Posted by Scott on November 4th, 2009 — Posted in Politics & Commentary
I created this blog several years ago to do my part in reducing the amount of violent victimization in society, such as murder, rape, battery and so forth. Unfortunately, sometimes murder is committed by the governments that we want to protect us.
I remember the story of a teenage girl who was stoned to death by authorities for adultery in Somalia when she chose to report an alleged rape. Some other countries consider themselves more civilized for only choosing to provide the death penalty to murderers.
Of course, I want to use as much defensive force as necessary to protect people. If the only way to stop a murderer is with lethal defensive force, then I’m all for it.
But when we have already protected the innocent by incarcerating the offender, is it worth committing murder as punishment–even for murder? Let’s look at some facts about the death penalty provided by Amnesty International USA:
The death penalty defies international human rights standards. Over two-thirds of the countries in the world – 139 – have now abolished the death penalty in law or practice. In 2008, 93% of all known executions took place in five countries - China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the USA.
The death penalty is racially biased. Since 1977, the overwhelming majority of death row defendants (80%) have been executed for killing white victims, even though African-Americans make up about half of all homicide victims.
The death penalty claims innocent lives. Since 1973, 135 people have been released from death rows throughout the country due to evidence of their wrongful conviction. In this same time period, more than 1,000 people have been executed.
The death penalty is not a deterrent. A September 2000 New York Times survey found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 to 101% higher than the rate in states without the death penalty.
The death penalty costs more and diverts resources from genuine crime control. The greatest costs associated with the death penalty occur prior to and during trial, not in post-conviction proceedings. Even if all post-conviction proceedings (appeals) were abolished, the death penalty would still be more expensive than alternative sentences.
The death penalty disregards mental illness. The execution of those with mental illness or “the insane” is clearly prohibited by international law. In the USA, Constitutional protections for those with other forms of mental illness are minimal, however, and dozens of prisoners have been executed despite suffering from serious mental illness.
The death penalty is arbitrary and unfair. 95% of death row inmates cannot afford their own attorney. Local politics, the location of the crime, plea bargaining, and pure chance affect the process and make it a lottery of who lives and dies. Since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, 80% of all executions have taken place in the South (37% in Texas alone).
These facts show us many of the drawbacks of the death penalty. But I think we all know that murder has drawbacks. Despite it’s drawbacks, I think people support it because they want revenge. I have posted many times about the foolishness of vengeance. In the case of the death penalty, supporters need to reconsider whether the pleasure they feel from hurting another person as revenge is worth the drawbacks and risks of committing murder. Personally, I want the focus of law enforcement and the criminal justice system to solely be to protect people from violent victimization such as murder, rape, battery, assault, muggings and so forth. I do not want the justice system diverted towards the sadistic goal of getting revenge.
What do you think? Would you ever support murder? Do you know any other interesting facts about the death penalty?
No Comments »
Posted by Scott on October 28th, 2009 — Posted in Politics & Commentary
Just like with the historical prohibition of alcohol and the ongoing prohibition of drugs, I think prohibition of prostitution not only fails to prevent or reduce the occurrence of prostitution but greatly exacerbates the problems associated with it.
Nationwide, the war on prostitution costs taxpayers billions of dollars annually. I’m not sure of the accuracy of the next figure, but I’ve read that the city of Los Angeles alone spends close to 100 million dollars annually dealing with illegal prostitution. These larges sums of money could have gone towards actually protecting people from violent crime and victimization.
Also, the prohibition of prostitution increases sex slavery. The United States State Department estimates that 50,000 to 100,000 women and girls are trafficked each year in the United States. While prohibition has not prevented prostitution from occurring, it has sent the customers to buy sex services from violent criminal organizations and violent thugs who often prefer to get rich enslaving young women rather than paying willing employees. Just like with the prohibition of drugs, prohibition of prostitution means we have taken this multi-billion dollar industry away from law-abiding citizens and handed it over to violent criminal thugs who can now get rich enslaving women. In a country like the United States, I doubt the vast majority of customers would choose to buy sex services from violent criminal thugs if prostitution were legal and they could buy it from a legitimate, regulated companies. Frankly, when regulated, consensual prostitution is illegal, unregulated non-consensual prostitution is drastically increased.
Finally, today I came across an article from 1993 by Paul Armentano entitled, The Case for Prostitution. The article pointed out another major danger of the war on prostitution. And that’s AIDS. Armentano writes, “Ironically perhaps, the rising threat of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases has become one of the most compelling arguments for the complete legalization of prostitution. According to current evidence, roughly half of the street prostitutes in Washington, D.C., and New York City are HIV-positive. In Newark, New Jersey, the estimate is that close to 60% of all prostitutes carry the AIDS virus. Yet, in the relatively “free market” of Nevada, where prostitution is legal, not one (as of 1989) of the state-licensed prostitutes has ever tested positive for AIDS.”
Simply put, prostitutes, the buyers of prostitution and society as whole would all be much safer if we ended the expensive, futile war on prostitution. Let’s prevent violence and protect people by legalizing, regulating and taxing prostitution.
What do you think? Please post a comment below. You can also discuss the idea of legalizing prostitution in this thread at the Philosophy Forums.
No Comments »
Posted by Scott on March 26th, 2009 — Posted in Politics & Commentary
A gentleman contacted me from Article 19 Films, who produce socially responsible documentary features. He told me about a documentary called Lockdown, USA
that they recently released. It chronicles Hip-Hop impresario Russell Simmons’ campaign to reform the Rockefeller Drug Laws, the controversial New York State laws created in 1973, which became the foundation to the War on Drugs in the United States. Here is the trailer from YouTube (contains explicit language):
I like that trailer. Please consider ordering Lockdown, USA. The movie not only interests those already familiar with the flaws of the war on drugs, but the movie also informs those not as familiar and inspires people to get more involved in the campaign for reform.
I have often posted about the war on drugs on this blog because of the way that drug prohibition increases violent crime and hinders our ability to fight violent crime and victimization–similar to alcohol prohibition. Take a look at these posts:
What do you think? Please post comments!
17 Comments »
Posted by Scott on April 21st, 2008 — Posted in Politics & Commentary
In 2006, I made a blog post about The Danger of False Accusations. In it, I explained that I believe that sometimes false accusations of sexual victimization can be more damaging than sexual victimization itself. More importantly, I explained why I believe activists must work together to simultaneously reduce both the prevalence of false accusations and sexual victimization. Division will leave us unable to effectively stop either.
I still like that blog post and still agree with what I said then. I think it represents an important aspect of the problem of sexual violence that I often do not mention.
Anyway, I am posting about that old blog post today because it still gets some comments posted to it. I think the comments are interesting, so even if you have already read the post, you may want to read the comments and join the discussion. They contain some enlightening stories. If you have not read that old post yet, I recommend you check it out.
2 Comments »
Posted by Scott on April 14th, 2008 — Posted in Politics & Commentary
I just finished reading the descriptions of about 20 or so books about violent crime and criminology. Two of the books seemed especially interesting to me. I hope to read them both soon. (Of course, I have a long list of books that I want to read, so it takes me a while to get to any single book.) Anyway, here are the two books:
Savage Pastimes: A Cultural History of Violent Entertainment by Harold Schechter - Overview: “Does violence in movies, on television and in comic strips and cartoons rot our children’s brains and make zombies-or worse, criminals-of adults at the fringes? In this cogent, well-researched book, American pop-culture expert Harold Schechter argues that exactly the opposite is true: a basic human need is given an outlet through violent images in popular media. Moving from an exploration of early broadsheet engravings showing torture and the atrocities of war, to the depictions of crime in “penny dreadfuls,” to scenes of violence in today’s movies and video games, Schechter not only traces the history of disturbing images but details the outrage that has inevitably accompanied them. By the twentieth century, the culture vultures were out in full force, demonizing comic books and setting up a pattern of equating testosterone-fueled entertainment with aggression. According to Schechter, nothing could be further from the truth. He also blasts those who bemoan the alleged increased violence in media today, and who conveniently scapegoat popular entertainment for a variety of cultural ills, including increased crime and real-life violence. Though American pop culture is far more technologically sophisticated today, Schechter shows that it is far less brutal than the entertainments of previous generations. Savage Pastimes is a rich, eye-opening brief history that will make you rethink your assumptions about what we watch and how it affects us all.”
The Next Attack by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon - Overview: “In this provocative new book, Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon show how the terrorist threat is evolving with a broadening array of tactics, an army of new fighters, and, most ominously, a widening base of support in the global Muslim community. The jihadist movement has been galvanized by the example of 9/11 and the missteps of the U.S. government, which has consistently failed to understand the nature of the new terror. Left on this trajectory, much worse faces us in the near future. It doesn’t have to be this way. The Next Attack makes the case that America has the capacity to stem the tide of Islamic terrorism, but Benjamin and Simon caution that this will require a far-reaching and creative new strategy, one that recognizes that the struggle has been over-militarized and that a campaign for reform must be more than rhetoric and less than bayonets. And they point out how America’s increasing tendency to frame the conflict in religious terms has undermined our ability to advance our interests. Is America truly equipped to do what is necessary to combat Islamist terrorism, or are we too blinded by our own ideology? The answer to that question will determine how secure we will truly be in the years and decades to come.”
What do you think? Have you read either of those books? If you read either of them before I do, tell me what you think of it.
The first one, Savage Pastimes, reminds me of a post I made on this blog last March: Violent Video Games Do Not Cause Teen Violence
No Comments »
Posted by Scott on March 29th, 2008 — Posted in Politics & Commentary
Last night, I finished reading the book Are Prisons Obsolete?
by Angela Y. Davis, which someone had recommended to me after I wrote a short article about why I think society does not need prisons.
The book was not what I had expected, but I still like it very much. Rather than speculate on alternatives to prison in the book, Davis focuses on the history of prison and how it became the dominant form of punishment. She also heavily addresses the extreme amounts of racism and sexism in the prison system both throughout its history and still today.
People who have not already thought much about abolishing the prison system will probably find the book even more interesting and eye-opening than I did.
It disgusted me to learn about the amount of sexual abuse in female prisons, especially regarding the guards’ legal use of strip searches (including cavity searches) to sexually victimize the female prisoners.
Davis does a good job explaining the prison-industrial complex in the book. That includes the many ways that corporations and profiteers make money by having prisons built and filled with people.
She keeps a historical and factual tone. I think it makes the book much more powerful than one filled with opinions and suggestions, especially about an unconventional idea such as prison abolishment. While reading the book, I could tell that Davis intended to spark critical thinking about the subject rather than just tell people what to think.
Overall, I recommend the book, especially considering that it is so short. It took me two nights to read and only a few hours total. So it is easily worth your time since it will not take much of your time. Also, it’s an important topic because, with about 1 in 100 of its citizens behind bars, the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world both in number and percentage, and other countries have begun adopting the United States incarceration methods.
What do you think?
1 Comment »
Posted by Scott on March 28th, 2008 — Posted in Politics & Commentary
While trying to find contemporary anarcha-feminist authors today, I came across a book edited by Carl Watner and by Wendy McElroy, entitled National Identification Systems: Essays in Opposition
.
When I get a chance, I may read the book. I don’t know if I will because it does not have any reviews or ratings on Amazon. Have any of you read it; do you recommend it?
I have this blog to address violent crime and victimization. Most often, government surveillance and national identification systems will be proposed under the pretense of security. However, to roughly paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, I believe that a society that gives up essential liberty to achieve safety will receive neither. I believe we can effectively reduce (and ideally come close to eliminating) violent crime and victimization without adopting excessive government surveillance or identification systems. In fact, I believe the bureaucracy and abuse in excessive surveillance systems will hinder our society’s ability to reduce violent crime.
Anyway, I think I will like the book because of my opinions on the matter. What do you think?
No Comments »
Posted by Scott on March 26th, 2008 — Posted in Politics & Commentary
Sometime in April, I hope to read Ain’t Nobody’s Business if You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Society
by Peter McWilliams. The book came out in 1996, and the author died in 2000.
In the book, according to the description I read, McWilliams argues in support of the legalization of victimless and consensual crimes, such as gambling, prostitution, recreational drug usage, pornography, homosexuality, gambling, and other activities in which all participants (who are competent adults) have consented and thus nobody has been victimized against their will.
I also support the legalization of victimless and consensual crimes, so I bet I will like the book.
I define victimization as the act of one person or group hurting a second person or group against the will of the second person or group. That includes acts such as murder, rape, vandalism and robbery. I see it as a waste of resources and an unnecessary limitation on freedom for the government to criminalize victimless behaviors and expensively attack people who commit those acts. I think the criminalization of victimless behaviors increases violent crime and victimization by diverting law enforcement resources and by increasing and funding a criminal underground.
What do you think?
No Comments »
Posted by Scott on March 21st, 2008 — Posted in Politics & Commentary
I just read a good article by Adam Rink in which he says that the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world because the country puts so many people in prison for non-violent offenses. He also mentions mandatory sentencing and three strikes policies.
According to his statistics, over half of the prisoners in state prisons are held for non-violent offenses, such as drug crimes.
He also explains how prohibition of allegedly unhealthy behaviors such as alcohol or drugs increases violent crime. Namely, prohibition expands organized crime, providing funding for violent criminals. Additionally, throwing non-violent offenders in jail and prison tends to make them violent and dangerous.
Throwing so many non-violent people in jail also causes other social problems, such as taking parental figures away and breaking up personal relationships.
Also, all the massive amounts of resources spent enforcing the prohibition of non-violent acts such as drug possession could instead be put towards preventing violent crime and victimization.
Perhaps the United States’ massive war on drugs and other victimless behaviors is the reason why the United States has such high violent crime rates.
What do you think?
No Comments »
Posted by Scott on March 18th, 2008 — Posted in Politics & Commentary
According to FBI statistics, the number of arrests for marijuana exceeds the number of arrests for violent crimes.
That makes me very angry!
I detest the fact that the United States wastes hundreds of billions of dollars per year waging a war on drugs so that it can overwork the courts and overcrowd the jails with non-violent drug users. We could put all those resources into reducing violent crime and criminal victimization, such as rape, murder, robbery, battery, vandalism and so forth.
You may wonder why governments would choose to waste money as such. I would explain it by pointing out that governments like to waste money. The wasted taxpayer dollars represent jobs and profits for a lot of bureaucrats, political cronies, and special interest groups.
Drug prohibition increases violent crime. Not only does it divert resources away from violent crime, but also it funds violent criminals by handing the multi-billion-dollar drug industry over to the black market, which in turn increases government corruption and increases the availability of drugs to minors.
Let’s reduce violent crime by decriminalizing marijuana. Let’s focus our resources on violent crime rather than on non-violent drug-users.
What do you think?
1 Comment »
Posted by Scott on March 11th, 2008 — Posted in Politics & Commentary
After finishing the book, Exquisite Rebel: The Essays of Voltairine de Cleyre-Feminist, Anarchist, Genius
, I wrote a blog post: The Continued Subjugation of Women in Society
If you liked that blog post, you can check out the essay from the book that inspired it: “Sex Slavery” by Voltairine de Cleyre
In the essay, which I love, Voltairine de Cleyre explains the problems with gender roles and how institutions such as marriage and religion have subjugated women. She wrote the essay in 1890, but it still remains relevance today.
No Comments »
Posted by Scott on March 7th, 2008 — Posted in Politics & Commentary
I just read an interesting post on Joejolly’s blog. In the post, he speculates that using Violence to Solve Problems may be contagious. Basically, he speculates that the Bush Administration’s aggressive military endeavors–namely the occupation of Iraq–set an example of using offensive violence for the American people. As a result, American citizens may tend to use violence to solve problems and get what they want in their personal lives.
I think he has a point. Common-sense psychology tells us that violence begets more violence.
After the example their government has set, I too wonder if many United States citizens will deal with each other personally in the way the Bush Administration has dealt with Iraq.
What do you think? When a government needlessly attacks and occupies others nations does that spur interpersonal violence back at home due to the example set?
No Comments »
