Hmmm...I do not know anyone with the mentality of "prison should be as harsh as possible". Prison shouldn't be a "cake walk" either.
Go to facebook, find a local newspaper's page. Find a story about a rapist or someone guilty of animal cruelty or neglect.
Here are a couple of quotes I found from comments on my local paper (in the UK):
"It doesn't matter what went wrong he decided to take other peoples possesions by his own choice.he chose to invade peoples homes and didn't care what state he left houses or how the people felt afterwards he is scum.its people like him that ruin lives and he got off lightly from our weak judicial system and needs knee caps drilling as a reminder of why he should keep his thieving hands in his pockets in future." (7 likes)
"All peados should be put into a mincer machine feet first, then when they pass out shut it off, then when they wake turn it bk on. Don't get why they get put on separate part of prison, throw them in with the other prisoners and let them get delt with! SICK CUNTS !!!!!" (4 likes)
"Men who abuse women should be hung!" (3 likes)
etc etc.
The goal of any policy should be the betterment of society. We have plenty of evidence to show that prisons designed for rehabilitation have lower incidences of recidivism than harsh, punitive ones.
Even if it isn't a cop out, it might be better taken as a suggestion for areas to target for improvement (social dysfunction, social cohesion) than as an excuse for complacency.
Go to the south side of Chicago and try to see what sorts of cultural ties exist between the people there and the people in the rest of the city. There is a profound disconnect, and a profound lack of any sense of connection to a common community.
Obviously Denmark or Norway have poor people. But the sense that one group of people are not even party to the same social contract is not one that is common in Europe, though you see it among Muslim immigrants in the UK and France.
Lack of faith in social institutions breeds crime. If you're a poor teenager in Chicago deciding whether to join a gang, you do it because the gang can protect you. The police won't protect you--the police are there to protect the rest of the city from you.
And it's not just a matter of decriminalizing common behavior. The young people in Chicago joining gangs aren't non-violent offenders being out away for innocuous crimes. That's what makes the problem so deeply intractable. Even when you take away the overly long sentences and the convictions for innocuous things like mere drug possession, the US has far more crime than Denmark or Norway.
Europe is going to see it too, soon. Below replacement fertility has meant increasing immigration, faster than those people can be integrated. And then Europe too will have to deal with the "us versus them" mentality that arises in such populations.
Not really the way the US does:
Most recent available Gini Coefficients [1]:
Denmark 24.8
Norway 25
Germany 27
E.U. 30.7
India 36.8
World 39
Nigeria 43.7
United States 45
Mozambique 45.6
But, still, such broader social problems aren't the only big problems in the prison or other systems, and even though they need to be fixed, there are big steps that can be taken short of fixing them to deal with other real problems in each of those systems.
> And it's not just a matter of decriminalizing common behavior.
Ending drug prohibition would do quite a lot of to mitigate the problem with prisons, even though it wouldn't deal with the biggest underlying problem.
> The young people in Chicago joining gangs aren't non-violent offenders being out away for innocuous crimes.
No, but there'd be a lot less broken homes for them to come from if it weren't lots of resources being poored into non-violent offenders being put away for victimless crimes, and there'd be a lot more resources for the kinds of interventions that would stop people from ending up in gangs in the first places.
> That's what makes the problem so deeply intractable.
What makes the problem deeply intractable is people throwing up their hands and saying that the problem is too hard to deal with. (And, mostly, people seeing their own short-term self-interest being in not dealing with the problem.)
[1] https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...
Have a look at the majority of these addresses for the 2013 murders in Chicago: https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0Ak3IIavLYTovdHYxbDI...
Here's a map for the 52 murders in Chicago in just July 2013: http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/date/2013/7/
I'd love to increase cultural ties, however from a risk-assessment standpoint, Chicago is less safe than being a soldier in Afghanistan: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/chicago-homicide-ra...
But the same cannot be said of crime rates. Crime rates in the US tend to be higher, but not nearly that much higher and not across the board.
What sets the US apart that leads to high incarceration rates is primarily harsh sentencing (longer sentences, fewer suspended sentences, high minimum sentences, a general focus on retribution over rehabilitation, the "felonization" [1] of everything under the sun).
[1] http://www.harveysilverglate.com/Books/ThreeFeloniesaDay.asp... [2]
[2] Yes, the book is a bit sensationalist, but there's plenty of truth to it. See, e.g. the Kiera Wilmot case [3]: What she did wouldn't have even risen to the level of a misdemeanor in most Western European countries.
[3] http://www.businessinsider.com/kiera-wilmot-lawyer-hoping-to...
Of course, it's not the law that's solely responsible for crazy high crime rates compared to other civilized countries, nevertheless some practices used in US legal system can give a lot of incentive to minor offenders to do things they otherwise wouldn't.
Crime tends to be more lethal in the US, not (that much) more frequent.
[1] http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/statistics/d...
From that point of view, what is most relevant is peoples' perception of crime, and peoples' perception of the criminals, not necessarily actual crime rates. When people see sky-high murder rates, a crime that is considered the most grievous one possible and the kind of crime that becomes a focal point for the public discourse, and when they don't feel a social bond with the people convicted of crimes, they will not be satisfied by the kind of more lenient prison sentences and conditions you see in European countries.
The middle aged suburban voter is not interested in the rehabilitative aspect of the justice system, the aspect that reintegrates criminals into society, because that criminal was never part of that suburbanite's society to begin with. That voter is merely interested in retribution. At the same time, the criminal doesn't see the situation any differently. He has no faith in the institutions of society. He knows that he will never be considered a part of the broader society, so his incentive to really try to be rehabilitated vanishes. So the recidivism rate in the U.S. is double or triple that of places like Norway: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/07/25/277771/norway-is....
Contrast Norway: http://blog.nj.com/perspective/2011/07/crime_and_punishment_... ("As Norwegians view it, if you’re going to better yourself within a collective society, then you must work within the collective. When it comes to crime, it’s not about the individual. It’s about what — as a society — they did wrong, and what they can correct, and how they can address this politically.")
Now, to circle back to my point: what creates these attitudes? Are Norwegians just better people than Americans? I don't think that's the case. I think the root of the difference is that Americans don't think of everyone as being part of the same collective. Partly because of cultural reasons, and partly because of historical reasons. The lack of homogeneity and social cohesion is a major part of what creates the attitudes. Segregation, in particular, has left an indelible imprint on modern American society. After all, much of the country was forcibly desegregated just two generations ago. To put it bluntly, when a black (or hispanic) kid in inner-Baltimore commits a crime, the white voters in suburban Maryland don't ask themselves, like the Norwegians do, "what did society do wrong? How can we correct the problem?"
In "Song of Myself", Walt Whitman wrote "In all people I see myself, none more and not one a barleycorn less/and the good or bad I say of myself I say of them". The Parable of the Good Samaritan is all about how we choose our own levels of identification and some are more morally praiseworthy than others.
So yes, the problem might well be the lack of identification between your white voters in suburban Maryland and your black kid in inner-Baltimore (and vice versa of course), but we can and do change. Society moves forwards, and we are not entirely passive actors in it.
Let's make arguments that encourage greater identification, take social steps to increase identification, etc. It may well be easier for those societies in Europe, but it's by no means easy, which your analysis seems to ignore. These attitudes have to be worked on, and reinforced.
Well, except that they do [1]. And do similar things for other non-murder crimes like robbery [2].
[1] http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2013/03/newark_carjackings...
[2] http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_23191897/oakland-robbery-...
Europeans who criticize America often imagine it to be a country of European colonists. That's increasingly not true. European multiculturalists also expect that a person's cultural background will have zero influence on them. That is also not true.
I think that data about crime rates related to different demographic groups is quite important. My purpose is not to be pedantic, although I do enjoy that, but to help clarify the thinking of those who might confuse this demographic data with outmoded and superstitious ideas about "race". I'm sure you're much too knowledgeable to fall into this trap, but there could be others, not as sophisticated as you, who might suffer from common misconceptions about genetics, race, and related issues.
It is interesting that crime rates and other social pathologies are so segregated by race in America. Different experts have different explanations for this. The point is, comparing America against Europe is hard to do when the racial makeup of the two countries is so different.
The legacy of slavery in America cannot be avoided. 14-24 year old African American males make up 1% of the USA population and commit 27% of the murders. Europe had no large scale agricultural African slavery in the 19th century, and its current society has evolved differently as a result.
I agree that government-defined racial categories are too broad and inexact. The true amount of human genetic diversity is far larger and far messier than five racial categories would suggest. Andrew Sullivan addressed the myth that "race is a social construct" on his blog[1].
[1] http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/05/16/is-race-only-a-soc...
"23andMe would have no problem telling them apart"
If someone you define as "black" marries someone you define as "white" and their child sends a sample to 23andMe, will the report say that the child is white or black? Remember, you claim they will have "no problem".
Andrew Sullivan, from the link you provided: '“race” is a social construct when we define it as “white”, “black,” “Asian” or, even more ludicrously, “Hispanic.”'
It is not hard to take a listing of the single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in a persons DNA and compare them against a database of genetic sequences from various parts of the world to tell where they came from. The same mutation occurring in parallel in two different populations and persisting is rare enough that you can use SNP data to construct a phylogenetic tree of the human population (here is one I googled up[2]). We can tell interesting things from human population genetics, for example that Amerindians probably came from Asia, since the East Asians are there closest genetic cousins.
You should have a mixed-race friend send their spit into 23andMe and see what happens! When races mix, you have genetic admixture. It remains trivial to see which portions of a persons DNA comes from which part of the world because those portions contain SNPs which are only found in certain human subpopulations.
If you are the child of an African father and a European mother (like Barack Obama), you get half your chromosomes from your father and half from your mother. A few bits from each chromosome swap over, but it is not hard to unravel which bits came from Africa and which from Europe.
The government's big racial categories are somewhat inaccurate (especially hispanic, since some hispanics are European and some are Amerindian). But distinct human genetic populations are very real. Razib Khan's blog[3] is great if you want to move beyond the sound bytes and get into the real science of human population genetics. Sadly, liberal views on race tend to be extremely unscientific.
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/08/12/the-dna-oly...
No, it's the composition of the species' genomes. If they were created in a lab yesterday the situation would be the same. Unless you believe in some kind of supernatural effect, the way homeopaths believe that water has "memory".
"we see no sickle cell disease in Europeans as we do in Africans"
There is sickle cell disease in southern Italy, and in many other parts of the world outside of Africa. It cuts across "racial" divisions, and follows the historical distribution of malaria.
You avoided the simple question about 23andMe. You claimed they would have "no problem" categorizing people as "white" or "black". So how would they categorize the child of a "white" and "black" parent?
I believe it has been shown that for similar cities, the U.S. system is worse - I think I saw an example of an U.S. and a Canadian city across the border, similar demographics, the U.S. one had 10 times the crime rate, etc..
Of course, the US recidivism rate is 67%, which is horrible, however it's very difficult to compare Sweden and the United States simply because you have some significant differences. It's difficult to assume that the only variable in play between the US and Nordic countries are simply the justice system.
First, you have a demographic differences. You also have significant differences in culture as well. In Sweden for example, single parent families are just 20% of all families with children. Yet in the US, 67% of all black families with children are single-parent, with 42% in the Latino community and overall a rate of over 30% for all families with children in the United States. In 1960, the overall rate was just 9%. I'm not arguing for or against single parent families, but there is a strong correlation between the likelihood of being arrested and the strength of the family unit. Here's an article that discusses it more, including research citations: http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/12/the-real-co...
Suggesting that the prison system is the primary cause of recidivism is to miss the point. We shouldn't be focusing on recidivism, we should be focusing on what gets people into prison in the first place.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_crime#Sweden
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/world/europe/swedens-riots...
Supposing their existed a "rehabilitation pill" and taking it instantly prevented someone from committing the same crime again. What if someone then killed your child or partner? Would you be happy for them to take the tablet and be immediately released?
Btw: In such a future you're describing we surely have ways of preventing crimes just as effective as the pill that turns a murderer into a good member of society.
Some people here seem to be arguing there is no place for punishment at all. I think there is, but humane punishment. Not dumping people into a human shark tank.
Later in life, this belief was tested, badly. My answer was still yes.
According to the philosophy classes survey, I'm not in the majority for this view. I thought that was interesting.
But you do know why this is a terrible point, right?
This is exactly why we have courts; to deliver justice over vengeance, having proven guilt.
Victims and offenders are extremes. Victims want maximum sentencing for vengeance and punishment, offenders want maximum mercy. Neither is likely to be fair to the other. Courts are there to moderate and hand out fair rulings based on societies agreed laws. (yes I know many have problems with laws, but thats a totally different discussion)
Your point relies on the notion that because as a victim we would want maximum punishment for vengeance, that is how the law and justice system should be. Well, no, it is the exact opposite. You must have heard the opposite argument : What if you and your family were starving, would you steal to eat? Would you kill to steal so that your child might eat? Exact same logic, just opposite. Now we can argue for a very lenient justice system, right? Well, the justice system sits squarely int he middle of both. Its must give out fair punishment. Its must be fair to BOTH sides.
This type of point is as bad and manipulative as the "what have you got to hide" routine. IMHO, its an abuse of language and the people its used against. It is politician talk.
But once you pick that low-hanging fruit of prison reform, does the original point still apply or not?