Much opposition exists to our penal system, especially prisons. On one side, you have prison abolitionists, like Pamela Price, Cat Brooks, Carroll Fife and Nikki Bas, who wish to shut down all the prisons and jails, or at least greatly decarcerate them, and instead refer criminals to “counselors.” On the other side, you have a majority of Americans who want criminals—especially violent ones and repeat offenders—thrown into jail. The fight between the two sides has sucked all of us in, and is exemplified nationally in the presidential campaign and, locally, in the effort to recall Price.
Sometimes there doesn’t seem to be a middle ground. Either we throw criminals in jail, or we don’t. Both sides seem to be hardening in their positions.
I’d like to suggest an alternative, based on the history and culture of our country. It involves the concept of mores (pronounced more-aze). The word comes from a Latin root meaning customs, norms and behaviors that determine what is considered morally acceptable or unacceptable in a given culture. Mores are not formal laws; they are “the must-dos and must-nots that, although not legislated, hold a powerful sway over how individuals conduct themselves within a culture. They shape our understanding of right and wrong, subtly weaving the ethical tapestry of a society.”
Every collection of humans quickly develops mores. Even colonies of animals develop them; they are the glue that holds communities together. The Ten Commandments exemplified mores that were commonly accepted by the Jews. Today, there are many examples of behaviors that are frowned upon and thus subject to mores: lying, cheating, slander, vandalism, plagiarism, bribery, among others. All are considered transgressions against the greater society.
As I said, violations of mores are not against the law, so human cultures have adopted other forms of sanctioning them. Moral suasion is “the act of persuading a person or group to act in a certain way through rhetorical appeals, persuasion, or implicit and explicit threats.” In early America, before prisons were established, villages adapted various forms of moral suasion to deter or punish people who violated local mores. These included shunning, sitting in the stocks, and dunking, as well as fines. In extreme cases, violators were banished from the community. Sometimes, a thief would have his hand branded with the letter “T.”
At some point in America’s development in the eighteenth century, during the Enlightenment, the concept of “redemption” arose. It is from this concept that our word “penitentiary” comes. The idea was to lock up bad people and put them in monk-like cells, where they would have the quietude and time to reflect on their behavior and, hopefully, become penitent. Opposed to the concept of redemption was Kant’s categorical imperative: commands or moral laws all persons must follow, regardless of their desires or extenuating circumstances. For the last several hundred years, America has had these two concepts existing, side by side, on how to deal with criminals: punishment (by locking up) and rehabilitation. We have flip-flopped or ping-ponged between the two, never quite finding the right balance.
We’re still struggling. This is what the crime issue boils down to: how to treat criminals. Pamela Price represents an extreme example of the “rehabilitation” side, which we tend to identify with liberal/woke politicians. Republican MAGAs are an extreme example of the “lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the key” side. The tension between the two sides is enormous and may well determine who is our next president.
Could we somehow finesse the issue and go back to mores and suasion? I don’t mean building stocks in Frank Ogawa Plaza or dunking criminals in the Estuary, much less tar-and-feathering them and driving them out of town. I do mean having the community at large shun known criminals, such that they had no friends, no support group, and could not get jobs.
It’s probably not possible, given our current problems. But we, as a society, could do a much better job letting criminals know they’re undesired in polite society. Communities in which crime is prevalent have, not just an opportunity, but the duty to frown on criminals in their midst. Instead, all too often these communities let criminals off the hook, meaning that they (the criminals) pay no penalty for aberrant behavior. Instead, they’re surrounded by a culture that seems to congratulate them for their deviance. We’ll never, ever mitigate criminal behavior as long as the criminals have support communities to buoy them up.
If I could appeal to such communities, I’d beg them to get real about denouncing crime. It’s not cool to shelter criminals. “Snitching” isn’t bad; it’s necessary if the community is to rise above the level of a mob. Isolating oneself from the greater community (of voters, of citizens, of human beings) in order to belong to a tribe is a root cause of injustice, violence and societal breakdown. I know it can be hard for people, who are so tribalist in their genes, to understand this, but if there’s one message that politicians, preachers and parents should be sending, it’s this: Denounce crime, shun criminals, and get with the vast majority of your neighbors who just want to live peaceful and loving lives.
Steve Heimoff