I wrote:
>How is our incarceration rate a function of our conception of rights?
>You think countries that have *fewer* protections against unreasonable
>searches incarcerate fewer people? You think all those guys in jail were
>falsely accused?
Doug wrote:
"There's something deeply wrong with a society, esp one that thinks itself the freest on earth, that jails so many of its citizens. A black male faces a 25% lifetime chance of doing time. That's seriously fucked up. We do have some technical conception of "rights" and a fair trial, but entirely too many things are criminalized, and too many people are driven to "crime," either out of poverty, alienation, or madness."
Yes, but Doug that 25% probability does not represent laughing chance. Certainly we can agree that a great preponderance of the black males who do get locked up do the crimes they are accused of. I'm sure we would agree that many drug crimes represent unnecessary convictions, but I would suggest that one of the problems in the black community is that too many really villainous people roam about the ghetto and the police are indifferent. Look at the murder solution rate when the victim is black. Clearly these are situations where a crime has been committed and I certainly find it disturbing that the police are not doing enough to bring murderers to justice.
Our rights don't mean much if our society won't enforce the laws meant to protect them, but that doesn't mean that the United States conception of rights is wrong. Where the United States falls down on the job is in the area of responsibility, not rights. The powerful in this nation feel very little responsibility towards their fellow Americans (and none towards people outside the nation). For that matter, Americans in general feel very little responsibility towards each other. You could argue that the American approach of liberty first, responsibility afterwards is partly responsible for that, but it still doesn't mean we are wrong about liberty.
I suggest that the United States represents a great but very incomplete society. Liberty is enough to unite us but not enough to make us look after each other. We don't have the benefit of cultural consensus in the United States, but how realistic is it to depend on cultural consensus as the world moves forward? Look at Europe. Individually, the countries have (on average) a very high degree of cultural consensus and a very generous welfare state. What happens when that internal consensus has to link itself with outsiders? The Europeans are going through the same questions of confederation that we went through, so I think they are incomplete as well. They will have to decide whether the European state is there to guarantee liberty or responsibility and I think they will be forced to develop their concepts of liberty along American lines - at the level of federal Europe at least.
peace,
boddi