As was posted on September 7, 2014, "In 2014, the publishing rights to Wealth, Women, and War were returned to me by WordTechs Press. I can now release it to the general population in blog form. Under the Occupy Wall Street Principles of Solidarity's bullet point "Mak[e] technologies, knowledge, and culture open to all to freely access, create, modify, and distribute. (amendment passed by consensus 2/9/2012)," I can now make the full, unabridged, version free to the general population."The first 11 chapters of this work are general discussions on where the United States was at in 2007. From this point forward the work discusses why the nation is in turmoil. Effectively, it picks up on all the issues raised by Occupy Wall Street starting on September 17, 2011. As stated before, President Obama, and Vice President Joe Biden, had this information sent to them in 2010. One can only guess that the respective staff members who received the eBooks on CD chose not to forward them. That is no surprise in a nation of 300 million people.
At this point I am making a concerted effort to make the work available to all Occupiers and Anonymous activist as requested by the Occupy Wall Street General Assembly on February, 9, 2012.
It is worth repeating:
WordTechs Press released Wealth, Women and War back to me in May 2014, and I am making it available in blog form. Occupy asked that knowledge be shared, and in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street that is what I am doing. The only thing I can ask of you now is that you pay attention; we are not out of the woods yet.Cliff Potts
October 4, 2014
Criminal
Processes in
the
Capitalistic Society
At the beginning of this report we discussed a general idea
concerning the rules of life and have continued to touch on the nature of the social contract. At no level in
society is this more important than when defining crime and meting out
punishment. Crime is the violation of a society’s rules as codified in a given
criminal or civil code. These codes vary from society to society but have
within them the commonality of the cultural expression of right and wrong. The
value attributed to human life, the value of individual property, the value and
limits of individual liberty are just some examples of what is expressed within
the civil and criminal codes of a given culture.
The United
States defines itself as “a nation of laws”
or a nation under the “rule of law.” This has created a sub-cultural expression
of law which is detail oriented. As a result we end up with some six thousand
separate laws dictating how one can safely and legally operate a motor vehicle
on public streets. Moreover, as we shall see, the burden of retribution hits
heavier on those with the least amount of economic resources. This becomes
apparent when looking at the effects of the simple fine structure for a traffic
citation.
A minor traffic citation can cost an individual around
$150.00. Most people would consider this reasonable, inexpensive, and fair.
However, the sting of that fine becomes apparent only when examined in the
context of an individual’s income. If an individual makes $30.00 USD an hour
the $150.00 fine is the equivalent to five hours work. It is pocket change,
really. And individual making $10.00 USD an hour has to work fifteen hours
(just under two days at an 8 hour work day) to pay the fine. The person making
the current minimum wage at $5.15 USD an hour has to work almost 30 hours to
cover the cost of the minor infraction. This makes the penalty for the same violation
cruel to those at the lower economic levels when seen in the context of the
individual’s ability to pay. We want to get tough on crime, but in reality we
are only getting tougher on those who can least afford it, as a result we are
generating bitterness and resentment within the society as a whole. Those at
the upper levels of the socioeconomic scale are responding harshly with what
they perceive is the greater threat to their security and the general welfare,
and those at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale see those at the upper
levels walking free on minor infractions which would create a greater hardship
for them. This social inequity has ripple effects when it comes to attitudes
concerning law and order.
Crime by definition, until the 1700s, was seen as a result of
“evil” or a rebellion against God (or the Gods), or a rebellion against the
cultural expression of the common good as personified in the codified
expression of a given religious deity. Take your pick. This demonic perspective
was overturned during the Age of Enlightenment. The work of Cesare Beccaria
published in Italy
in 1764 is the best known dissertation on what is now known as classical
criminology.[1]
The essential ideas are quite simple. Individuals are
rational beings who pursue their own interest, trying to maximize their
pleasure and minimize their pain. And unless they are deterred by the threat of
swift, certain, and appropriately severe punishment, they may commit crimes or harm
others in their pursuit of self interest.[2]
The objective of the enlightened classical approach is deterrence.
The current cultural dynamic within the popular dialogue is a
mish-mash of the demonic perspective and the enlightened classical criminology.
The resurgence of religion in the body politic, due largely to the efforts of
the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, has altered the view of the mass of humanity. The
phrase “rational” has been replaced, in all practical purposes, with the phrase
“sinful.” Mind you, within the religious framework such concepts as justice,
mercy, charity, and forgiveness are forgotten. When objections are raised to
this neo-classical demonic perspective, the religious roots of the current
philosophy are swiftly covered up.[3]
The primary change in today’s environment is due largely to
the popular rejection of science and the scientific approach. From the late
1800s to the mid-1960s, science was the religion of the masses. However, as the
culture moved forward, a perception emerged that human rational problem solving
and scientific observation, and the policies created to address social
challenges, were flawed. Science could not address the counter culture of the
late 1960s, or the cultural chaos that arose from it. Some maintain that
science, and rational thought, was the root cause of the of the counter culture
movement. Moreover, science seemed to be supporting cultural chaos. Science gave
us speed, LSD, PCB, crack, methamphetamine, and only God could counteract the
effects of addiction. This led to the rise of “saved” sinners, and dried out drunks[4]
who engaged the debate on law and punishment from a perspective that all people
are criminals at heart, they are wicked, they are evil, and all deserve to
suffer. Moreover, they maintain that people should suffer to purge their souls
so they can have communion with God.
The popular misconception of the counter culture is that the
radicals of the era were not properly indoctrinated into the broader morals of
the U.S.
culture. This is a myth. The 20-ish rebels of the 1960s and 1970s grew up with
some form of school prayer, and the mandatory Pledge of Allegiance. They sited
by rote, “… one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.”[5] The
cause of the counter culture of the 1960s was not in God being taken out of the
schools, but in a deeper disturbance resulting from the Cold War. Do not
misconstrue this as condemnation of individual faith or religious observance.
Religion has been known to inspire greatness and great thought, however, when
applied at the mass cultural level, responding to the lowest common
denominator, great acts of charity as an expression of religion gets lost.
From an individual religious perspective this is all fine and
good; the addictive substance is replaced with a dependence on a spiritual
being. However, it is a poor replacement for observable, scientific cause and
effect. Moreover, as harsh as this may seem, the doctrine of popular Protestant
Calvinistic Christianity tends to negate personal responsibility for one’s
actions by placing all criminal and harmful actions “under the blood of Jesus.”
The individual, once becoming a Christian, is not likely to address their own
faults in depth, and can minimize any guilt response for the actions they
commit (this process is called neutralization). This arrogance of perfection,
goes so far as to say, in the words of a local pastor broadcast on KCLE out of Cleburne , Texas
The situation in the 1700s has similarities to what we have
today. Again quoting Criminological
Theory: Past to Present by Francis T. Cullen and Robert Agnew:
Laws
in the 1700s were frequently vague and open to interpretation. Judges, who held
great power, would often interpret these laws to suite their own purposes. So
punishment for a particular crime might vary widely, with some people receiving
severe penalties and others not being punished at all. Poor people, who could
not afford to bribe the judges, were at a special disadvantage. Further, the
punishments for many crimes were quite harsh, often involving torture and
death.[6]
So … what is different today?
Judges still interpret laws based on the perceived need of
the society in a given era. Punishments are still at the discretion of the
judges. While the blight of bribery has diminished somewhat in today’s legal
system, it has been replaced by the need for expensive attorneys.
While the power of the judges may be mitigated by the jury
system, the current inclination is towards crime control, as opposed to due
process. Therefore the power has been shifted back to the office on the beat.
Depending on how one views that particular drift, there may be less legally
sanctioned liberty than we take for granted in our society. Public Defenders,
provided to people accused of wrongdoing, following the Miranda ruling, are
also known as Penitentiary Drivers. They are more interested in supporting the
system than the accused perpetrator’s guilt or innocence, and just is a concept
best left to the theologians. Torture is still being practiced. As recently as
2006 there was a public debate in Congress as to the viability and acceptability
of torturing certain classes of political prisoners. We call them terrorists,
but that distinction is dubious at best.
We invaded Afghanistan ,
and we are still engaged in military operations there which have caused
civilian deaths. We call these prisoners terrorists, and justify interrogation
techniques which have never before been sanctioned by the U.S. federal government.
How long until that attitude spreads to sanctioning torture of domestic
criminals is anyone’s guess. While the debate can rage, torture is not an
adequate means to uncover incriminating evidence or information because the
victim will tell the interrogator anything to put an end to the session.
Torture is ineffective, it is not a deterrent. Moreover, it is an indication of
a society operating at a fear based security need (level 2 on Maslow’s
Hierarchy of Needs). We have regressed far past the Classical Theory of
Enlightenment to something akin to barbarism of the Dark Ages. The only good
thing that can be said is that there is no place to go but up.
Since Cesare Lambroso originally presented his ideas on
Positive Criminology in 1876, tens of thousands of hours have been logged
studying crime scientifically. Men and women through the centuries have looked
for solutions that address the root causes of crime.
Lambroso was a physician who worked extensively with the
military and the mentally ill. He first proposed through his medically trained
scientific approach, that criminals were “genetic throwbacks.” His idea was
that criminal behavior was explained by their general behavioral traits and was
due specifically to inherited genetic causes. He called them “primitive people
in the midst of modern society, and their primitive or savage state compels
them to engage in crime,” according to Cullen and Agnew.[7] This began the process of looking for
causality beyond the level of the spiritual or the rational.
Lambroso’s work, a pioneer work in the field is itself a bit
primitive, but it represents the first steps of understanding criminal
behavior. Towards the end of his life he concluded that his biological based
theory could only account for one third of criminals in society. In today’s
popular view, and therefore current political view, of the criminal justice
system, driven by the morality plays offered by Hollywood and corporations in
weekly episodes of CSI, Law and Order, Number, and Bones, even that one third
which we would now call the criminally insane are treated as if the are
rational and acting in their own self-interest.
A person strung out on drugs does not act rationally. They
have, through the current philosophy, been taught to believe that their
decision to get involved in drugs was somehow their own rational decision. Even
at this level we fail to affix the causality to the recklessness of youth and
poor judgment. We are bent on not addressing the issue because it is too
expensive. As a society we have come up with a one-size-fits-all approach when
addressing criminal behavior because it is easier and cheaper in the mind of
the public. Easier it may be, cheaper it is not. Yet, we think this approach is
working.
Since the nature of this report is to broach alternatives to
the current dialogue concerning the U.S. within the context of the globalized
era it is outside the scope to catalogue the human suffering, and the cost of
our current approach. In today’s criminal justice system people who are
mentally ill are routinely shuffled through the general prison population
because they are more likely to get treatment in the prisons than not. Yet, people
incarcerated for traffic offenses are dying due to lack of routine medical
care. The general population, operating at Maslow’s Safety level cannot
perceive this travesty since they see the criminal as a threat and pariah in
society. It is far easier at this level of general social dysfunctionality to
condemn the medically criminal than to contemplate what we are doing as a
nation.
Anyone who has studied criminology, or has worked in the
criminal justice system, knows that the current approach is not working. If
this approach was working, we would not have cases like Charles Manson.
Charles Manson was born in 1934. He was originally born as
“no name Maddox.” The records state that his mother was 18, and there was no
father. William Manson from whom he took his last name was one of many
boyfriends which Kathleen Maddox, Charles Manson’s mother, lived with. From
1939 on, his life was nothing but chaos and trouble due to the lack of any
parental care. He was abandoned to fend for himself at age 13. In 1951 he was
officially declared “aggressively antisocial.” In 1952, he was labeled
“dangerous.” By 1967 after spending half his life in criminal institutions, he
requested that his incarceration be made permanent. As harsh as conditions were
in prison, he knew no other form of life and had become successful in surviving
the hostile environment. Some would say that the prison experience was not
harsh enough, and prison should be a center for severe punishment. However, the
human being is adaptable and no matter how harsh the prisons become, the
antisocial and the dangerous will adapt. This is what Charles Manson found,
that he could survive among a population which was antisocial and dangerous.
His release in 1967 set off a chain of events which led to the Tate-LaBianca
murders in August 1969.[8]
His case remains a study in recidivism.
Since his case predates the current era, it is also proof
that the problems in society cannot be laid on the current administration.
Manson was born in the era when the secular society acknowledged their
dependence on God, and prayer was a part of school life. Yet Charles Manson
still evolved as a sadistic murderer and a leader among the misfits of the
1960s. It illustrates many facets of how one degrades to violent sub-human criminality
over the course of a lifetime. Within his case, there is the application of
labeling theory, social dysfunction, neutralization, and anomie (i.e. social
instability resulting from a breakdown of standards and values). At what point
would positive intervention have prevented the Tate-LaBianca murders? Moreover,
at what point is he considered rational? When he begged to be held in the
system was that the clue that something was wrong? His, by far, is not the only
case of such a failure. It has to be noted that since Charles Manson was facing
the death penalty for the celebrated murders, what can be said for the idea of
“rational choice” to “minimize hardship” or the deterrence of punishment?
General deterrence is the ability for the threat of punishment
to prevent an individual from committing a crime, or harming another person.
Specific deterrence is the ability of the threat of punishment for a specific
crime to deter a specific individual from committing a specific crime. The
Manson case tends to prove that deterrence doesn’t work. Moreover, when
addressing the limited events of work-place violence and school violence, both
considered crimes of passion, deterrence again is not a factor. This is true
for the phenomenon of Suicide by Cop or “Victim-Precipitated Homicide.” Moreover, as seen in the Columbine High
School Massacre, and the Virginia Tech Massacre, self-destruction is an aim, not
a deterrence. If viewed through Maslow’s work, it is way off the bottom of the
scale. So why?
Even those who argue that crime is a rational choice cite the
following as background factors in the criminal’s life: broken home,
institutional care, and parental crime.[9]
This goes back to crime being learned within intimate circles as proposed by
Edwin H. Sutherland and Donald R. Cassey’s A
Theory of Differential Association in 1960.[10] At
best it can be argued that a criminal act is a choice made by an already
dysfunctional person, and the threat of punishment is not a deterring factor.
Criminals do not think in those terms. The thrill of the now, or the
fulfillment of the need now, prevents the rational consideration of the future
consequences for the event, is not a factor.
The study in this type of dysfunctionality began in 1942, and
moved the focus from individual traits to the social environment. The body of
this collective work is commonly known as The Chicago School of Criminology.
The study was done in the city of Chicago , Illinois , by Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay of the University of Chicago
Shaw and McKay analyzed how measures of crime – such as
youths referred to juvenile court, truancy, and recidivism –
..
were distributed in the [residential] zones of [Chicago
As the city grew, each new wave of immigrants replaced the
previous wave of more established and upwardly mobile immigrants. Therefore, no
single race or creed had a monopoly on righteousness or criminality. This was
true for the Italian, the Pole, the Czech, the Swede, the Puerto Rican, the
Mexican, or the African American. As each group in the nation assimilates and
moves upward economically, they are able to find stable environments in which
to live. The next group then occupies the transient, dysfunctional
neighborhoods of strangers which lack the community bonds and turn a blind eye
to criminal precursors, such as gangs loitering on the streets day and night
because they cannot find a place in the accepted economic system.
The African American situation is different and more
complex because many have not been able to shake off the stigma of
institutional segregation of the African American community within the larger
Anglo-Saxon nation. From 1865, until 1964 African Americans were not allowed to
assimilate.
Robert Sampson and William Julius Wilson reexamined Shaw and
McKay’s work in the 1980s. Again quoting from Cullen and Agnew’s Criminological Theory: Past to Present:
…
The near apartheid conditions in which African Americans live create intense
“social isolation – defined as the lack of contact or of sustained interaction
with individuals and institutions that represent mainstream society.” In
response, cultural values emerge that do not so much approve of violence and
crime but rather define such actions as an unavoidable part of life …[12]
Note that the statement is discussing current situations in
the 1980s and 1990s, but echoes the situation which developed along the U.S.
Gulf Cost following Hurricane Katrina.
Both Louis Farrakah and Bill Cosby have rebuked individuals
in the African American community with the mantra of individual responsibility.
Louis Farrakah, and the Nation of Islam (not to be confused with the Islamic
Fundamentalist movement out of the Middle-East) The Nation of Islam organized
the Million Man March on October 16, 1995, to “save the race.” The message was
one of the individual rising above the demeaning effect of the dysfunctional
social order by getting involved on an individual level to assist others. This
in turn resulted in a spike of 13,000 applications to adopt at-risk African American
children.
Murder remains the number one cause of death for African American
males up to 35 years of age. It is an appalling statistic in U.S. society.
Social welfare programs designed to increase the functionality in the
dysfunctional neighborhoods are constantly on the cutting-block because this statistic
is seen as an “unavoidable part of life” by the Anglo-Saxon and the African American
community at large.
The criminological community within the United States ,
let alone the ethos of the Christian culture, tell us it is not “unavoidable.”
To this we add the voices of many social leaders around the nation including,
but not limited to, Mr. Farrakah and Mr. Cosby. In an interdependent society
under the formation of a new social contract we can address the issues of crime
and violence if we want to!
The United States
today is focused on developing China ,
and fighting with the E.U. over the control of the World Bank. It is engaged in
bloody combat with decaying allied régimes in Afghanistan
and Iraq .
Pakistan is crumbling into
fundamentalist chaos while Iran
goads the U.S. , the U.K. and Israel . The U.S. is so obsessed with global
events that it is ignoring the criminal incubators still breeding hardened
criminals within its own borders. This is a far bigger threat to the nation than
the “Islamic- Fascist Terrorist,” and it is 100% within our control.
The current approach to crime is classical. The rational
nature of the criminal has to be questioned. Is there any Vietnam era veteran,
having spent time in-country, who will disagree that living in a “War Zone”
alters a person’s concept of what is rational? Does living in a place where the
concept of the sanctity of life is discarded affect one’s view of life? The
idea that violence is “unavoidable” has become a mantra in today’s society at
large. On the right, it is expressed within the necessity of being armed for
personal protection. On the left, especially in the aftermath of the Virginia
Tech Massacre, it is expressed as the need for more police intervention in
conjunction with gun control. Neither is going to address the social view that
we have to live in a violent nation. Each argument is a “quick fix” that does
not address the root cause. One has to question the health and functionality of
a nation so blind to its own dark nature, and the dark nature of the capitalist
economic model.
[1]
Cullen, F., & Agnew, R. (2006). Criminological Theory: Past to Present
(2nd ed.). New York :
Roxbury Publishing Company, p 15.
[2]
Cullen, F., & Agnew, R. (2006). Criminological Theory: Past to Present
(2nd ed.). New York :
Roxbury Publishing Company, p 15.
[3]
largely due to the separation of church and state prescribed within the words
of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which states: Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof …
[4]
“Dry drunk, [or dried out
drunk]” according to Wikipedia, “is a term used, often disparagingly, by
members of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and by substance abuse counselors who
subscribe to the AA theory of alcoholism to describe the recovering alcoholic
who is no longer drinking but whose thought processes are considered to
continue to be distorted by the thought patterns of addiction.”
[5]
Pledge of Allegiance. (2008, June 18). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
Retrieved 03:49, June 18, 2008, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pledge_of_Allegiance&oldid=220049542
[6]
Cullen, F., & Agnew, R. (2006). Criminological Theory: Past to Present
(2nd ed.). New York :
Roxbury Publishing Company.
[7]
Cullen, F., & Agnew, R. (2006). Criminological Theory: Past to Present
(2nd ed.). New York :
Roxbury Publishing Company, p 18.
[8]
Charles Manson. (2007, May 21). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.
Retrieved 15:06, May 21, 2007, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Manson&oldid=132441255
[9]
Cullen, F. T., & Agnew, R. (Eds.). (2003). Criminological Theory: Past
to Present (2nd ed.). Los Angeles :
Roxbury Publishing Company, p. 281.
[10]
Cullen, F. T., & Agnew, R. (Eds.). (2003). Criminological Theory: Past
to Present (2nd ed.). Los Angeles :
Roxbury Publishing Company, p. 131.
[11]
Cullen, F. T., & Agnew, R. (Eds.). (2003). Criminological Theory: Past
to Present (2nd ed.). Los Angeles :
Roxbury Publishing Company, p. 96.
[12]
Cullen, F. T., & Agnew, R. (Eds.). (2003). Criminological Theory: Past
to Present (2nd ed.). Los Angeles :
Roxbury Publishing Company, p. 100.
Comments
Post a Comment