Empathy;
I've always been very interested in criminal justice-- in particular the use of penitentiaries here in the United States and the effect it has on society and vice versa. I would like to argue that Glee's David Karofsky has received from various outlets a backlash that essentially mirrors that of this country's stance on social justice, punishment, and redemption.
I. Neglect
The United States locks up more people proportionally than any other country in the world. We house one-fifth of the world's prisoners, but making up less than five percent of the total world population. California is especially bad with their three strikes law-- three repeat offenses gives you a minimum of 25 years in prison, no ifs, ands, or buts. California's economy is tanked, with a crippling debt and some of the highest taxes in the nation, largely due to their gigantic prison system.
The fact is that while violent crime has dipped slightly or have at least stayed constant for the past 30 years, the arrests for non-violent, victim-less crimes, including drug use and some small-time trafficking has skyrocketed. We are so intent on stamping out crime that we scarcely even care what the crime is, just if you've 'done something bad' you need to spend time away from society. We have essentially developed a system akin to stuffing our fingers in our ears, turning the other way and humming elevator music to ourselves. We don't like criminals, the huge migration from the cities into the suburbs since the 1950s is largely facilitated by our need to be 'away' from criminals, to live in little bubbles and not have to bother with 'bad people'.
II. Why it doesn't work
What has happened is that through the introduction of more and more inmates, we created a vicious circle for ourselves: with the increase of non-violent criminals entering jail with those that have murdered/stole/raped and a number of other terrible things, the toxic environment does little to rehabilitate and the non-violent criminals are much more inclined to become violent themselves. Also, with the increase of lockups, it's now acceptable, even a rite of passage to do time.
Prison at its core has two purposes: to keep 'bad' people away from society, and to administer justice and rehabilitation. As a politician, being 'tough on crime' is a popular stance, and a very lucrative, sneaky stance as well. So say you get elected into the office. Usually your term is four to six years. You see a drop in crime (or an increase in lockups, whichever) and your approval rate shoots up. Here's the thing: keeping people in prison costs money. But essentially, you don't really care because for the people doing 5 to 10 years or more, you're not responsible for tallying their expenses and costs on the local, county, or state in your budget, because that falls onto the shoulders of the guy elected after you, to support this inmate (costing on average 68 dollars a day to upkeep), while you reap the benefits of appearing 'tough'. Our political culture renders us unable to look past numbers and realize that there's not much talk of what crime is declining and what kind of people are we actually entering into the incarcerating system.
Even if people do get out of the system and geninuely want to change for the better-- it's incredibly difficult. A criminal record deters you from the workforce, public benefits, health care, education, the right to vote and many other sectors. You are pratically deemed a second class citizen, and for many in this case, going back to jail seems to be the only way to survive.
III. What redemption does
There is an interesting argument amongst those who oppose punishment, deeming it unnecessary and even harmful, is that if the true intent of locking someone us is to deter them from committing crimes. So what makes it alright to ever let out anyone at all? If someone has committed a crime, isn't there at least a slight chance they'll do something again? And if that's the case, why not just keep everyone in some sort of cell forever?
The United States simply does not have the resources or the manpower to keep up with our punitive ways. Rehabilitation is not only cheaper, but it is a much more safer for society on a whole. Because it is so damn expensive, many convicts are given shorter terms, and while it may seem better, this also means that actual criminals, the ones that have raped, murdered, and everything else is re-entering society as well too early.
Therefore, a push is needed for punishment and rehabilitation outside of the penitentiary. Instead of throwing them in a prison or ousting them out of society where it is likely no one will care about the individual, keeping them in society brings shame to the criminal, as well as letting them support their family who should not be crippled by the person's actions. The support of the community as well as relatives and friends allows for less government supervision and overstep, and in the end can mean all the difference.
IV. Tying it all in with Karofsky
What does this all have to do with Karofsky? A lot. It's distressing to see that many people have simply tuned this kid out-- to look down on him and call for his death, ousting, or simply ignore him completely.
Do I see Karofsky as a harmless, innocent bystander caught in the wrong place, wrong time? Not really. I think many people who have little faith in Karofsky are baffled by pro-Karofsky fans, and are tempted to believe that there is general acceptance for his behavior and are repulsed at the idea of 'letting him off the hook' by allowing him back into school, but what I want to point out is that PEOPLE DO NOT JUST GO AWAY. You can lock people up all you want, shun them all you want, but they are not animals, they are not monsters, they are people who are entitled to dignity, equality, and justice just like everyone else. We need to be more selective on who to actually seperate from society, and who is capable of reforming. Simply branding someone as 'unreparable' or a 'lost cause' does little to help the person and ultimately society at large. When we give up on our fellow citizens, we are much more inclined to believe that people are stagnant, unchanging, and unworthy of redemption. We believe in a society that arbitrarily punishes not for reform, but because we want to feel in control. We believe in a society that would rather hurt than help, and one that does not look forward to the future, but still so firmly stuck in the past and looking for ways to profit off of it.
So I want to throw out my support for Karofsky. I want it to be shown that it's not crazy to make mistakes and atone for them. I believe in the kid that while isn't innocent, is not completely in control either and needs guidance more than anything. I want to have it affirmed that we are for better or worse stuck with each other until the day they figure out how some of us can live on the moon. We can not shun anymore, we can not dole out punishment just for punishment's sake, and we certainly are not any safer, wiser, or kinder in doing so.
Thank you.
I. Neglect
The United States locks up more people proportionally than any other country in the world. We house one-fifth of the world's prisoners, but making up less than five percent of the total world population. California is especially bad with their three strikes law-- three repeat offenses gives you a minimum of 25 years in prison, no ifs, ands, or buts. California's economy is tanked, with a crippling debt and some of the highest taxes in the nation, largely due to their gigantic prison system.
The fact is that while violent crime has dipped slightly or have at least stayed constant for the past 30 years, the arrests for non-violent, victim-less crimes, including drug use and some small-time trafficking has skyrocketed. We are so intent on stamping out crime that we scarcely even care what the crime is, just if you've 'done something bad' you need to spend time away from society. We have essentially developed a system akin to stuffing our fingers in our ears, turning the other way and humming elevator music to ourselves. We don't like criminals, the huge migration from the cities into the suburbs since the 1950s is largely facilitated by our need to be 'away' from criminals, to live in little bubbles and not have to bother with 'bad people'.
II. Why it doesn't work
What has happened is that through the introduction of more and more inmates, we created a vicious circle for ourselves: with the increase of non-violent criminals entering jail with those that have murdered/stole/raped and a number of other terrible things, the toxic environment does little to rehabilitate and the non-violent criminals are much more inclined to become violent themselves. Also, with the increase of lockups, it's now acceptable, even a rite of passage to do time.
Prison at its core has two purposes: to keep 'bad' people away from society, and to administer justice and rehabilitation. As a politician, being 'tough on crime' is a popular stance, and a very lucrative, sneaky stance as well. So say you get elected into the office. Usually your term is four to six years. You see a drop in crime (or an increase in lockups, whichever) and your approval rate shoots up. Here's the thing: keeping people in prison costs money. But essentially, you don't really care because for the people doing 5 to 10 years or more, you're not responsible for tallying their expenses and costs on the local, county, or state in your budget, because that falls onto the shoulders of the guy elected after you, to support this inmate (costing on average 68 dollars a day to upkeep), while you reap the benefits of appearing 'tough'. Our political culture renders us unable to look past numbers and realize that there's not much talk of what crime is declining and what kind of people are we actually entering into the incarcerating system.
Even if people do get out of the system and geninuely want to change for the better-- it's incredibly difficult. A criminal record deters you from the workforce, public benefits, health care, education, the right to vote and many other sectors. You are pratically deemed a second class citizen, and for many in this case, going back to jail seems to be the only way to survive.
III. What redemption does
There is an interesting argument amongst those who oppose punishment, deeming it unnecessary and even harmful, is that if the true intent of locking someone us is to deter them from committing crimes. So what makes it alright to ever let out anyone at all? If someone has committed a crime, isn't there at least a slight chance they'll do something again? And if that's the case, why not just keep everyone in some sort of cell forever?
The United States simply does not have the resources or the manpower to keep up with our punitive ways. Rehabilitation is not only cheaper, but it is a much more safer for society on a whole. Because it is so damn expensive, many convicts are given shorter terms, and while it may seem better, this also means that actual criminals, the ones that have raped, murdered, and everything else is re-entering society as well too early.
Therefore, a push is needed for punishment and rehabilitation outside of the penitentiary. Instead of throwing them in a prison or ousting them out of society where it is likely no one will care about the individual, keeping them in society brings shame to the criminal, as well as letting them support their family who should not be crippled by the person's actions. The support of the community as well as relatives and friends allows for less government supervision and overstep, and in the end can mean all the difference.
IV. Tying it all in with Karofsky
What does this all have to do with Karofsky? A lot. It's distressing to see that many people have simply tuned this kid out-- to look down on him and call for his death, ousting, or simply ignore him completely.
Do I see Karofsky as a harmless, innocent bystander caught in the wrong place, wrong time? Not really. I think many people who have little faith in Karofsky are baffled by pro-Karofsky fans, and are tempted to believe that there is general acceptance for his behavior and are repulsed at the idea of 'letting him off the hook' by allowing him back into school, but what I want to point out is that PEOPLE DO NOT JUST GO AWAY. You can lock people up all you want, shun them all you want, but they are not animals, they are not monsters, they are people who are entitled to dignity, equality, and justice just like everyone else. We need to be more selective on who to actually seperate from society, and who is capable of reforming. Simply branding someone as 'unreparable' or a 'lost cause' does little to help the person and ultimately society at large. When we give up on our fellow citizens, we are much more inclined to believe that people are stagnant, unchanging, and unworthy of redemption. We believe in a society that arbitrarily punishes not for reform, but because we want to feel in control. We believe in a society that would rather hurt than help, and one that does not look forward to the future, but still so firmly stuck in the past and looking for ways to profit off of it.
So I want to throw out my support for Karofsky. I want it to be shown that it's not crazy to make mistakes and atone for them. I believe in the kid that while isn't innocent, is not completely in control either and needs guidance more than anything. I want to have it affirmed that we are for better or worse stuck with each other until the day they figure out how some of us can live on the moon. We can not shun anymore, we can not dole out punishment just for punishment's sake, and we certainly are not any safer, wiser, or kinder in doing so.
Thank you.