After reading Lois Henry's excellent article about the financial and bureaucratic mess that has our sheriff in consternation over how to resolve jail overcrowding, I spent some time reflecting on what is wrong with our system and how could it be fixed.  I am hardly an expert, but perhaps I can inspire some dialog, which might reach appropriate ears and spur some change.  Or, I can eat another of my Christmas chocolates... Well, since typing burns more calories, I think I'll pontificate for a bit--save the chocolate for afterwords...

The following is my IMHO...

I feel we overuse our jails and prisons.  We jail all sorts of offenders, even offenders who commit victimless crimes, non-violent crimes, and crimes of morality (such as possession of drugs or prostitution).  I agree that such people should be punished.  It's just that our present method of punishment is more trouble than it's worth. 

Instead, jail and prison should be reserved for the truly violent and unrehabilitated;  people who absolutely must be removed from society because they are a danger to themselves or others.  Such people would be those who are likely to re-offend or commit another related crime, or have committed a violent offense. 

All others should be punished by various means including, fines, public service, or counseling/rehabilitation/education, or a blend of the above.  Those people should only go to jail then, if they do not keep the terms of their recognizance, or are unlikely to do so. 

Additionally, jails and prisons are where criminals are concentrated, so naturally they become graduate schools for the criminal mind.  I am certain that many come out worse than they were before.  This is because no heed is paid to genuine rehabilitation efforts in California.  We're content to let offenders rot, regardless of the crime, and if they could be saved.  A robust rehabilitation effort, combined with clients footing their own bill by paying out-of-pocket, or completing service, should both reduce strain on our budget as well as reduce crowding.  Save taxpayers dollars too!  Finally, goodness forbid that rehabilitation efforts might actually work in some percentage of cases and we return a changed man to society (instead of a more criminally educated one). 

Finally, we must have social transition programs available so the convicted can be reintroduced to society with a greater degree of success.  I am sure most criminals don't want to go back to prison, and might actually tow the line if given a fair opportunity to work and earn a basic living, while under supervision (probation/parole).  The alternative is to turn these people lose without skills, coping mechanisms, or lifelines of any kind, and where can they go but to commit depredations against YOU and I.

We see that using these facilities as dumping ground for what many consider "human waste" isn't a viable long-term or humane solution.  It sounds nice and appropriately harsh, and it's certainly popular and easier to endorse than considering a humanitarian program that converts inert human potential into active and productive inputs to society--but it can be done and to the benefit of all. 

Not every criminal can or should be saved, but many of the ones we punish today we over-punish and abandon as if there are no consequences to acting in such a way.  Fact is, my friends, if our policies are clear failures, and lead to repeated offenses, then we as a society are partly complicit in the crimes that occur. 

We must remove the worst, we cannot release the unrehabilitated, and we must facilitate the productive return to society of all those whose situation requires it, lest they return to evil ways at our expense. 

We cannot regard our correctional facilities as mere dumping grounds where we proverbially sweep our mess under the rug and ignore it gone.  As pointed out in Lois's article, such things have a habit of coming back to our doorsteps to haunt us...

Time for a chocolate.

:-)

MP

Wednesday Dec 17

Sprinkles Hi: 47° Lo: 33°

Slight chance of light rain showers. High 47F and low 33F. Air Quality: NA, UV Index: NA

http://weather.msn.com/tend...

Does this dash the hope for snow?  Sadly, I think, it will clear up and be just plain cold!

Low of only 33. 

Still, snow should be only a short drive away!

MP :-)

I just read a blog regarding annoying sticky ads on the newspaper.  I also have my personal conflict with the Chase ad that loads on these pages from time to time.  I don't mind advertising, after all, businesses need to tell you about what they offer, and you want to know so you can make better economic choices.  It's almost a public service, in a way, as long as it's not too obtrusive or annoying, mind you. 

I also commented earlier in the day, to my family, how much I've taken a dislike to the little actors and graphics that walk/appear at the bottom of your screen while you are in the middle of a TV show.  It used to be an occasional station splash at the start of a program, then it became a transparent logo in the bottom corner of the screen.  Now I see logos that often cover elements of a film that you may wish to see!  It really gets in the way of the program itself!

This is very apparent in the news, when the news will put their logo, ticker, or graphic so large on the bottom of the screen that it covers elements of the news video that matter to appreciating the news footage itself!

The ubiquitous nature of advertising has desensitized us to its presence, forcing companies to make increasingly "annoying" advertisements to capture our attention.  I imagine some of it backfires, as a few of us refuse to do business with companies that intrude on what we believe is rightfully ours, such as our time, our news, our entertainment.  Still enough people buy the products advertised to keep the companies afloat and encourage further advertising.

And while those ads pay the bills for services we enjoy, I cannot help to think that eventually the tower will collapse.  Over my lifetime, I have seen what I call, advertising inflation, which are increasingly annoying and obtrusive advertisements.  Eventually a new market will open for people who are in fact willing to pay extra to do without the advertisements.  Sooner or later, rivals will appear to TV networks, news stations, newspapers, magazines, and so on, whose attraction will include unobtrusive advertising.  And yes, I think some people--eventually enough to sustain the effort--will pay the premium to avoid the intrusion. 

If the "Do Not Call Registry" were $10 a year, for example, would you pay for it?  I think there are more and more who might say yes...heck, I would!

Sooner or later, advertising as we know it, will become a victim of its rampant success.  Just as inflation eventually kills an economy, I feel the same will happen with advertising as it is today. 

As a thought, perhaps the Californian might benefit from offering a premium edition, on a trial (experimental) basis to see how many would pay the increased cost without the ads.  I still feel the numbers would be small, but I bet there'd be a few takers!

MP

Being a huge fan of economics, (I actually adore the subject--yes, adore) I thought it might be fun to post my own predictions for our economy, and the explanations why.  Then, like a little time capsule, I/we can check back and see which ones came true! 

I think there's a term for my economic affinity (read: psychosis--LOL), but think of me what you will.  Read on if you wish and feel free to add your own thoughts, whether identical or contrary!

:-) MP

1.  The economy will begin to turn around in February of 2009.

I believe this will be because Obama's ascendancy will inspire confidence along with robust stimulus activity that I think will occur during that month.  I believe the Obama inauguration will only provide a psychological boost to consumers, but action by congress and the Federal Reserve, at Obama's urging, will be taken in February and will prove decisive.

2. The housing market will bottom out in the spring.

The stimulus of February will provide the economic relief to industry (especially banks) and consumers alike which will facilitate home purchasing.  I still feel prices will fall a little more, and should remain low through 2009, but will bottom out in the spring.  By summer, prices should firm up and will begin to rise in 2010.

3. The recession will end within a year. 

Although this is a particularly deep recession, and more painful than any in recent memory, I believe the relief granted to industry will enable new investment and growth which will put people back to work over the summer and fall of 2009.  Next December will be noticeably better for everyone. 

PS friends, in addition to starting my photography business this week, I also found a convenient and reliable day job ( = steady paycheck) today! 

Now, if I turn out to be right, I'll also be opening a psychic based stock-brokerage firm.  LOL

Times are tough, including for me, but they will improve soon!

I attended the commencement ceremonies at CSUB today, and was disappointed in the experience.  How sorry I am to say so; I love my local university, from which I graduated and continue to attend today, but I feel I must call the administration on this matter. 

The commencement speech, made by Dr. Horace Mitchell, whom I like, respect, and appreciate, was very disappointing.  I do not believe he wrote the speech himself, for I feel it sounded unprofessional and inappropriate.  The speech focused too much on recent events of the past month, including the economic crisis and the election of Senator Obama to the presidency, but appeared to address the graduates as an afterthought.  I feel commencement speeches should not be recaps of the news, but rather messages of inspiration and hope for the graduates.  In my opinion, the speech was very substandard in that regard. 

I am fairly certain Dr. Mitchell did not write the speech, because I believe he is far more capable and intelligent than to knowingly deliver such a poorly crafted speech.  It is my imagining the speech was composed by an aide or staff member within the president's office.  This does not concern me, since it is normal for busy people to have their speeches composed for them, but I believe if the venerable doctor had wrote the speech for himself, or spent time considering its content prior to the commencement, I do not feel he would have delivered it.  I believe he could have done better delivering impromptu commentary to the graduates.

The remainder of the ceremony appeared hurried and poorly executed, and substandard even in comparison with some local high school graduations.  The theme from "The Right Stuff" played as the graduates exited, it had the right message, but I feel it was too trite for the occasion.

I felt sorry for the graduates--I feel they deserved better for their efforts. 

I am pained to be so critical, but I strongly feel the graduates deserved better and I hope CSUB revisits their ceremonial practices and invests more time, money, and energy in providing a commencement which is commensurate with the quality of education and the efforts of the students found there. 

Did anyone else on here attend?  Agree or disagree?  How did the event make you feel?

MP