back or they just shot for good measure. Sometimes mugger got killed. No. 2 cause: personal beef, often for no known reason. Then you have drivebys (a beef or turf war) where a bystander gets shot, a woman owes her drug dealer $20, a guy is twirling a gun around, ex girlfriend killed out of jealousy. No remorse. No planning. Race of perp: 90% black, some hispanic, some white.
“You chose to get drunk, knowing what drunkenness can lead to.”
That is true of a very large fraction of today’s criminals, as illustrated by the repeated reminders that it is useless for victims to sue them to recover medical costs (much less pain and suffering.)
But I suppose it would be politically unwise to suggest a reconsideration of the ancient Jewish system.
Wouldn’t be prudent.
Incarceration is a one-person-at-a-time crime deterrent and recidivism prevention strategy.
Reform may, or may not be possible and it depends almost entirely on the individual in question. No studies, no track records, no programs or intervention strategies prove anything but that.
And that’s PERFECTLY FINE with 99% of Americans. It’s a bargain we’d all take, every day.
If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.
Simple as that.
Under the viking system, major crimes could lead to one becoming an “outlaw”–literally outside the law. This meant anyone could rob you or kill you and not be punished. Not sure if murder was in that category.
Let’s not go berserk, now.
Of the hundreds of neighbors, friends, and co-workers I know, not one has ever been to jail or even arrested. There are different cultures involved.
Apparently you don’t that many Americans. Even cops. Cops are far more “Lock it or lose it”. That was their mantra in the town I just left in central Florida. And to a significant degree the town next door to that one that I lived in 10 years prior. I mentioned to a cop that I preferred the old system of “Can’t do the crime, don’t do the time”. He didn’t seem to like my point.
My wife has a bit of a thing about meeting new people. Also when something…interesting…happens to people we know. I don’t like it but…you might be surprised what is available with open records. Though it might be more of a Florida thing. Also… I’m guessing you don’t hang out in pool halls or associate with any poker players.
Science!
Yep, I had a few words to say about Mx Neil.
Likewise nobody I know nowadays: Those I choose to associate are so boringly bourgeois. But I can think of a few that I used to slightly know long long ago: One was black, the child of a first failed marriage, and her parents were not at all criminal so I assume she was tempted by relations from the first marriage. One was an immigrant who decided to supplement his legal income by dealing dope. One was a brain-dead California commie who decided it would be a good idea to break into an Air Force base and try to bang hammers on airplanes for World Peace.
I have commented before on the fools who worship Neil DeGrasse Tyson as if he were an Oracle of All Truths: This reveals a lack of judgment and maturity that is common in the “I F*cking Love Science” (IFLS) crowd.
But I strongly suspect that this fanboy worship is an important factor in Tyson’s steadily increasing arrogance.
And besides, what special qualifications does a mediocre astrophysicist have to comment on biology, human sexuality, psychology, abnormal psychology, and so on?
For instance: Two blacks randomly attack two Muslim women in Milwaukee. And that’s supposed to be a very nice, very safe area. No matter when you write about black racism and violence, there will be a news item about it that very same day.
Immigrant Negasi Zuberi has culturally enriched America by kidnapping a woman and making her his sex slave in a home-made dungeon. But liberals will angrily insist that everyone around the world is “just like us”.
‘I will f’n taze you in the nuts!’ It’s tempting to like, but That Would Be Wrong.
“There ain’t nothing you can do”,
rooftop Koreansbroomstick Sikhs didn’t get the message.Heh. When I worked at a *major defense contractor*, big big engineering firm (cough, cough) I caused a bit of a kerfuffle by making a slightly disparaging comment in regards to NdGT. Nothing nasty, I just implied that I didn’t find him to be, you know, all that. My otherwise good/moderate relationship with a few younger cow-orkers never recovered. It was as if I had denied the divinity of Christ. Actually…If I had denied the divinity of Christ I probably would have been more accepted.
“But I suppose it would be politically unwise to suggest a reconsideration of the ancient Jewish system.”
Now try saying that about Sharia law and see what happens.
Quite. We have an industry geared to the inculcation of pretentious victimhood, not least in schools and universities, and its effects are not benign:
And note the professor’s response, and peevishness, when some students politely demurred and chose not to play along. A professor, by the way, who delights in categorising students as “dark-skinned,” “medium-skinned” and so forth.
Re the above, in the archive you’ll find more vivid examples of the effects.
Jailed in the Bastille for stealing a loaf of bread for their starving sister; or sent to the Wall for stealing a wheel of cheese for same (GRR Martin). Now they’re stealing medicine for their sickly children…
Via @K_Niemietz
https://twitter.com/guardianopinion/status/1687030183319285760
From ftumch’s link
OK, Owen Jones, so the whole thing should be rejected out of hand, but this is just a boilerplate article ignoring the obvious and often stated, the more that is stolen, the more expensive things get, the more they get locked down, the more they are unavailable, rinse and repeat.
The bigger thing is the complete refusal of the left, as has been stated here, to accept that everything is not someone else’s fault, or the fault of powers beyond their control, or to punish obvious offenders. For instance…
Right. Needed to drink and drive a semi. Get thee behind me demon beer.
Right reasonable accommodation for a “disability”. ”First shalt thou take out the Holy 12 Pack. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count and nine is right out…”
The left’s whole approach is the old “better 99 guilty go free than one innocent suffer” on steroids.
Those poor hardworking shoplifters emptying the shelves to sell it all down the pub.
So, according to Mr Jones, expecting persistent shoplifters to face consequences for their actions is now among “the worst instincts of the electorate.” Because shoplifters are “traumatised,” apparently,
If thieving is so easily excused, perhaps Mr Jones would be good enough to publish his home address, the whereabouts of any valuables, and the times when he’s likely to be out. Or does our nasty socialist dolt only disdain other people’s property?