(I had a conversation today with a friends of mind and reminded me of this older post.)
Many Americans regard religion, for all the good it does, as a source of conflict. They think of places like Northern Ireland, South Asia, or the Middle East and wonder if a little less religion might not be good for social peace. But as a recent Wall Street Journal article points out, they’re not looking close enough to home.
Naomi Schaefer Riley points to what she calls the “riddle of American exceptionalism.” How is it that “one of the most religiously fervent [countries] in the world” is, at the same time, “one of the most religiously tolerant”? As she puts it, “generally, societies are one or the other.”
She’s right. For example, Iran is very religious, but no one would call it “tolerant.” Likewise, Scandinavian countries are very tolerant but no one would call them “religiously fervent.”
So why is America both? Citing the work by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Riley credits what she calls “religious bridging”—that is, having friends and acquaintances of a different faith.
According to the data, among the average American’s five closest friends, between two and three “are of other faiths.” What’s more, half of all Americans are married to “someone of a different faith from the one in which they were raised.”
This “bridging” has the effect of changing people’s attitudes toward different religions. For example, simply getting to know a real, live evangelical, as opposed to the media caricature, increases a person’s positive feelings toward evangelicals in general.
According to Riley, “This finding bodes well for the health of American religion and for American tolerance.” She is encouraged that Americans seem more willing to overlook “abstract lessons we were once taught” in favor of “facts on the ground.”
But I think that Riley and the people at Pew have missed the real reason that Americans are both religious and tolerant. It’s because we remembered those lessons—we didn’t overlook them—the lessons, that is, that Christianity teaches about the dignity and sanctity of the person.
Unlike other religions, Christianity does not require a choice between fervor and tolerance. We believe that our God created us in His image and gave us a free will so that we could love Him. If we were forced to accept Him, it wouldn’t be love.
Free will is the very essence of what we believe as Christians, which makes tolerance a must. By “tolerance,” I don’t mean the mushy, politically correct way the word is used today. Not a license to do anything you want; but the real kind of tolerance that respects the deepest convictions of other human beings, and regards them as worthy of respect—even if we strongly disagree.
This irony—that it is America’s specifically Christian religious fervor that makes tolerance possible—is what’s missing from this story. It couldn’t happen in Islamic or even Buddhist societies, as recent events in Sri Lanka illustrate.
What’s more, Riley was wrong in claiming that overlooking “abstract lessons we were once taught” produces tolerance. That only produces indifference. And it’s hard to respect other people’s convictions when you don’t even notice them.
No, when believers apply those so-called abstract lessons about freedom and human dignity—that’s when we see true tolerance
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Words I never thought I would know: (Sigh) and I know them now
Wedding planning has taught me a lot about things I would've never known otherwise. Especially about fabrics, dresses, colors, and flowers.
For example take "boning": Boning comes in many formats, nylon, polyester, steel and in widths varying from 3 mm to 12 mm (1/8” to ½”). Some boning bends in all directions, others move backwards and forwards, and some boning does not bend at all! Amazing right? It is.
Did you you know that a strapless boned bodice is popular all the year around, but no more so than for special occasion wear and bridal wear? I didn't either at least not until a few months ago. And I didn't have a choice because there are wedding magazine's all over (Admittedly, i bought her a Martha stewart's wedding subscription).
But my favorite new word is "Dupioni": Dupioni is a silk, made from hard to find twin silk worms,
which creates the fabric's unusual and attractive characteristics. Often used in home furnishings and formal wear, it is popular and one of the less expensive silks.
It's not as interesting to read about but it is fun to say!
These are only the fabric words i've learned. In the flower world there are other words. Will I remember all these words this time next year? No, I'll be studying for the Virginia Bar and be focused on terms like "Probable Case" "Rational Relation" "But-for" ect.
Do I like talking about fabric? No stores like, Michael's, Jo-Anne's ect. literally give me a headache, I hate them. But A. loves them and she loves wedding planning, so I've tried to make the best of "fabric talk."
My only point is that for those guys just getting engaged, keep your blackberry/iphone handy and be ready to google, that way you can stay fluid in the conversation, and you might learn something.
A's. M.
For example take "boning": Boning comes in many formats, nylon, polyester, steel and in widths varying from 3 mm to 12 mm (1/8” to ½”). Some boning bends in all directions, others move backwards and forwards, and some boning does not bend at all! Amazing right? It is.
Did you you know that a strapless boned bodice is popular all the year around, but no more so than for special occasion wear and bridal wear? I didn't either at least not until a few months ago. And I didn't have a choice because there are wedding magazine's all over (Admittedly, i bought her a Martha stewart's wedding subscription).
But my favorite new word is "Dupioni": Dupioni is a silk, made from hard to find twin silk worms,
which creates the fabric's unusual and attractive characteristics. Often used in home furnishings and formal wear, it is popular and one of the less expensive silks.It's not as interesting to read about but it is fun to say!
These are only the fabric words i've learned. In the flower world there are other words. Will I remember all these words this time next year? No, I'll be studying for the Virginia Bar and be focused on terms like "Probable Case" "Rational Relation" "But-for" ect.
Do I like talking about fabric? No stores like, Michael's, Jo-Anne's ect. literally give me a headache, I hate them. But A. loves them and she loves wedding planning, so I've tried to make the best of "fabric talk."
My only point is that for those guys just getting engaged, keep your blackberry/iphone handy and be ready to google, that way you can stay fluid in the conversation, and you might learn something.
A's. M.
Eye for a tackle???
The last thing the SEC wanted or needed was a weekend where there was more controversy with the officiating. The two main issues involved the Alabama and Florida games two weeks ago. Tennessee’s Lane Kiffin and Mississippi State’s Dan Mullen were both reprimanded by the league for comments they made about the officiating. It’s the kind of thing that only fosters the perception out there that the SEC is somehow brokering to have Alabama and Florida both stay unbeaten so the SEC Championship Game will be a bigger deal. It’s like SEC commissioner Mike Slive has a magic button he pushes if Alabama or Florida needs a call. It’s silly to even be taking about it, but it’s out there everywhere, especially after this latest round of reprimands. But it’s just as silly to think that it’s all just going to go away unless the SEC puts some real teeth in its punishment for coaches who take on the officiating publicly. Of course, it would also be nice if the officials would start getting it right in the first place.
This week it wasn't coaches but players acting up. But who got the bigger reprimand???
It was good of Florida linebacker Brandon Spikes to apologize, and I’m sure he’s telling the truth when he says he was merely retaliating for something that happened to him earlier in the game. But the only thing worse than his trying to gouge the eyes of Georgia running back Washaun Ealey in a pile last Saturday was the so-called punishment Spikes received from Florida coach Urban Meyer for this weekend’s game against Vanderbilt. Spikes was suspended for a half. That’s right, an entire half. Good thing he didn’t sucker punch Ealey. He might have gotten another half against Florida International in two weeks. What a farce, and better yet, where’s SEC commissioner Mike Slive? It’s good to see the league taking such a hard-line stance on dirty play. Just imagine if Spikes would have said something about the officiating. He might have gotten a public reprimand, too. Yikes!
Friday, October 30, 2009
Health Care Cheat Sheet: By Elizabeth MacDonald
The House of Representative’s version of health-care reform will cost more than the $894 bn 10-year price tag cited by the Congressional Budget Office.
That’s because the CBO and Congress do not address human responses to legislation. Tax something more, you ultimately take in less in taxes. Penalize a company, and it finds ways to dodge the penalty.
And lawmakers have put in this unintended consequence: The individual premium costs in public option to take care of the poor are actually higher than other offerings.
That’s right, the CBO says the public plan’s premiums are higher than the premiums in the public exchanges, undermining the House’s claim that it will attract 9 mn enrollees by 2019 and result in a two-thirds decrease in the number of uninsured adults in the U.S.
Use the following as a cheat sheet in coming days as the health-care reform bill wends its way through Congress. The cheat sheet provides an X-ray to this impenetrably dense bill and the CBO’s scoring. The unintended consequences from this bill will be manifold.
You’ll see the CBO is struggling mightily to score these legislative phantasms, noting its work is not done and that its estimates are “subject to substantial uncertainty.”
Watch for Congressional statements that, while technically accurate, will also keep you barefoot and clueless on health reform, as the layers upon layers of provisions make the reform bill as transparent as a bucket of tar. And which means the resulting deficit spending from this bill will only add to a U.S. debt load now big enough to block out the sun.
Keep this in mind when you see the tax revenue the CBO and Congress claim the bill will raise to cover the costs. Both the CBO and Congress tend to not take into account the fact that individuals and companies reorganize their lives to avoid paying taxes.
Health-care tax, or penalties, or whatever they call it will just mean people will carry on avoidance schemes, which means less revenues. Tax the rich, they’ll shelter it. Tax the Cadillac health insurance plans, insurers won’t offer them.
Because the CBO and Congress generally do not take into account human behavior when scoring a bill (they use what’s called the “static,” not the “dynamic,” scoring model), the revenue estimates from the CBO and Congress on past tax legislation have been off by a factor of $150 bn or more.
Also, the reform bill’s taxes are not indexed to inflation, so as more middle-class pay rises into those brackets, more middle- class people will be hurt.
Here are the details:
The New Spending
It includes $1.1 tn in new spending over 10 years: $425 bn increases to Medicaid and SCHIP; $605 bn on subsidies for the poor to buy insurance; $57 bn in spending on primary care increases; and $34 bn in new spending on public health initiatives.
The New Costs
The bill’s costs are offset by a new tax surcharge on high-income individuals and other provisions estimated to increase federal revenues by $572 bn; and $168 bn in collections of penalties paid by individuals if they don't buy insurance ($33 bn estimated) and employers ($135 bn) if they don’t buy health insurance for their workers.
To pay for the bill, the House is also counting on other undefined spending changes. That includes fee cuts for nonphysicians, meaning other health care providers, of $229 bn, and Medicare Advantage cuts of $170 bn ($245 bn in Medicare cuts to doctors over ten years has since been nixed; that cost is now moving into other government budget line items). It’s also counting on wringing tens of billions of dollars in waste and fraud out of the system to pay for the bill.
The Reality Check That Bounced
Ok, think this through. Higher taxes on the rich have historially not delivered the revenues promised because the rich shelter their income, IRS data show.
And the pool of taxpayers that would supposedly toss off all this tax revenue is not that vast and deep--the 5.4% surtax on singles earnings $500,000 in the house bill, married couples earning $1 mn--is only 494,967, based on 2007 IRS data, the last year for which data is available, notes William Ahern of the Tax Foundation.
Tax cuts can deliver revenues -- the Clinton tax cuts on estates and capital gains delivered more revenues than promised tax revenues from the tax hikes on the rich, according to IRS data.
And do you really believe that future Congresses over the next 10 years will hang tough and make the $399 bn in total reimbursement cuts to hospitals, other providers, and Medicare Advantage, each year for 10 years straight?
Remember, the 1997 Balanced Budget Act tried to chase down this exact strategy, but Congress undid those cuts and reimbursed providers anyway.
And watch out for the promises to cut waste and fraud out of the system that the House is counting on from the American Medical Association and hospitals.
You really think the AMA can corral the 135,000 active doctors in its membership to deliver on these promises? Or that the nation’s 5,700 hospitals will all fall in line?
How Employers Will React
The “play-or-pay” requirement on employers says they would either have to offer “qualifying” insurance to their employees and contribute a substantial share toward the premiums, or pay a fee to the federal government that would generally equal 8% of their payroll.
It’s an easy choice for employers: Lay off and not hire workers if the insurance costs are too high, or just pay the extra 8% payroll tax and dump workers on the public plan. Which means more costs to the U.S. taxpayer.
State Taxes May Rise
Moreover, the federal funding for Medicaid to take care of extra enrollees will only cover 70% of the state’s costs. The rest the states have to pay for. That means state taxes rise.
Public Option’s Not So Cheap Premiums
The primary rationale espoused by Democrats for the government-run health care plan is that it would drive down costs by providing a lower cost option than private plans (and thus force the greedy insurance companies to lower their “exorbitant” rates to compete), notes Fox News analyst James Farrell.
But will the poor really sign up for the public option since its premiums are higher than the average private industry plan in the new proposed insurance exchanges? How would the public option drive down insurance costs through competition if its premiums are higher than the average private industry plan in the exchanges?
The CBO finds that under the House plan, the government-run plan would actually charge higher premiums:
"That estimate of enrollment reflects CBO’s assessment that a public plan paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges."
The Opt Out is Not an Option
Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced the health-care bill will have a public option and a way for states to opt out of the public option (the House bill does not include an opt-out ).
It’s a charade — taxpayers in states that opt out will get taxed anyway to pay for the bill. And who in each state gets to decide to trigger the opt out escape hatch? Voters? State legislators? The DMV?
A churlish reaction would be this: couldn't the states turn around and say they want to opt out of the fed’s unfunded mandates —like the expansion of Medicaid to pay for the health reform bill, where they’ll have to pony up 30%?
The Arizona Legislature already passed the Health Care Freedom Act, which places an initiative on the 2010 ballot allowing citizens to vote to decide whether the state should opt out of the entire health care reform bill, notes Darrell M. West, vice president and director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution. Other states are considering similar legislation, West says.
And West wonders if unhealthy people will migrate to states with a public option if their own jurisdiction opts out of the national system. States may be tempted to establish residency requirements for health care the way they did for welfare, he says, possibly making it more difficult for the uninsured to get coverage in those areas.
Also, if states don’t like congressional decisions on gun control, climate change or immigration, will state legislators demand an opt-out? “If this were 1965 and there were a Medicare opt-out, it is conceivable we would have ended up with two-thirds of the country having Medicare, while one-third did not,” West says.
That’s because the CBO and Congress do not address human responses to legislation. Tax something more, you ultimately take in less in taxes. Penalize a company, and it finds ways to dodge the penalty.
And lawmakers have put in this unintended consequence: The individual premium costs in public option to take care of the poor are actually higher than other offerings.
That’s right, the CBO says the public plan’s premiums are higher than the premiums in the public exchanges, undermining the House’s claim that it will attract 9 mn enrollees by 2019 and result in a two-thirds decrease in the number of uninsured adults in the U.S.
Use the following as a cheat sheet in coming days as the health-care reform bill wends its way through Congress. The cheat sheet provides an X-ray to this impenetrably dense bill and the CBO’s scoring. The unintended consequences from this bill will be manifold.
You’ll see the CBO is struggling mightily to score these legislative phantasms, noting its work is not done and that its estimates are “subject to substantial uncertainty.”
Watch for Congressional statements that, while technically accurate, will also keep you barefoot and clueless on health reform, as the layers upon layers of provisions make the reform bill as transparent as a bucket of tar. And which means the resulting deficit spending from this bill will only add to a U.S. debt load now big enough to block out the sun.
Keep this in mind when you see the tax revenue the CBO and Congress claim the bill will raise to cover the costs. Both the CBO and Congress tend to not take into account the fact that individuals and companies reorganize their lives to avoid paying taxes.
Health-care tax, or penalties, or whatever they call it will just mean people will carry on avoidance schemes, which means less revenues. Tax the rich, they’ll shelter it. Tax the Cadillac health insurance plans, insurers won’t offer them.
Because the CBO and Congress generally do not take into account human behavior when scoring a bill (they use what’s called the “static,” not the “dynamic,” scoring model), the revenue estimates from the CBO and Congress on past tax legislation have been off by a factor of $150 bn or more.
Also, the reform bill’s taxes are not indexed to inflation, so as more middle-class pay rises into those brackets, more middle- class people will be hurt.
Here are the details:
The New Spending
It includes $1.1 tn in new spending over 10 years: $425 bn increases to Medicaid and SCHIP; $605 bn on subsidies for the poor to buy insurance; $57 bn in spending on primary care increases; and $34 bn in new spending on public health initiatives.
The New Costs
The bill’s costs are offset by a new tax surcharge on high-income individuals and other provisions estimated to increase federal revenues by $572 bn; and $168 bn in collections of penalties paid by individuals if they don't buy insurance ($33 bn estimated) and employers ($135 bn) if they don’t buy health insurance for their workers.
To pay for the bill, the House is also counting on other undefined spending changes. That includes fee cuts for nonphysicians, meaning other health care providers, of $229 bn, and Medicare Advantage cuts of $170 bn ($245 bn in Medicare cuts to doctors over ten years has since been nixed; that cost is now moving into other government budget line items). It’s also counting on wringing tens of billions of dollars in waste and fraud out of the system to pay for the bill.
The Reality Check That Bounced
Ok, think this through. Higher taxes on the rich have historially not delivered the revenues promised because the rich shelter their income, IRS data show.
And the pool of taxpayers that would supposedly toss off all this tax revenue is not that vast and deep--the 5.4% surtax on singles earnings $500,000 in the house bill, married couples earning $1 mn--is only 494,967, based on 2007 IRS data, the last year for which data is available, notes William Ahern of the Tax Foundation.
Tax cuts can deliver revenues -- the Clinton tax cuts on estates and capital gains delivered more revenues than promised tax revenues from the tax hikes on the rich, according to IRS data.
And do you really believe that future Congresses over the next 10 years will hang tough and make the $399 bn in total reimbursement cuts to hospitals, other providers, and Medicare Advantage, each year for 10 years straight?
Remember, the 1997 Balanced Budget Act tried to chase down this exact strategy, but Congress undid those cuts and reimbursed providers anyway.
And watch out for the promises to cut waste and fraud out of the system that the House is counting on from the American Medical Association and hospitals.
You really think the AMA can corral the 135,000 active doctors in its membership to deliver on these promises? Or that the nation’s 5,700 hospitals will all fall in line?
How Employers Will React
The “play-or-pay” requirement on employers says they would either have to offer “qualifying” insurance to their employees and contribute a substantial share toward the premiums, or pay a fee to the federal government that would generally equal 8% of their payroll.
It’s an easy choice for employers: Lay off and not hire workers if the insurance costs are too high, or just pay the extra 8% payroll tax and dump workers on the public plan. Which means more costs to the U.S. taxpayer.
State Taxes May Rise
Moreover, the federal funding for Medicaid to take care of extra enrollees will only cover 70% of the state’s costs. The rest the states have to pay for. That means state taxes rise.
Public Option’s Not So Cheap Premiums
The primary rationale espoused by Democrats for the government-run health care plan is that it would drive down costs by providing a lower cost option than private plans (and thus force the greedy insurance companies to lower their “exorbitant” rates to compete), notes Fox News analyst James Farrell.
But will the poor really sign up for the public option since its premiums are higher than the average private industry plan in the new proposed insurance exchanges? How would the public option drive down insurance costs through competition if its premiums are higher than the average private industry plan in the exchanges?
The CBO finds that under the House plan, the government-run plan would actually charge higher premiums:
"That estimate of enrollment reflects CBO’s assessment that a public plan paying negotiated rates would attract a broad network of providers but would typically have premiums that are somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges."
The Opt Out is Not an Option
Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced the health-care bill will have a public option and a way for states to opt out of the public option (the House bill does not include an opt-out ).
It’s a charade — taxpayers in states that opt out will get taxed anyway to pay for the bill. And who in each state gets to decide to trigger the opt out escape hatch? Voters? State legislators? The DMV?
A churlish reaction would be this: couldn't the states turn around and say they want to opt out of the fed’s unfunded mandates —like the expansion of Medicaid to pay for the health reform bill, where they’ll have to pony up 30%?
The Arizona Legislature already passed the Health Care Freedom Act, which places an initiative on the 2010 ballot allowing citizens to vote to decide whether the state should opt out of the entire health care reform bill, notes Darrell M. West, vice president and director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution. Other states are considering similar legislation, West says.
And West wonders if unhealthy people will migrate to states with a public option if their own jurisdiction opts out of the national system. States may be tempted to establish residency requirements for health care the way they did for welfare, he says, possibly making it more difficult for the uninsured to get coverage in those areas.
Also, if states don’t like congressional decisions on gun control, climate change or immigration, will state legislators demand an opt-out? “If this were 1965 and there were a Medicare opt-out, it is conceivable we would have ended up with two-thirds of the country having Medicare, while one-third did not,” West says.
Obama by the numbers ....
Obama Sees Approval Slide in His Third Quarter
President Barack Obama's average job approval rating dropped to 53% in the third quarter of 2009, from 62% in the second quarter; the largest second to third quarter drop for an elected president.
Change in Presidential Approve Averages: Second to Third Quarter in Office
44th Obama: -9
43rd G.W. Bush: +16
42nd: Clinton: +4
41st H. Bush: +5
40th Reagan: -4
39th Carter: -4
38th Nixon: -2
37th Kennedy +1
36th Eisenhower -4
http://www.gallup.com/video/123809/Obama-Sees-Approval-Slide-Third-Quarter.aspx
If we know anything we know that Presidential approval ratings can change fast. There's little denying that the President's 9 point drop is connected directly to Health Care.
Falling below 50 percent before November in the first year of office would mean the third-fastest plunge in a president's rating since World War II, Gallup said.
Republican Gerald Ford, who took over after Richard Nixon left office in disgrace, hit that low in the third month of his presidency; Democrat Bill Clinton, in his fourth. Father-son presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush stayed above the 50percent mark about three years; and Lyndon Johnson and Nixon, more than two years, Gallup said.
A's M.
President Barack Obama's average job approval rating dropped to 53% in the third quarter of 2009, from 62% in the second quarter; the largest second to third quarter drop for an elected president.
Change in Presidential Approve Averages: Second to Third Quarter in Office
44th Obama: -9
43rd G.W. Bush: +16
42nd: Clinton: +4
41st H. Bush: +5
40th Reagan: -4
39th Carter: -4
38th Nixon: -2
37th Kennedy +1
36th Eisenhower -4
http://www.gallup.com/video/123809/Obama-Sees-Approval-Slide-Third-Quarter.aspx
If we know anything we know that Presidential approval ratings can change fast. There's little denying that the President's 9 point drop is connected directly to Health Care.
Falling below 50 percent before November in the first year of office would mean the third-fastest plunge in a president's rating since World War II, Gallup said.
Republican Gerald Ford, who took over after Richard Nixon left office in disgrace, hit that low in the third month of his presidency; Democrat Bill Clinton, in his fourth. Father-son presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush stayed above the 50percent mark about three years; and Lyndon Johnson and Nixon, more than two years, Gallup said.
A's M.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
State of American Penal System
(Reaction Paper #3 for my American Legal Profession Class: This paper is a Reponse to Blake Mitchell's essay Ethics of the Criminal Defense Attorney) And now you can see what I do for class ...
Plus everyone should know that prisons in the US are aweful and we need to seriously rethink our policies toward nonviolent offenders, and our policies toward mandatory minimum sentencing/"3-strikes-you're-out" laws.
Once again this week Mitchell brought up the state of American prisons; and who could blame him? His characterization of life in prisons and jails is all to correct. Look no further than the prison reform legislation that has been passed over the last two decades (ie the Prison Rape Act) to understand the horrors that are taking place in our prison system. As was mentioned in last week’s class the United States has the highest rate of incarceration per capita in the world. This statistic is even more staggering when one views that statistic along side the disproportionate amount of minorities (specifically African Americans) who are currently in the US penal system. The United States has crammed hundreds of thousands of offenders into prisons in the mistaken idea that prison will deter crime, or possibly, rehabilitate the offender. (Yes, there is, I acknowledge, a deterrent effect in some cases, and yes, some people are rehabilitated in prison, although it is not because of prison.)
The truth is that prisons are primarily good for incapacitating dangerous offenders, those convicted of violent or dangerous crimes. The problem is that prisons are filled with many people who are not dangerous to society and do not need to be quarantined; in fact, offenders often become hardened in their criminal disposition because of the experience, as Mitchell pointed out.
We must revamp our current policies and find noncustodial alternatives. This can safely be done for large numbers of offenders who are not dangerous. The figures I saw in a class discussing prisons was that well over 65% of those sentenced to state prisons were convicted of nonviolent offenses; namely drug related offenses.
Only nations that are both rich and foolish could possibly afford to follow these type of policies. They do not work. One only needs to look at the recidivism rate to realize that these policies are not deterring crime. As the size of prisons have exploded of the past 15 years the recidivism rate has remained unchanged, which, if we follow the logic, leads inevitably to the law of unintended consequences: the more people we put in prison the more crime we will have.
And indeed we are spending huge amount of tax money on prisons (which more and more are private, for profit, prisons). The public would be better served by using that money to provide adequate defense attorneys for the accused, and seriously rethinking our policy of locking up nonviolent offenders. Because, we know that our current policies are failing to reduce crime.
Plus everyone should know that prisons in the US are aweful and we need to seriously rethink our policies toward nonviolent offenders, and our policies toward mandatory minimum sentencing/"3-strikes-you're-out" laws.
Once again this week Mitchell brought up the state of American prisons; and who could blame him? His characterization of life in prisons and jails is all to correct. Look no further than the prison reform legislation that has been passed over the last two decades (ie the Prison Rape Act) to understand the horrors that are taking place in our prison system. As was mentioned in last week’s class the United States has the highest rate of incarceration per capita in the world. This statistic is even more staggering when one views that statistic along side the disproportionate amount of minorities (specifically African Americans) who are currently in the US penal system. The United States has crammed hundreds of thousands of offenders into prisons in the mistaken idea that prison will deter crime, or possibly, rehabilitate the offender. (Yes, there is, I acknowledge, a deterrent effect in some cases, and yes, some people are rehabilitated in prison, although it is not because of prison.)
The truth is that prisons are primarily good for incapacitating dangerous offenders, those convicted of violent or dangerous crimes. The problem is that prisons are filled with many people who are not dangerous to society and do not need to be quarantined; in fact, offenders often become hardened in their criminal disposition because of the experience, as Mitchell pointed out.
We must revamp our current policies and find noncustodial alternatives. This can safely be done for large numbers of offenders who are not dangerous. The figures I saw in a class discussing prisons was that well over 65% of those sentenced to state prisons were convicted of nonviolent offenses; namely drug related offenses.
Only nations that are both rich and foolish could possibly afford to follow these type of policies. They do not work. One only needs to look at the recidivism rate to realize that these policies are not deterring crime. As the size of prisons have exploded of the past 15 years the recidivism rate has remained unchanged, which, if we follow the logic, leads inevitably to the law of unintended consequences: the more people we put in prison the more crime we will have.
And indeed we are spending huge amount of tax money on prisons (which more and more are private, for profit, prisons). The public would be better served by using that money to provide adequate defense attorneys for the accused, and seriously rethinking our policy of locking up nonviolent offenders. Because, we know that our current policies are failing to reduce crime.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Here we go ...
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is unvailing the Senate Bill w/a public option.
Click here for the brief announcment
Now we have to wait for the Congressional Budget Office to score the Bill. The CBO will tell us exactly what we're looking at, I would bet the Bill will cost 900 billion to 1 trillion. We'll never see a public option unless it has an opt-out clause.
A's M.
Click here for the brief announcment
Now we have to wait for the Congressional Budget Office to score the Bill. The CBO will tell us exactly what we're looking at, I would bet the Bill will cost 900 billion to 1 trillion. We'll never see a public option unless it has an opt-out clause.
A's M.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
