Donald Trump, the first former U.S. president ever convicted on 34 felony counts, faced a torrent of scorn and ridicule after he declared, “A criminal is a criminal, they generally stay a criminal,” during a rally in St. Cloud, Minnesota on Saturday.
Alternative headline: Trump finally tells the truth about something.
I sure hope she doesn’t approve that message. I think with enough supports (food, housing, education, etc.), most people who commit crimes would stop. That, of course, is not enough for assholes like Trump. He’s racking them up like he’s going for the record.
In Norway, the recidivism rate, (percentage of people that end up back in prison for something else after being released) is around 20%. Here in the US its closer to 80%.
So there are definitely different ways to approach the problem.
Indeed! In the USA, the prison system is brutal and focused on punishment. There’s little chance of someone coming out of prison in the USA as a better, kinder, gentler person than they were when they went it. Hell, many prisons make it hard to get books even if a prisoner does want to better themselves.
Meanwhile, Norway’s recidivism rate in the 90s was nearly as bad as the USA’s. They reformed their system though. They replaced large prisons with smaller community-based correctional facilities so convicts could be close to their homes and maintain relationships. Many allow visits, including conjugal visits, up to three times per week. As you mentioned, the recidivism rate after 2 years is only 20%, which is the lowest in the world, and rises to only 25% after 5 years. They treat prisoners like people and allow them to stay a part, to some extent, of their community.
In a recent interview, Norwegian prison governor Are Hoidal talked about how prisoners are punished in the country. “In Norway, the punishment is to take away someone’s liberty,” he said. “The other rights stay.”
Norwegian prisoners have the right to vote, attend school, learn new skills, exercise, see their families, and even participate in extracurricular activities. In fact, in many prisons, the security officers participate in activities like fitness and yoga right alongside the prisoners.
This is all very deliberate, as Norway’s philosophy seeks to treat prisoners as human beings even as they are incarcerated. This approach is believed to make reentry into society easier. People still feel as valued as other citizens, and they leave prison with skills, confidence, and self-respect so they can become contributing members of society.
If you want people to be good and valued members of society, you need to treat them like people and allow themselves to improve themselves while incarcerated. If however, you want a person to act like an animal, then treat them like an animal. The USA’s punishment focused model treats prisoners like animals where a prisoner’s only focus is sometimes just to survive. Naturally, those learned behaviors become ingrained and they behave like that when they get out of prison too.
Thank you for adding the context to my 20% figure. I remembered running into it, but did not know it was the two year rate, and an improper comparison.
For proper comparison, the US 2 year recidivism rate is 35%. (and that 80% figure I cited is a 10 year rate)
Thank you. I actually didn’t realize that the 80% rate for the USA was a 10 year rate. 20% vs. 35% over two years is clearly still impressive, but now I want to see what the Norwegian rate is at 10 years for a proper comparison but I can’t seem to quickly find it.
Norways priority is rehibilitation, they understand that crime and the justice system are complex and some people just need help. I would argue that their system is successful at its goals.
The US decided a long time ago that punishment was the main priority, so much so that there is a carve out for it in the 13th ammendment. The US criminal justice system is a complete inhumane failure.
I fully agree with this statement. You are correct. That said, I am starting to believe that maybe it’s something to do with culture overall. It’s hard to explain, but as an American I feel we tend to focus heavily on reward, as opposed to risk versus reward. That blind spot is what I think makes us too stupid to get it right. Like, we think about risk but we’re so constantly enticed by excess (reward) that the risk doesn’t register the way reward does. Poverty is a factor (there are dozens of factors) but if we’re poor, the reward is stability. If we’re middle class, the reward is wealth. If we’re wealthy, the reward is status. No matter what there’s another reward.
We tend to view crimes committed by the poor as more scummy or punishable because the reward isn’t generally that great, and it hurts another person directly. To that person who has nothing, $1000 would be seen as life changing. To a person who makes 70-80k, $1000 is not worth the charges. Where a crime committed by a wealthy business owner for hundreds of thousands or millions is seen as just a man being competitive and aggressive (to achieve what we all really want deep down), so is met with a slap on the wrist.
It’s a lot to talk about. Too much for an internet comment. Our system is trash for sure, but I just can’t shake the feeling that it’s a bigger issue that needs addressing.
So her position, I think, is pretty clear. I don’t agree with the drug crime approach, but in general I approve of her approach as a DA/AG.
That said - I do thoroughly hope she takes that clip, notes that she has zero criminal convictions, and a (hopefully running) tally of Trump’s convictions, and then signs off with “I am Kamala Harris and I approve this message”.
Honestly, the clip of him saying “they’re gonna say ‘im a prosecutor and he’s a felon’” and then her endorsing that message is so much more direct and unnuanced. Doesn’t need to be cut or contextualized. The entire 10 second clip is the whole thing.
The worry with letting your opponent make your case for you is that it means you need to give your opponent screentime.
The more you need to rely of the person being spoken to to think about what your opponent is saying as opposed to just listening, the more you risk the viewer agreeing with what you’re showing them as opposed to parsing it as hypocrisy.
If someone isn’t looking, and they just hear trump yelling about how criminals are criminals and they never change, they don’t get to see the contextualization that he has dozens of felony convictions and Harris has precisely zero.
It’s why trump talking about her credentials as a prosecutor and him being a felon, in a dumb voice to boot, is such a perfect setup: there’s no way to misinterpret it.
So while more clips are definitely feasible, a clip making trump sound tough on crime might not be ideal for the sound bite circuit.
I sure hope she doesn’t approve that message. I think with enough supports (food, housing, education, etc.), most people who commit crimes would stop. That, of course, is not enough for assholes like Trump. He’s racking them up like he’s going for the record.
In Norway, the recidivism rate, (percentage of people that end up back in prison for something else after being released) is around 20%. Here in the US its closer to 80%.
So there are definitely different ways to approach the problem.
Indeed! In the USA, the prison system is brutal and focused on punishment. There’s little chance of someone coming out of prison in the USA as a better, kinder, gentler person than they were when they went it. Hell, many prisons make it hard to get books even if a prisoner does want to better themselves.
Meanwhile, Norway’s recidivism rate in the 90s was nearly as bad as the USA’s. They reformed their system though. They replaced large prisons with smaller community-based correctional facilities so convicts could be close to their homes and maintain relationships. Many allow visits, including conjugal visits, up to three times per week. As you mentioned, the recidivism rate after 2 years is only 20%, which is the lowest in the world, and rises to only 25% after 5 years. They treat prisoners like people and allow them to stay a part, to some extent, of their community.
If you want people to be good and valued members of society, you need to treat them like people and allow themselves to improve themselves while incarcerated. If however, you want a person to act like an animal, then treat them like an animal. The USA’s punishment focused model treats prisoners like animals where a prisoner’s only focus is sometimes just to survive. Naturally, those learned behaviors become ingrained and they behave like that when they get out of prison too.
That requires treating prisoners like human beings tho. That might be a little much for most of us Statesians.
Thank you for adding the context to my 20% figure. I remembered running into it, but did not know it was the two year rate, and an improper comparison.
For proper comparison, the US 2 year recidivism rate is 35%. (and that 80% figure I cited is a 10 year rate)
Thank you. I actually didn’t realize that the 80% rate for the USA was a 10 year rate. 20% vs. 35% over two years is clearly still impressive, but now I want to see what the Norwegian rate is at 10 years for a proper comparison but I can’t seem to quickly find it.
Norways priority is rehibilitation, they understand that crime and the justice system are complex and some people just need help. I would argue that their system is successful at its goals.
The US decided a long time ago that punishment was the main priority, so much so that there is a carve out for it in the 13th ammendment. The US criminal justice system is a complete inhumane failure.
The US prison industrial complex is a complete success and working as intended, from the slaveholder capitalist perspective.
I fully agree with this statement. You are correct. That said, I am starting to believe that maybe it’s something to do with culture overall. It’s hard to explain, but as an American I feel we tend to focus heavily on reward, as opposed to risk versus reward. That blind spot is what I think makes us too stupid to get it right. Like, we think about risk but we’re so constantly enticed by excess (reward) that the risk doesn’t register the way reward does. Poverty is a factor (there are dozens of factors) but if we’re poor, the reward is stability. If we’re middle class, the reward is wealth. If we’re wealthy, the reward is status. No matter what there’s another reward. We tend to view crimes committed by the poor as more scummy or punishable because the reward isn’t generally that great, and it hurts another person directly. To that person who has nothing, $1000 would be seen as life changing. To a person who makes 70-80k, $1000 is not worth the charges. Where a crime committed by a wealthy business owner for hundreds of thousands or millions is seen as just a man being competitive and aggressive (to achieve what we all really want deep down), so is met with a slap on the wrist. It’s a lot to talk about. Too much for an internet comment. Our system is trash for sure, but I just can’t shake the feeling that it’s a bigger issue that needs addressing.
As a DA, her record shows a focus on keeping non-violent criminals out of jail, and violent criminals in it.
She started the back on track program as well.
So her position, I think, is pretty clear. I don’t agree with the drug crime approach, but in general I approve of her approach as a DA/AG.
That said - I do thoroughly hope she takes that clip, notes that she has zero criminal convictions, and a (hopefully running) tally of Trump’s convictions, and then signs off with “I am Kamala Harris and I approve this message”.
Honestly, the clip of him saying “they’re gonna say ‘im a prosecutor and he’s a felon’” and then her endorsing that message is so much more direct and unnuanced. Doesn’t need to be cut or contextualized. The entire 10 second clip is the whole thing.
And it’s a great clip.
No reason to make it the only one though.
True.
The worry with letting your opponent make your case for you is that it means you need to give your opponent screentime.
The more you need to rely of the person being spoken to to think about what your opponent is saying as opposed to just listening, the more you risk the viewer agreeing with what you’re showing them as opposed to parsing it as hypocrisy.
If someone isn’t looking, and they just hear trump yelling about how criminals are criminals and they never change, they don’t get to see the contextualization that he has dozens of felony convictions and Harris has precisely zero.
It’s why trump talking about her credentials as a prosecutor and him being a felon, in a dumb voice to boot, is such a perfect setup: there’s no way to misinterpret it.
So while more clips are definitely feasible, a clip making trump sound tough on crime might not be ideal for the sound bite circuit.
Which is why it needs the context of the convictions as I mentioned. Just stick it right on top of him on screen.
The joke here is that Trump is literally a convicted felon.