Skalduggery

Does poverty cause crime?

Heather Mac Donald is a contributing editor at the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal, and she recently wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal that garnered quite a range of responses. Tom, over at Responsibility, was kind enough to send me a link. I think Mac Donald’s title pretty much covers the premise of her article: A Crime Theory Demolished: If poverty is the root cause of lawlessness, why did crime rates fall when joblessness increased? (WSJ, 20100104). This actually raises the specter of crime theories – there are a number of them. They are worth mentioning simply because the “root causes” notion of poverty is so well embedded in popular belief (even amongst law enforcement practitioners) that other theories are simply not a part of the conversation.

Perhaps the only theory (apart from “I’m poor, that’s why I…”) that is also a part of the vernacular is the so-called Classical Theory. I say “so-called” because criminal justice text-book authors have chosen that label. Essentially, this theory boils down to free-will, a choice. Though much is made of the “age” of this theory, there are plenty of modern day advocates (e.g. Stafford & Warr, Patternoster, Cornish & Clarke, and a few others) who have provided a new label: Rational Choice or Deterrence Theories. This newer version emphasizes the notion of a “costs v. benefits” analysis, but it still is heavy on the free-will concept. Those are just two theories that are a part of popular dialogue; however, there are a host of others that are not a part of our community conversation:

1. Positivist – crime is caused or determined by biological, psychological, sociological factors. Claims to use science to determine the factors associated with crime.
2. Trait Theory – this theory believes that criminals differ from non-criminals on a number of biological and psychological traits, and in conjunction with the environment… well, cause crime.
3. Anomie / Social Disorganization Theory – as communities break down, informal social controls fail to control crime and criminal cultures emerge.
4. Differential Association, General Strain, Strain, Control, Control/Balance, Feminist, Postmodernist, Chaos Theory…. You get the idea – lots. Most have some basis for deserving a portion of the “market share” he he he.

I’m a fan of eclecticism, because sometimes, one explanation just isn’t enough. Of course, people from both the right and the left say moderates are simply unable to get the fence post… So, let me remove the fence post from my posterior and say I think Mac Donald is right. As theories of crime go, I believe the notion that “the root cause of crime lies in the income inequality and social injustice” (WSJ, 20100104) has been thoroughly discredited. This is especially true if we remember the difference between causation and correlation. As comments and emails have made plain in response to the last post on this subject, while many readers doubt poverty is the “cause” of crime, they do believe it plays a part in the scheme of things criminal.

Thanks largely to Johnson’s “Great Society” brain trust, this particular brand of “root cause” theory was widely accepted and turned into public policy. These ideas did enough damage that some strange conclusions were drawn, as Mac Donald points out:

If crime was a rational response to income inequality, the thinking went, government can best fight it through social services and wealth redistribution, not through arrests and incarceration. Even law enforcement officials came to embrace the root causes theory, which let them off the hook for rising lawlessness. Through the late 1980s, the FBI’s annual national crime report included the disclaimer that “criminal homicide is largely a societal problem which is beyond the control of the police.” Policing, it was understood, can only respond to crime after the fact; preventing it is the domain of government welfare programs (WSJ, 20100104). (Added emphasis is emphatically mine.)

Despite what many on the left continue to claim, data-driven policing continues to be effective in combating crime. Mac Donald’s article is worth the read for that alone, because she amply demonstrates the effectiveness of the “Compstat” mentality and makes it plain that:

mentality is the opposite of root causes excuse-making; it holds that policing can and must control crime for the sake of urban economic viability. More and more police chiefs have adopted the Compstat philosophy of crime-fighting and the information-based policing techniques that it spawned. Their success in lowering crime shows that the government can control antisocial behavior and provide public safety through enforcing the rule of law. Moreover, the state has the moral right and obligation to do so, regardless of economic conditions or income inequality (WSJ, 20100104).

She follows this up with a warning, and it is prudent – crime rates could still be affected by public safety funding cuts driven by the recession.

With all that being said, I think it’s worth noting that Mac Donald still runs a little loose with her observations. Even if national crime statistics are better than ever, it is also true that there is a substantial positive correlation between poverty stricken areas and crime rates. The bottom line here is that crime tends to be heavier in low income areas than in more upscale neighborhoods. Using a national statistic to “demolish” a local phenomenon isn’t quite true to the use of those statistics – and Mac Donald should know better than to be that misleading.

I suppose the final critique here is that unemployment, the basis for Mac Donald’s tag line in the title, is NOT poverty. Consider the number of households with more than one income, the number of unemployment claims being filed, and the few who are sustaining themselves on odd jobs and savings – with those considerations in mind, equating unemployment with poverty at this point approaches being disingenuous.

Just in case you weren’t sure, I do believe crime is a choice. Having grown up in what passes for poverty here in the United States, I don’t believe it causes crime… though it does limit one’s choices. On the other hand, perhaps my grandmother was right (being a voracious reader, I’m sure she was quoting someone): “We’re not poor, we’re broke. Huge difference. Being broke we can change, being poor is a state of mind.”

P.S.     Tune in next time when we show how engineering students living in Europe, waiting on their next check from home, were somehow living in squalor and utter wretchedness, and decide to fly a few planes into some buildings because they were… poor?

Cheers all!

This was originally posted in 2007, and an email from a fellow blogger (Tom at Responsibility) called it to mind. Tom sent an email with a reference to a Wall Street Journal article that he thought I might be interested in – and I was so interested I decided I’d post something in response. Big hat tip to Tom 😉 While this isn’t a response to the WSJ article, it is a bit of background and foundation for an answer, which I hope to post before Monday. So, the original post from August 6, 2007:

I’ve heard that nasty word “social justice” once again, and I’m always interested enough to ask my erstwhile conversation partner what he means by this interesting compound idea. Erstwhile? Former conversation partners because I’m generally opposed to the common or popular notion of what “social justice” constitutes, and my opposition seems to color me as Satan himself to some of the liberal nutroots I’ve engaged in conversation (despite their intense opposition to religion, it is ok to label opponents as the minions of Beelzebub). Taking the adjective social away from the concept at least leaves the actual noun being modified in some fashion. Make no mistake, English works precisely this way.

“No, no, no, you don’t understand. It wasn’t simply a man; it was a little green man!”

Granted, that’s poking a little fun, but whether used rationally or irrationally, that’s the way we use our language. Clearly, progressives are trying to make it plain that they are NOT talking about the classical meaning of justice, and hence, the adjective “social.” I had always thought justice by nature and definition must be social. Something else is meant in this case – so, for comparison, let’s take a look at the origin of the word “justice.” I’ll use the Online Etymology Dictionary:

1140, “the exercise of authority in vindication of right by assigning reward or punishment,” from O.Fr. justise, from L. justitia “righteousness, equity,” from justus “upright, just.” The O.Fr. word had widespread senses, including “uprightness, equity, vindication of right, court of justice, judge.” The word began to be used in Eng. c.1200 as a title for a judicial officer. Meaning “the administration of law” is from 1303. Justice of the peace first attested 1320. In the Mercian hymns, L. justitia is glossed by O.E. rehtwisnisse.

Generally, “the administration of law” was once a common understanding of the term “justice.” On the other hand, the term “social justice” uses the adjective “social” to incorporate the notions often associated with socialism/communism. The always popular “take from those who are more prosperous and give to those who are less prosperous” – whether on a national or global scale depends largely on who is promoting the idea. For example, Anthony Brunt at the University of Iowa puts it this way:

The first component of social justice is a minimum standard of living in the realms of employment, health, housing, and education. This is the portion of social justice that is best dispensed through government agencies. According to the 1999 U.N. Human Development Report, for forty billion dollars the most disadvantaged portions of the world can achieve basic healthcare, education, sanitation facilities, potable water, and an adequate food supply for all. To contrast this amount in relative terms, last year Microsoft chairperson Bill Gates had an estimated net worth of fifty-two billion dollars. I do not believe that allocating an additional forty billion dollars will strain those living in a state of luxury.

Only somewhat tongue in cheek, Kfir Alfia and Alan Lipton in A Field Guide to Left-Wing Wackos, says that communists are “Anyone who likes the things you have, wants them for his own, and doesn’t mind if a totalitarian state is what it takes to make that happen.” This idea of using a government to accomplish their ends is highlighted by Brunt in the next paragraph of his paper, albeit for logistical concerns.

Why even mention this topic? Because I find it at least a little ironic and humorous that this unusual group of liberals shares so much in common with the very people they are so opposed to having any influence on our society. Truly, the only real difference between the liberal nutroots and the Christians in this case is the means by which they ameliorate poverty. I really cannot say it better than C.S. Lewis on this topic, and he makes the point so forcefully, I’ll close with a small portion of The Problem of Pain:

Those who would most scornfully repudiate Christianity as a mere “opiate of the people” have a contempt for the rich, that is , for all mankind except the poor. They regard the poor as the only people worth preserving from “liquidation,” and place in them the only hope of the human race. But this is not compatible with a belief that the effects of poverty on those who suffer it are wholly evil; it even implies that they are good. The Marxist thus finds himself in agreement with the Christians in those two beliefs which Christianity paradoxically demands – that poverty is blessed and yet ought to be removed. (C.S. Lewis, 1940, pp. 108-109)

P.S. The question to ask is: “Is poverty a/the ‘root cause’ of crime?”

Cheers!

A tremendous body of advocacy writing concerning felony disenfranchisement spends its time comparing us to European countries and waxing long on our failure to be like them… Screw that, let’s be like us, and if we want to change the way we do business let’s keep it internally consistent! Let’s do it because it’s the right thing to do, not because somebody else is doing it. Sheesh!!

That’s the second to last paragraph of last week’s post. Just a reminder of where I’d prefer decisions about our political and legal life to be, rooted in our country’s history – socially, politically, and especially legally. I don’t really think I trust any lawyers when it comes to arguments; they strike me as waaaay too much like the sophists. It really isn’t about finding the truth of the matter; it’s all about winning the argument… even if the winning argument ignores evidence that might be deemed “exculpatory.” If the opposition fails to find the exculpatory evidence, then really, “it simply isn’t my concern.” Don’t get me wrong here; I’m certain there are honest lawyers out there somewhere – just like there are honest politicians. Simon Cameron said it best, “An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought.”

Unfortunately, most of the advocacy writing on this subject (felony disenfranchisement), and the associated “research,” is done by lawyers or think tanks aimed at a specific agenda. Apart from many lawyers associations, especially the American Trial Lawyers Association (an exclusive group of “the best” 100 lawyers from each state that caters only to the defense side of a trial) and the ACLU, there are also other groups like The Sentencing Project that one might think are more balanced. Again, unfortunately, the aim of The Sentencing Project is focused sharply on defense attorneys. Moreover, the lion’s share of the material tries to invoke international law, U.N. Treaties, or the practices of other nations. When it is not trying to do that, the authors use descriptive statistical information precisely as one might expect of a lawyer rather than a statistician or scientist. In other words, one finds lawyers repeatedly trying to use descriptive statistics to prove discriminatory practices. This tool describes a population, it doesn’t prove or explain anything – other than the description.

Before I actually give my position, I’d like to lay out just one more example of the kinds of arguments and commentary coming from this rather one sided group of defense attorneys – primarily because it’s just a little funny. It’s worth a direct quote from the Alabama Law Review, Vol. 58:

Though felony disenfranchisement has been present in this country since its inception, the outrage over this process has gained serious momentum in recent years. The reason for this new found interest in felony disenfranchisement laws can be traced to the 2000 presidential election.¹ This presidential election was the closest in the history of the United States² and resulted in President George W. Bush winning the election while losing the popular vote.³ In fact, the election was so close that the result hinged on one state: Florida.⁴ The Republican nominee, George W. Bush, won the state of Florida by accumulating fewer than 1,000 more votes than the Democratic nominee Al Gore.⁵ In such a closely contested election, some commentators believe that if felons were allowed to vote, Al Gore would have become the forty-third President of the United States.⁶ (emphasis mine)

Come on, seriously, if criminals could register to vote, then they’d certainly register as democrats… That’s directly from the opening paragraph. What happened to the proof reader? You might expect me to make mistakes like that; I don’t have an editorial staff to make sure I don’t walk away with my foot in my mouth. But you don’t really expect that from an established journal. Regardless, the article is one of the few I really enjoyed because it focused on American Law, why it probably would not be practical to challenge disenfranchisement laws through the courts, and finally, why concerned citizens must move their legislators to change the laws.

I happen to agree that these laws need to be changed, but not for the reasons typically offered by lawyers concerning things outside the internal consistency of our own laws and intentions. Leave it to a Canadian, specifically members of their Supreme Court, to avoid an argument based on international law and to focus on the internal consistency of the thing itself! From a paper by The Sentencing Project on page 29:

The court concluded that the policy [of disenfranchisement] did not communicate a clear lesson to the nation’s citizens about respect for the rule of law. The court stated: “Denying a citizen the right to vote denies the basis of democratic legitimacy. It says that delegates elected by the citizens can then bar those very citizens, or a portion of them, from participating in future elections. But if we accept that governmental power in a democracy flows from the citizens, it is difficult to see how that power can legitimately be used to disenfranchise the very citizens from whom the government’s power flows.”

That’s an argument that should resonate with many Americans familiar with the American State Papers, i.e., our Constitution, Declaration, Bill of Rights, and the Federalist Papers. Here in Oregon, felons are disenfranchised during their incarceration and are automatically enfranchised upon release. If there is to be any disenfranchisement at all, then surely after the debt is paid the most important right of a citizen should be restored – especially if we are serious about wanting this member of our society to exercise the duties and responsibilities of a citizen.

I’m not so bold as to say all felons are democrats… because I know a few Independents that are ex-cons. Ha, you thought I was going to say republicans – all republicans are felons. Hahahaha. Seriously though, what do you think? Considering we have over 5,000,000 people unable to vote, doesn’t that have a pretty large impact on our notions of democracy – let alone the functioning of our democracy? What do you think?

Cheers all! And as me Da says: “Polite? Yes. Politically correct? Don’t hold your breath.”

Hard at Work fm The Weekly Standard

I am still working on a post about prison disenfranchisement. It’s a subject I find extraordinarily interesting considering the republic we celebrate. However, I received some interesting mail about my Ft. Hood post; the comments provided several areas to think about in addition to what was already published; and of the many blog posts and articles continuing the coverage, Christopher Hitchens and Robert Wright have a lively dance.

As always, I encourage reading Hitchens’ article and Robert Wright’s op-ed at The New York Times, well – not so much. Just kidding, read it – no, really. In a stunning race to oversimplify, Wright informs us that the left’s position is that the war on terror (oops, The War on Terror) is what made Major Hasan. Of course, Hitchens takes issue with this notion (me too, me too). Hitchens opens his Slate article like this:

It’s both amusing and educational to observe a consensus when it suddenly starts to give way at all points without yielding an inch. A couple of weeks ago, the consoling view was that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a man more to be pitied than feared, a full-blown officer in the U.S. armed forces who was too shaken up by the stories of returned veterans to be able to function properly, and a physician too stressed-out to bear in mind that there was such a thing as a Hippocratic oath. Why, even the FBI had interpreted his e-mails to Anwar al-Awlaki as quite “consistent with research being conducted by Maj. Hasan in his position as a psychiatrist at the Walter Reed Medical Center” (Slate 20091123:1337).

As he did last week, he does this week – Hitchens shreds these pretensions. Then he takes exception to Wright’s article. It’s worth providing a bit of Wright’s own words here to get a taste of his reasoning. It’s seductive in its emotional content, and the emotional appeal is often accepted by readers at the expense of their critical thinking skills. The unvarnished argument is that if you call Muslims names it’s sure to cause violence. Most grownups don’t respond with violence unless they’re attacked with violence. Here’s the varnished argument:

The more Americans denigrate Islam and view Muslims in the workplace with suspicion, the more likely the virus is to spread — and each appearance of the virus in turn tempts more people to denigrate Islam and view Muslims with suspicion. Whenever you have a positive feedback system like this, an isolated incident can put you on a slippery slope.

And the Fort Hood shooting wasn’t the only recent step along that slope. Six months ago a 24-year-old American named Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad — Carlos Bledsoe before his teenage conversion to Islam — fatally shot a soldier outside a recruiting station in Little Rock, Ark. ABC News reported, “It was not known what path Muhammad … had followed to radicalization.” Well, here’s a clue: After being arrested he started babbling to the police about the killing of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan (The New York Times 20091121).

Yes sir! You know how the liberal argument went down for the abortion doctor killer… why the more you denigrate those Christian fundamentalists the more slippery that slope becomes and… and, my goodness WE caused that evil little bastard to pull the trigger and shoot the doctor. Nope, didn’t quite go down that way – in fact, the prevailing opinion was that fundamentalist Christians calling for direct action against abortion clinics should be held accountable for their teachings. Anyone should be able to see that those teachings have consequences… hmmmm. Ok, enough of my mini-rant.

Hitchens takes aim in a somewhat different direction – who’s killing Muslims? After detailing a huge laundry list of Muslims killing Muslims, Hitchens reasonably questions Wright’s notion of the slippery slope, the “dubious” nature of foreign policy and more. Here’s his article’s finishing flourish:

Dubious? The only thing dubious here is his command of language. When did the U.S. Army ever do what the jihadists do every day: deliberately murder Muslim civilians and brag on video about the fact? For shame. The slippery slope—actually the slimy slope—is the one down which Wright is skidding.

It is he, who I am taking as representative of a larger mentality here, who uses equally inert lingo to suggest that Maj. Hasan was “pushed over the edge by his perception of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.” That’s a nice and shady use of the word “perception.” Might it not be equally true to say that Hasan was all-too-easily pulled over the edge, having already signaled his devout eagerness for the dive, by a cleric who makes a living by justifying murder of Muslims and non-Muslims alike?

In many recent reports of this controversy one has seen reporters from respectable papers referring not just to generic, uniform “Muslims” but even to the places where they live as “Muslim lands.” If you would object to seeing the absurd term “Christendom” in your newspaper as a description of Europe, let alone to reading about “Jewish land” on the West Bank, then please have the fortitude to complain next time violent theocracy is smuggled into the discourse under the increasingly feeble disguise of multicultural masochism (Slate 20091123:1337).

I’d say that pretty much wraps it up – except for a couple of articles at The Weekly Standard here and here that you may find of interest. They echo and expand on some of the elements presented here – including, wait for it… some evidence based journalism 😀

Again, Happy Thanksgiving all!

I opened this new version of Skalduggery with a post concerning cowardice and virtues that had as its triggering subject an article by Christopher Hitchens. It happened that I disagreed with Hitchens in that case – I found his claim that “religion poisons everything” unconvincing. More, it’s often easier to find ideological zealotry outside of religion; a god was not required for the butchery perpetrated by Mao, Lenin, or Hitler. Religion has produced some of the finest episodes in mankind’s short history; however, it has also been conducive to some of the worst intolerance in our history. I wonder how Muslims would respond to Hitchens’ most recent article and my commentary on it?

In Christopher Hitchins’ latest article for Slate, HARD EVIDENCE: Seven salient facts about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, he doesn’t just outline seven salient facts concerning the shooter at Ft. Hood, he also provides three salient characteristics of the Muslim death-squad type. Since I’m not really going to focus on the seven salient facts of the article, I encourage you to take a trip over to Slate and read the article. Hitchens opens this way:

The admonition not to rush to judgment or jump to conclusions might sound fair and prudent enough, perhaps even statesmanlike when uttered by the president, as long it’s borne in mind that such advice is itself a judgment that is more than halfway to a conclusion. What it plainly implies in the present case is that the actions of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan should not be assumed in any meaningful way to be related to his Muslim faith. (Slate 20091116:1146)

It is easy to see that the president’s admonition not to rush to judgment is in fact a judgment. If you haven’t seen his video address concerning the “Ft. Hood Tragedy,” then here it is for your consumption.

Just to reassure my readers… I. Am. Not. Rushing to judgment. If you’ve read my posts, then you know I have little patience for chowder headed extremists of any stripe. Unlike Hitchens, I am actually quite tolerant of most religions having been a devout follower of a religion at one time myself – I gave it up for lent. However, like Hitchens, “I do not say that all practitioners of woman-hating, anti-Semitic, sadomasochistic suicide immolations are themselves insane, but I do say that the teaching itself is demented. In the same way, I do not say that all Muslims are terrorists, but I have noticed that an alarmingly high proportion of terrorists are Muslim” (Slate 20091116:1146)… especially in the last 25 years.

Hitchens then points out that the “gallant major,” the sarcasm is obvious in the original text (ok, dry humor for my fellow seminarians), may have been subject to a little ill treatment, but only up to a point. Hitchens reminds us that the major’s parents were given refuge here, that he joined an all-volunteer army, and was given permission by omission to “vent extremely noxious opinions about members of other faiths, to say nothing about his adopted country” (Slate 20091116:1146). To drive a point home that is apparently lost on some members of our citizenry, he reminds them:

Black Americans used to be segregated. Jewish recruits were mercilessly hazed, as were men or women who looked as if they might be gay. Did any of them ever come up with an act of mass murder as a response? Did any of them ever offer a black or Jewish or gay ideology in justification of it? Would they have earned sympathy and understanding if they had? By the time the mushy “pre-post-traumatic” school was done with the story, Maj. Hasan was not just acquitted of being a bad Muslim. He was more or less exonerated of having even done a bad deed (Slate 20091116:1146).

The next portion of the article should come as no surprise to people paying attention. A person worrying about the motives and intentions of a Muslim colleague is not “Islamophobic” in circumstances such as these. Take a gander over at the HuffPo on this subject and you’ll find assorted complaints about the right-wingnuts who mention these concerns – oh, and to be honest, there are actually a vanishingly small number of very legitimate complaints about behaviors this atrocity has spawned. I guess we Americans, whether Muslim, Christian, Jew, or atheist just can’t seem to follow the president’s advice on this one. On the other hand, it seems obvious that people will respond to an event of this magnitude – and Christopher Hitchens closing remarks seem especially appropriate:

I wrote some years ago that the three most salient characteristics of the Muslim death-squad type were self-righteousness, self-pity, and self-hatred. Surrounded as he was by fellow shrinks who were often very distressed by his menacing manner, Maj. Hasan managed to personify all three traits—with the theocratic rhetoric openly thrown in for good measure—and yet be treated even now as if the real word for him was troubled. Prepare to keep on meeting those three symptoms again, along with official attempts to oppose them only with therapy, if that. At least the holy warriors know they are committing suicide (Slate 20091116:1146).

Somehow “Cheers” doesn’t seem like the appropriate sign off for this post. My daughters and wife have a perfectly serviceable adieu –

Love and light to ALL of you.

Ever hear of Theo van Gogh? Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Based on conversations with random people at coffee, sandwich, and ice cream shops it seems many Americans don’t really remember or know these names. Understandable, but if I asked if they remembered a Dutch movie director murdered because of a movie he made – then there was a fuzzy recollection. Theo van Gogh directed the movie Submission which was written by Hirsi Ali, who was essentially exiled though he was a member of parliament. This happened in the Netherlands in 2004 I believe, and is by now considered “ancient history.”

The Netherlands was once considered one of the most tolerant countries in Europe. Enter the EU and its notions of free speech, notions that our left is increasingly advocating for consumption here in the United States. Both the American Spectator’s (AS) Roger Scruton and The Weekly Standard’s (TWS) Christopher Caldwell had articles on the February refusal of the UK, “on the advice of Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary,” (AS) to grant Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch Parliament, entry to the UK to show his film Fitna. Why comment on free speech? I write about free speech because “we the people” seem to be increasingly constrained in our speech by our government in direct violation of our first amendment rights. Take a look through the new hate crimes legislation that was attached to a defense bill by House Democrats, it’s just a little bit like limiting thought and speech.

Those two articles are worth the read, but if you don’t, here are a couple of entries that reflect the content of the articles:

But free speech is not about permitting only those voices of which you approve. It is about understanding your own beliefs and the beliefs of those who disagree with you. It is about creating the public space in which truth and falsehood can openly contend for their following. Free speech is critical to all the other freedoms that we enjoy, and the impulse to defend it—and in particular to defend the free speech of those with whom you disagree, of whom you disapprove, or who have been targeted by some mob or faction determined to silence them—is proof of the democratic spirit. (AS)

…the British government has grown less interested in freedom. After the July 2005 transport bombings, and even more after the foiled airplane plot of the following summer, the government said so explicitly. “Traditional civil liberty arguments,” said Tony Blair, “are not so much wrong as just made for another age.” Since then, 270 people have been refused admission to Britain on grounds of sowing hate. Only four of these have been Europeans. This kind of disparate impact must leave Jacqui Smith feeling she has little to apologize for in banning Wilders.

The new European conception of freedom of speech, based on anti-racism, protects a lot less speech than did the old British and Dutch conceptions of freedom of speech, based on sovereignty. Maybe membership in the family of man relieves one of a certain amount of worry about the liberties of one’s fellow citizens. (TWS)

Do we, as American citizens, really believe that traditional civil liberty arguments are anachronistic? I certainly hope not. It saddens me when the ACLU is more apt to defend free speech than post-secondary academia:

Many universities, under pressure to respond to the concerns of those who are the objects of hate, have adopted codes or policies prohibiting speech that offends any group based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.

That’s the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society.

Jeff, a commenter on the post Hate Crime Legislation is sooo Useful, made several keen observations about hate crime legislation – but he summed it up nicely:

Hate crime legislation is simply an attempt to control ideas and limit speech. It was passed by guilty consciences to raise up a stereotyped cartoon of downtrodden masses. It’s race law.

Seems like a bummer that our representatives in congress would actively seek to violate our civil rights in this underhanded way. My father has a tag line at the end of his emails I like: Polite, yes.  Politically Correct – don’t hold your breath. Though I would like to quote J.S. Mill from On Liberty, I’ll save that for some other rant because I’d rather end on a humorous note. I’m lousy at written humor – I just don’t have the chops. However, for a great ending to this post, P.J. O’Rourke emailed a little bit to the Scrapbook, a section of The Weekly Standard that addresses just this issue. Since I couldn’t seem to find it on line, it’s the APRIL 13 / APRIL 20, 2009 issue, and as it’s a relatively short little screed here’s all of it (with my sincere hopes this is perfectly ok):

The U.N. Human Rights Council —with the championing of human rights led by delegates from Belarus, Venezuela and Pakistan—has passed a resolution urging countries around the world to make “defamation of religion” illegal. Given the Obama administration’s desire for closer cooperation with the U.N., those laws may be on the books in America by the time you read this. But we will defy Attorney General Eric Holder and the fearsome weapons of the U.N.’s black helicopters enforcing his writ. Herewith a last stand for the defamatory rights of free speech:

How many Episcopalians attend church on Sunday? Fore.

What do you get when you cross a Jehovah’s Witness with a Unitarian? Someone who goes door-to-door for no reason.

Hey, Presbyterians, if everything is predestined by God, how come the tornado blew your double-wide to God-knows-where?

What caused the Catholic priest to have a sex change? Altar girls.

Then there was the Baptist congregation that put up a sign, “CH_RCH What’s Missing?” And they spent all week trying to figure it out.

Why was the Dalai Lama reincarnated as a compulsive gambler? So he’d get Tibet.

Did you hear about the dyslexic Hindu who had 47,000 dogs?

What do you get if you call a Sikh a reckless, insane maniac? A taxi.

And what’s the difference between Jews and Muslims? A profit.

Cheers all.

Here’s another interesting tidbit! Hat tip to my friend John for emailing the link 😉 That prisons have a problem with cell phones ought not to be a surprise to people working in corrections – it might be a surprise to those who don’t work in the system. An article by William Saletan at Slate not only highlights some of the obvious problems (including drug dealers inside setting up deals and murders outside), but also highlights some of the possible technological solutions *GASP* an industry policing itself?? CTIA (wireless carriers’ association) convened to help solve the problem… Nope, guess I’m kind of in Saletan’s camp:

Good for you, CTIA. But I don’t believe for a minute that you’d be working hard on these alternatives if you weren’t facing the threat of federally authorized jamming. And this is one reason why I’m not a pure libertarian. Can technology help the good guys stay ahead in the cell-phone arms race? Yes. Is industry better than government at coming up with creative, pinpoint solutions? Yes. Will industry do this without the threat of clumsy, burdensome government intervention? No.

So thank you, senators, for applying the heat. And don’t forget the same lesson as you’re legislating health care reform. Government-run alternatives don’t always have to outperform private industry. They just have to scare it.

The article is short and hits the mark – a great read! Thanks John.

Cheers all!

Drop by Blue Oregon for a look at someone coming to their senses about mandatory minimum sentencing. Ignore the lazy characterizations of opposition parties and focus on a good look at a “law-and-order” type realizing that the mandatory minimums are much too expensive… perhaps Oregon voters jumped before looking. Skim through the comments – I made mine, but it was directed more at some of the rhetoric about the criminal justice system. It’s worth a look!

Just another quickie – Thomas Sowell, hit tip to Neo-Neocon, writes a typically interesting and penetrating article. In an almost J. Swiftian way, he argues for changing the rules of basketball so he can compete equally with Michael Jordan. Though Sowell comes off as self-deprecating about his basketball skills, there is no doubt about his abilities as a writer:

Even under these conditions, you would be better off betting your money on Michael Jordan. But, conceivably at least, we might change the rules some more to make the results come out less lopsided, in order to create “social justice.”

Friends, Christians, and Communists contains my complaint about “social justice,” but read Sowell’s, it’s a lot more fun. Jeff’s comments on hate crime legislation are also worth the read. While your at it, another good read is NeoNeocon’s little screed against the use of “life-stories” in place of real news…

Cheers!

I’m off on a short excursion this week, though hopefully it’s pretty easy to see how this fits with the overall direction of the last few posts. I’ve just read and am now studying a book by John J. DiIulio, Jr. entitled Governing Prisons: a comparative study of correctional management. He makes a fine point at the end of his book concerning future research. I can’t say it any better than he states it, so here’s the deal:

Future prisons research must address two basic sets of issues, one empirical, the other philosophical. The empirical issues concern the governability of prisons and the conditions under which prisons can be improved. At this stage, the need is for comparative evaluations of prison practices that have already been tried. The present study may serve as something of a model for such works, but only in the way that the Ford Model-T served as a model for the Ford Mustang. The philosophical issues concern the legitimacy of imprisonment as a form of punishment. Even if we knew how to improve prisons, this would not in and of itself justify their existence. At present, the bulk of contemporary writing suggests that imprisonment is a cruel and unusual form of punishment. It remains to be seen whether a compelling case can be made that – given the possibility of prisons where levels of order, amenity, and service are indisputably high – imprisonment is a morally desirable form of punishment.

Now, I’m a big fan of empirical research that can actually be used for the purposes of developing policy. Making policy decisions based on an old fashioned crunching of the numbers and finding valid statistical significance in well formed research projects seems more appropriate than making observations and policy decisions based on untested theoretical systems. That’s just me, but what really caught me was DiIulio’s starkly honest statements concerning the moral desirability of prisons in the first place. After spending an entire book poking holes in the sociological model/perspective concerning prisons and showing that a political science perspective answers more questions and predicts more results than does the sociological perspective, he questions the validity of having the prisons in the first place.

It’s an excellent book. Even though some sociologists believe he was hitting below the belt, they also acknowledge that his book is one of the top three books written on prisons over the past 50-60 years! Unfortunately, I believe you must have a subscription to the Prison Journal to access the article The Champion, Contender, and Challenger: Top-Ranked Books in Prison Studies, so here is a quick quotation concerning DiIulio’s work:

After all, he is (rightly or wrongly) highly critical of prison sociology’s ability to provide useful policy-oriented knowledge to corrections practitioners. DiIulio tells his readers, in fact, that officials responsible for prison policy have been the “slaves of some defunct sociologist” (p. 14).There is no doubt that DiIulio’s “in-your face” approach to shifting focus away from the inmate social system and toward prison administration has angered more than one prison sociologist, and rightly so. To some, then, DiIulio’s comparative analysis of prison management may not constitute a “knockout punch” to traditional prison sociology but rather a “punch below the belt.”

I also purchased the other two books, and they are also worth the read. But the real reason for the post: Is anybody willing to take on the notion that prisons may not be morally desirable? And the corollary, if they are not morally desirable, then what is/are suitable alternative(s)? Maybe even justifying the prison system in America would be worth a look…

Cheers all.