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:

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.

Further to recent rumblings on assumptions of racism, this caught my eye:

Who needs evidence when you have faith? https://t.co/G8zdjcT5yP

— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) July 31, 2023

Today’s word is mindset.

Mr Dettlaff – sorry, Professor Dettlaff – has a PhD in social work and “formerly served as Dean of the University of Houston Graduate College of Social Work.” He uses the term “white supremacist” quite freely, and entirely without irony.

Apparently, the professor was removed from his position as Dean for demanding the “abolition” of policing and incarceration, and demanding a “new, liberated society… free from violence and oppression.” And in which habitual criminals and assorted sociopaths roam freely and unimpeded.

In Professor Dettlaff’s imaginings, a world without physical consequences for robbery and predation would mean “individuals have everything they need to thrive.” Except, of course, any third-party protection from the aforementioned habitual criminals and assorted sociopaths. This “new, liberated society,” in which policing has been “firmly disavowed,” will, he insists, “truly keep us safe.”

It seems that Professor Dettlaff was deemed too ideologically deranged even for a modern university. Which is quite the feat.

He’s a “thought leader,” you know.

Also, this:

💜 I prepared a curricular unit for a state initiative on childhood adversity with a slide that stated that colonization, white supremacy, racism, and oppression were the root causes of trauma and was asked to provide references for the slide. 😳

— Leigh Kimberg (@LeighKimberg) July 29, 2023

Ms Kimberg, above, is all about “compassion, healing, justice and equity.” She likes to announce her pronouns to random passers-by.

Update, via the comments, which you’re reading, of course:

Regarding Ms Kimberg, pst314 notes,

Pretty much. It has, in fact, been referred to as a laundering operation. But it seems that even this minimal requirement is far too strenuous and distracting when there’s a “new society” to invent. One in which everyone has everything they need, in which the concept of law-enforcement is a distant memory, and in which carjackers gambol about like newborn lambs.

And it’s quite something to have a supposed educator demanding that the editors of supposedly academic journals stop even the most basic attempts to ensure that key assertions in their publications are not just made-up or wildly delusional. But this, it seems, is where we are.

Update 2:

Somewhat related, on prison and recidivism.

Also, open thread. Share ye links and bicker.

In the comments, pst314 shares an uplifting, utopian spectacle for Portland’s commuters.

What’s striking about such scenes, I think, is the eye-widening selfishness on display. Other passengers, other people, including children, are seemingly of no importance. Except, perhaps, as obstacles, or targets. And yet we’re told, often and at length, that those who repeatedly indulge in antisocial and criminal behaviour are creatures deserving of indulgence, and with whom we should empathise. As if the favour would ever be returned.

If you’ve watched the reality series Cops or Live PD, pathological selfishness is very much a staple, a defining attribute of the assorted misfits and predators. I remember one lengthy pursuit of thieves who’d robbed a store at gunpoint, terrorised its owner, and then fled the scene in a stolen car, and whose bid to escape did costly damage to other people’s property, and caused other road users to veer and crash, resulting in serious injury.

When finally apprehended, the thieves, themselves unharmed, were entirely unconcerned by the horror and destruction left in their wake, or the fact that it was all but miraculous that no-one had been killed. Instead, they were loudly indignant, as if they were the victims of the drama, heatedly objecting to the discomfort of handcuffs, and demanding to know why their phones had been confiscated. While, within earshot, injured children were being rushed to hospital.

It’s curious how those who find endless opportunities to declare their own altruism and compassion, and thereby signal their elevated status, are very often determined to excuse selfishness of a sociopathic kind and to perform remarkable contortions while doing so.

Such that, having been burgled, for instance – in the middle of the night, by people armed with carving knives – one should apparently sympathise with the bipedal vermin breaking into one’s home and driving off with one’s stuff – in one’s own car. And then, via incoherent prose in a national newspaper, fret about their wellbeing. Burglars being so deserving of our forbearance and goodwill, you see.

If readers are left somewhat puzzled by the piece in question, by Guardian contributor Anna Spargo-Ryan, this is understandable. Consistency doesn’t appear to be a priority, or indeed an option. What matters, it seems, is that Ms Spargo-Ryan is hailed by her progressive peers as a “beautiful person,” oozing, as she is, with infinite compassion. Albeit not so much for other local residents, also robbed in the night, most likely by the same criminal gang, and whose expectations of justice are deemed terribly proletarian and unsophisticated.

But then, ostentatious displays of sympathy for criminals – rather than for their numerous victims, and future victims – are much more statusful. And hey, that’s what matters.

As seen in the links above, the mental convolutions can be quite bizarre. If another illustration is needed, see also this stern moral lecture from the pages of Vice, in which we’re told, emphatically, that the people we should dislike and disdain, and indeed fear, are the ones who don’t feel entitled to rob us, or beat us insensible, or burn down our homes.

Via the ladies at Reduxx, a tale that begins as farce, but soon veers elsewhere.

Imagine, if you will, a 53-year-old Scottish butcher and advocate for “transgender issues,” a man famed locally, both for his “shockingly bad” customer service and his cross-dressing proclivities, and also for thieving ladies’ undergarments, resulting in the nickname “knicker pincher.” Yes, I know. It does rather have the makings of a 1970s comedy sketch:

Again, all rather farcical.

However, Mr Miller has since been apprehended by the police following the disappearance of an 11-year-old girl:

For some reason, the words “false reporting” caught my eye.

Via Joan.

Consider this an open thread.