Posted by Benjamin on: 07.06.2007 /
Hey–George Bush got it right!
So 2 days ago President Bush fixed things up for his pal Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who lied under oath and was about to have to report to jail for a 30 month stay. Now he doesn’t have to go to jail. Some people think that’s really unfair, since lots of normal people who commit jail worthy crimes and don’t have powerful rich friends just have to do the jail time, bummerola for them.
And those people are right–it is unfair. But getting upset that Mr. Libby doesn’t have to go to jail is the wrong response. It mega rocks that he doesn’t have to go to jail. Jail sucks. Period. I bet he just feels this unbelievable sense of relief. That’s awesome for him.
The right response, in my opinion, is to rejoice with Mr. Libby, and work toward more pardons, more commutations, more mercy, and fewer people in jail. Jail is pretty much a stupid idea most of the time, IMNSHO. Let’s work toward getting more people out of there, and sending fewer people in. In fact, let’s cut the military budget in half, and take the money we save and spend it on programs to reduce crime from the front end. There’s an idea.
My enormous congratulations to Mr. Libby. He got exactly what I’d want if I were in his position. He got out of the punishment. I sincerely and honestly hope that I manage to get out of facing all the consequences for all the stupid, horrible things I’ve done. Good on ya, Mr. President. Today, you rock!
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Staci
1 07/11/07 1:33 PM | Comment Link |Yes!
The stated purpose of our federal (and most state) corrections departments are, in order: 1) rehabilitation 2) determent 3) punishment. If a punishment doesn’t help correct the behavior, then it shouldn’t be utilized.
I worked for a period of time researching and analyzing data on recidivism (return to prison rates.) Individuals who successfully complete drug/alcohol programs, educational programs, etc. have far lower recidivism rates. States often seen as softer on crime and individuals in the system actually have some of the lowest recidivism rates in the country. So why do state and federal governments still insist that such programs are the first things to cut when balancing budgets? Why do people still call for harsher sentences?
Is vengeance/punishment really more important than decreasing the likelihood that a person will commit another crime?
Comment by: Rachel
2 07/11/07 5:30 PM | Comment Link |Well said, Staci!
Comment by: Benjamin
3 07/14/07 1:36 AM | Comment Link |Staci,
I’d love to hear more about your research. Is it published/posted somewhere?
Fascinating that “softness” is actually associated with lower recidivism.
It sometimes seems to me that since as a nation we were birthed not in softness, but in violent revolution, we have a really hard time escaping that legacy in lots of areas. Maybe that’s why we still call for harsher sentences? A sort of culture of hard, violent, unforgivingness?
I think vengeance/punishment is very much related to fear, which we are rather enormously good at. Such a strange sort of contradiction–such enormously high levels of fear and of power. Or maybe not so strange.
Comment by: Rachel
4 07/15/07 9:43 AM | Comment Link |I think that is an important insight, Benjamin. An enormously high level of both fear and power creates a toxic and fearsome combination. We in the United States continue to live with the illusion that we are, must be, can be, should be in control. And we seem to be able justify almost action necessary to maintain that control (or the illusion of control).
Comment by: Staci
5 07/16/07 12:29 PM | Comment Link |Hi, Benjamin. I think you are on the right track that this desire for vengeance & punishment is directly related to the pervasive presence of fear and desire for power in our culture. And it is so sad, because it actually increases reasons for fear. A cycle more vicious than the cycle of criminality itself.
The research I did used data from the Dept. of Corrections (DOC) and therefore they “own” the results. I know one place where a small portion is posted: http://www.truthought.com/research.asp
It is the one from Powder River Correctional Institution and was presented by my boss, John Carey. (The program uses some materials from Truthought and criminality treatment based on work by S.E. Samenow.) A couple of things to note: recidivism is generally defined as those who return to prison within 3 years - our study separates out another group of those who violate parole, return to jail, etc., so our standard was a bit tougher. (As always, you’ve got to look at the assumptions used to compare data from one place to the next.)
This also doesn’t include further research which showed that when offenders completed both this program and an educational program (in this case a horticulture class) the recidivism rate was further reduced. The DOC was considering cutting the horticulture class a few years back to save some money. We did this research to prove its worth. Between the outcomes we found and the fact that the class had a huge garden that produced food for the institution that lowered the per meal cost they decided not to cut the program.
If you google for recidivism in the US you’ll find interesting statistics from the US Dept. of Justice, but not much information on what influences that rate. (National recidivism rates are over 50%.) Some states do have information on that. (Google recidivism and the state you want to see.) Oregon has very current rates online, but some states don’t have anything for this decade available yet. Most states show that previous recidivism, age, and education level are the top three influencing factors.
Yikes - this is really long. Okay, I’ll get off my soap box now.
Comment by: Benjamin
6 07/20/07 6:53 AM | Comment Link |staci,
thankyou! Fascinating how you guys foudn that the cost of the program is *so* much less than the cost of ongoing incarceration, etc. Makes sense.
There’s a program here in Seattle designed by the Addictive Behaviors Research Center at UW in which they bought a building downtown and are giving free/low cost housing to addicts, and they are letting them drink at home. they seem to have found that it works out to be less expensive for the city than having them drinking on the streets. Kind of strange. I’ve been meaning to read up on it, but haven’t gotten to it yet. =)