UNCLE HERKIMER'S KORNER: ©1988
Either Binder or Grinder (of NLP fame) once observed that an interesting characteristic of our species is the way we respond to problems. When we have one, we look around for a solution until we find one that does not work, then we do more and more and more of that.(I would further observe that this attribute adds credence to the argument that physical laws like those of inertia and entropy apply as well to social interactions). One of the most dangerous examples of this predilection toward compulsive dose-doubling derives from our attitude about prison systems. Basically, prison systems evolved from the need of society to protect itself from aberrant persons whose actions threatened the safety of societal members. This process was intended to conclude in a society that was in fact safer, and was perceived as being so by its members.
As time went by the number of acts judged to be sufficiently detrimental to the general safety of society as to require imprisonment increased-- exponentially. Here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, it is now against the law to do more things than in any other country on earth. According to the federal prison population report, in June, 1984, one out of every 520 Americans was in prison. The prison population had almost doubled in the previous decade and has continued to rise at an even more precipitous rate. We now have the third highest rate of incarceration in the world (we are still trailing Russia and South Africa, but never fear, we'll catch 'em). And yet, surveys show that the average American feels less safe both at home and on the streets than was the case 30 years ago. Violent crime has doubled in the last twenty years, seventy percent of that crime being committed by "career" criminals, all honor graduates of C.U.(Criminal University). We send them to prison. They learn rage. They get out and commit more crimes-- perhaps if we send them back for a longer period of time... Kafka could not have devised a better plan. But the prevailing inertia demands that we build more prisons; send people away for longer periods of time, and for an increasing variety of behaviors. Since the rate of incarceration, and the expense, continues to escalate at higher rates than the general population and the economy, it doesn't take a master statistician to understand that the current "solution" to our crime problem cannot continue indefinitely. Well maybe it could. If we increased our law enforcement budget to the level of our defense budget, perhaps we would be perfectly safe. Who would then dare discern that we had nothing left worth saving?
This concept has more tentacles than the average herd of octopi, not the least being the ease with which murderers and rapists sometimes slip through the net to prey again. We need to be able to make some distinctions we are not currently making. A good starting point would be to examine whether persons who commit so called "victimless" crimes ought to be sent to prison at all. As an example, are murderers, robbers, and rapists going free because we are so preoccupied with our hopeless quest to control drug use by force of law? If it is against the law to do something so prevalent that if the law were perfectly enforced, there would not be enough people outside the jails to support those inside the jails, then what we have here folks is a stupid law. To get back to the point of beginning, what we have here folks is a plethora of stupid laws, with no sign that we capable of recognizing that our solution to the problem of crime is not working. I think society is safer because Charles Manson is in jail, and I don't believe he should ever be free of prison, but I don't think we are a damn bit safer because eighteen year old David Wilson is in prison for selling two onces of pot to an undercover agent. Quite the contrary, for reasons (as they say) far to lengthy to mention here, I think we are less safe because David is in prison. And the longer we continue to permit our solutions to go unchecked, the less safe we become.
Either Binder or Grinder (of NLP fame) once observed that an interesting characteristic of our species is the way we respond to problems. When we have one, we look around for a solution until we find one that does not work, then we do more and more and more of that.(I would further observe that this attribute adds credence to the argument that physical laws like those of inertia and entropy apply as well to social interactions). One of the most dangerous examples of this predilection toward compulsive dose-doubling derives from our attitude about prison systems. Basically, prison systems evolved from the need of society to protect itself from aberrant persons whose actions threatened the safety of societal members. This process was intended to conclude in a society that was in fact safer, and was perceived as being so by its members.
As time went by the number of acts judged to be sufficiently detrimental to the general safety of society as to require imprisonment increased-- exponentially. Here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, it is now against the law to do more things than in any other country on earth. According to the federal prison population report, in June, 1984, one out of every 520 Americans was in prison. The prison population had almost doubled in the previous decade and has continued to rise at an even more precipitous rate. We now have the third highest rate of incarceration in the world (we are still trailing Russia and South Africa, but never fear, we'll catch 'em). And yet, surveys show that the average American feels less safe both at home and on the streets than was the case 30 years ago. Violent crime has doubled in the last twenty years, seventy percent of that crime being committed by "career" criminals, all honor graduates of C.U.(Criminal University). We send them to prison. They learn rage. They get out and commit more crimes-- perhaps if we send them back for a longer period of time... Kafka could not have devised a better plan. But the prevailing inertia demands that we build more prisons; send people away for longer periods of time, and for an increasing variety of behaviors. Since the rate of incarceration, and the expense, continues to escalate at higher rates than the general population and the economy, it doesn't take a master statistician to understand that the current "solution" to our crime problem cannot continue indefinitely. Well maybe it could. If we increased our law enforcement budget to the level of our defense budget, perhaps we would be perfectly safe. Who would then dare discern that we had nothing left worth saving?
This concept has more tentacles than the average herd of octopi, not the least being the ease with which murderers and rapists sometimes slip through the net to prey again. We need to be able to make some distinctions we are not currently making. A good starting point would be to examine whether persons who commit so called "victimless" crimes ought to be sent to prison at all. As an example, are murderers, robbers, and rapists going free because we are so preoccupied with our hopeless quest to control drug use by force of law? If it is against the law to do something so prevalent that if the law were perfectly enforced, there would not be enough people outside the jails to support those inside the jails, then what we have here folks is a stupid law. To get back to the point of beginning, what we have here folks is a plethora of stupid laws, with no sign that we capable of recognizing that our solution to the problem of crime is not working. I think society is safer because Charles Manson is in jail, and I don't believe he should ever be free of prison, but I don't think we are a damn bit safer because eighteen year old David Wilson is in prison for selling two onces of pot to an undercover agent. Quite the contrary, for reasons (as they say) far to lengthy to mention here, I think we are less safe because David is in prison. And the longer we continue to permit our solutions to go unchecked, the less safe we become.
MensaMuse, Boulder, Colorado, Jim Moore
Back to the curator's desk.
