« October 2005 | Main | December 2005 »

Signs o' the Times

You know what makes a good topic? Well for me, it’s something that when you read about it, you instinctively think ‘I agree with this’. Then you read it again and think ‘wait, I disagree’. Then you read it a third time and say ‘screw it, I’m off for a beer’. Far more interesting than the cut and dried, right or wrong issues. Today’s story that the Supreme Court rejected an appeal by a man against having to carry a sign admitting wrongdoing for stealing the mail was one such topic for me. Is it a fair punishment or is it unconstitutional, cruel and unusual?

I went to the trouble of rooting out the appellate court decision (the internet is handy dandy stuff) which you can read in full here if you’re curious - it’s actually highly readable for a court opinion, so give it a go. I recommend digging into things like this, because often you’ll find elements of the case they don’t bother to relate in detail in the news story; for example the fact the accused in question was arrested (and convicted!) for stealing mail while waiting for a hearing on THIS case of stealing mail. In addition, the guy had a criminal record encompassing criminal mischief, various driving violations, battery, and other things. So, not to put too fine a point on it, the guy is a punk. Now, punkness aside, the question is whether or not the sentence at hand was reasonable (and for that matter, constitutional).

To give the highlights of the ruling, the majority of the court stated that since prison recidivism was so high, and that the likelihood of being shamed or subject to cruel treatment in prison was so high, public shaming was neither cruel nor unusual by comparison (I would go along with this, if not for the fact that the public isn’t allowed to visit a prison and stare at the inmates, yell things, mock them, or otherwise get entertainment from the fact they’re behind bars). The court also held that since the sign-wearing was a sentence in conjunction with jail and community service, the overall goal of the sentence as a whole could be considered, rather than each part of the sentence individually (which is important, because waving the sign in the absence of any other punishment likely would have been regarded as unlawful).

Public ‘naming and shaming’ is nothing new in the United States, or many other countries around the world. In days of yore, the pillory (or the ‘stocks’) was oft used to imprison debtors and the like for the public’s entertainment. In more recent times, DUI drivers have had their pictures posted in the local paper. In fact, it was not so long ago in the grand scheme of things (in this country, a couple of hundred years, give or take) that such public shaming punishments were a more common alternative to prison; prison costs are much more significant than the price of some rotten fruit or a branding iron, after all. The concept of humiliation as a method of punishment is therefore not unusual.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Here’s where my knee-jerk reaction kicked in. I started thinking ‘no’, swayed towards ‘maybe, in certain cases’, then to ‘definitely, for some cases’, then all the way back to ‘no’ again (I pride myself on my wishy washy feebleness). This case was really interesting to me because it strikes to some of the fundamental questions of crime and punishment. Is the punishment for crime intended to deter? Is it intended to correct and rehabilitate? Is it intended to protect society from the criminal ? Is it to satisfy the victim (and by extension, society)’s need for retribution?

These four major goals (deterrence, rehabilitation, protection and retribution) form the basis of law. Criminal laws are drafted with these goals in mind, with greater deference given to different ends, depending upon the opinions and agenda of the author. Shaming punishments definitely satisfy that innate urge for retribution, and to a lesser extent, perhaps, deterrence.

I think deterrence is hardest to quantify, as one does not often see opinion polls of what crimes did NOT take place due to a punishment (“I was going to kill him, but then I realized I might go to prison, so I didn’t…”). Deterrence, for me, is the most shaky foundation to base a law on. People are not deterred by punishment; rather they are deterred by the likelihood of getting CAUGHT. But even if it were possible to catch 100% of people that would break the law, there would still be crime (crimes of passion, of misadventure, of ignorance of the law). So, deterrence as a theory doesn’t hold a lot of water for me.

Second to deterrence is retribution; what is fitting retribution for one crime may not be for another. In particular, the victim of a crime might demand a punishment that someone uninvolved in the case would consider excessive. In murder trials for example, sometimes the victim’s family forgive the accused, and sometimes they do not. Which family is right? An impossible question to answer, for me.

As a shaming punishment falls firmly (to me at least) in the category of retribution, this is why I am dubious as to its merit. Firstly I think ‘fitting retribution’ is a subjective judgment, and thus difficult to evenly mete out - what might cause shame to one person would to another may just inspire contempt or amusement. Secondly, and more importantly, the reason we have juries and judges is to provide impassive, sober consideration of a case on its merits, and then unbiased and logical judgment at its conclusion (well, at least in theory). We then rely on the state to carry out sentence in an impartial and fair manner to all. To make society a part of a sentence by deliberately setting out to humiliate a person in a public spectacle invites almost a lynch mob mentality. Justice must be done, and be seen to be done, but justice should be meted out by sober professionals, and it should not become a circus entertainment.

However, the Supreme Court let all this stand; apparently there is nothing unconstitutional, or cruel and unusual, about such scarlet-letter style punishment in this day and age. This is a pity to me. There has been crime throughout recorded history, through regimes and punishments far more terrible than anything meted out in the United States or Europe today. Crime will always be with us, which is the ugly fact. How we approach the problem speaks in large part to the kind of society we are. Do we excoriate, humiliate and take gleeful vengeance, or do we look beyond instinct to the larger questions of rehabilitation and prevention?

Sadly, just when I’m settled on the notion of humiliation being an ineffectual and inappropriate method of correction, then I picture the likes of Ken Lay or Jack Abramoff in a set of stocks wearing a sign like ‘I WIPED OUT YOUR LIFE SAVINGS’ or ‘I BRIBE CONGRESS’. And then I’m not so sure that I don’t like the idea of public shaming. But then I crash back to earth. Guys like this don’t feel shame, or they wouldn’t do what they do. But what they do fear is poverty. Even better than the image of Ken Lay wearing a sign of remorse is Ken Lay wearing a McDonalds outfit, working out his retirement. Much better - and I don’t need him wearing the circus signs to enjoy it.

Posted by union_jack at 11:51 PM | Comments (8)

Limey Laptops?

It's probably not what you're thinking by the title. The only 'Limey Laptop' I could name would be the hoary old Sinclair ZX Spectrum; back in days of yore in the UK this was the principal duelist to the Commodore 64. No XBox or PS2 for us, oh no; in my day, we had 8 bit sprites in two-tone color. And we were lucky! We also had to walk uphill to school every day in the snow (both ways). Oh, the stories I could tell; like how my Commodore had a huge crack splitting the keyboard, the result of an angry fist - my mother would ask 'why do you get so upset at losing a game?' and I'd retort 'Because it's just a game!' (My logic being at the time that if a mere game could beat me, I would respond with a healthy dose of violence. The game still won, but I felt better). Memories... but I digress. So what are these Limey Laptops?

Actually, they're not Limey Laptops - but they are lime-colored. You may have heard some buzz about them, because it's the sort of story that leaders like to trumpet as evidence of their concern for the teeming masses. The program is the brainchild of Nicholas Negroponte, of the MIT Media lab. As reported in many stories over the past few weeks, the 'Limey Laptop' is in essence a tiny computer, intended to aid children in developing nations in getting a head start in technology and learning. The program was lauded at the recent United Nations World Summit on Information Technology. The goal is noble; I'm sure noone would (on the record, at least) begrudge a child a chance at a better life through education.

So why is it my visceral reaction to this program was not 'Hurrah, computers for all', but rather 'I won't be too surprised if the first email from a lucky recipient says something like "d3ar un1ted stAtes, th4nk u 4 teh lApt0ps. plz send f00d. w3 r hungRy."'?

In the interests of fair disclosure, to you, gentle reader, I will note here that I've worked in the technology field for almost ten years now. As a result of this, my enthusiasm for the magic of computers has been somewhat tempered by the bitter experience of server crashes, network failures, viruses, bugs, memory leaks, hacking attempts, beeping pagers, incessant emails, and false claims. I swear, if it wasn't for the pornography, I wouldn't bother with a computer at all. Did I say pornography? I meant the complete works of Shakespeare. Honest. *

Getting back on topic to this 'One Laptop Per Child' program. It is a snappy title for a program. Simple, visionary, and bold. I like it. It gives you something to aim for. Sort of like 'No Child Left Behind', or 'Peace In Our Time', or 'There's Always Room For Jello'. Unfortunately, I think it'll take more than slogans to actually get something done. I would agree laboring to give kids a chance is no bad thing at all. I don't doubt the sincerity of the men and women of MIT who want to bring this technology to people. I just doubt their common sense.

To me, the entire program smells a little of hubris, and a lot of elite ivory tower academe thinking. One goal, as quoted by Fortune Magazine, is that children will teach themselves how to read and write, once someone shows them how to boot up the machine and fire up some friendly speak-and-spell type application. Now, I suppose being in some ghetto or wartorn village will give kids a lot of incentive to figure out a way out of there, but are they really serious here? Let's contrast that with kids in this country, many of which leave High School barely literate as it is - and they don't have to worry about insurrectionist movements taking over their school and turning it into a bomb factory. I think they're expecting a little much of the children involved. "Here, kid. Crank this sucker, teach yourself English, and you can start sending Nigerian spam email through your mesh network to feed your family."

This notion that children will teach themselves seems to be a tacit acknowledgement of the fact that many - some would say most - of the children that these programs are intended to reach may not have schools, classrooms, teachers, or for that matter, homes. The notion that parachuting in a laptop will act as a magic panacea to cure these bedrock inequities in society is more insulting than it is laughable. I'm all for teaching someone to fish so they can feed themselves, and so on. But this is sort of like giving someone in Sub-Saharan Africa a DVD of 'Sport Bass Fishing For Beginners'. They might need, you know. A rod. Some water. Oh, and some fish to catch.

The initial delivery of these laptops is intended for foreign governments, who will then make the laptops available to their citizens, among them China. Yup. When I think about free and open access to information technology, I think China! There is also interest closer to home; It seems Governor Mitt Romney down in Massachusetts is thinking about investing in this program. This really DID make me laugh. Maine provided iBooks to their K10 students; Mass. is going the hand-cranked route. Oh, the social stigma for the kids. 'I have an XBox 360!' 'I have a wind-up green thing.' 'Ahahhaha! You SUCK!'

With optimism characteristic of this program, it is hoped that the machines will be so ubiquitous and prominent there will be 'community pressure' that they don't get sold (for say, food). I like that label. 'Community pressure'. Maybe the sort of community pressure that forces kids into warlord armies, or into sex slavery, or any number of horrible fates. Yeah. I can see the social stigma of stealing laptops from children and stripping them for parts would really deter people. I'm kind of waiting to see the laptops delivered to some sweatshop, the hand crank converted to a pedal-powered system, then lining up ten 5 year olds, shackling them to a bench, and forcing them to pedal so they can power a Zimbabwe porn operation made up of linked-together lime laptops. 'The customer says the server is slow! Pedal faster, brats!' 'But we were supposed to learn English!' 'Shut up! No soup for you!'

Naturally, that's a worst-worst case scenario. I admit, my thinking tends to the pessimistic when it comes to any program that relies on the intrinsic good of mankind to prosper; mainly because if mankind had intrinsic good, we wouldn't NEED these programs. Oh, well; if nothing else, it forces development of cheap technology that might make its way to those who can use it to help themselves. Without optimists setting goals, we would have nothing at all to aim for. Optimists have to think up programs like this - but I think they need a few good pessmists to run it.

* If you were looking for a link to pornography, I'm sorry to disappoint. Besides, if you can't find any, you're honestly just not looking hard enough.

Posted by union_jack at 08:51 PM | Comments (0)

Prisons? I don't recall that, Senator.

If you're a conspiracy theorist, this week's news that the Central Intelligence Agency was operating 'Black Prisons' in Eastern Europe was excellent fodder for speculation. I should probably note here that 'Black Prisons' refers to the intelligence designation of 'Black' which is, I suppose super duper extra top secret. At least, super duper extra top secret enough to go unnoticed for a couple of years before the airplanes dropping off bound and gagged guys in orange jumpsuits caused comment, I suppose.

These secret prisons are supposedly run by the CIA to interrogate prisoners from Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries. The reason that prisoners are located outside of the United States is a legal convenience; rules governing the treatment of US detainees do not apply when not on US soil (the Guantanamo base was deemed to be 'not US soil' for the purposes of holding prisoners). Guantanamo, run by the Department of Defence, is a separate operation from any CIA facility.

Guantanamo is the most famous facility with some disturbing accounts leaving its walls along with the few prisoners who have been released. About the only thing that can be said with any certainty is the detainees have been imprisoned for a number of years, most of them without charge, and have as yet no clear route to a trial and determination of their status. For the most part we (as in 'we the people') don't know who these people are, where they were apprehended, what the evidence is against them, or how long they are to be held. This bothers me - not least because, as an immigrant to this country, theoretically I could end up in Guantanamo if I suddenly turned around and started saying nice things about Osama.

While justice in this country (to be fair, in most any country) is often a matter of money, the basic rights of a prisoner in the United States - to a trial, a lawyer, an impartial judge, and a hearing - are pretty solid, no matter who the defendant is. Even Jeffrey Dahmer got a trial (true, he was beaten to death once in prison, but hey, you can't have everything). But for detainees in the 'War on Terror' there is no such right. This worries me. The concept that this country, which is really a beacon when it comes to human rights, can merrily make people disappear from the face of the earth without due process - and be happy about it! - just strikes me as wrong. I guess I'm a wishy washy hippy, but the idea of justice being done, and being seen to be done, always resonated with me. Indefinite detention by faceless State agencies is the antithesis of a free society, if you ask me.

Back home, Tony Blair is fighting political opposition to his plans to increase State powers to combat terrorism. In the wake of the London Underground bombings, changes to British law were proposed. Thanks to the legacy of the Northern Ireland troubles, we've had a Prevention of Terrorism Act in law which has provided for, among other things, the jailing of a suspect for a fixed time while evidence is gathered. Until recently, this was 14 days. Blair's government has proposed extending this to 90 days. Their explanation is that in the current environment, investigations span multiple agencies and countries and therefore police require more time to gather and present evidence to a judge.

Some members of Blair's own political party rebelled against this, joining with the opposition parties in Parliament to inflict the first defeat in the House of Commons for the current British Government. While I think some of the resistance was political point-scoring, not all of it was. There is genuine unease about extending police powers, even in the face of terrorist threats. Civil liberties organizations were positively up in arms about the proposals. Personally, while I don't like the idea of detention without charge, it's sort of strange to me that there would be such concern over a mere three month detention versus three years of dropping off the face of the earth entirely.

Over here, discomfort over the prisoner question seems to be rising. John McCain recently submitted a bill in the Senate requiring that detainees would be subject treatment under the Army Field Manual, no matter where they were located. It was passed by the senate 90-9. Getting the US Senate these days to agree on anything 90-9 is a minor miracle in itself. If anything is a mandate, this is. Unsurprisingly to me, the White House is very opposed to this notion. Dick Cheney has been making the rounds in the halls of the Senate trying to get exemptions from these rules for the CIA - who of course, run the aforementioned super secret decoder ring prisons. McCain has since promised to attach this prisoner treatment amendment to every Senate bill, until one comes across Bush’s desk he can’t veto (Based on this, it is my suspicion McCain needs to hire aides to carry his brass balls around for him in a special ambulatory device, as they are just too much for one man alone).

So, what is the answer? Clearly, governments must fight terror. Government must protect their citizens. I don’t have a problem with detaining suspects to protect the public. However, protection takes many forms. And one of the most fundamental is protection from being disappeared on secret evidence from secret accusers. I don’t want my Government interning people based on flimsy unseen evidence. This will not improve my security one whit. As for torture, while it might be satisfying on some raw emotional level to dole out pain to someone who bombs innocent people, once you start down that road, it becomes possible to rationalize all sorts of evil. Freedom has its price, and part of that price is not becoming that which you detest, in the pursuit of its protection. The end does not justify the means. In closing, I'll quote John McCain directly.

"The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don't deserve our sympathy," he said. "But this isn't about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies."

Posted by union_jack at 08:40 PM | Comments (1)

Say Cheese!

This one is just a quick entry (fear not, my verbal torrent of bad grammar will continue tomorrow) to hold you all over. If you don't read The Smoking Gun, I do recommend it as a regular stopover in your daily web-crawling. Sometimes it has pictures! And not only of scantily clad women. I give you these pictures in evidence that sometimes, we little guys (and gals) win one. If you're like me, CEO greed is something that really annoys you. These guys are already filthy, steaming rich; but too much is never enough for some people. So we get to see Dennis Kozlowski and Mark Swartz 's mugshots as they report to prison. You may recall these were the men at the helm of Tyco, convicted of grand larceny as they plundered that company like Blackbeard on a serving wench. Have a nice time in the big house, fellas. Try not to drop the soap.

Posted by union_jack at 11:29 PM | Comments (0)