Lock 'em Up and Punish Them

Tyjen Tsai and Paola Scommegna wrote a piece on how our country is the most gung ho on incarcerating people. Well, what they really said was that since 2002 the U.S. has had the highest incarceration rate in the world. For comparable countries the incarceration rate is about 100 prisoners for 100,000 population; our is 5 times that, 500 per 100,000. That amounts to approximately 1.6 million prisoners in 2010 according to the Bureau of Statistics.

In particular men comprise 90% of those in jail. They are mainly young men in the 20’s and 30’s. They are poorly educated, 70% never completed high school. They are more likely to be black or Latino; blacks 3,074 per 100,000 and Latinos 1,258 per 100,000, whites 459 per 100,000.

Where you live is important as well

Male and Female Imprisonment Rates by Region, 2010

	Total	Male	Female
United States	500	943	67
Northeast	296	577	27
Midwest	389	735	53
South	552	1,039	78
West	418	772	60

The South is know for being “tough on crime.” And, of course, everything in Texas is bigger; they rank second in rate of incarceration with tough sentencing.

Then there is this chart showing little change in our country:

Percentage of Male Civilian Incarceration, by Race and Education, Ages 20-34

	1990	2000	2008
White Men	1.1	1.6	1.8
Less Than High School	3.8	7.7	12.0
High School Graduate	1.4	2.3	2.0
Some College	0.4	0.3	0.3
Black Men	8.3	11.2	11.4
Less Than High School	19.6	30.2	37.2
High School Graduate	7.1	11.7	9.1
Some College	2.9	2.1	2.1

Source: Becky Pettit, Invisible Men: Mass Incarceration and the Myth of Black Progress (New York: Russell Sage Foundation: 2012).

No matter how you look at we seem bent on jailing lots of people in the name of justice. But is a jailing lot of folk justice or more to the point does it solve a problem. Criminologists have told us for years prisons are great training ground to learn criminal behavior but they don’t to well in rehabilitation.

The model to copy appears to be Norway. Norway has a great economy, universal health care, great schools, stable social security system and their prisons are models for what to do. U.S. prisons are basically run by the prisoners, gangs with lots of violence. In Norway prisons are known for humane practices and their recidivism rate (repeat offenders) is 20% in comparison to our 50 to 60%. We tough on crime folk would look at the jails as just too cushy. They have libraries, jogging trails, sound studios, cooking courses, and a visiting house outside the prison for they can be with their families. The cells are more like dorm rooms. They emphasis rehabilitation rather than punishment focusing on respect and human rights. Guards don’t have guns and respect the inmates who they see as pupils. Overall their jails seek to instill confidence and skills for successfully transitioning into society. Now all this costs big bucks but in the long run it saves money. Pundits believe there is little chance for such a system to work or exist in our country.

The point I am trying to make is that the Norway system and others like it solve and problem, they work and our don’t. Their system also seems far more consistent with the what Jesus taught, Matthew 5:38-42 (MSG)
³⁸ "Here's another old saying that deserves a second look: 'Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.'
³⁹ Is that going to get us anywhere? Here's what I propose: 'Don't hit back at all.' If someone strikes you, stand there and take it.
⁴⁰ If someone drags you into court and sues for the shirt off your back, giftwrap your best coat and make a present of it.
⁴¹ And if someone takes unfair advantage of you, use the occasion to practice the servant life.
⁴² No more tit-for-tat stuff. Live generously.

We seem to think if someone hits your cheek, stomp on him. It doesn’t work. Will we be the eyeless toothless country or the country the builds up opportunities for all citizens?

Further Cat Thoughts on Taxes (please read previous article first(

“You know, I’ve been reflecting a bit more on our recent conversation about the furless one’s taxes.” Began Lamont.

“Pray tell us more,” purred Pawline.

“Patchtricia summed it up nicely when she said, The Republican Furless just vote against any bill that has the word ‘tax’ in it. If we were not liberal cats we might also say that if a bill has the word ‘tax’ in it, the Democratic furless vote for it.” Lamont continued, “But I have delved a bit deeper into their thinking and have arrived at a further truth of the furless.”

“And what pray tell is that?” asked Patchtricia with a wee hiss.

“I find,” pontificated Lamont, “That while in general Republican furless oppose taxes and Democratic furless advocate them. When you take the results of the taxes the vast majority of the furless support the work of said taxes.”

“Yes?” asked Pawline.

“Take their biggy at the moment, the Health Care Act and the taxes needed to implement it. The vast majority of the furless want each of the provisions of that bill, except perhaps the ultra rich who can buy anything they want. But in spite of that the Republican furless along with some Democratic furless continuously votes against that bill. Irrational but true. The furless also seem unable to learn from the furless of other nations where it has been well demonstrated that legislation that goes far further than the Health Care Act, using a single payer system, which works much better than the U.S. system. The same in true of education funding, infrastructure work, underwriting research for clean energy for the future and the like.

“It is as though the furless ones worship or at less venerate the ideas of the ancestors advocating the ideological beliefs even when they don’t believe in the effects of those ideas. Also, they make great homage to the founders of their nation and yet the nation the live in not bears very little resemblance to their present.”

“Well let’s not get too uppity here big brother,” replied Patchtricia. Remember how we resisted coming in from the outdoors even though it was cold and miserable out there and food was hard to come by and we received no petting.”

“Ah,” pondered Pawline, “I think you’ve hit the nail on the head Patchtricia. The furless ones need much more petting. Even though the deity of the furless ones and us, does lots of petting, they don’t seem to realize it. Well, at least we are doing our part by purring and rubbing up against our furless ones. They are family now. It seems appropriate.”

“Well stated,” said Lamont with a bit of a grumble.

Tax Codes from a Cat’s Point of View

Our cats have discovered that there are abundance of computers in their cat house (a.k.a. The Shackteau/my office.) Since they are young, they are fearless about using these catputers, as they call them. Recently they have been studying the human tax codes in our country.

Pawline purred, “You know, the tax codes are uncommonly complicated. I quite surprised that the furless one can figure them out much less understand them.”

Patchtricia replied, “Yes, they are, but you made an incorrect assumption there.”

Pawline querried, “And what was that pray tell wee sister?”

Patchtricia confidently meowed, “You assume they understand their system. I don’t believe they do. Reading their comments on the tax codes it is quite clear they do not have a clue as to how they work.”

The lofty (meaning he was laying atop the cat scratching tower) Lamont they added, “That is true. The system is very, in fact, overly complicated and beyond the furless ones limited comprehension. But my studies have revealed out they think about it in their limited way.”

Pawline and Patchtria in 2 part harmony the asked, “Oh wise and venerable Lamont, what have you discerned?” This said with a certain amount of cat sarcasm.

Stretching and arching his back, the eloquent Lamont pronounced,
“Sisters, it is really quite simple. In theory the Democratic furless ones promote taxes they see as going toward the common good and providing safety nets for all in society. The Republican furless critters on the other hand want to avoid all taxes that might eat into the profits of the wealthy furless, regardless of whether they are wealthy or not. But to be clear, at present both the Republican and Democratic furless community have aligned themselves with the wealthy and the powerful in their society whether they know they have or not. They are easily manipulated.”

“How very interesting and astute brother Lamont,” chimed in Patchtricia and Pawline. But it seems to us you still overrate the thinking of the furless ones.”

Pawline continued, “Take their new idea of the ‘use tax’ that they are considering applying to goods purchased over the Internet. It seems fairly obvious to this feline, that these are rightful taxes that the states from which they are purchased right have the right for these taxes. That seems simple and fair. And yet, the Republican furless also oppose these taxes.”

Patchtricia, the wee but insightful sister then said, “Ah, my siblings. You are making this far too complicated. It is simple, the Democratic furless have an affinity for taxes, especially if it comes from others than themselves, say the wealthy, though they are quite inconsistent in their stands. The Republican furless take a much simpler approach, which why it has carried the day. If a bill has the word tax in it, they just vote against it.”

“Ah,” purred Lamont upon his lofty perch, “You speak with the prophetic voice found in their movie Dumb and Dumber. It should probably be their national anthem rather than that screechy thing they attempt to sing at those events where the obese furless watch the abnormally built furless play games.”

Unions vs. Right To Work Laws

Unions have fallen into ill repute and decreased in number over several years now. I don’t believe this is good for the nation.

Trade unions are groups of individuals who come together for common causes such as pay, working conditions, professionalism, and the like. These folk band together to negotiate contracts with their employees. They cover all walks of life from truckers to doctors. They came with the industrial revolution and the often-inhumane conditions of working in those early plants where workers were mistreated.

Below is a chart of membership in unions from 1930 to 2010:

And here the public support for unions:

Next a chart on income concentration since 1920

And another chart on recent changes

I don’t think it takes a genius to understand that middle class folk, especially those involved in unions did much better when labor unions were strong and worse when they declined. It is also true for the overall economy. Middle class folk stimulate the economy more than any other group, thus it is better for the economy to have the wealth centered there. It is also fair.

I find the recent rhetoric on the “Right to Work” laws bizarre. It is another one of the oddly labeled issues, where “right to work” means you cannot be forced to join a union even though it is in the best interests of those in those trades. Twenty-four states have passed such laws, which have been led and supported by the wealthy. It works for the wealthy but not for the rest of us.

The National Labors Relations act made it possible for unions to have “closed shops” you had to belong to the union. Then in 1947 the Taft-Hartley Act passed over Truman’s veto outlawed the closed shop.

This may sound like the individual rights of freedom what happens is that those who benefit from union work no longer have to support those unions with union dues. Millions of dollars have been given by foundations controlled by the U.S. industrialists to the National Right to Work Committee; guess why? I don’t think it is because of the altruism.

The upshot of this is that wages in “right to work” states are lower than those that don’t have it. That is also true for health insurance and pensions.

Here are the “right to work” states:

Have unions overstepped their bounds from time to time, of course. But compare those miss uses of power to the current abuse of workers by Wall Street, Bankers, and Corporations today.

It is a complicated issue but hopefully this information helps shed some light on the subject. Here the "right of the few" dominate.

The Needs of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few or One

Mr. Spock to Captain Kirk said the title words in the movie Star Trek II: the Wrath of Khan.

The High Priest Caiaphas said in the Gospel of John, “You know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.”

And Aristotle said, “Even supposing the chief good to be eventually the aim of the individual as for the state, that the of the state is evidently of greater and more fundamental importance both to attain and to persevere. The securing of one individual’s good is cause for rejoicing, but to secure the good of the nation or of a city-state is nobler and more divine.”

In Native American folklore it is commonly accepted that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

“The good of the one outweighed the good of the many.” Kirk to Spock in Star Trek 3.

It seems obvious that the good of many, the common good, outweighs the value of the individual. It is the mark of civilization to put the preservation of the community ahead of individual needs. And yet, in this country we value individualism very highly; the freedom to pursue our personal goals and desires with the possibility of attaining them.

In recent years in this country the good of a select few seems to have outweighed the value of the common good. To some, this is the just reward of the individualism who have the possibility to attain such heights. But, in general most folk of conscience see that as irrational and selfishness to the extreme.

But are their exceptions. Was Captain Kirk right to value the friendship of his mate, Mr. Spock to the point he was willing to put in jeopardy his ship and crew to save his friend?

And what about the thinking of the High Priest Caiaphas who seems reasonable thinking it would be better for Jesus to die than to endanger his entire nation. And yet, is not Jesus, the incarnate god of more value than that nation? And, in this case was the greater good found beyond the limits of that nation?

I have always liked the tension of those beliefs well stated, more than once in the episodes of Star Trek. There is legitimate tension between individualism and the social good. There is hope found in the concept that God’s eye in on the common sparrow and seeks its individual well being, but that is in the context of universal history.

In my conversations with Lamont, a cat of uncommon rugged handsomeness, he constantly seeks his own individual well being of being fed, housed, and petted and is equally happy licking and grooming his sisters. Perhaps Lamont, Patchtricia, and Pawline have all this figured out better than we mere humans.

“Live long and prosper.”