Michelle Jones And Rehabilitation Versus Never-Ending Retaliation
There was a comment on Techdirt on Harvard's recent decision to rescind their offer admission to Michelle Jones, 45, a woman who was about to be released from prison for killing her child.
This was a horrible crime -- beating her disabled son, leaving him alone for days afterward, and coming home to him dead in bed, then leaving his body in the woods -- and never saying where. She was sentenced to prison for it and served 20 years. Heather Mallick's take: "Why are liberals slamming Harvard for rejecting a child killer?"
However, here's an excerpt from that comment on Techdirt (left anonymously):
There are five basic reasons for imprisoning a criminal.The ones most people agree on are removal, deterrence, and retribution. That is: putting criminals somewhere that they can't hurt the general public, offering disincentives to committing crimes in the first place, and giving a sense that the person has been given a punishment that has fit the crime.
There aren't many people who'd disagree with serial killers being deprived of people to kill, or that some sort of punishment is needed to keep people from flouting the law with impunity, or that something must be done to provide a sense of justice and closure after a crime is committed.
There are two other basic reasons behind imprisonment, though, and very different philosophies about their place in criminal justice.
Scandinavian systems tend to focus on rehabilitation. That is, removing a person who commits a crime from the general public, and making it so that when they are allowed to rejoin society, that they're unlikely to commit any further crimes. The point is to make it that the person who comes out isn't the same person who went in: they're not a criminal anymore. And, if preventing recidivism is the goal, it seems to work: in Norway, a released criminal has a 20% chance of re-offending within five years; in the U.S., it's over 75%.
This seems to be because the U.S. system prioritizes retaliation over rehabilitation. That is, not imposing the best solution onto the problem, but rather inflicting as much pain as possible on the person who dared to flout the law.
That kind of stance just plain isn't healthy: not for the person wanting the punishment, nor for the person dealing out the punishment, nor for the person receiving the punishment, and especially not for the society in general.
Michelle Jones did a horrible thing. No one is denying that.
She needed to be removed from society, to provide justice for her child's death, to protect other children, to show other people who might be tempted to resort to violence against children that it will be punished. No one is denying that.
Do the twenty-plus years that she's spent in prison make it right that she killed her child? Of course not. But, even given my own unremarkable life, I'm a much different person than I was twenty years ago.
Ms. Jones has lived a longer time since killing her son than she had before committing that atrocious deed, the vast majority of that time in prison. She's been given the punishment that society dictated for her, and now wants to start her life over as a better person. And yet you want to keep punishing her.
I'm not saying that Harvard must accept her. That's for Harvard to decide.
But generally speaking, if we stop people who've been in prison from rejoining our society, aren't we pushing them back toward of life of crime?
On a related note, my friend Cari Lynn co-authored "Becoming Ms. Burton: From Prison to Recovery to Leading the Fight for Incarcerated Women," with the actual Mrs. Susan Burton. From the Amazon writeup:
Her organization, A New Way of Life, operates five safe homes in Los Angeles that supply a lifeline to hundreds of formerly incarcerated women and their children--setting them on the track to education and employment rather than returns to prison.
"Ms. Jones has lived a longer time since killing her son than she had before committing that atrocious deed, the vast majority of that time in prison. She's been given the punishment that society dictated for her, and now wants to start her life over as a better person. And yet you want to keep punishing her."
How exactly is not getting into Harvard or having your invitation recinded considered a continuing punishment?
Aren't there plenty of other ways and places to get a college degree? Like in prison?
Is character not supposed to count anymore for anything?
When there is a blind academically based admission process to Ivy Leage schools consisting of grades and test scores I will happily stand by MS Jones right to substantive due process but considering that she probably benefited to begin with from some half baked social justice warrior criteria for admission which was rescinded when they found out the nature of her crime (not exactly victimless). I don't find myself sympathetic.
Isab at September 18, 2017 12:02 AM
Correction: According to Hot Air she was never admitted to Harvard. She was admitted to NYU and still is.
Some punishment. .
Isab at September 18, 2017 12:12 AM
"But generally speaking, if we stop people who've been in prison from rejoining our society, aren't we pushing them back toward of life of crime?"
Maybe we should ask somebody who knows criminals how many actually quit crime as their profession.
Say that a marginal human wielding a bolo knife crawls through a window, burglarizes the house, and gets caught and sentenced to five years. He gets out some time later having “paid his debt”—actually the citizenry have paid $20K a year to keep him fed and comfortable. He is now thought to have been cleansed and ready to make a fresh start.
Not a chance.
Radwaste at September 18, 2017 1:20 AM
Let's try it this way:
One of the things that gets lost in most Western legal systems is the criminal's direct responsibility to make restitution to the victim.
Often a prison term is thought to suffice and the victim is never recompensed for their damage and loss.
This calls into question claims that these systems effect "rehabilitation" and that criminals will act differently when they "rejoin society"
The traditional Jewish legal system has no concept of prison as a final outcome/punishment.
In assessing the impact of a crime - for which the criminal must make restitution - Jewish law recognizes these categories:
Physical damage to person or property
Pain and distress
Medical/restoration costs
Missed wages
Embarrassment or public insult
-----------------
The criminal's *obligations* to the damaged parties is assessed. If they cannot "pay the price" - the REAL price of their actions - they are bonded into indentured servitude.
They work off their obligations while remaining in society, under the supervision of their "master". Yes, they forfeit some rights of free people - but they are far more free than prison convicts, and they are (re)learning how to behave in society (and learning a trade).
Kinda like "workfare" programs.
Real rehabilitation starts with responsibility for one's actions. This is what the judicial system should be enforcing.
Ben David at September 18, 2017 2:04 AM
@BenDavid: You're not wrong, but consider this: You get robbed and beaten, and the perp takes off, spends your money, puts $thousands on your cards, causes you days or weeks of inconvenience. Not to mention recovering from your injuries.
The perp is essentially illiterate, and wouldn't know a job skill if he tripped over one. WTF is he going to do to earn money to pay you back? At best, it's going to be make-work, maybe scrubbing graffiti tags off of buildings. At which he will do a crappy job, because why should he care? Unless you empower the supervisors to physically punish him until he gives a shit, which politically just isn't going to happen.
Nope, it's a nice concept, but it's just not realistic.
a_random_guy at September 18, 2017 5:14 AM
@Radwaste: Yup, that describes a lot of the prison population. But what are you gonna do? They're wasting good air, but we can't even get capital punishment right for really serious crimes. So what are you gonna do with the penny-ante thieves and muggers?
Maybe we could ship them all to Australia? It worked once...
a_random_guy at September 18, 2017 5:18 AM
She has expressed no actual remorse. She isn't rehabilitated, she's just been released.
I R A Darth Aggie at September 18, 2017 6:13 AM
"Why are liberals slamming Harvard for rejecting a child killer?"
"if we stop people who've been in prison from rejoining our society, aren't we pushing them back toward of life of crime?"
These are two UNRELATED questions. Sure, I agree that not allowing someone to rejoin society pushes them into the only thing they know - crime.
But, after someone has committed a crime, and "paid their debt to society" doesn't mean they get to enjoy ALL that society offers.
There are plenty of other - never committed a crime - folks who would NOT get into the university (or whatever it may be) that this criminal is taking the place off.
I know that I would be plenty pissed off if I found out a criminal got a job that I was qualified for - but, someone at that company felt that "we owe them something to get back into society." Being the one who just missed getting into my choice college only to find out a child murderer did would piss me off to no end!
charles at September 18, 2017 6:31 AM
This woman got accepted into several prestigious PhD programs.
Lots of people get rejected from Harvard. Lots get rejected the first time they apply, and then apply again and get in. Going to Harvard is not a basic human right nor is it necessary for rejoining society.
Why is Yale not getting the same shit Harvard is for not accepting her?
NicoleK at September 18, 2017 7:13 AM
Here's what I think the problem is, and why rehabilitation methods from the past and from smaller, monocultural societies don't work here. Most habitual criminals exhibit most of the traits of Cluster B behavior -- narcissism, lack of moral compass, impatience, short attention span, need for attention, and lack of impulse control. They are, in short, very poorly suited to living in a trust-based culture lacking close supervision.
I have a theory that the amount of trouble caused by such people is proportional not to their percentage of the population (which I think remains pretty constant), but to their absolute numbers in a society. As a nation grows and becomes less monocultural, there start to exist support systems for such people, in which they can live their preferred lifestyle without running out of resources. Urban gangs and the Mafia are examples, but there are many others. And, in a society which does not have a strong monoculture, there is not a well defined concept of what constitutes acceptable behavior, and so the activities of criminally-inclined types can go unnoticed until they reach the point of being flagrant.
So there is no incentive for a criminal to rehabilitate. Unlike criminals in smaller, monocultural societies, they don't face the possibility of social ostracism or exile; they can live comfortably in a subculture of like-minded people. And prison isn't a disincentive; it's rather like a vacation -- free meals, free housing, and they can get their craving for attention satisfied anytime they want by just raising a ruckus. The really ambitious ones can play jailhouse lawyer, make a stink in the press, and gain sympathy (mostly from the Left). Mind you, in or out of prison, it's a dangerous lifestyle. But the danger is part of what makes it attractive. When one of their number gets shot (by police or rivals) or otherwise knocked off, it's not a disincentive; rather, it increases the thrill level. Ask one of them about having a regular job, and the first word out of their mouth will be "Borrrrrr-ingggggg!"
This is why a lot of people support long prison sentences and continuing sanctions after prison. Because it appears to be the only thing that works. (To what extent it actually does work is another question, but most people perceive that it does work. After all, a person in prison can't very well commit more crimes. Except against other prisoners, but that's often regarded as just desserts.) It's pretty well acknowledged that the drop in violent crime in America since 1990 appears to be due more to demographic changes rather than any improvements in the criminal justice system, and now that trend is reversing.
There's a lot of disrespect for the law today even among law-abiding people; the zeal with which many police departments pursue petty activities like traffic violations and small-amount drug possession, versus the now half-century-old policy of catch and release regarding property crimes has led a lot of people to regard the police as not much more than another gang. (Police departments in big cities, and some in medium-size cities, won't investigate or respond to a call for a burglary any more. You just go down to the station and file a report, which goes in a file and is never seen again. Recovery of stolen property, other than automobiles, is near zero.) The post-WWII era of widespread respect for police, and viewing them as agents of justice, has ended.
Cousin Dave at September 18, 2017 7:15 AM
At the risk of being cruelly indelicate I caution anyone who draws comparisons between largely racially and culturally homogeneous nations and the US. I don't have the time to research it but would bet the rent that the recidivism of Scandinavian-Americans is much lower than the total US. There's still a good argument for rehab focused punishment,especially for young and/or non violent offenders, but to point to a vastly different culture's success or failure is a mistake.
Sam at September 18, 2017 7:22 AM
In World War II, General George Patton was disciplined for slapping a shell-shocked soldier in Sicily. Patton yelled at the soldier that he had let down his comrades. In this action, which shocked the US Army, Patton had come close to how European armies dealt with shell-shock.
The German army, like the British Army, used a regimental system. The regiments were drawn from specific geographic areas. So, if you were in the Scots Guards, chances are your cousins were too and your father and grandfather had been. And your neighbors. And people in the next town over. And, if you deserted, all your friends and family would know about it. German Army doctors would talk to you about returning to your regiment so you didn't let down friends and family. And, since you knew everybody in your regiment (or knew the same people they did), it hit home.
When a German regiment found itself depleted in combat strength, it was removed from the line and the new recruits were sent to join it in bivouac (rest and recuperation). Everybody had some non-combat time to get acquainted and see who they knew in common or how they might be related. The veterans took the new guys under their wings and taught them what they needed to know to survive.
The American Army used a generic replacement pool of soldiers. The replacement soldiers were not divided by geographic similarity. It was just a large pool of soldiers from all over.
A small unit would sent a report to division telling how many soldiers it lost in the last battle and the "Repo Depo" would send that many soldiers to join that unit, sometimes in the middle of a fight with the enemy. Veterans knew the new guys would make stupid mistakes that would get them and anyone around them killed (e.g., light a cigarette so a sniper can see you, pop a head up under a machine gun barrage, etc.) and would therefore avoid the new guys.
If the new guy survived a few days and the veteran no longer saw him as a bullet magnet, he'd warm to him and teach him some survival tricks. Otherwise he avoided him.
What's more, often times the new recruit did not have the skills he needed. As the US Army found that its pre-war combat personnel estimates were far too low, it moved cooks and clerks into the pool of replacement combat personnel, without giving them the requisite infantry training.
That left the new guys under fire for the first time, with no friends or mentors - scared, alone, and untrained in the job they were being asked to do. And the doctor at the rear telling them to go back to their comrades was a joke. What comrades? Those idiots who left him to die? The army preferred to send shell-shocked soldiers home in disgrace and pretend shell-shock was a personal failing on the soldier's part instead of a failure to properly deal with it on the army's part.
The movie, Fury, shows this attitude as Shia LaBeouf's character joins a tank crew composed of people with no connection to him, nor him to them, and none of the skills the veterans considered vital to their own survival, much less his own (LaBeouf's Swan had never been trained in tank operations, but was sent as a replacement for a tank crewman).
Likewise, a Swede who comes home from prison must now face his extended family and life-long neighbors. Chances are that his family still lives en masse near the ancestral birthplace. He doesn't come home to a single parent and an apartment building full of strangers, like an American ex-con does. The Swede's recidivism rate is kept low due to the influence of an extended family who can help him to adjust. The American ex-con must adjust almost entirely on his own.
Conan the Grammarian at September 18, 2017 8:05 AM
The comments are reminding me what an extraordinarily vengeful society we have become. With our current attitudes, the likelihood of adopting a more rehabilitative approach strikes me as unlikely.
Chris at September 18, 2017 9:16 AM
If I were a PhD candidate who had supported myself during grad school, working, paying rent, TA-ing, and I was rejected in favor of a candidate who had no other responsibilities (living rent free, food provided, no job ) I'd be pissed.
It's commendable that Jones used her time in prison well, and her research is good (but not outstanding) but since she didn't deal well with the responsibility of having a handicapped child, what will she do under the pressure of a PhD program? Will the state being supplying some asssitance as she makes the transition to,life on her own?
KateC at September 18, 2017 9:31 AM
There is no shortage of people in the world. I find it personally ludicrous that we as a society spend so much time and money on those who have shown themselves violent and harmful to others. I think ye olden times when you got convicted and taken out and hung, had a lot going for them, if we could be certain we had the right person. We put down viscious dogs, bears, etc, why not people too.
But, short of the zombie apacolypse arriving, we will not be going back to that so my personal opinion doesnt matter. Harvard, and the entire rest of society, is free to decide they would rather admit someone who didnt beat a kid to death. Actuons have consequences, and most people dont care to invite murderers into their life, no matter they did some jail time.
Momof4 at September 18, 2017 9:32 AM
"The comments are reminding me what an extraordinarily vengeful society we have become. With our current attitudes, the likelihood of adopting a more rehabilitative approach strikes me as unlikely."
Well.
Follow the programs of "the Great Society". It established that money and property comes from government, not effort, and therefore crime is of no consequence: YOU don't "own" something, and you didn't earn it, government gave that to you (do you hear Obama?). This destroyed families such that ~SEVENTY PERCENT of black children are born to single mothers. Follow EVERY PROGRAM to see just what "the war on poverty" got for its HUGE expenses.
Then, read Conan's post again, and note that convicts really DON'T have anyone to let down. Read that oh-so-easy-to-click link I posted to an article by someone who has certainly spent more time among the, er, disadvantaged than you. Spice that with the very real modern factor that jail time equals credibility among the criminal.
Then, take your very own wallet down to the benefits office, itself geared to take Federal and State money based on how many are enrolled - and tell me how it went. Wrap yourself in the sweet, comfy warmth of the numerous acronyms and slogans paid for with your taxes so that the majority of their clients can stay right where they are.
You will not find a soul who can or will attempt to tell you when such programs will end - not even Affirmative Action.
No amount of money can pay the criminal not to be. It's been tried.
Noting that criminals are habitually criminal isn't "vengeful". Pretending they aren't is simply softheaded, and such people should wear a helmet before reality strikes.
Radwaste at September 18, 2017 11:10 AM
"I have a theory that the amount of trouble caused by such people is proportional not to their percentage of the population (which I think remains pretty constant), but to their absolute numbers in a society."
I disagree Cousin Dave. The trouble is proportional to anonymity in and diversity of society. When no one knows who they are they can repeat the same offenses over and over but it is no different than the first time. There are no long term consequences. With lots of diversity thing become complicated. In the end people are forced to deal with the least common denominator of behavior simply because that is all they can afford. And hence much antisocial behavior gets ignored simply because fixing it costs more than just leaving it alone.
Ben at September 18, 2017 12:05 PM
The comments are reminding me what an extraordinarily vengeful society we have become. With our current attitudes, the likelihood of adopting a more rehabilitative approach strikes me as unlikely.
Really? what do you think a Native American tribe would have done to such a mother? more than a few would have simply exiled her from the tribe, either for a period of time or permanently.
So, likely a death from starvation, or predation. Or worse: capture by an enemy tribe and enslavement.
No amount of money can pay the criminal not to be. It's been tried.
The problem with paying the dane geld is that the Dane always comes back for more.
I R A Darth Aggie at September 18, 2017 1:12 PM
Chris: "The comments are reminding me what an extraordinarily vengeful society we have become. With our current attitudes, the likelihood of adopting a more rehabilitative approach strikes me as unlikely."
The woman killed a child and some of are saying she doesn't deserve to get into Harvard - just how is that "vengeful"?
Or are you just virtue signaling there, Chris?
charles at September 18, 2017 1:18 PM
Given the choice between two applicants, with all other things being equal, I'd generally prefer the candidate (for the job/grad school program/whatever) who HASN'T murdered her child.
I don't see that as being vengeful. I personally prefer to avoid murderers.
My husband has an employee who spent 20 years in prison for shooting (and paralyzing) someone who tried to run him off the road in the early 90's. The guy does good work, but we're not having him over for barbecue at our house. He's paid his debt to society, but that doesn't mean we have to welcome him with open arms.
ahw at September 18, 2017 2:05 PM
Yeah, I'd have to draw the line at violence, especially against a helpless child or unarmed/outmatched adult(s).
Let's face it, the guy who hot-wires cars is not the same car thief as the guy who commits broad-daylight armed carjackings.
The burglar who steals TVs and the armed home intruder who is thrilled to find the family at home when he enters - again, two burglars, but two different criminals.
We should de-felonize a lot crimes and stop sending the nonviolent to prison without trying serious rehabilitation first.
Prison should be the last stop for the serially stupid and the only option for the violent.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 18, 2017 2:17 PM
I seriously don't think "rehabilitation" is a word all by itself.
It's "re" habilitation. IOW it presumes there had been some habilitation, which got lost and our shamans examining neurological entrails can find it and reinstall it.
Instead, it seems as if most of these criminals were never habilitated in the first place, so trying to dig around and find it for them isn't likely to work.
One of the more egregious examples, not by a whole lot, is Richard Allen Davis who kidnapped, raped and killed twelve year old Polly Klaas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Allen_Davis
In addition to retaliation, public safety and rehab, there's another reason for various sentences; society's view of the value of the victim. Don't, ever, fuck with a kid. That's our society's value and the sentence is set in part with that in mind. You fucked with a kid. Forget your life.
Richard Aubrey at September 18, 2017 4:36 PM
In addition to retaliation, public safety and rehab, there's another reason for various sentences; society's view of the value of the victim. Don't, ever, fuck with a kid. That's our society's value and the sentence is set in part with that in mind. You fucked with a kid. Forget your life.
... unless you leave your kid in the back seat of the car to bake to death because you're a busy busy parent.
Then it's just a big "Could happen to anyone!".
Kevin at September 18, 2017 5:27 PM
In addition to retaliation, public safety and rehab, there's another reason for various sentences; society's view of the value of the victim. Don't, ever, fuck with a kid. That's our society's value and the sentence is set in part with that in mind. You fucked with a kid. Forget your life.
... unless you leave your kid in the back seat of the car to bake to death because you're a busy busy parent.
Then it's just a big "Could happen to anyone!".
Kevin at September 18, 2017 5:27 PM
Deliberately not distinguishing between malice and accident is pretty much the hallmark of being a socialist these days. It makes thing so much easier to equivocate.
Isab at September 18, 2017 5:49 PM
Socialist? Not I.
I'm all about saving the children.
Kevin at September 18, 2017 7:12 PM
I personally think those who leave their kids should be punished more than currently.
However, conflating that with purposeful child murder is silly.
Richard Aubrey at September 18, 2017 8:01 PM
"I personally think those who leave their kids should be punished more than currently"
This is a slippery slope I don't want to go down. The government's response to perceived neglect or abuse s often to place children with people who are more of a danger to them, than their parents ever were.
The people that get punished by a crackdown on child endangerment are invariably mostly people who can't afford a good lawyer.( and those who just barely can)
The process becomes the punishment and you cant prove yourself innocent. It will drain your resources and your time, because the state has unlimited funds to pursue you with.
Isab at September 18, 2017 8:38 PM
The government's response to perceived neglect or abuse s often to place children with people who are more of a danger to them, than their parents ever were.
Well (he said blithely), that's what you get when you let the government subsidize anything, including tax breaks for kids, free public school, transportation to said school, meals, etc. If the government is going to subsidize your choices and your lifestyle, small wonder it's going to feel it has the right to make rules about your life — whether it's in regard to food stamps or subsidies for those who choose to reproduce.
I'd love it if the Health Savings Accounts went hand-in-glove with the School Savings Accounts, where people were directly responsible for socking away money for their children's public education. Unlike Mr. John Lennon, I may be a dreamer, but I have no illusion that my dreams will come true.
Yes, I realize it's The Hardest Job in the World(TM), but I still cling to the slim reed of personal responsibility for parents, crank though it makes me.
Kevin at September 18, 2017 11:17 PM
Couldn't help noticing that those who didn't like my comment about how vengeful our society has become responded by....sounding really, really, angry and vengeful.
The question of how much punishment is enough is something people will disagree about - obviously for some the answer is - anything short of the death penalty or life in prison (with torture, if possible) isn't enough.
Which is why the US has BY FAR the highest incarceration rate in the world - several times higher than it was 50 years ago. Are we happy with the result of this change? Really? If we're going to be honest with ourselves, our massive shift to more and longer incarcerations is the single greatest cause of poverty & family breakdown and fatherlessness.
Call it what you want, but it ain't working.
Chris at September 18, 2017 11:34 PM
Call it what you want, but it ain't working.
Chris at September 18, 2017 11:34 PM
Actually it is. Have you looked at the national violent crime stats lately?
and while I am a pretty big fan of decriminalizing a lot of drugs and the harsh sentences for posession that go along with them, I am not in favor of the associated violent gang turf wars which makes the streets of a lot of major cities unlivable.
Who cares about rehabilitation? Im happy if they just keep violent criminals locked up where at least they arent preying on the rest of us.
Since they shut most of the mental hospitals it really is one of the only ways to keep dangerous and often mentally ill people off the streets.
Isab at September 19, 2017 4:11 AM
Over on Instapundit, there's an occasional comment:
"Fox Butterworth, call your office."
This was after a NYT article wondering how come crime was down and at the same time incarceration was up.
IOW, missing the obvious.
Chris, the reason for incarceration is crime.
That said, I think NYU has started something. How many murderers are on YOUR faculty, huh, Yale? Harvard? Princeton doesn't have any, either.
Recall both W.F. Buckley and Norman Mailer sponsored the early release of particularly literate murderers who...murdered again.
Richard Aubrey at September 19, 2017 4:27 AM
Hey come on, she just killed her child. It's not as if she used the wrong pronoun for a 'transwoman'. Now that's a serious crime!
JoJo at September 19, 2017 7:06 AM
"Instead, it seems as if most of these criminals were never habilitated in the first place, so trying to dig around and find it for them isn't likely to work."
A criminal justice Ph.D.and long-ago blogger said that exact same thing to me once. A lot of them grew up in circumstances where they didn't learn anything about ordinary adult life, either the practicalities of living (how much things cost, how to pay bills, how to find work, how to find a place to live, etc.), or about how reasonably well-functioning adults relate to each other and to children. So in theory, all you'd have to do is teach them these things. In practice, by the time they are 20 or so, it's almost a lost cause; their attitudes have hardened and they will not be willing to consider altering how they live. The greatest success comes with early intervention with those who start with non-violent crimes. Once a person has committed a murder/attempted murder, robbery, arson or rape, the chances of rehabilitation are near zero.
"Couldn't help noticing that those who didn't like my comment about how vengeful our society has become responded by....sounding really, really, angry and vengeful."
Bzzt. You didn't read very closely. But thanks for playing, Google Alert program caller.
"The trouble is proportional to anonymity in and diversity of society. "
I agree with that, but such anonymity seems to become inevitable as a society grows beyond a certain size. I think it fits in with the research that Amy quotes about how the largest number of people that one person can know is around 200.
Cousin Dave at September 19, 2017 7:07 AM
"Call it what you want, but it ain't working."
Call yourself what you want, but you're not thinking - or, the principle of cause and effect is unknown to you.
Serious question: How many police do you know, retired or active?
Living felons in the USA have killed more Americans than died in Vietnam. Got a solution, or is asking for one "vengeful" too?
Radwaste at September 19, 2017 10:42 AM
Forget it Raddy, it's Leftytown. The Chrises of the world don't have any problem with eggs getting broken. As long as it's not their eggs. That's different.
Cousin Dave at September 19, 2017 11:08 AM
...and even if it IS vengeful...So what? Bitch killed her own kid after repeatedly beating him. Fuck her!
ahw at September 19, 2017 11:39 AM
Chris. Your virtue is noted. Now please go signal it on some other venue.
Richard Aubrey at September 19, 2017 2:58 PM
He swings. And he misses. Not even close.
Those incarcerated fathers were not part of their children's lives before incarceration. Thus, the prison sentence is not the cause of the child not having a father active in his or her life.
According to an article in the Washington Examiner: "
Mr. McManus is quick to blame the absence of fathers to deaths or incarcerations, though women point out that many absent fathers live around the corner."
Sociologist David Blankenhorn chimes in, "Our society's high rate of absent fathers stems in part from the fact that we have the highest divorce rate in the world. More than half of all marriages involving minor children end in divorce. Second, one of every three babies born in the United States is born to a never-married mother. [Emphasis mine] This tendency is now spreading across lines of race and income. It's growing fastest among older white women with at least one year of college education."
So, if it's growing fastest among older white women with at least one year of college, that kinda points away from your incarceration theory.
He goes on to say, "In the last third of this past century, we're not just losing our fathers; we're losing our idea of fatherhood. We're losing our belief that fathers are necessary. We're losing our conviction about what a father is. This is even more troubling than the loss of fathers. In other words, what has changed most is our minds. I was in Indiana some time ago, speaking to some high-school kids. They were middle-class, all white, two cars in the garage, rural, growing corn, Norman Rockwell America. Twenty percent of the graduating class girls were either pregnant or had become mothers in the past year. The grown-ups were alarmed. Wouldn't you be if it was true in your high school? So, I'm there, in my business suit, to talk to these kids. I gave them my little talk, and then they just took my head right off. I've thought about one girl in particular many times since then. She stood up and pointed her finger at me, not angrily, but in a very poised way. She pointed her finger at me and told me that what I was saying was wrong. What I had said was, 'Mothers need husbands, grown-up men, not these boys. What are you doing?' They didn't like that. So she told me that I was all wrong. She said, 'You know, I'm a mother, and I get a lot of support from my classmates and my teachers.' And then she said, 'My baby gets everything he needs from me.' And all the students cheered for her because she was popular and smart, and that's what she believed: that her baby got everything he needed from her. That's a common view among younger people, and it tells us something about what we've done by way of passing on a marriage culture to the next generation. So we're losing our idea of fatherhood. We're changing our minds about whether we even know what fatherhood is and why it matters."
In other words, it's not that we're imprisoning our young men, it's that we're teaching both them and our young women that we don't need our young men. We've cut them loose and they're adrift. And that is driving both fatherlessness and higher incarceration rates.
Conan the Grammarian at September 19, 2017 5:37 PM
Conan.
yeah, that's kind of tricky. It has to do with fishes and bicycles and stuff.
And it isn't "we". "We" means the speaker and one or more others. If you're not doing it, somebody else is. That's not "we".
If you want to say the dominant memes in our society do this, fine. But then somebody might ask where they come from, whose idea was this crazy thing.
Then it gets tricky.
Richard Aubrey at September 19, 2017 8:46 PM
"Couldn't help noticing that those who didn't like my comment about how vengeful our society has become responded by....sounding really, really, angry and vengeful."
Soothe yourself with some warm herbal tea and a nice hot bath.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at September 21, 2017 5:10 PM
Leave a comment