Unto every generation

[muckefuck]

lhn posted a grim, though-provoking excerpt from the Washington Post comparing our tolerance of North Korean atrocities with our predecessors' tolerance of Nazi atrocities and reminding us that we can't expect to be judged less harshly by our successors than they were. Do you suppose they'll listen to the excuse, "We couldn't think of any way to alleviate their suffering that wouldn't have destroyed the lives of tens of millions of South Koreans"? Probably not--definitely not if a war ends up breaking out anyway, despite our most strenuous efforts to find a peaceable solution.

I worry there's plenty of blame to be cast even closer to home. Know how we look back on the workhouses and orphanages of the Victorian era, cluck our tongues, and say, "How could they have been so cruel?" Isn't that going to be what our descendents say when they look back on the millions incarcerated during our current "tough on crime" fervour? On the scandals and crises in the various state child protection regimes? At least, I hope they will--the alternative, of course, is that they'll have grown even less compassionate than us and more indifferent to rights of the imprisoned and the defenceless. Yesterday, I read about the report on John Geoghan's murder in prison. (If that name seems familiar, it's because he was the most notorious of the clerical child molestors sentenced during the recent scandal.) The study concluded that protections were inadequate during every step of his passage through the penitentiary system. I'm sure the general reaction must be, "He was a child-fucker! Good riddance!" and "Who cared about protections when it was children being harrassed and exploited instead of convicts?" But one of lawyers on his case pointed out that many others suffer this way, but aren't high-profile enough to spawn an investigation.

Still, when there doesn't seem to be enough compassion to go around for the unincarcerated poor, it's hard to imagine stirring any up for those who have been convicted. I worry about what our treatment of prisoners says about the state of civil society, but, at the same time, I myself want as little personal interchange with criminals as possible. I can hardly blame anyone else for their indifference when I let myself be overwhelmed by the enormity of the problem and do nothing to solve it. It often seems that real change will only come when a enough people have passed through the prison system to build a substantial lobby. (What's the old joke? "A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged; a liberal is a conservative who's been booked.") Of course, state politicans are aware of that, which may explain the lifetime deprivation of all voting rights for convicted felons. It never ceases to amaze me that this is constitutional. Voting seems to be one of the most basic rights it's possible to have in a democracy; I'm not sure that anything short of high treason is an excuse for taking it away at all, much less for life.

So, please, if this is floating around the Net in fifty years, show some mercy. Don't keep asking why we didn't do more; ask yourself what you're doing now.

Comments

[astrophysicat.livejournal.com]

The permanent disenfranchisement of former felons is one of my biggest issues with the current drug laws. When I was a little kid, it made some sense to me, you harm society, you give up your right to be a full part of it. But this was back when (a) I was 10 and (b) the only felonies I knew of were murder and armed robbery (I led a very tightly sheltered life). Now it doesn't seem reasonable for any crime, and certainly not for "victimless crimes." Sometimes I get fired up enough about it that I wish I were a politician, but I really can't picture getting elected to any office on the platform of legalizing drugs, abolishing civil marriage in favor of civil unions for all, universal health care, and repealing the Patriotic Act in such a way as to protect against it's injustices in all future wars.
(plus whatever other cause I can think of at the time).

[prilicla.livejournal.com]

Yes, our prison system is a giant nightmare, and I don't know what to do about it, either. Ending the War on Drugs would presumably help, but I don't get the impression that there's much support for that.

Of course, state politicans are aware of that, which may explain the lifetime deprivation of all voting rights for convicted felons.

As far as I can tell from skimming this paper, most states (including Illinois) don't actually deprive ex-felons of voting rights, although 14 states do. I don't have a big problem with denying the vote to people in prison, but I agree with you that people who've served their time should be able to vote.

[alfaboy.livejournal.com]

The idea of felons losing their rights has to do with a particular notion of where those rights derive from. While there is mr. jefferson's notion of trnascendental rights endowed by a creator, there is also a notion of rights derived from contract law... e.g., the Mayflower Compact. This notion is that the constitution is a contract among the citizens whereby they surrender certain liberties in exchange for certain benefits. Under this notion, a citizen who commits a crime against his or her fellow citizens voids the contract and all privileges attending thereto... like the right to vote. Likewise, non-citizens possess no constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties because they are not parties to the contract.

While i certainly think we need to roll back the laws on victimless crimes (fat chance when the government gets to confiscate the assets of people accused under the drug laws or tax laws without the messy burden of due process), i do think that people who choose to make their way in this world by violently preying upon their fellow citizens deserve the very worst that can be dished out to them. To do otherwise shows an utter lack of compassion for the people who are preyed upon. Better that dozens of gang-banging thugs get shivved in the prison yard than one more bullet crashes through a living room wall and kills some 7-year-old eating a bowl of captain crunch in front of the TV. And at the height of the early '90s crack epidemic in milwaukee, i don't think a week went by without one of those stray bullet incidents.

Re:

[lhn.livejournal.com]

While i certainly think we need to roll back the laws on victimless crimes (fat chance when the government gets to confiscate the assets of people accused under the drug laws or tax laws without the messy burden of due process), i do think that people who choose to make their way in this world by violently preying upon their fellow citizens deserve the very worst that can be dished out to them. To do otherwise shows an utter lack of compassion for the people who are preyed upon. Better that dozens of gang-banging thugs get shivved in the prison yard than one more bullet crashes through a living room wall and kills some 7-year-old eating a bowl of captain crunch in front of the TV.

One problem is that the most violent and ruthless prisoners get to continue to prey upon people in prison and enjoy the benefits of wielding power and being able to confiscate luxuries from others, while the weakest and least violent prisoners suffer disproportionately for their crimes. The worst wind up the kings of the prison, and huge incentives exist to join up with racist or fanatical religious gangs for protection. Whatever one's views on punishment that's topsy-turvy.

I think it's a matter of reasonable debate what penalties people should suffer for various crimes, and sentences can be tightened or loosened, and in-prison privileges and opportunities can be made available or not accordingly. If we want to make prison tougher overall by getting rid of TV or bringing back the rock pile, that's within the realm of what we can reasonably do, I think. But if we think that sexual slavery or regular beatings and knifings should be part of a criminal's sentence, then we should amend the Constitution to allow it and we should have it administered by the state, not tacitly allow it as a perk for the most thuggish and corrupt of the prisoners and guards. And if we don't think those are appropriate (as I suspect most of us wouldn't, if we had to recruit torturer-rapists to deal them out) then we can't legitimately wink at them.

Leaving aside the effects on the prisoner-victims, what do we expect the result to be for society as both victims and perpetrators finish out their sentences? (Even the lifers are going to have an effect on the ones just passing through.) What kind of people can be expected to come out of a system like that? I'm not terribly convinced of any prison's power to reform most criminals, but surely we should try to avoid a setup tailor made to make them worse.

Re:

[alfaboy.livejournal.com]

"One problem is that the most violent and ruthless prisoners get to continue to prey upon people in prison and enjoy the benefits of wielding power and being able to confiscate luxuries from others, while the weakest and least violent prisoners suffer disproportionately for their crimes."

The point you raise is a good one, and in my darkest moments, i suspect the authorities willingly turn a blind eye and let the prisoners govern themselves. It's easier to run the place if some kind of order prevails, even if it's the law of the jungle.

I have no solutions to propose.

Re:

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Leaving aside the effects on the prisoner-victims, what do we expect the result to be for society as both victims and perpetrators finish out their sentences?

This, in fact, was exactly one of the points made by the report on the Geoghan case. I wish I could quote it word-for-word (I read the lines in a NYT article), but the thrust was that people who are treated brutally and unfairly in prison are not going to be more respectful of law and authority or merciful to fellow citizens once they are released.

[gopower.livejournal.com]

In one of those odd turnabouts that should provoke more thought, the leading crusader against rape in prison nationally is a conservative GOP congressman from Virginia named Jim Moran (and in Illinois was a conservative GOP state rep. named Cal Skinner) while it's the essentially liberal entertainment industry that has turned that particular violent crime into a punchline.

[merrill.livejournal.com]

Here's something we can do:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/merrill/48819.html

[mollpeartree.livejournal.com]

Hmm, ordering this title today for the library: States of Denial : Knowing About Atrocities and Suffering, by Stanley Cohen. Polity Press/Blackwell, 2001. I think I'd better route that to myself when it comes in.