Federal Attitudes and Sentencing, 6-21-2010

 One more piece on sentencing and then onto the federal government. As I have said all along, I have two attitudes towards the sentence I am facing: subjective and objective. What I call the objective raises what remains of my bad temper more than does my subjective viewpoint. Let's talk about the objective viewpoint.

The federal Sentencing Guidelines exist to give an objective fig leaf to what is too often a subjective process: the decision-making of judging. Using numbers in the way of the Sentencing Guidelines has more to do with numerology than anything objectively rational. Numerology is to mathematics what astrology is to astronomy. I guess the United States Supreme Court was too polite to say this in Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007). I see no reason for protecting legal fictions any longer.

Politicians have been winning elections for far too long on the slogan of getting tough on crime. What they do not tell the public is that crime has different causes. Actually getting tough on crime would then mean getting tough on poverty and education and mental health and class distinctions and moral/ethical education and popular attitudes such as greed is good and American racism. Any of those probably confound some political stance other than getting tough on crime.  Those not confounding some political stance lack the pungency for fitting on a bumper sticker. Finally, they require more work from the politicians and the bureaucrats and us than does making the criminal more stringent.

Politicians must protect their allies in the bureaucracy. Increasing the range of federal law increases the scope of federal bureaucrats' power. No one gives up power willingly.

Which means no one setting criminal justice policy really can acknowledge such things as the failure of the "War on Drugs" in ending the drug trade. That "war" was actually a success for increasing federal power and federal employment. Which is why the "War on Drugs" can never end.

The federal government can behave this way since it has so much money at its disposal. I hate admitting Rush Limbaugh got this right. How else can I explain the federal government requiring prison time for almost all felonies? No probation, no home detention, no work release - the presumption is for prison at the taxpayers' expense. I will bet the U.S. Congress never considered the cost of all those criminal statutes. After all, the U.S. can afford anything.

Except that no country can afford everything, especially us now. Congress needs to look at alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders. 

sch

[Here I made a big cut. I do not think it will pass muster with my monitoring software. The software would not let me submit a story to the Saturday Evening Post! Besides, it is a digression into my case and others of like type, and I think those points have been discussed in depth already. You miss a dull redundancy, and I miss typing the dullness. There have been some ineffective steps towards alternative punishments. Removing the minimum prison time has gotten nowhere, since the politicians fear they will look weak on crime. They have Willie Horton on their minds. sch 12-11-22.]