photo by whatknot

As I wrote yesterday, states from California to New York are mitigating effects of the crisis by closing prisons and experimenting with alternative corrections programs. Though the principal motivation – financial – implies that this is a patchwork remedy for a temporary ill, early signs of a shift in attitude predate the present crisis.

Some policies seemingly compelled by a temporary economic situation were, in fact, merely expedited, and the boost given them by fiscal necessity may prove a pivotal factor in their long-term institutionalization.

Michigan is one example. Its plan to close eight prisons this year continues a trend that began in 2005, with 11 prison and work-camp closings in the interim:

Where did all the work-camp inmates go? They’re on parole, part of a sea change in corrections philosophy. With 21,000 parolees, a record-high number, Michigan is four years into a reform centered on community supervision rather than incarceration. The state says it’s working.

Despite push-back from corrections officers, their unions, and state legislators – including a warning from a union leader that "the public better lock their doors" – the program is earning praise. It’s also contributing to the right sort of police statistics; crime is down, the recidivism rate is down, and it’s saving the state between $25 and $30 million a year.

Of course a spike in crime, whether real or media-contrived, can quickly reverse or halt this program. Tough economic conditions plus large numbers of parolees might prove the perfect recipe for such a spike.

Also arguing against the program’s staying power is the unhappy fact that Michigan’s economy has been in decline for quite some time, and the change in philosophy may find the whole of its explanation in ledger books, not in the hearts and minds of state legislators.

Nevertheless, there is reason to be optimistic. The program is working and, if the results still trend towards the positive, those who’d entrench or expand our prison industrial complex will have yet fewer grounds on which to make their argument. The politicians, for their part, will be happy to find new uses for the money saved.

Today’s (December 29) Washington Post has an article that Senator James Webb is going to take on prison reform.

This spring, Webb (D-Va.) plans to introduce legislation on a long-standing passion of his: reforming the U.S. prison system. Jails teem with young black men who later struggle to rejoin society, he says. Drug addicts and the mentally ill take up cells that would be better used for violent criminals. And politicians have failed to address this costly problem for fear of being labeled "soft on crime."

It is a gamble for Webb, a fiery and cerebral Democrat from a staunchly law-and-order state. Virginia abolished parole in 1995, and it trails only Texas in the number of people it has executed. Moreover, as the country struggles with two wars overseas and an ailing economy, overflowing prisons are the last thing on many lawmakers’ minds.

And of course, all the usual suspects start lining up against the idea.

State Sen. Ken Cuccinelli II (R-Fairfax), who is running for attorney general, said the initiative sounds "out of line" with the desires of people in Virginia but not necessarily surprising for Webb. The senator, he said, "is more emotion than brain in terms of what leads his agenda."

Gee, whoever would have guessed that a Republican state senator running for the state Attorney General position would think it’s a bad idea?

But there are other forces at play as well. The Prison Industrial Complex of course. With all the private prisons built over the last few years. But not just the private prisons, since many states have overbuilt prisons and rented out capacity.

But the article points out some of Webb’s reasoning:

In speeches and in a book that devotes a chapter to prison issues, Webb describes a U.S. prison system that is deeply flawed in how it targets, punishes and releases those identified as criminals.

With 2.3 million people behind bars, the United States has imprisoned a higher percentage of its population than any other nation, according to the Pew Center on the States and other groups. Although the United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population, it has 25 percent of its prison population, Webb says.

A disproportionate number of those who are incarcerated are black, Webb notes. African Americans make up 13 percent of the population, but they comprise more than half of all prison inmates, compared with one-third two decades ago. Today, Webb says, a black man without a high school diploma has a 60 percent chance of going to prison.

Webb aims much of his criticism at enforcement efforts that he says too often target low-level drug offenders and parole violators, rather than those who perpetrate violence, such as gang members. He also blames policies that strip felons of citizenship rights and can hinder their chances of finding a job after release. He says he believes society can be made safer while making the system more humane and cost-effective.

But the task is being made more difficult even as we speak. Just this weekend the AP had an article on how states are cutting back on Juvenile Justice programs due to the economic downturn.

Today’s Boston Globe had a report on a study on homicides among black males:

A study analyzing homicides across the country shows that Boston is among six major cities that have seen the sharpest spikes in the number of young black males killing one another between 2000 and 2007, an alarming trend that comes at a time when the state is cutting back on programs geared toward helping troubled youths.

Another story in today’s Post is how Child Neglect and Abuse cases are increasing due to the current economic stresses.

I don’t have any of the studies ready to hand but I know there have been many studies that show how victims of abuse and neglect, wind up more likely to be incarcerated.

So we have Senator Webb wanting to bring about prison reform. We have the "Lock ‘em up and throw away the key" types lining up against him. The Prison Industrial Complex will most likely be working behind the scenes.

We have Juvenile Justice Programs being cut due to lack of funds, leaving juveniles to be incarcerated with no treatment programs but learning first hand lessons on how to be a criminal.

We have young black men either in prison or dead from homicide.

We have increases of abuse and neglect due to economic hardship.

Senator Webb is truly taking on a Herculean task. Let’s do what we can to help him treat other humans as humans. Not every person needs to be incarcerated for decades.

Five of six Algerians must be released after nearly seven years of captivity at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, a federal judge ruled on Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled from the bench after holding the first hearings under a landmark Supreme Court ruling in June that gave Guantanamo prisoners the legal right to challenge their continued confinement.

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama has promised to close the prison camp after he takes office in January. Meanwhile, U.S. judges in Washington are moving ahead with case-by-case reviews of detainee legal challenges.

Now the best part of this story is that one of the five Leon ordered released is Lakhdar Boumediene. Boumediene has kicked George Bush and the criminal cabal that has assisted him in committing war crimes and illegal, immoral detentions so many times that you would think the Bushies are rented mules.

Sadly, however, the Bushies are jackasses, not rented mules, and they are still in office. What that would appear to portend is that that means Boumediene, and the other four Leon has ordered released, will likely stay detained. The precedent was set not long ago on the Uighurs case.

January 20, 2009 cannot come soon enough for us and for those we have wronged.

60 Minutes:

Kroft: There are a number of different things that you could do early pertaining to executive orders. One of them is to shutdown Guantanamo Bay. Another is to change interrogation methods that are used by U.S. troops. Are those things that you plan to take early action on?

Mr. Obama: Yes. I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that. I have said repeatedly that America doesn’t torture. And I’m gonna make sure that we don’t torture. Those are part and parcel of an effort to regain America’s moral stature in the world. 

Omelas:

With the clamoring of bells, a summer festival begins in Omelas. The city is surrounded by mountains on one side and a bay on the other side. The air is crisp and clean and everything is beautiful. Music drifts through the city and the bells periodically ring with joy. The streets, boats and houses are littered with decorations. Groups of dignified, quiet processions and rowdy, partying processions parade toward the north side of the city. Boys and girls are getting their unbridled horses ready for a big race. The horses seem as excited as the people do because of the impending excitement.

After a description of the town, the narrator begins to speak in first person. The people of Omelas are full of joy but they are not simple people. They have no king, keep no slaves and are plainly not barbarians. The narrator admits to not knowing their laws and rules as she does not know many things about the city.

However, the narrator insists that although the people are happy, they are complex. She comments that sophisticated folks tend to think those who are happy are stupid. The narrator apologizes for not being able to better describe the lives of these people who are not wretched.

[...]

At the meadow on the north side of town, there is the smell of sweet food, and the children run around sticky. A young child sits playing the flute, and many people stop to admire him. As he ends his song, the trumpets’ sound officially begins the festival. The narrator then asks the reader whether he believes the joy and the festival, and she offers to describe one more thing.

In a cellar across town, there is a dingy room where the door is locked and there is no window. There are dirty mops leaning against a wall, and the room is no bigger than a broom closet or discarded tool room. In the room, sits a naked, feeble-minded child who sits in his own excrement. The child is afraid of the mops, and no one ever rescues the child. Occasionally someone comes and kicks the child or comes to stare in horror. The people never say anything, but the child remembers its mother.

Sometimes the child yells, "I will be good. Please let me out. I will be good," but no one ever answers his calls. Everyone in the town knows the child is there, because everyone is told about the child when they are only children, between eight and ten years old. Only some of the people truly grasp the child’s purpose.

The people who come to look at the child are always shocked and sickened—something they did not know they had in them. After a while, the people rationalize that even if the child were rescued, it would not have a full life. They cannot imagine sacrificing the happiness of the thousands for the potential happiness of one. They think that it is because of the child that they have such lovely architecture, beautiful music, a kindness toward children, and profundity of science. Every so often, one of the young people or occasionally an adult goes to see the child and never comes back. They leave town in the night and seem to know where they are going.

1. Military Spending through endless undefined wars (privatized to the greatest extent possible)

2. Prison construction and minimizing vacancies (privatized to the greatest extent possible — often to the same companies as #1 above)

Shining City on the Hill, Land of the Free, Home of the Non-competitive Bid and all that patriotic mumbo-jumbo!

When we start going on about the human rights abuses of the Chinese (which are merited), god forbid we hold up a mirror to our true selves in doing so:

The United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population. But it has almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners.

Indeed, the United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a relatively recent and now entirely distinctive American approach to crime and punishment. Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.

We sing many praises, Republican, Independent, Democrat alike about how we’re the greatest country on earth because of our "freedom", the "last best, hope of earth" as it was said by Lincoln so long ago. We declare and praise our Constitutional due process protections. But this statistic, by itself stares us in the face and tells you all you need to know about how deeply we actually believe in the principals we so glibly espouse.

But sadly, tragically, and most of all embarrassingly, we are in no position to brag about "freedom" to anyone. We have, in many ways aggressively or passively allowed ourselves to be self-terrorized into a virtual police state. The term "police state" is not used lightly. It does describe how badly we have been manipulated by our politicians and media – but mostly it demonstrates how blithely we all have allowed ourselves to be manipulated.

The United States comes in first, too, on a more meaningful list from the prison studies center, the one ranked in order of the incarceration rates. It has 751 people in prison or jail for every 100,000 in population. (If you count only adults, one in 100 Americans is locked up.)

The only other major industrialized nation that even comes close is Russia, with 627 prisoners for every 100,000 people. The others have much lower rates. England’s rate is 151; Germany’s is 88; and Japan’s is 63.

The median among all nations is about 125, roughly a sixth of the American rate.

Can anyone read these stats and be proud? And this is without breaking down the statistics into the even more shocking statistics of the incarceration rates by ethnicity, race, and economic status.

And now, the true relationship, our nation’s true suicide pact, the perverse interpretation of the Second Amendment (because James Madison was TOTALLY in the bag for increased lethality via handguns, the man was a total douchebag prophet):

The spike in American incarceration rates is quite recent. From 1925 to 1975, the rate remained stable, around 110 people in prison per 100,000 people. It shot up with the movement to get tough on crime in the late 1970s. (These numbers exclude people held in jails, as comprehensive information on prisoners held in state and local jails was not collected until relatively recently.)

The nation’s relatively high violent crime rate, partly driven by the much easier availability of guns here, helps explain the number of people in American prisons.

“The assault rate in New York and London is not that much different,” said Marc Mauer, the executive director of the Sentencing Project, a research and advocacy group. “But if you look at the murder rate, particularly with firearms, it’s much higher.”

Of course, no one is arguing violent crimes be punished less, but the appalling ease in which people can get guns in this country makes their use in crime and increased lethality a more serious consequence upon the victims. However, this fact can easily be ignored and we as a society have apparently decided to do so.

But it is more than that, as the Times details what we all know, it’s the fact that we send people to prison for the most non-violent of offenses, including our continual delusional "war on drugs":

But that is only a partial explanation. The United States, in fact, has relatively low rates of nonviolent crime. It has lower burglary and robbery rates than Australia, Canada and England.

People who commit nonviolent crimes in the rest of the world are less likely to receive prison time and certainly less likely to receive long sentences. The United States is, for instance, the only advanced country that incarcerates people for minor property crimes like passing bad checks, Mr. Whitman wrote.

Efforts to combat illegal drugs play a major role in explaining long prison sentences in the United States as well. In 1980, there were about 40,000 people in American jails and prisons for drug crimes. These days, there are almost 500,000.

Those figures have drawn contempt from European critics. “The U.S. pursues the war on drugs with an ignorant fanaticism,” said Ms. Stern of King’s College.

There are arguments made that drops in crime rates are due to these higher incarceration rates. But they are matters of dispute.

The extraordinary rate in which we deprive citizens of their freedom, however, is not subject to any debate. It is a palpable, and appalling fact.

There are obviously differences in party politics on some matters. Republicans are totally beholden to the Gun Lobby, while Democrats are merely in the bag for them. Republicans favor locking up damn nearly everyone who looks at them strangely, Democrats are comparative wimps, only favoring locking up everyone squirrelly.

But the end result in either case is disgusting, this incarceration rate is embarrassing, but political anathema to discuss for any politician. What the hell can we do about it?

For 35 years, Jim Crow justice in Louisiana has kept Herman Wallace and Albert Woodfox locked in solitary confinement for a crime everyone knows they didn’t commit.

Despite overwhelming evidence of their innocence, the "Angola 3", spend 23 hours each day in a 6×9 cell on the site of a former plantation. Prison officials – and the state officials who could intervene – won’t end the terrible sentence. They’ve locked them up and thrown away the key because they challenged a system that deals an uneven hand based on the color of one’s skin and tortures those who assert their humanity.

We can help turn things around by making it a political liability for the authorities at Angola to continue the racist status quo, and by forcing federal and state authorities to intervene.

Color of Change did extraordinary work bringing the Jena Six to America’s attention. Now they’ve asked for our help again. And for good reason.

When ColorOfChange.org spoke up about the Jena 6, it was about more
than helping six Black youth in a small town called Jena. It was about
standing up against a system of unequal justice that deals an uneven
hand based on the color of one’s skin. That broken system is at work
again and ColorOfChange.org is joining The Innocence Project and
Amnesty International to challenge it in the case of the Angola 3.

"Angola", sits on 18,000 acres of former plantation land in Louisiana
and is estimated to be one of the largest prisons in the United
States. Angola’s history is telling: once considered one of the most
violent, racially segregated prison in America, almost a prisoner a
day was stabbed, shot or raped. Prisoners were often put in inhumane
extreme punishment camps for small infractions. The Angola 3 -
Herman, Albert and Robert – organized hunger and work strikes within
the prison in the 70’s to protest continued segregation, corruption
and horrific abuse facing the largely Black prisoner population.

Shortly after they spoke out, the Angola 3 were convicted of murdering
a prison guard by an all-white jury. It is now clear that these men
were framed to silence their peaceful revolt against inhumane
treatment. Since then, they have spent every day for 35 years in 6×9
foot cells for a crime they didn’t commit.

Herman and Albert are not saints. They are the first to admit they’ve
committed crimes. But, everyone agrees that their debts to society
for various robbery convictions were paid long ago.

Please add your voice in protest of Louisiana justice here.

Starting today, many offenders sentenced in federal court for crack will receive a sentence about 16 months less than they would have yesterday.

By way of background, through mandatory minimum sentencing laws, the Feds have punished crack crimes far more severely than those involving powder cocaine. The U.S. Sentencing Commission followed suit by enacting guidelines that matched the mandatory minimums.

A crime involving five grams of crack cocaine carries a mandatory sentence of five years in prison, and 50 grams carries a 10-year penalty. However, it takes 500 and 1,000 grams of powdered cocaine to trigger the same five and 10 year sentences.

The 100 to 1 ratio between powder and crack cocaine penalties has no rational or scientific basis. (You know you’re onto something when even Joe Biden agrees.) After years of debate and studies demonstrating this, and with statistics showing that the crack penalties resulted in great racial disparity in sentences, in May, the United States Sentencing Commission proposed dropping the penalties for crack offenses by two levels. Congress had until October 31 to oppose new guideline. It didn’t object, so the new guideline became effective today.

This is a welcome step in the right direction. But let’s be very clear. It’s not time to open the champagne. This is a relatively minor reduction and it doesn’t apply to all defendants.

There’s two remaining problems: Retroactivity and mandatory minimum sentences.

First, the Sentencing Commission must decide whether the reduction will be retroactive and apply to the 19,500 currently serving sentences for crack offenses. Its analysis of the issue is here (pdf) and iincludes the statistic that of the 19,500 inmates currently serving federal sentences for crack offenses, 86% are black, 8% are hispanic and 6% are white.

In other words, Blacks serve far longer sentences than whites for a comparable offense regarding substances that are chemically identical. With 19,500 inmates still in prison serving these disparate sentences, retroactivity is essential for fairness.

However, even if the reduction is made retroactive, it will not result in either an automatic sentence reduction or a reduction for everyone.

The problem is that the guideline reduction doesn’t affect statutory mandatory minimum sentences. Mandatory minimums trump the guidelines. Under mandatory minimum sentences, there are only two ways a court can depart below the five or ten year sentence. The first is if the defendant has snitched. If he or she has cooperated with the government in the investigation or prosecution of others, and the government decides in its sole discretion that the cooperation warrants a lower sentence and files a motion seeking a lower sentence, courts can sentence under the mandatory minimum. The second way is through what’s called a “safety valve.” A safety valves allows a reduction below the mandatory minimum for defendants with minimal criminal records, if the offense did not involve a weapon and if the defendant discloses all of his involvement to the Government.

In the case of the non-cooperating defendant, one who either won’t rat out others on principle, or has no information to provide, or the defendant who doesn’t qualify for the safety valve, the Court is powerless to sentence under the mandatory minimum, no matter what the guidelines provide.

What’s needed is for Congress to revise the mandatory minimum sentence laws. Currently, there are three bills pending in the Senate and one in the House that would do so.

Today’s reduction also does nothing for those sentenced as career offenders or armed career offenders. And I won’t go into the legalese, but some defendants who were sentenced under the guidelines when they were mandatory (a period called pre-Booker, referring to the Supreme Court case that rendered the guidelines advisory only) or at a time when there were different rules regarding departures from the guidelines, could end up with higher sentences if they ask for resentencing now.

The best online resource right now for non-lawyers is Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM.)

Their q and a page about the reduction is here (pdf). A copy of the new guideline is here (pdf.)

Bottom line: Let’s be positive about the change. But let’s not think our work is done. As of July, here’s where our Democratic candidates stood on the issue of mandatory minimum sentence reform.

Why?

The reason lies in a distinction the Romans were well aware of. Some crimes are crimes in themselves and you can figure out which ones they are by seeing what crimes are universal, or nearly so, across time and different societies. Murder, rape and assault rank high here. Others are crimes because they are made a crime by society – the classic example, used because it is remote from us, is sumptuary laws, where only nobles were allowed to use or wear certain luxury goods. (Purple lined robes in the Roman Republic, for example.)

The vast majority of all laws deal with the second category as does the vast majority of all criminal activity. Drug laws, laws requiring people to pay taxes, statutory rape laws, laws regulating ownership of land and other possessions, almost all business law, and all laws regulating employment are all about things our society chooses to make a crime.

The distinction isn’t really between “good laws” and “bad laws”, and many laws could be considered necessary that aren’t particularly natural. (Paying your taxes, for example, is required for our society to exist. Drunk driving laws prevent a lot of deaths and few people are willing to suggest that kids should be free to have sex and marry as soon as they hit puberty, even though in many historical societies they have been able to and certainly their bodies are ready.)

Roughly speaking one might divide up “laws of choice” into three categories.

The first are morality laws. In the sociological literature the people who push these are call moral entrepreneurs. A lot of people like to force their own morality on other people.

You can see this in a very pure form in Prohibition, where the primarily rural, Protestant areas of the country formed a coalition to force the non-Protestants in the cities to stop drinking. But you can also see it today, in the gay marriage debate, where some States have not only kept gay marriage illegal, but have gone further and stripped gay couples of rights they could already enjoy through normal legal means.

The US was formed in explicit denial of one form of these laws:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

But, of course, the entire debate around abortion is a moral and religious argument as is the one around homosexuality

The second type of laws of choice are laws created by the government to protect its own interests. Laws against tax evasion. Laws allowing property to be seized. Money tracking laws and so on. Not having good enough records when the IRS comes visiting can be a crime.

A third category is when the government acts to enforce the privileges of a monopoly or oligopoly. Calling yourself a doctor when you don’t have the right license is an example, and in fact in studies few things will get you cracked down harder than hanging up a shingle without the proper qualifications and memberships. Using the state to enforce some form of monopoly, whether service, good or labor is a long long standing practice. You can see it today when telecom companies have lobbied state legislatures to make providing free wireless Internet illegal, so they can charge for it or in so-called intellectual property laws.

In fact the best way to make money is to get the State to force people to give it to you. Want mood altering drugs? Well, legally you can only get most of the really effective ones (other than alcohol) from the troika of doctors/pharmacists and drug companies). The cheap easy ones that can’t be patented are almost all illegal, and it is not a coincidence that as the AMA gained strength this is what happened (having a monopoly on being able to alter people’s moods is a sure money maker.)

So what we have in America is a society where the drugs of the rich and middle class are either legal, or not strongly enforced (how many celebrities who use cocaine have done serious jail time) and the drugs of the poor and minorities (who can’t afford to pay commissions and mark ups through the official mood altering regime) are illegal. I’ve had Valium, and I’m telling you its a serious drug and how many people are on it or some form of similar drug?

What you have, on a more local level, is the inability of people to throw a carpet down on a sidewalk and simply start selling things. They need “licenses” and for most of the poor, that isn’t possible. The rights of the official merchants who pay for market space, and kick back into government coffers through increased taxes are protected against those too poor to do so.

Then there’s what sociologists call Labeling. The simplest example of this is “driving while Black.” Control for everything and blacks still get stopped far more often while driving when Black. For the same crime blacks are charged more often, convicted more often and get longer jail sentences. Exchange black in those sentences with “poor” or “Latino” and they’re still all valid.

The consequence of being convicted of a crime are horrific. I’m not talking about the prison time, though what with the rape and violence, that’s horrific enough. What’s worse is what happens when you come out. When you’ve “served your time”. When you’ve “paid your debt to society”. Because now you’re not just labeled a Black, or Hispanic, or Poor – you’re labeled an ex-con. Since the vast majority of good jobs at good employers require background checks these days, odds are you will never, ever, again have a good job.

Most of the roads to prosperity are cut off for you. The American Dream is dead. Indeed even lower paying jobs can be difficult to obtain. As such the odds of you being pushed into the gray or black economy are very high; odds of committing another crime are very high and odds of being caught and convicted are very high. Once you’ve been marked, the unmarked generally don’t want to associate with you. Almost by necessity you fall into a bad crowd. And all of this can come from one conviction – a conviction that someone luckier, someone whiter or richer, would never have had, even though he too did the crime.

Again this is measurable and you can compare recidivism rates between countries then look at how hard it is to get a decent job. If it’s hard, you’ll have more recidivism. It’s really just that simple. (Though yes, it isn’t the only factor at all.)

The simplest and easiest way to reduce crime rates is to reduce or eliminate the criminalization of victimless crimes. The US has the highest prison population in the modern world, beating out even Russia and China, because it chooses to do so. It has them because it refuses to stop trying to tell its own citizens how they should live their lives, in many cases when their actions are either harming only themselves or are harming those who have consensually agreed to be harmed or because it is enforcing a monopoly for those who have power or who kick back into the system.

The prison population exists also because it is how competition is reduced for scarce jobs on the low end. With the exact same resume, a black candidate for a job will get half the interviews a white one will. With the exact same crime, blacks are incarcerated at a much higher rate than whites. These two things are not coincidences, they are flip sides of the same coin.

Finally the prison population is also so large because it is a way of spreading pork to rural areas. Rural folks work at locking up urban blacks. It’s a great way to give them something to do so they don’t have to leave the area and go to a city themselves.

With only a few exceptions, crime is what a society chooses it to be, and the crime rate is what the society chooses it to be. America chooses to have a higher incarceration rate than unfree China or than Russia or than any European state because America chooses to tell its citizens what to do and what not to do, and to enforce harsher penalties when they don’t obey.

Societies are the way they are because humans make them that way. They aren’t hurricanes (though we’re beginning to effect those). They aren’t forces of nature. While individually each of us can claim we aren’t responsible, in total they are the sum of our decisions about how we want to live – and how we want to force other people to live. They tell us who we are – what we really value when the rubber hits the road – what is important to us, and we could care less about.

So it is with crime. For each crime we need to sit back and ask ourselves “Is this a natural crime that all societies would recognize as such (murder, rape, torture, assault)? Is it something, which if allowed, while not a crime in all times and places, would destroy our society (no one paying their taxes, for example). If it is neither, then is this really something worth punishing? Is it really something worth bearing the costs of enforcement? Why? What is the benefit to society of making this illegal? What is the cost of doing so? Do those outweigh the benefit of keeping it or making it legal?

When you start asking those questions, whole swathes of law – especially laws enforcing so-called victimless crimes (who was hurt?) start looking very flimsy. In fact, viewed in a certain light, those laws start seeming more like crimes themselves.

Ian also writes at the Agonist

The Co-Worker who I ride to work with is expecting his girlfriend to deliver his child anytime in the next week according to the doctor. So when this occurs he will take leave. I am uncertain where this is going to leave me as for as getting to work and back. Trying to establish a "Plan B" but things seem uncertain at this point. This is going to get complicated I can see.

He still has a transportation problem, and needs any ideas or solutions anyone can offer.  Last time I wrote about him, some people suggested I ask for money for him.  That felt a little presumptuous, which is why I hadn't done it, but since some people asked, I'd say that small donations are welcome, and I can make sure he gets them.  I won't use the FDL gateway, but if you email me at pachacutec AT firedoglake DOT com, I'll work it out with you or get you directly in contact with Dan himself. 

He talked about his immediate financial need in his email, saying: 

I would even be willing to pay this money back in a few months and if you could keep track of who donated what, you could distribute the money back to them. It's would sort of be like Julie's idea of Prosper.com in a way.

I just don't want to lose this job because it pays well and is what it is going to take to get me where I need to be in a short time.

If I am being too much of a bother, don't be afraid to tell so. Just say "Fuck Off" and there won't be no hard feelings. I know you don't owe me anything and all you have done has been based on your own compassion and generosity.

So there you have it. 

To put this in context, and relate it to why I use this forum to bring all this up, let's recall that we've made of our country a large prison factory (links here in the first paragraph), and it's disenfranchising large swaths of people who have a very hard time getting a leg back up on life in the community. 

No one talks much about prison reform, sentencing reform, reform of drug laws and felony reenfranchisement, but these are all important progressive issues that affect the most vulnerable among us.  None of us are as prosperous and secure as we should be when we pursue destructive policies like these, and our mistreatment of non-violent offenders is just the first step that brough us to Abu Ghraib and the cessation of the Right of Habeas Corpus.

So, if you feel moved to help this one person, thank you thank you thank you. 

What's on your minds tonight? 

As Richard says in the video up top, there's plenty of people who belong in prison, but anyone who's paying attention knows our current penal and legal system is real fucked up. 

While well connected, high profile crooks are rarely convicted or pursued (and even when they are, they get standing ovations in ballrooms filled with blue suits), the poor get few if any opportunities to make they way back into society, even when they take responsibility for their actions and work to reform their lives.  Back in that earlier post, I told you of one such person I originally knew when he was a homeless 15 year old in a Houston youth shelter, back when I was a counselor there.  I wrote:

Still, through his experiences, I've gained a window into how difficult we make it to get access to those resources, how much our prison systems are rigged for harsh punishment over any chance at rehabilitation.  This is especially true after release:  there are very few, meagerly funded transitional programs swamped by waiting lists serving ex-offenders.  No one gets elected by helping them and few people make donations (ex-offenders aren't very cuddly looking).  Fundamentalist churches do some good, but they force you to become a wingnut to earn the right to eat.  Will my ex-offender make it eventually?  I don't know, but as long as he's making the real effort and keeping himself clean, I'll help.

Many of you were generous enough to contact me to see how you might be able to help him get back on track upon release.  Some other people have been asking me for an update on his progress.  The news on that front is good, folks, but he still needs some support.  Particularly, he needs help acquiring affordable transportation to get him to his new job.  I'll let him tell you all about it in his own words, right after the jump (I've X'd out some things to protect his privacy, but the rest is unedited):

Let me personally introduce myself as the one who was discussed in previous posts in this forum. My name is Dan XXXXXXX, 33 yrs old now after spending 3 years in the penal system here in Texas. Since my release in February 22, 2007 I have went to great lengths to readjust back into society without any help from the same government that enslaved me.

I have acquired all on my own accord, a two bedroom apartment and secured employment. I began working through a temp service and once they saw that I was willing to work hard, they put my on what is called "weekly tickets" full-time at the San Jacinto Port in Channelview, Texas, at a company called XXXXXXXXX, who is a branch of XXXXXXXXXXXXXX. After 3 mos. of working there through the temp agency and proving my ability as a good worker there I was offered a full-time position as a company employee. Here is my problem now…while working through the temp agency transportation to and from the jobsite was provided, but now that I have broken ties with the temp agency and am hired on direct with the company I have to continue to find a way to Channelview, TX from where my apartment is here in Pasadena, TX. 10-15 miles.

I have done well to arrange rides with co-workers thus far, but I foresee possible future problems. I make decent money now as a company employee, but I have no large lump sum to offer a dealership for a down payment on my own vehicle. And since I have no established credit, a car loan from an institution seems unobtainable at this point. So basically I've done well to do everything on my own, but I have reached a point where I simply need my own vehicle to not lose everything I've accomplished so far. I made a conscious choice to reform my life to the best of my ability and feel I have accomplished much but find myself in need of personal transportation. I do not have bad credit, only no credit established. So I would hate to lose everything now do to the fact I can't get to a good job which I fought hard for. I want to serve as proof that there is life after incarceration if you have the motivation and the drive to make it happen.

Any idea or channels that I may not be aware of would be of great assistance to me.

-Dan XXXXXX

If anyone has any ideas how he can get a cheap used car on some helpful credit or payment terms, that would be great.  Or, alternately, maybe someone knows about other potential community resources that might help.  Anyone who has ideas can contact me at pachacutec AT firedoglake DOT com.

Thanks, folks.  While the right wing thinks cheap forgiveness from Jesus on the dashboard erases all accountability, some other people actually try to take responsibility for their actions, reform and attempt to give back to the community.  Personally, I believe in encouraging those people, not by offering cheap forgiveness based on their mere words, but rather based on providing incremental opportunity earned through sustained positive action. 

In other words, I think our former FDL guest John Dean is pretty clearly back in good social graces, but the unrepentant Gordon Liddy. . . not so much. 

As for Dan, if you can offer him ideas or some assistance that amounts to a handup, not a handout, then that'd be much appreciated.  If he's not too beat after work, he may even drop by the comment thread tonight.