Friday, November 2, 2007

The Fire This Time

As California fire fighters continued fighting to put out the final bits of the terrible fire season of '07, prosecutors in LA grappled with whether to bring criminal charges against a 10 year old whose admitted playing with matches apparently started one of the major blazes last month. Another option is to hit the parents with a massive civil suit for the millions of dollars the fire consumed (although since they lived in a trailer on a ranch its not likely they are loaded). According to the reporting of Jean-Paul Renaud, Andrew Blankstein and Megan Garvey, in the Los Angeles Times, fire officials think charges against a 10 year old are unlikely, but in Orange County, a twelve year old has been arrested for an October 22nd blaze.

The fact that criminal charges against children would be pending for these fires shows how much fear of crime has twisted the way Americans think about risk. Arson ranks in the top 3 or 4 causes of California's wild fires, and clearly deserves criminal punishment when committed by people capable of criminal responsibility, but does anyone who lives near the reach of wildfire (and that includes me, although this year early rains brought an early end to the Northern California fire season) believe that they could stop worrying if 100 percent of arson could be deterred? (Let alone the far smaller percentage than could actually be deterred). Most such fires are set by accidents, sparks from welding, a badly put out cigarette, or by downed electrical lines (perhaps we can prosecute some of those people for criminal negligence or just invent a new strict liability crime). Most essentially, wildfire is a natural feature of the California landscape that development has largely overlooked.

The fact that from the beginning of this fall's major wildfires, press reports focused on the question of arson, is a demonstration of how much crime grips our imagination of disaster. Just as in the coverage of the flooding of New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the California wildfires confront us with a terrifying new kind of threat the combines natural and social disaster to produce potential catastrophes. Trying to fathom this staggering threat to all of our futures, the American collective eye seizes upon the familiar figure of the criminal as the central pivot around which to frame disaster.

But what Katrina and the southern California fires challenge us to do is make major reinvestment in infrastructure and undertake far more vigorous governance of land use in our metropolitan areas. But such steps require the confidence in government and the social trust that fear of crime erodes.

Thursday, November 1, 2007

What do you get from mass incarceration? Staph

Correctional officers at Folsom State Prison here in California were hospitalized recently. The culprit wasn't a prisoner, it was Staphylococcus aureus, sometimes called "staph," typically a relatively minor infection (although I've always had bad experiences with it) but buffed up into a life threatening virus in the conditions of California's catastrophically overcrowded prisons (Folsom has 4,000 inmates in a complex "designed" for half that number).

The incident was brought before California's Division of Occupational Safety and Health (CalOSHA) by the correctional officers' union (CCPOA)on behalf of the stricken officers and yesterday the agency fined the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation $21,000 according to Judy Lin's reporting in the SacBee.

The ruling is yet another measure of the prison's system deepening crisis. The crisis and the lawsuits that have brought the crises to the public attention have exposed a different side of mass imprisonment. The point of prison may be punishment (at least California law says so), but it is ultimately the government of human beings that is involved. When a population is herded together with virtually no thought to its human needs what follows is at best a human rights disaster and at worst the start of biological catastrophes that can threaten the general population (both prisoners and correctional officers come home).

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Capital Punishment Moratoriums and the Politics of Death

The Supreme Court's last minute stay of Mississippi execution yesterday marks the beginning of a moratorium on capital punishment in the U.S. that will last at least until the Court decides a case on lethal injection that it accepted this fall and will hear argument on in January. (Read Linda Greenhouse's reporting). The Court is being asked to decide how lower courts should proceed in considering whether the current method of lethal injection violates the Constitution's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment."

The stay, which could last until summer (the Supreme Court usually resolves all pending matters prior to ending its term in June) or longer, is unlikely to result in a permanent obstacle to executions. Unlike the Supreme Court's moratorium in the early 1970s, the Court is not considering fundamental challenges to whether the death penalty is constitutional. Even if the current method of lethal injection is found wanting, it is likely that some altered method will ultimately prove acceptable.

Still, moratoriums are interesting things. Two quick predictions about the impact of this one. First the utopian hope. The American death penalty is a bizarre creature. In most states where it exists, it is an expensive and incredibly lengthy legal process that only rarely result in an execution. No one, not even its supporters, really believe that capital punishment is indispensalbe thinks (unlike prisons which as Frank Zimring points out in his book The Contradictions of American Capital Punishment, few can imagine dispensing with altogether). The rate of Americans sentenced to death has declined in recent years as have actual executions (reasons are unclear). In such a situation, it is always possible that once it stops, this complicated and unnecessary machinery will never start again (Keine Chara! as my Bubbie would have said).

The second scenario is more likely. As I explore in Chapter 2 of Governing through Crime, the death penalty has been a boon to state politicians, especially governors who have been able to turn judicial obstacles to executions into opportunities to demonstrate their own loyalty to the public's darkest fears of crime. In short, look for governors in the affected states to blame the courts for favoring the interests of murderers over victims. The posture of this case which focuses on the suffering of inmates undergoing execution is particularly felicitous for this kind of politics. Courts, with their deliberation and formality inevitably seem out of line with the emotional logics unleashed by violent crime and its consequences.

Saturday, October 27, 2007

"Once you execute someone, you can’t unexecute him,”

As always, the limits of sovereign power are on display in the US nation building experiment in Iraq. The execution of Saddam Hussein last January marked a major assertion of sovereignty by the troubled Shi'ite led government of the Green Zone. Now according to reporting by RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and ALISSA J. RUBIN in today's New York Times, a new round of executions of regime officials is on hold as Iraqi and American leaders worry out the implications of forceful execution or mercy. In its role as a tool of sovereignty making the death penalty is inevitably double edged, especially in a civil war situation. You become the King when you can execute rebellious barons (Friedrich III, Hapsburg emperor in the 15th century is a good example). The ability to reduce the former wielders of state power to lifeless bodies is as clear a demonstration of a revolutionary passing of power from one sovereign vehicle (the Baath party) to another (the government of Iraq).

At the same time, the killing of a leader respected by large portions (albeit a minority) or the population, and in violation of norms associated with military surrender is a dangerous thing. It can lead the aggrieved minority to view its differences with the state as irreconcilable (a good example is the hatred of the Cuban government among exiles stoked by the early wave of executions following the success of Castro's revolutionaries). An act of well timed mercy, in contrast, may provide the cultural cover for a reconciliation.

State building needs sovereignty (which capital punishment can provide at a high price) but it needs so much more than sovereignty. As an American military officer was quoted by the Times: "once you execute someone, you can't unexecute them."

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Stop Them Before they Legislate Again: California's Lock-em-Up Couple Goes Back to the Ballot

As California prisons continue into a second year of state of emergency with nearly twice as many prisoners as spaces (even with the most optimistic design specs) and a chronic medical care collapse which causes at least one unnecessary death a week, some California law makers are busy at work making sure even more Californian's go to prison for longer.

According to the reporting of Patrick McGreevey in the LA Times, the husband and wife legislative team of Geoorge and Sharon Runner, who brought us the panoply of expensive and draconian sex offender policies called Jessica's Law has now teemed up with the father of the Three Strikes law to bring yet another crack down initiative to the ballot.

The new initiative, dubbed "The Safe Neighborhoods Act: Protect Crime Victims, Stop Gangs and Thugs" would target gang members and do more to lash California's budget to spending on crime. It has also been endorsed by LA County Sheriff Lee Baca and other law enforcement leaders. Some of the provisions include:

* Creating a nine-member Early Intervention and Rehabilitation Commission to evaluate and make recommendations on existing and future gang-reduction programs.

* Increasing by 10 years the sentence given convicted felons caught with guns.

* Requiring that convicted gang offenders register with local law enforcement each year for five years after conviction or their release from custody.

* Allowing admission of sworn statements by gang crime witnesses who have died or who are unavailable to testify at the time of prosecution because of intimidation.

* Increasing penalties for individuals who provide contraband to gang members in prison.

* Authorizing the seizure of cars in which a gun is found that was used during the commission of a crime by the registered owner.

* Prohibiting bail for illegal immigrants charged with violent gang crimes.


Gangs are the preferred target for crime warriors because they provide a fits all explanation for urban violence and offer abundant racial stereotypes around which to hang satisfying terms like "thugs." Law enforcement loves gangs because it gives them something that looks like an army to have their crime war against. Legislators like the Runners love them, because they provide the perfect enemy to focus a distracted public on.

The only problem is that prison itself is the biggest gang producing institution in the state of California and this law will only guarantee more people get sent to prison, more often, and for longer. In the meantime, the intensely local relations and problems that lead to most youth violence will continue to go unaddressed while the Runners and their fellow crime entrepreneurs campaign on.

Monday, October 22, 2007

Prison Tycoon 3

Signs of the times? Are we a the end of the era of mass incarceration? Or, is this just the time to encourage the video slacker in your life to take up a new skill enhancing gaming thrill.

Prison Tycoon 3, A popular series of video games invites the player to try their hand at running a private prison.

Copy for the box on the latest edition:

The latest sequel to the #1 best-selling prison tycoon!

Brick by Brick and Day to Day – You’re the Man. Male or female? Civilian
or military? Build your prison for profit and manage every essential
decision.

The Devil’s in the details. From the guards you hire to the food you
serve, every choice you make will ripple throughout your prison.

Back on the chain gang. Assign prisoners work detail from cleaning and
maintenance work to back-breaking manual labor.

Throw away the key? You determine whether to release your prisoners on
parole or keep them locked down tight to protect security.

NEW! Danger Zone. Manage gangs and prisoner morale to avoid riot,s but
remember, keeping the peace in men’s and NEW women’s facilities requires
different tactics.

NEW! Contain the military’s worst offenders. It takes a unique skill set
to control the worst this nation has to offer in NEW military prisons.


Back of the Box:

Crack the Whip! Take the reigns of a privately run prison. you are
responsible for the care, custody, and control of individuals who have
been arrested. Begin with a low security prison and build it up to a
SuperMax. From construction to daily operations, you must protect society
while turning a profit. It’s time for lockdown.

Country Club or Billy Club? Manage security levels, food rations,
recreation opportunities, and much more. How tough will you be?

En Guard. Hire trust-worthy prison guards and arm them with weapons, riot
shields, and guard dogs to maintain peace and control. Keep your eye on
your budget – underpay and organized crime will run rampant in your
prison.

NEW! Watch with an eagle eye! NEW day and night gameplay allows you to
monitor all illegal activities 24/7. Keep a look out for escapees,
contraband and illegal activity.


(Thanks to Ashley Aubuchon for calling this to my attention)

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Fear of Crime

In my book, Governing through Crime, I argued that over the last 4 decades of the 20th century American governments and citizens placed violent crime at the center of their fears and efforts to control risk for reasons largely unique to the US. Both federalism and the division of powers make governing hard in America and give lots of power to engaged minorities.

Now that fear of crime that seemed so distinctively America in the 20th century, seems to be spreading to other societies. Two stories in today's New York Times profiled the increasing salience of precaution against violent crime to ordinary citizen consumers in Japan and South Africa. In Japan, in the absence of much evidence that crime is really going up, designers offer women's clothing design to allow wearers to suddenly appear as if a vending machine. In South Africa, where violent gun point robberies and kidnapping have grown alarmingly common, a popular reggae star is shot to death in apparent carjacking, as he drops of his 15 year old son at the home of his brother.

What is causing so much fear of crime in Japan? American TV shows?

What is causing so much real violence in SA?

What alternatives are there to growing demands on both governments that they address violent crime?