Sunday, January 29, 2012
Pun and Crime-ishment
Apologies for the silly heading, but I have just read what is hands down better than the best three things I have ever seen on the subject of incarceration and crime in the U.S. Adam Gopnik's "The Caging of America" in the January 30th New Yorker magazine is something all citizens should read on pain of solitary confinement until they do. http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2012/01/30/120130crat_atlarge_gopnik
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Your description is not hyperbole. That was one of the most sensible and well articulated analysis of the prison, crime, and justice systems of the United States.
The only section I take serious issue with is his discussion of the bill of rights and the courts. The bill of rights is insufficient because it says "be fair" rather than "be just"? Fairness, I think, is necessary for justice. The courts cannot dole out punishment based on the "vibe" of the thing, based upon that judge's or jury's particular common sense conceptualization of justice. There needs to be some regular pattern; two criminals cannot be given two hugely disparate sentences for the same crimes because they were in different courts. That would be injust.
Gopnik is right about marijuana, about the solution to the crime wave, and about the horrors of prison life. This is a must-read.
From my experience at being in a courthouse and observing proceedings, I have concluded that sentences depend highly on the Judge in the courtroom. Some judges approach sentencing less harshly than others. For example, one woman was sentenced to two years in prison for seeling fake handabgs. Is that fair? Is that neccessary? Is that worth tax dollars? I personally don't think so but the Judge certainly did.
I think that particular formulation -- just versus fair -- is confusing. The point is clearer if we notice which question the process asks: "Is this a reasonable and appropriate process and outcome?" or: "Have all the formal procedures been followed?" By fixating on the latter question to the exclusion of the former, the U.S. legal system may fail robustly to seek justice.
By analogy, the state department describes as democracies countries who hold elections that are ritually "free and fair" -- but elect the same brutal, corporate- and U.S.-interest-friendly regimes over and over.
Post a Comment