![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
twoeleven1) national justice: little scandinavia
this week's science is running a story about an experiment to see how well scandinavian-style prisons work in the US. getting the crude answer – are they better in any measurable ways? – is worthwhile, but as the PIs themselves note, figuring out why they work, assuming they do, is one of the real answers.
for example, this demonstration project has six times as many guards as a typical US prison, in this case, 3 guards for 64 prisoners, rather than 1 for 128. it also largely excludes "'custody level 4' individuals, who are classified as posing a higher risk [of committing violence(?)] while incarcerated". well, sure, that ought to lead to less violence in the cell block, less fear of violence, lower prison gang membership, and perhaps a few other things.
but on the other hand, it will be roughly six time as expensive to run, and if our existing problems with finding places to stuff all the criminals we convict now are any guide, we're too cheap to afford even merely awful prisons. (er, 'scuse me, correctional institutions for incarcerated people. god forbid we call a spade a spade.)
the real test, though, is not whether conditions in the prison are better, but whether scandinavian-style prisons will reduce recidivism. i think that for many americans, that's the only test that matters.
one of the PIs hedges on that:
• a room of one's own, along with the peace and quiet that goes with it
• saturation police presence to prevent violence and mitigate it when it does happen, which leads to...
• a relatively safe and low-stress social environment
• and a few meaningful daily tasks, as opposed to working a poorly-paying junk job
i hate to say it, but if these prisons provided people with internet access and a small park, they'd be a step up for many poor americans. this may argue that the problem isn't with our prisons or so-called justice system, but a larger problem (or set of problems) with the US and how we do things generally.
this demonstration scandinavian-style prison block is apparently (part of?) a drug rehab unit. it's good that people are getting off of drugs. but i have a general problem with such things: why should people have to commit crimes to get drug rehab, job training, mental health care, or social skills counseling? why can't we offer these things generally? or on the other hand, why do people need to be tossed in prison before they'll admit that they have serious problems? it seems to me that we're doing something wrong somewhere.
2) local injustice, part 1
a story sadly hidden by the local fishwrapper's paywall, and in any case, their search engine is so dodgy that i can't find the link to the story that actually ran.
however, the story goes like this: former delaware deputy attorney general mark denney cut a deal with william wisher, a convicted drug dealer, to reduce his sentence if he testified against damon anderson, who was accused of being second in command of a local drug gang. this is perfectly legal, and is routinely done.
what isn't legal, but may be routine, is that the prosecution "forgot" to mention this to anderson's defense counsel. regardless of the merits of the case, the defense is entitled to know that a witness is being offered a deal, so they can tell the jury, who can then judge the credibility of the witness' testimony.
so the case is now dead, and anderson is free. that a six-year-old boy was shot in the back and paralyzed by one of a small number of people, possibly on anderson's orders is, of course, irrelevant.
i think we're doing something wrong here somewhere, too. the crude approach we're using to what's euphemistically called prosecutorial misconduct – as opposed to, say, witness tampering, which would be what it would be called if i secretly offered bennies to a witness to crime – seems to result in multiple miscarriages of justice: somebody gets away with the shooting, and the prosecutors get away with perverting the course of justice.
3) local injustice, part 2
another story hidden behind the paywall, but at least i have a link people can try, should people want to see if their library can help them read it: Dover police [officer] fractured man's skull while investigating loitering
this one is straightforward: dover cop justin richey apparently used excessive force against paul jackimek and lied about it in official reports; the city ended up settling with paul for $175k, while claiming nothing was wrong here. the cop is still on duty.
the newspaper found out about the settlement only because delaware's usually air-tight code of silence about police brutality (and other wrongdoing by governments) sprung a leak, and the settlement showed up in the public record. as the article notes, the public rarely hears about settlements by delaware governments, especially those involving cops and random violence against private citizens. the total costs are suspected of being a drain on government budgets, but elected officials simply don't care; it's not like it's their money.
i'd say there's an easy solution to this problem, but it's isomorphic with wishing for a pony: it ain't gonna happen. but since i don't want a pony, i'll wish for this: the state and local governments must publish a list of all cases they've lost or settled over the past year, identifying who was sued and why, and whether that person is still employed by said government. the reports must be published every october first.
why then? because in election years, that's close enough to the election that the voters to weigh that information when considering allowing those in power to stay that way, but not enough time for said individuals clinging to power to change the conversation.
i have similar dates for many things that people in power might do: fiddling with the tax code, raising officials' salaries and benefits, and so on. gotta keep the dazzling light of truth on them whenever money is involved, lest it disappear into people's pockets in the shadows.
since the state budget usually gets passed just before the legislative session ends, shifting the session from january through the end of june to march through the end of september would work too. and would also make other dodgy laws fresher in people's minds.
this week's science is running a story about an experiment to see how well scandinavian-style prisons work in the US. getting the crude answer – are they better in any measurable ways? – is worthwhile, but as the PIs themselves note, figuring out why they work, assuming they do, is one of the real answers.
for example, this demonstration project has six times as many guards as a typical US prison, in this case, 3 guards for 64 prisoners, rather than 1 for 128. it also largely excludes "'custody level 4' individuals, who are classified as posing a higher risk [of committing violence(?)] while incarcerated". well, sure, that ought to lead to less violence in the cell block, less fear of violence, lower prison gang membership, and perhaps a few other things.
but on the other hand, it will be roughly six time as expensive to run, and if our existing problems with finding places to stuff all the criminals we convict now are any guide, we're too cheap to afford even merely awful prisons. (er, 'scuse me, correctional institutions for incarcerated people. god forbid we call a spade a spade.)
the real test, though, is not whether conditions in the prison are better, but whether scandinavian-style prisons will reduce recidivism. i think that for many americans, that's the only test that matters.
one of the PIs hedges on that:
“That’s a supercomplicated outcome” to assess, [PI Jordan] Hyatt acknowledges, because so many other factors play in to a person’s trajectory after prison.which is true, but it is something we can measure, and all other factors being equal – or statistically adjusted for – something we can work with. it's measured for other experimental approaches to crime and criminals.
“Not everywhere is Norway,” which offers intensive supports to aid in reintegration, [University of Cambridge criminologist Ben] Crewe says [of measuring recidivism].and since we're not in norway, i have to wonder if these prisons will work because they're better lives than many poor people live here in the US. in addition to the usual "benefits" of being in prison (free food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, for very low-quality values of each), these model prisons offer:
• a room of one's own, along with the peace and quiet that goes with it
• saturation police presence to prevent violence and mitigate it when it does happen, which leads to...
• a relatively safe and low-stress social environment
• and a few meaningful daily tasks, as opposed to working a poorly-paying junk job
i hate to say it, but if these prisons provided people with internet access and a small park, they'd be a step up for many poor americans. this may argue that the problem isn't with our prisons or so-called justice system, but a larger problem (or set of problems) with the US and how we do things generally.
this demonstration scandinavian-style prison block is apparently (part of?) a drug rehab unit. it's good that people are getting off of drugs. but i have a general problem with such things: why should people have to commit crimes to get drug rehab, job training, mental health care, or social skills counseling? why can't we offer these things generally? or on the other hand, why do people need to be tossed in prison before they'll admit that they have serious problems? it seems to me that we're doing something wrong somewhere.
2) local injustice, part 1
a story sadly hidden by the local fishwrapper's paywall, and in any case, their search engine is so dodgy that i can't find the link to the story that actually ran.
however, the story goes like this: former delaware deputy attorney general mark denney cut a deal with william wisher, a convicted drug dealer, to reduce his sentence if he testified against damon anderson, who was accused of being second in command of a local drug gang. this is perfectly legal, and is routinely done.
what isn't legal, but may be routine, is that the prosecution "forgot" to mention this to anderson's defense counsel. regardless of the merits of the case, the defense is entitled to know that a witness is being offered a deal, so they can tell the jury, who can then judge the credibility of the witness' testimony.
so the case is now dead, and anderson is free. that a six-year-old boy was shot in the back and paralyzed by one of a small number of people, possibly on anderson's orders is, of course, irrelevant.
i think we're doing something wrong here somewhere, too. the crude approach we're using to what's euphemistically called prosecutorial misconduct – as opposed to, say, witness tampering, which would be what it would be called if i secretly offered bennies to a witness to crime – seems to result in multiple miscarriages of justice: somebody gets away with the shooting, and the prosecutors get away with perverting the course of justice.
3) local injustice, part 2
another story hidden behind the paywall, but at least i have a link people can try, should people want to see if their library can help them read it: Dover police [officer] fractured man's skull while investigating loitering
this one is straightforward: dover cop justin richey apparently used excessive force against paul jackimek and lied about it in official reports; the city ended up settling with paul for $175k, while claiming nothing was wrong here. the cop is still on duty.
the newspaper found out about the settlement only because delaware's usually air-tight code of silence about police brutality (and other wrongdoing by governments) sprung a leak, and the settlement showed up in the public record. as the article notes, the public rarely hears about settlements by delaware governments, especially those involving cops and random violence against private citizens. the total costs are suspected of being a drain on government budgets, but elected officials simply don't care; it's not like it's their money.
i'd say there's an easy solution to this problem, but it's isomorphic with wishing for a pony: it ain't gonna happen. but since i don't want a pony, i'll wish for this: the state and local governments must publish a list of all cases they've lost or settled over the past year, identifying who was sued and why, and whether that person is still employed by said government. the reports must be published every october first.
why then? because in election years, that's close enough to the election that the voters to weigh that information when considering allowing those in power to stay that way, but not enough time for said individuals clinging to power to change the conversation.
i have similar dates for many things that people in power might do: fiddling with the tax code, raising officials' salaries and benefits, and so on. gotta keep the dazzling light of truth on them whenever money is involved, lest it disappear into people's pockets in the shadows.
since the state budget usually gets passed just before the legislative session ends, shifting the session from january through the end of june to march through the end of september would work too. and would also make other dodgy laws fresher in people's minds.