Pro Forma

Hering:

The case reflects an attitude that the length of prison terms should depend on whether the patient is “getting better.” This perpetuates the idea that crime is the result of illness, which, if true, would undermine the very idea of punishment. How can the system punish somebody for being ill?

1. There are many ways to take "getting better;" not all of them assume that crime is the result of illness, and Hering provides no evidence that his explanation fits the incredibly vague two-word phrase. This is just silly. And, of course, it discounts the fact that some people who commit crimes are ill.

2. ..."would undermine the very idea of punishment." Oh noes! Someone won't get hurt badly enough! Quick! We must find new and creative ways of hurting other human beings, or else we'll.... what, exactly? Last time I checked, the death penalty had been in use throughout just about all of recorded human history, and guess what? People still commit crimes!

Give me a break. Punitive/Retributive justice, at its core, is ineffective and incredibly unethical. I'm sure Hering arrived at his position honestly on this one; I just think it's a morally reprehensible position. (And no, the fact that millions of people agree with Hering does not make it less morally reprehensible.)

Better to think about Restorative Justice, both for practical and ethical reasons.

The New Politics

The funny thing is, I'm pretty disillusioned by the American political system, even in the abstract form that I learned in Advanced Government in HS. I don't think the structure of that system really matches my values, and I think it preserves hierarchies that need to go. (And, of course, I think it's royally corrupt and only exists in the abstract to boot.)

That said, I feel I can still realize when the system is breaking down, and that such a breakdown has very real consequences, especially since the 'breakdown' is largely being spun and covered up by the highly distorted values of the corporate media:

You have to give these Republicans credit, you really do. They are changing the rules of the game right in front of our eyes and daring the Democrats to do something about it.

...

I'm specifically talking here about the executive privilege claims, although it applies to virtually everything. Traditionally, there would be some posturing and back and forth, negotiations and perhaps some court involvement.Presidents may push the envelope, but they try to maintain the relationship with the congress in order that we not push these things into litigation which might go the wrong way (from their perspective) and therefore codify congressional prerogatives. Some presidents might even actually respect the notion that oversight is a necessary part of the balance of power and believe it's important to preserve it without creating new laws and rules that make it more difficult. The balance of power between the branches is actually quite a delicate thing that requires a certain amount of good faith to keep that going. The Republicans have thrown that good faith into the trash bin.

There is a great opportunity for sociological and/or political science-based analysis here: What happens when one of the (two major) parties to an essential and long-standing social contract rips it up and throws it out the window? What are the consequences? How deep does trust in the system run for today's Democrats that they don't even see that one party has decided to no longer abide by the previous set of agreed-upon rules? It's really quite amazing, and sort of terrifying, and a major reason I have little to no respect for the Democratic Party; I think the extent to which they are beholden to corporate donors and the existing (and disappearing) system has severely blinded them to the danger they are in, and their saving grace is that people who don't like Republicans feel they have no other viable alternative than to vote Democratic. The Democrats are winning not on their own strengths (I mean, they've got nothing at this point), but solely on the fact that they are not Republicans.

And perhaps more importantly, at what point will the system reach equilibrium again, if it does? What will the governing political structures of America look like then?

I think this is a very important question, maybe the preeminently important question of the day for political scientists and political philosophers, and most them just don't get it, and I have no idea why not. My faith in academia is taking another hit, and I'm not sure how much more it can survive.


UPDATE: I don't mean to suggest this is an aberration, not really. I think it's actually quite logical if one wishes to gain power - the tipping point, as it were, was the Republicans' decision to value the acquisition of power over keeping the playing field intact (the idea being that once enough power was gained, there was no danger of the tables turning and Democrats using the amassed power against Republicans, since the plan was for Republicans to never lose another election). I also think it's an example of the movement of capitalist values into the political sphere, or perhaps a result of the pressure placed on capitalism by globalization, an increasing world population, and decreased natural resources.