Punishment, Crime and Culture - Part 2 Additional: Enforcement

Law enforcement is... a tricky situation. I didn't actually intend to write this bit here, but we've had some many problems lately it almost feels like some sort of epidemic is upon us. "What sort of epidemic?" you ask.

Rogue police who shoot first and then lie about it afterward.

Before we're done with this it is entirely possible that you may come to suspect that I am not a fan of the police...

New Crime Policy #4: Dissolve the police and replace them with Public Safety Conscripts.

This one is easily going to be the hardest one to swallow yet. I won't blame you if you have to think about this for a year or more before coming to see my point. That's fine really; major policy changes should never be made lightly, even if innocent people have to die in the interim. The cost of real progress will never be cheap no matter what the subject matter is.

Here is the problem in a nut shell: Have you ever stopped to think about what kind of person actually wants to become a police officer?

No really. I bet you actually know people who have been or are involved in law enforcement; think about what you know about them as people, what their personalities are like, what their emotional re-activity levels are like. (Not to mention their testosterone levels...)

Here's the question you need to honestly answer for yourself: Do you trust them?

Let me tell you something about me that you can quite easily verify for yourself if you like: I have no criminal record whatsoever. I don't even have points against my driving record. I have never been in any trouble more significant than a moving traffic violation. I am a law-abiding, tax-paying - white, middle-class, male - model citizen. And I don't trust the police.

Why would I feel that way? Because they don't act trustworthy.

I have to tell you, I'm really upset about the recent shooting death here in Saratoga Springs. True, I do not know all the details. Unfortunately, the details I do know have already proven that the initial statements of the officers involved were lies. They killed an essentially unarmed, probably mildly autistic, young man - shot him in the back as he was, quite literally, running for his life. And why?

I can't answer that. If I had to guess - and because they've already proven themselves to be liars, we're all going to have to guess - I would say that their imaginations are more real to them than the abstract reality of bullets tearing flesh. Dead men tell no tales, but ballistics do. These particular "officers of the law" are criminals. They deserve to be tried for murder and "punished" as the current system demands.

Not that that will solve anything, mind you. The kid is dead and is going to stay that way. Besides, as you will recall, punishment is only another word for revenge. I would kind of like a little revenge right now, to be honest. But instead I will make it a point to never learn these officer's names nor any more of the details about their inexcusable, emotionally reactive, organic crime. They are examples of what not to be, as well as perfect examples of why we need to implement my new policy.

The problem with police is that they want to be police. They want the prestige - and the authority - the appears to come with the job. They want to be "respected", which, just like in the thug culture that I'm going to refer to in my conclusion to this series, means very little more than "feared" and "obeyed".

And yes, I know what you're going to tell me: "I know police who aren't like that." I'm sure you do. There are exceptions, or at least partial exceptions, to every generalization. (Otherwise it would be a "law of nature" and not a "generalization".) I have to tell you, whether there are or aren't "good cops" still out there really doesn't matter anymore. There have been so many bad apples - especially recently - that if we don't do something truly pro-active soon, we are going to have a civil war on our hands.

And won't that just be the most ironic thing ever; the very people whose job it is to maintain the peace will have been the ones who destroyed it. Such a thing really must not be allowed to happen.

So let's talk a little about why the current police force can't do their job. I do need to be fair here, after all. Plus this is still, ultimately, about goals; in this case, the goal of enforcing the codes of organic and inorganic criminal law.

The first reason that the police can't do their job is because they've been required to enforce artificial laws. Here's a piece of truth that you can take to the bank and/or use in your own defense at the Pearly Gates:

All artificial legislation is unsustainable.

In fact, you could go ahead and generalize that even further by noticing that all artificiality of any kind is unsustainable. But I really shouldn't derail the topic by going on abstract tangents, so let me just say:

The fact that you have to expend ever greater - and never smaller - amounts of energy, money and/or lives to keep a policy going proves that it is both unsustainable and artificial. It proves that there is something fundamentally unnatural about your approach, and that it should, at the very least, be revamped, and at the very most, dismantled and abandoned completely.

And this is the situation police find themselves in all day every day. They are called to deal with ever spiraling levels of materialism and jealousy caused by ever diminishing levels of awareness, education and empathy. There is an epic-scale cultural shift going on in the world right now whose effects are not always pleasant. No one is immune and no one will escape untouched, especially those called upon to deal with the worst elements of those cultures.

So, in addition to everything else, when police have to plan and execute around vastly artificial statutes like drug laws, when they have to contend with ever-looming threats of person-to-person violence for the contents of wallets and purses, it's no wonder that they get very overwhelmed very quickly. Police work has got to be among the most stressful work on this planet. Anyone would be expected to eventually crack under such pressure; if not in the mind, then in the body. (And most likely both...)

If there was ever a case where society truly was "to blame", it is in enacting such a plethora of ridiculously artificial laws and then saddling our police forces to attempt - and ultimately fail miserably - to enforce them. We've made police work impossible. Not "difficult", not "complex", but quite literally IMPOSSIBLE. As such, it's no wonder that the stress is taking its toll.

That is, however, no excuse for murder.

Every person has to be responsible to notice when their edge is near, especially those who have been trained - and sworn an oath - to do so. "I was stressed out" can never be a negotiable excuse when lives are on the line; not from me, not from you and definitely not from the police.

The next reason that police can't do their job is because of their culture. I suppose I just won't be able to save all of the cultural stuff for later, so here goes with this one:

It is just as I asked: What kind of person would actively want to be a police officer?

I really don't care that you may know police officers who you like and admire. They went out of their way to purposely obtain the second most dangerous regular occupation on this planet (the first being active military), and it wasn't for "altruistic" reasons. It was, for lack of a better word - and maybe there really is no better word - for pride.

Pride, as they say, comes before a fall. The only reason we haven't heard more about police abuses (of all sorts) in the past was because we didn't have an Internet and video cameras on every mobile phone. Police have always been - and always will be, until we re-create them in a more sustainable manner - operating right at the edge of complete corruption. Why is that? Because the old saying really is true: power corrupts. Police culture in this country is a little more than an officially sanctioned and well equipped mafia. And if it wasn't for the persistent activism of the average American citizen, we would already have a full police state.

And the last reason that police can't do their job is, quite frankly, because they have finally lost the very last vestiges of confidence that honest, well-meaning people once had in them. These days, everyone who gets stopped expects to get hassled, expects to have to kiss ass in order not to be tasered, wrestled to the ground and cuffed - or as so many have recently found out, shot in the back as they attempted to flee from the neighborhood's biggest syndicate of known bullies.

Frankly, I just don't think there's any rebounding that's possible. Even if, as you may well argue, the "majority" of them are still "hard-working, honest cops", the corrupt and incompetent ones have more than ruined it for the rest. No, the window of opportunity for the professional policeman has come to an end. It's time they were dismantled and replaced with something much more controllable and accountable. Which is where conscription comes in.

You are aware of the idea of "the draft" for purposes of pressing civilians into military service, are you not? It is rather a terrible thing to do (which is why we haven't actively done it for a good long while now), yet the principle behind it is a sound one: In times of great need, ordinary people may be called upon to forego their private interests for the sake of a public one.

This is a time of great need.

Do you disagree? I mean, I consider myself an extreme Individualist, but even I could not resist the very real safety and freedom demands of my fellow citizens. And would I be scared? You bet your ass I would! (Especially if I had to go out and try to enforce drug laws.) But I would do it nonetheless, because it is my duty, and especially under the terms I'm about to suggest.

Here's how it works: All standard police forces are phased out to be replaced with Public Safety Conscripts. The conscripts would spend a year training - preferably locally, so they can go home at night, or at least on weekends - and then the subsequent two years in active duty, also locally.

That's right, these "policemen" are not going to be strangers. They're going to live in the communities that they serve and return to normal life in those communities once their rotation is done. People are going to know them personally. More importantly, people are going to know if they did a "good job" or not while they were in service.

And most importantly, when they're done they will A) never need fear being drafted again and B) have no lingering illusion of "authority" from having held their never-meant-to-be-a-culture position.

As for the duties of a Public Safety Officer? They would patrol, never alone, equipped with a radio and a stun gun. That's it, no deadly weapons at all. They would look for problems to solve and people to assist. And if they ever encountered a situation where violence was underway or an imminent threat, they would immediately call for backup from Special Forces and/or the Army Reserve.

Yes there would still be an armed element of police available, but they would not be the police on the ground, and that's the point.

Of course, with changed statutes so as to decriminalize drugs and eliminate physical currency, it seems likely that the main sorts of crimes these cops would have to deal with would be traffic infractions and domestic disturbances. Big crime situations would probably be highly unusual. The job might even become significantly boring.

But even if that were true, it would still be a very dangerous job, with very real stresses. It would not be wise to force any one person to remain in such a role over long. They should train up, serve their community for one specific, short period of time and then retire back to their previous ambitions, better suited to a well-balanced life having become much more aware of the lives and situations of other real people.

But make no mistake, the real motivation behind the conscription strategy is to eliminate police culture. They have too much power and too little accountability, and we're now seeing, quite clearly in these well documented times, just how little respect for life - or law - they truly have. It won't do. It must be corrected.

This is my solution - and no, it isn't particularly pleasant - but it would work. You don't like it? Then let's hear yours. (And make sure that it actually addresses the goal...)

Sincerely,

--Geo

Punishment, Crime and Culture - Part 2: Crime

Just so you remember, in Part 1 we basically established two things: 1) punishment is a fraud, nothing more than a thinly veiled rationalization for revenge and 2) that I have a heart of stone. At least, I hope those were the ideas you took away from it. (You did read Part 1, didn't you?)

And the main reason it was important to know that punishment is really just revenge was (apart from helping you become the sort of person whose actions are dictated by goals rather than simple emotional re-activity) to positively identify that punishment neither creates desirable behavior nor deters misbehavior, in terms of crime or anything else.

At best - and with a long and consistent regimen of reinforcement - punishment can come to be emotionally associated with certain behaviors. Unfortunately, this sort of conditioning can work in either direction: negative or positive. And considering that all punishments are artificial, if it is ever perceived by the subject that punishment may no longer be forthcoming, the organic behaviors soon return.

But you already have more than enough to think about in regard to Punishment. Now it's time to add Crime to the mix and see how your paradigm shifts due to that.

So, what do you know about Crime? Did you know, for example, that in some parts of the world, even as we speak, my writing this and/or your reading it would be considered crimes? So... do you feel like a criminal? Because I sure don't. If there is anything that is even more artificial and arbitrary than punishment, it's crime.

Don't make me pull out a dictionary on you, people. Just go along with this highly abstract definition for the moment and no one will get hurt:

"Crime" is failing to satisfy another's wishes - stated, implied or neither.

OK, now do you feel like a criminal? Because I sure do. In fact, I don't think I've had a non-criminal moment in my entire life. Throw the book at me! Or at least, he-who-is-without-sin-and-who-also-has-a-book has that invitation. The rest of you? You may want to think about the rest of what I have to say first.

Seriously, the English language needs to be at least three times the size it is right now. We simply don't have enough words to describe all the things we commonly talk about, like "love" or "equality" or "self-esteem" or, yes, even "crime". It isn't just potato/patota semantic differences we're talking about here. It's fundamental interpersonal understanding - or more often: the lack thereof.

When most people think of "crime" they imagine bandits in masks or some close approximation. They imagine violent people who inflict fear and pain on others for no more apparent reason than "that's how they are". And I'm not here to tell you that such people don't exist, because that would just be stupid. They do exist... in minute numbers almost not worth mentioning. (Nevertheless, I will mention them quite a bit in the third and final part of this series "Culture", so watch out for that...)

But consider this, would those people still be "criminals" if there was no law against robbery or terrorism? no law against being "violent"? no law against inflicting fear or pain?

The legal answer is: no.

Without a law on the books (and books to have laws; i.e. government) you've no right to call upon society to intervene on your behalf for anything you find undesirable or injurious - or, indeed, anything else at all. In fact, depending on what other laws are also on the books, you may actually become a "criminal" simply by attempting to defend yourself or your property. Now how's that for a poke in the eye?

I just don't think most people stop to consider just how much of a double-edge sword "crime" and "legal systems" really are. Every one of our Founding Fathers was a bona fide criminal - and traitor - worthy of a short rope on a tall gallows. Yet, as things fortunately turned out, they found their way onto the fronts of our money and landmarks instead.

But knowing just how easy it is to abuse "legal systems" kind of takes the punch - and the pride - right out of the term "legal", now doesn't it? Well... it does only if you think about it... which frankly most people don't. (Which is why people like me have to write about it...)

So, if you notice nothing else, notice this:

There are actually three kinds of crimes - organic, inorganic and artificial.

So let's talk about organic crimes first. These are, after all, what most people truly think of as "crime", and for good reasons. Organic crimes always involve violence or the distinct threat of violence for purposes of domination and/or theft. These include acts of war at the largest extreme down to playground bullying at the smallest. They also include all sexual assaults, abuses and pressings of unwanted attention.

It's pretty easy to see why every conceivable society would eventually make laws regarding organic crimes. (Even if they do also make specific exceptions for their elites...) These are the sorts of things that directly, in a physical way, make life (and life goals) either impossible, painful, unnecessarily difficult or patently unfair. Organic crimes are easy to spot and hard to justify. There truly isn't much disagreement as to identifying who organic criminals are.

By contrast, inorganic crimes are those that involve dishonesty. The truth is, inorganic crimes cannot exists outside of relationships, even if that relationship is on the scale of a society or even between societies. Anything that is a lie - is specifically meant to mislead or deceive others - is an inorganic crime, whether it has material/proprietorial consequences or not.

This is why, among just about a billion other examples, adultery has been (and is) a punishable crime in many parts of the world. This is why all televangelists are active criminals. This is why insider trading is illegal. This is why property tax is legal. (Don't get it? Just think about it for a while...)

As you might have noticed, there is no inherent violence in inorganic crimes, but there definitely can be great property damage or loss, as well as - or more accurately: virtually always - a considerable amount of emotional distress and unnecessary grieving. They can - and do quite often - lead directly to organic crimes, even of the highest order (the Gulf Wars, for example), but in practice most of them are never officially deemed "illegal", never have an official "punishment" attached by any system of "justice". (Noticing how many ambiguous terms we're dealing with? That is not a coincidence...)

And lastly there are artificial crimes. As you might have guessed, these are "crimes" in name only, so designated by ruling classes not because they are inherently harmful or abusive, but because they offend their group's sense of morality. In these cases, changing the "morality" changes the criminality, thus they are crimes only in the most technical sense (as defined above).

Perfect examples of artificial crimes: drug use and prostitution.

Now... Why do I take the trouble to point out the different categories of crimes? Because, from a policy point of view, they need to be dealt with separately, and not, as we currently do, under one overarching umbrella. We're not comparing apples to apples, or even apples to oranges; we're comparing black licorice to cigarettes to hand grenades. Quite frankly it doesn't make any sense.

But... our policy makers have been lazy.

No, that's actually far too kind; our policy makers have been criminally negligent and, in fact, guilty of complicity in a conspiracy as big as all humanity - the conspiracy to magically create reality.

This country - and all countries, really - is corrupt, especially when it comes to aspects of power and control. We abuse each other, "legally", not in the name of any fundamental principle - or even a common goal - but strictly in the name of group ego. We have been - and are - bullies for the sake of pride and pride alone.

But, I really think I should save the rest of my thoughts on that subject for the "Culture" part of this series. Right now I want to offer three national policy suggestions that I believe would all but eliminate crime in this country. These suggestion are going to (mostly) sound obvious, I suspect. They're also, I should warn you now, going to sound completely evil. (Well, maybe not. That will depend on what your goals are...)

New Crime Policy #1: Legalize all substances. (AKA: End the War on Drugs.)

I really don't want to belabor this point more than it deserves because, frankly, smarter and more well informed minds than I have already established this point beyond all reasonable argument. Did you know that we have more than 2 million prisoners in this country (a solid half of which are of African descent) and that more than half of all of them are there on drug charges? Can you even imagine how many people that is? Can you even imagine how expensive it is to keep them?

And what do we get - what is our "return on investment" for locking up drug dealers for years and decades? When they get out (if they get out) they are ruined, broken people who will never even be able to support themselves. We have a permanent dependent who is also a known felon. What are the chances of them not returning, almost immediately, to crime for their support? Almost nil.

Yet before they were incarcerated, you could say they were virtually entrepreneurs. Sure they were also parasites, but they weren't directly costing taxpayer money. (I did warn you about the "amoral" aspect of my opinions, didn't I?)

Here's the bottom line for drug criminalization: it is an artificial crime. There are places in the world that have taken the courageous step to decriminalize and have found - not only measurable, but remarkable - improvement. We can - and must - do the same. Prohibition only creates (and makes enormously wealthy) drug cartels. It has been very conclusively proven not to work in terms of it stated goals, and more importantly (and causatively): it just isn't what people want. (It's not even a majority view...)

If drugs were legalized, the price of drugs would drop (and the quality rise) to make theft for the purpose of financing drugs a non-issue. And all the cost savings from both reduced local law enforcement as well as border security and international military interventions could be used to both create better (or indeed: effective) rehabilitation services as well as researching the creation of truly "safe" recreational drugs. We could be making money while at the same making the world a more survivable place.

Because let's face it: I do drugs and you do drugs.

No, don't deny it. You may not be doping on cocaine every night (or maybe you are), but you still consume/imbibe certain things to help you feel certain ways. Nicotine? Drug. Alcohol? Drug. Caffeine? Drug. Sugar? Drug. All very much addictive and very much legal, without much of a second thought by society as a whole.

But don't get me wrong; I'm not suggesting that we outlaw any of those things. Why? Because I understand, intimately, the desire/need to feel differently than I sometimes do. Sometimes I can't relax. Other times I can't get going. And why? That too is a result of chemistry. We use chemistry to fight chemistry because... well... because it works. (At least to an extent...)

Accuse me of the slippery slope and I will do the same back to you. Do you take ibuprofen for a headache or sore joints? Why doesn't that make you a doper? Surely it was a sequence of chemical events in your body that led to the headache? Why isn't it wrong to counteract them other chemicals? even if - and I bring this up deliberately - it is only to mask the problem and not ultimately cure it?

You and I and everyone else on the godforsaken world is, by definition, a drug addict. The other differentiating features between us and a pathetic meth fiend is our relative level of addiction (and ability to reasonably function in society).

Do you not see the blatant hypocrisy in our drug policies? Do you not see the preferential treatment of certain drug-pushing industries, despite their every-bit-as-lethal effect on society as a whole? Never mind answering. I know you do. Now the only thing to do is to admit "we were wrong" (or more accurately: "we were used") and get on with the decriminalization and all the eventualities that doing so will entail.

There is no logical, fact-based, goal-oriented argument to be made against decriminalization. If you still feel the urge to object, realize that it is the result of misguided loyalties that you hold to people and entities you regard as authorities. (Loyalty itself is a inorganic crime. Now think about that for while...) Legalize now. Release the prisoners now. Start saving money now. Put your squeamishness aside and start actually solving the problem you helped create. There is no down side, and it's the right thing to do.

New Crime Policy #2: Eliminate all physical currency.

OK, this one may not be quite as obvious as decriminalization, and it also might smack just a little bit of anti-Libertarian-ism, but hear me out.

In the past, before the Internet and electronic banking and payment services, there really was no choice but to have a system of physical currency. Barter is too unwieldy - and unstandardizable - to regulate effectively; coinage/money was the smartest and easiest alternative.

But physical currency has two distinct problems: 1) it is highly susceptible to inflation - in fact it's value goes down each and every time a new bill or coin is minted - and 2) it can be anonymously stolen via acts of organic crime. (i.e. Robbed at gunpoint, etc...)

Think of all the elaborate - and costly - schemes and methodologies that have been invented to both launder stolen money and detect the transaction and laundering of stolen money. How much of that would be completely avoidable simply by having no "cash" to launder?

But don't misunderstand me; I'm not suggesting the elimination of the monetary system. I'm simply saying that physical money isn't needed anymore and that nowadays it poses more risks than benefits. All dollars should be replaced by credits and all transactions that occur should be electronic. No more physical currency. Everything exists in account records within financial institutions and no where else.

And I know what you're thinking:

Wouldn't that make my money more easy to steal, not less?

No more easy that it already is, I'm afraid. But with the distinct benefit that all would-be muggers would soon understand that neither you nor anyone is physically carrying even one dime's worth of anonymous legal tender. (If they're going to accost you, it isn't going to be for drug money...)

Wouldn't that put all my money under the complete control of either my financial institution or the government?

Once again, no more so that it already is. I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but property is an (legal) illusion, and money doubly so. Research the laws as they already exist and you will find that no one but the government really owns anything. (Fail to pay your property taxes and find out for yourself...) Is this a "bad" thing? Only to greater or lesser extent that your government is run on principle rather than the cajoling manipulations of special interests. (BTW: Right now our government is run on the cajoling manipulations of special interests. But it doesn't have to stay that way...)

Wouldn't inorganic criminals still be able to steal and "launder" credits just as they do with physical currency?

Probably, but certainly without more advantage than they already have. If we went to a completely non-cash system, then every transaction made by anyone would be traceable. This would make things much more difficult for thieves, certainly. But the day they make an infallible security system is also the same day they no longer need any security system...

Wouldn't making every transaction traceable reduce personal freedom?

Why, yes it would, literally speaking. But I'm afraid I now have to turn the tables and ask: Why do you - especially now that drugs have been legalized - need to have "anonymous transactions"? You do realize that if we allow you to have them then we also have to allow everyone else to do the same as well, including the "ousted princes of Nigeria" who just drained your savings account?

Don't make me go "moral" on you, people. If the laws are adjusted to decriminalize all artificial crimes, then the only ones left are REAL crimes. And if you are a real criminal, understand this: you do not get - or deserve - any anonymity. Your "privacy" is someone else's loss or abuse and we, as a justice-oriented society cannot tolerate that. You will be identified and you will be... dealt with, as my third policy will illuminate.

New Crime Policy #3: Points, not sentences, for criminals.

OK, honestly I don't expect many people to automatically jump on the bandwagon with me for this one. This policy is really different - as well as highly experimental - and may simply be just too avant-garde (not to mention straight-up evil) for most people to accept. Once again, hear me out first and then decide.

The philosophy is simple and just: let the "punishments" fit the crimes. And as already noticed, since there are three types of crime, there needs to be three types of consequences.

But before I detail, let's do remember that punishment, in the way that society thinks of it, is nothing  more than revenge. We're not going to be about revenge here. We're going to be about goals and, where necessary, problem resolution.

Let's start with artificial crimes, shall we? Yes, I think that's best because, in fact, I do not intend to assign any points to "offenders" in this category. Artificial crimes, if they have a punishment at all, is the build-in effect of behaving in a way that annoys or offends the sensibilities of some. In  other words, the only meaningful retribution there should ever be for artificial crimes is natural prejudice from those they affect.

Did a just use the "P" word? Perhaps you're now starting to see why I need a "Culture" section to this series. All non-organic crimes originate in culture - ALL OF THEM. And as such, it is poetically justified that they end there as well. Besides which, if they don't end there, they won't end at all. But I digress... (for the moment...)

Suffice to say that, in a greater sense, artificial crimes are actually no more harmful to society than rampant body odor - which can be paralyzingly unpleasant, to be sure, but the resolution for which shouldn't involve someone ending up in jail. That would be a simple and obvious miscarriage of justice. (For which our country is already abundantly famous...)

No, there must never be any official, legalized sanctioning for artificial crimes. This is the litmus test for a true republic or any society that professes to value freedom or justice. Offenses must be recognized as just that: offenses. Not crimes, not misdemeanors, not unlawful in any way.

Now onto the idea of point-worthy crimes. What is a "point"? A point is a negative score of sorts, kind of like how you would get "points" against your driver's license for getting speeding tickets, except this time it's your criminal record.

And, as you might have guessed, there are two types of points: organic and inorganic points, one score card for each type of crime for which we are called upon to address for the greater protection of society. (Notice how I avoid the use of the word "punishment" here? That wasn't an accident...)

Here's how I would foresee it working: All real crimes would have a point score associated with them; the more heinous the crime, the more weighty the score. For example, littering in public might have a score of, say, 1, whereas lying to congress - and the people as a whole - and taking your entire country to war for the sole purpose of wagging the dog and getting re-elected would be say, 200.

On the organic crimes side, you could have, for example, 10 points for getting into fist fight at a football game as opposed to 95 points for the street-fight murder of a rival gang member. I think you see the general idea I'm going for anyway; the score assigned is proportional to the severity of the offense committed.

So, instead of going straight off to jail for years at a time, you get points. And then what happens?

Well, for inorganic crimes, should you manage to attain the lofty score of 100, then you go to jail. Solitary confinement I'm thinking. But not "the hole", mind you. I'm thinking more of a nicely appointed studio apartment with no phone, no television, no radio, no cell phone and no Internet. You could have, however, all the books you could read and all the non-entertainment software you could get the people you write to to send you.

Also, you would be subjected to daily nutrition, exercise and psychological counselling - if you wanted. Frankly, I wouldn't care whether such inmates ever opened a book or moved a step from their chair. They could go right ahead and think of their incarceration as "punishment" if they wanted to, but for my part, I would be trying to give them the undistracted opportunity to really think about themselves, removed from all advertising, all peer pressure, all external responsibilities. (I suspect that some people would rather die...)

And the beauty part is, their points go down proportional to the time they stay in solitary; 1 point per week, let's say. And even better than that, once their points are down to 50, they have the built-in option for immediate parole, provided they are willing to wear the "offender's vest" at all times until their points are back to zero.

The offender's vest is, of course, a highly visible symbol, to be worn at all public places, indicating exactly what crimes said convict had be incarcerated for. They would be both marked and traceable at all times, subjected to the judgment of any and all who observe them.

But for those who may have neglected the math as we went along, the term of wearing an offender's vest would last, at a maximum, of still less then one calendar year - assuming of course that the convict was never caught in public not wearing the vest, or committing any other crimes while wearing the vest, or both.

Did you see what I just did? I made a system where, even if you get "wrongly accused" of a crime, you still don't necessarily go straight to jail, messing up your career while you attempt to vindicate yourself. You get "points to spend", as it were, sewing your wild oats and making "learning mistakes" without it absolutely wrecking your life.

Of course, I couldn't predict - or prevent - the societal ramifications of your misdeeds. I could only guarantee you that you wouldn't spend a single night in jail if it wasn't entirely obvious that your point total would put you there for a solid year.

Now for organic crimes...

I won't lie to you, this is where things get ugly. It's not my fault really; organic crimes are themselves ugly. Organic crimes are what make the world awful and peoples' lives miserable. Even all the other crimes put together would still be ultimately forgivable. Organic crimes are not. The effects of organic crimes are permanent, thus the remedies are ultimately permanent as well.

As mentioned, every organic crime would also have a point score. Various scuffles and intimidations would score more toward the low end, whereas vicious assaults, rapes and murders would score near, or possibly even in excess of, the 100 point limit.

And what happens when someone meets or surpasses the 100 point limit? They are removed from society - permanently.

And you know, in some people's minds "permanently" means life in prison. I suppose if by that they meant "life in solitary confinement", then, yes, I agree that would be an effective removal from society. An expensive removal, mind you; but effective nonetheless.

The other two alternatives I can think of are banishment and execution. But then I would have to ask you: Where would you banish them to? In this day and age of communication, what guarantee would you have that they would be able to sneak back? Or indeed, join forces with terrorist groups or a rival country's military?

And besides all that, at the very least you'd be foisting your known problem onto another society to suffer/deal with. That doesn't seem very responsible to me; truly not very neighborly at all.

But hell, maybe you're willing to risk it. Don't ask me to defend you should the known murderer you banish return to create one last bought of mayhem before being terminated on sight. And considering that life in solitary confinement not only seems like a complete waste of resources (considering that "rehabilitation" is not the goal) but a terribly cruel and unusual thing to do to a "person", my vote is going to go for execution.

And yes, I know you don't-want-to-live-in-a-society-where-they-kill-people. Frankly, neither do I. But as a practical, goal-oriented - and amoral - person, I have to accept that I won't always get what I want. There are people who, for whatever reason - genetic inferiority, mental health issue or just plain bad luck - will meet and surpass the organic crime point limit within fairly short order, knowing full well what will happen and that they almost certainly will be caught. What are society's real choices in such circumstances? No seriously, solve this problem - actually solve it - another way, if you can.

You see, gentle folks, much as we hope for a better world, our power and resources are always limited, especially when it comes to influencing other people. There are wolves among us masquerading as people. When hunger strikes or blood is on the air, they don't think; they react. It is the ability to feel empathy and contain one's emotional reactivity that determines who is "human" and who is not. When someone has shown, in relation to a predetermined, objective standard, that they are not, there is no humanitarian issue remaining in determining how to deal with them. You simply solve the problem.

Harsh words, yes. But only in relation to harsh, intractable problems. Would there be a therapy or pharmaceutic that could turn a violent predator back into a human - or a dishonest person into a trustworthy one, or a lazy person into a productive one. But A) there isn't and B) even if there was, it would be a fundamental assault - a punishment - to inflict it on said person's freedom of expression and choice regardless.

No, we have to accept that some people cannot ever effectively - and harmlessly - interface with society and that, as it is our duty to safeguard society, they have to be removed, completely. If you prefer to punish such creatures with a long, lingering death via solitary confinement, then that's on you. I prefer mercy myself.

But either way, you'll never hear me refer to any of it as "justice". There is no such thing and there never will be. There is only goals, and strategies for accomplishing them. The best we can do is attempt to make our motives both pure and plain, and set our goals to be as achievable as possible.

So there you have it, my best-effort recommendations about how to really, actually - and based on solid principles - address and reduce crime in this country. It would increase both freedom and personal responsibility while simultaneously - and enormously - reducing costs.

Next coming up will be "Culture". Personally, I find that topic more interesting and compelling than either Punishment or Crime. But I suppose I'll let you judge that for yourself.

Sincerely,

--Geo