Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Notes from the “Justice Reform” Bandwagon
Yesterday, Mona Charen posted some skeptical thoughts on justice reform. I’ve been working on this subject for a few months now, so I thought I might offer some responses to her queries. The short of it is: she’s right that there are reasons to be cautious about reform, but there really are problems that need addressing. Furthermore, some reasonable answers have already been offered to many of her questions.
First of all, I should commend Mona for correctly debunking the oft-cited but highly misleading “two thirds of inmates are non-violent drug offenders” claim. As she reports, that is only true of Federal prisons, which represent a very small minority of America’s inmate population. The make-up of state prisons is quite different, and a majority of inmates have been convicted for violent crimes. So no, it isn’t the case that most of our nation’s inmates are basically harmless people who maybe used (or sold) a few drugs. The majority are there because they’ve hurt people, and it would be quite foolish just to release them en masse.
Republican presidential candidates should not be talking about “the new Jim Crow.” That phrase is pulled directly from Michelle Alexander’s foolish, irresponsible book (of the same name), and we shouldn’t lend it any credence. Incarceration is not the new Jim Crow, and approaching it that way will only precipitate a different kind of broken system.
Nevertheless, we should be looking for ways to help impoverished communities rebuild themselves. We should, as well, be interested in finding more effective, and less expensive, methods of crime control and rehabilitation. Speaking as someone on the justice reform bandwagon, I’m very motivated by the thought that it’s essential to offer a counter-narrative to the sweeping “racial justice” demands of Black Lives Matter. I don’t support their proposals, but social angst about an ill-functioning justice system may well precipitate such irresponsible changes if we can’t offer a more appropriate remedy to real problems.
Mona poses some good questions. How should we handle parolees who continue to offend? How do we reassure the public that the system is fair? Will we undermine people’s respect for law if we don’t respond aggressively enough to offenses that are still serious, even if not violent?
Serious, responsible people have been working on all of these questions. A few short answers: yes, there are better ways to make use of parole and probation. Programs like HOPE (using swift and certain sanctions to motivate parolees to follow the rules) have gotten excellent results, and are being modeled in many places around the country. One nice thing about probation is that it often enables offenders to pay restitution to their victims, and both of these options are safer and more feasible now that we have technology that enables us to keep tabs on an offender’s location and monitor his alcohol use. That’s not going to be safe for hardened, violent criminals, but for many smaller-scale lawbreakers it’s effective and considerably cheaper than years’ worth of incarceration.
Concerning “suites and streets,” the biggest two points of concern are probably pretrial proceedings and prosecutorial power. I don’t believe that the system is awash in bigotry. But I do believe that large-scale incarceration has created some “efficiency” of a kind that often undermines real justice, and no one should be shocked to hear that people are more likely to get squashed by the justice machine if they’re too poor to afford good legal help. I have a piece in the works right now (meaning, finished but not published) on bail reform and helping the indigent get better legal help. But if you really want to know right now, you can read the book on it. Excellent, feasible suggestions (most of them already tried in particular locales) are already out there, and they don’t call for a massive relaxation of law enforcement generally.
It’s challenging to make justice reform into a sexy topic, because the actual problems in the system don’t lend themselves to top-down, grand-gesture reform. They’re more the sort that call for psychiatrists and policy wonks to put their heads together, developing practical solutions that ideally should be tailored to the needs of particular states and regions. From a journalistic standpoint, it’s a little bit hard to sell that, while it’s much easier to sell the sweeping, dramatic narrative of Black Lives Matter. Pragmatic nuts-and-bolts reform can seem kind of boring to outsiders (though not to, say, the indigent defendant who gets to watch his kids grow up instead of spending several years in prison), but it’s often the thing that’s actually needed.
At the very least, though, we should avoid broadcasting the message that conservatives are embracing this issue just because they want to jump on the liberal racial justice bandwagon. That’s not true. They’re embracing this issue because they realize that law enforcement and corrections are not immune to the sorts of problems that arise in every large-scale system that’s funded by taxpayers and administered by bureaucrats. Sometimes the system needs some restructuring. Conservatives are working out ways to make it better.
Published in Law, Policing
well, I don’t know if this would change your perspective but it has certainly changed mine. Over the last several months I have sat for quite a few hours talking to young girls (between 12-16) about prostitution. There are certain freedoms where I think the risks outweigh the potential benefits (a few harder drugs qualify, in my opinion); although I would certainly reform those laws. I have always thought that prostitution stings (i.e. female cop posing as a prostitute and then arresting “johns” when the money changes hands) are utterly pointless and counterproductive.
I don’t want my tax dollars used to enforce contracts involving sex. Just saying. I also don’t want them used to pay for inspection boards declaring particular houses of pleasure to be “fine” and “safe”.
It isn’t as if this is happening on the street corner any longer.
I think you will find only of the prison guards fit your description. Most of them work for private contractor that gets paid to run prisons and returns a portion of the revenue to politicians via campaign contributions.
There are a lot more intrusive technology approaches than ankle monitoring that can do a great deal to address the incarceration model. Right now the lock-em-up-throw-away-the-key crew and the Tommy de Seno “let all ‘victimless criminals’ out now” schools of thought are both mired in 1960’s approaches at a time when we have so much more. If police can all wear body cams and lots of dog owners havew invisible fences there are choices a lot greater than incarceration, discharge, and ankle monitors.
Hahahahahahahahaha.
Ha.
Define better for an innocent person falsely accused. Surely the 97% plea rate achieved in federal cases isn’t because federal law enforcement is doing a bang up job and only bringing charges against the truly guilty. No, this happens because pleading guilty to one or two charges is a rational choice over going to trial for tens or dozens of whatever the hell the prosecuting attorney can shoehorn into the matter. The odds become vanishingly small to achieve justice.
What ever happened to the right to a speedy trial? I have never had personal experience, but my sister is a criminal lawyer and it seems to be that no matter what the outcome it takes months to settle any criminal charges.
I don’t want my tax dollars used to imprison those who willfully enter into contracts involving sex. My libertarian leanings lead me to be equally skeptical of government inspection boards, though I’d support military airstrikes to destroy those scare quotes.
Marriages are contracts involving sex, are they not?
All the talk about criminal justice reform that’s been on Ricochet recently, and I haven’t seen mention of sexual assault. Unfortunately, there are many moral degenerates who think rape is an acceptable punishment or just a joke. If you can’t work up enough empathy to care about adult male prisoners, at least take notice of the rampant sexual abuse of juvenile prisoners (the vast majority of abusers are female staff so I doubt the issue will gain traction). At least George Will gets it.
Regarding private prisons, I draw your attention to the “kids for cash” scandal. Judges Ciaverella and Conahan were caught. Are there others doing the same who haven’t been caught–who won’t be caught? The corruption is so enormous, it makes my blood boil. Twenty-eight years in prison seems lenient.
Absolutely! Thank you Rachel for this. I don’t think it’s conservatives who are pushing for this. It’s the Libertarian wing that has a problem with law and order and the justice system that is pushing this. The people in jail are there for a reason, and they are usually violent and incorrigible. I am for reform if it focuses on dealing with inmates and getting them to change their lives. That usually requires more money on a system that is already very expensive. And I’ll support spending money in that manner. But I am not for letting criminals have lighter sentences and let loose to society.
The harm would be that you have de facto endorsed these activities as socially acceptable. But actually no one goes to jail for those crimes, other than maybe over night. And you see, society has endorsed those activities.
Yes – so continue to pay for the prostitute’s public defender, food, lodging and healthcare while incarcerated. You lose a ton of money on it now.
No disrespect but are you a college professor or something? Your analysis seems to be devoid of real world terms.
Exactly how many contract disputes do you think would actually be generated from legal prostitution? Might there be any? Sure – but certainly a negligible amount.
And why in the world would any place of prostitution need a government inspection?
Any good ideas here, Duane? Because I’m writing about technocorrections now and would be happy to steal and plagiarize all your insights.
Mostly right now, it’s fancy anklets and fancy breath-based alcohol monitors. With the anklets, they can get awfully specific in what they program in. If we wanted to set a whole “healthy lifestyles” schedule (involving exercise, work, going to church, pretty much whatever the corrections officer wants) that would be possible. But I don’t know of any cases of invisible fences. Cameras are sometimes programmed into the alcohol devices though, so that you basically have to breathalyze yourself *while taking a picture*, with the device obviously rigged so that only the person taking the test would be in the picture.
With all these insurance “fidbits” it seems like we could probably, in the relatively near future, insist that people eat healthy too. If we want to do that. The bio-corrections gets a little creepier (and is thus far all theoretical… I think…). Messing with people’s brain chemistry and whatnot. I haven’t figured out yet if it basically amounts to high-tech lobotomies.
If you are getting married as a form of sexual contract prepare for the big default.
We have already endorsed prostitution as socially acceptable.
What is the conviction rate for prostitution? How many college girls on seeking arrangements are doing time?
Our prisons are not full of prostitutes. This isn’t really a thing. And people who suggest (people like you, that is) that we can regulate (but not ban) prostitution are implicitly calling for government inspections or at least oversight/regulatory boards… unless we’re going to pass laws but simply make no effort to enforce them.
To me this isn’t just about numbers. I don’t want my tax dollars being used to *support* prostitution. It’s a dirty, exploitative business by nature, and I don’t actually believe there is any very good way to change that. By nature, it encourages the spread of disease and violence against women, and containing those effects would, I suspect, consume more resources than most regions are expending on it now, if we allowed for large-scale, legal expansion. As things stand, police make choices about how much effort they actually want to expend chasing prostitutes and pimps, and I think that’s often not much, but at least they have the option if they get particularly brazen.
Interestingly, European countries that have tried to legitimize the sex trade have, in some instances, ended up requiring women to take jobs as sex workers to avoid losing their unemployment benefits. Yay, women’s lib.
No.
Suddenly I’m saying, “Huh, where did I write in favor of prison rape? Oh wait! I definitely never did that.”
The only experience I have with the legal system is a few male friends who were involved with the family courts. What I saw happen to them does not inspire confidence. One of them came home one day to find that his wife of 15 years had vanished with the children. She reappeared several months later and charged him with being an alcoholic. I know him well enough to know that isn’t true, but she persuaded the kids to back her up, and he lost all custody rights. He still pays child support in the hopes that maybe someday he might get to see them again.
I usually put no stock in comparisons to Europe as the legal constructs are entirely different. This is one of those times.
Is that happening in Nevada? Is the contract disputes you fear happening there? Is the expensive government inspection processes? No to all.
And as to your argument that there aren’t many prostitutes/pimps/johns in jail so releasing them would have little financial impact, then why have any?
The rub is that we want those systems in place to deal with a real alcoholic and protect his wife and children, but our systems have not proven very good at differentiating between true and not true, and people can game that fault.
It’s similar with the criminal justice system in that we want an effective and efficient system when it comes to actual criminals, but the system doesn’t differentiate well on the term actual.
Let’s just leave it at this. As a supporter of federalism, I don’t think it’s very reasonable that the whole country should facilitate prostitution (which really is the choice you’re recommending) just because you have no problem with it.
You governmentalists always confuse freedom with facilitation. That’s how John Roberts mistook the ObamaCare penalty for a tax.
@Rachel re:#47
Last night I was talking with a friend who is on the local police force in a gang unit. We were discussing the topic of prostitution and our particular local problems. Obviously I’ve defended several, and several Johns, and we know a lot of the same names. The problem with defenses like the ones raised by Tommy is that they look at this situation in a vacuum. By that same logic, the “broken windows” theory is both false and morally condemnable. But we’ve seen it in action and the results are evident. Prostitution, very often, is very similar in the way it relates to other crimes; cracking down on that has far wider ranging consequences. It is not as simple as “private contracts” or putting a hooker in jail. Actual crime prevention is just so much more complex than that.
@Tommy; Nevada is not a very clear example. There is legal prostitution in certain places and manners. It is strongly prohibited in Vegas, I believe, and elsewhere. I don’t think the state really legitimately serves as the short of test case you’re implying.
Also, in the places where it’s legal, it is heavily regulated. Plenty of bureaucrats and inspectors on the job. Where there *isn’t* extensive government oversight, prostitution tends to go hand in hand with a lot of drugs and violence and sometimes nastier things like kidnapping.
You’ll never totally do away with the phenomenon of people paying for sex, but “freedom vs government” is a very simplistic way to see it. However you choose to play that hand, there will be recognizable problems associated with the sex trade.
Better for the economy to deal with it my way than yours.
Thanks for writing this post and your book, I look forward to reading it. I think a new generation of black and underclass Americans would give the Republicans a second look if we could publicize some of this rethinking. For example, I learned the other day that in the New York State corrections system by far the most popular, most oversubscribed vocational program is for barbering. Convicts can envision themselves going back to their old neighborhoods and making an honest living with this trade… It’s been so popular that the barbering and cosmetology guilds have made sure that felons are not allowed to be licensed in New York State. If Republicans pointed out the need for relaxing these kinds of asinine rules, like the one that got the young man killed last spring for not having a front tag on his car – and pointed to the interest groups and political party that supports them it could do us a lot of good.
Tommy I think prostitution is enough of a public nuisance that it needs to be formally against the law, even if enforcement is sporadic and “unfair.” A discrete call girl charging Elliot Spitzer $5K a night is not going to cause the problems that street walkers will, or that advertising and recruitment would cause if it were allowed to be completely out in the open.