Crime and Punishment (Book Review)

This is not Dostoevsky’s psychological masterpiece, but it does offer some psychological insights.  The subtitle alludes to this: “Offenders and Victims in a Broken Justice System.”  Russell Marks’ book is an unequivocal indictment of the current criminal justice system, with the author suggesting four problems with that system:

1. It punishes on the basis that offenders make “bad choices” rather than tackling the structures that induce those choices.
2. The system claims “equality” yet some communities (notably indigenous peoples) are not treated equally.
3. Punishment often does more harm than good, and increases the risk of re-offending.
4. Victims are mostly excluded from the process, making it difficult for them to move on.

Although Marks¹ writes from an Australian perspective, he draws on research and experience in other culturally similar countries – primarily the US, UK and New Zealand.  The four problems he identifies are no less in these and many other nations that employ a similar adversarial, retributive approach to criminal justice.

Rather than presenting these issues as simply of philosophical interest, Marks presents a strong case for attending to them seriously and transparently.  Each problem is meticulously exposed, so much so that by the end of the book the reader is left wondering whether the current criminal justice system is in need of thorough revision, if not abandoning.

Underlying the four problems is a more fundamental problem; the system does not employ a problem-solving approach. 

“Prison doesn’t solve the problem (we) expect it to solve; it doesn’t rehabilitate,” he says, rather “it augments any existing problem for the offender and for society.”

Nor does it solve problems for victims. where they are often excluded from the process…

“… except as witnesses… (which keeps) victims effectively trapped in the ‘angry moment’.”

Unfortunately, says Marks, most victims rights associations only exacerbate this entrapment by focussing on rage an anger; again, failing to take a problem-solving approach.

Then there is the cost.  Prison is not cheap.  In Australia it costs over $100,000 to incarcerate an adult and almost a quarter of a million dollars for a young person in a youth detention centre.  Thus, attests Marks, prison is a massively expensive mistake.

Alternatives and Innovations

But, there are alternatives and Marks outlines a number of them, including; restorative justice, therapeutic jurisprudence, Koori courts (in Australia), and justice reinvestment.  Many of these innovations have been used for the last couple of decades and they work. 

 “(They) reduce rates of offending (and reoffending), …reduce the alienation felt by many offenders and victims, (and) save the state money over both the short and long terms.” 

So, asks Marks, “why aren’t governments…embracing these ideas?” 

Marks claims that as a society we still have an “appetite for ‘law and order’ policies – lock them up and throw away the key.”

Until we relinquish that retributive, punishment mindset we will not move to a more effective, cheaper and fairer model of justice.  This book is an excellent addition to making that shift.  It is relatively short (less than 200 pages), written in everyday language and easy to read.  It should be read by anyone concerned about our justice systems.

1. Russell Marks is a former criminal defence lawyer and an academic with La Trobe University, Sydney, Australia.

Earth Moments

We’ve had Earth Hour, just a few weeks ago.  Earth Day is coming up on April 23rd.  Earth Day has been an annual event for even longer than Earth Hour – the first Earth Day having been held in 1970.  It is celebrated in almost 200 countries and by over one billion people.

So, since 1970, that’s 45 Earth Days and 9 Earth Hours – approximately one-eighth of an Earth Year.  Have we learnt anything?  Have we changed anything?  Lets see:

• In 1970 we we needed one Earth-sized planet to be sustainable.  In 2015, we need 1.7 Earth-sized planets.
• Worldwide emissions of CO₂ in 1970 were 15.6 billion tonnes.  In 2013 35.3 billion tonnes were emitted.
• 45 million barrels of oil per day were consumed in 1970, by 2012 this had doubled to 90 million barrels per day.
• Obesity rates have doubled or even tripled in industrialised countries since 1970.

On the other hand, since 1970:’

• Movements such as Transition Towns, the Slow Movement and permaculture have all begun.
• Global investment in renewable energy technologies reached almost $260 billion in 2011, up from less than $50 billion in 2004.
• Worldwide campaigns are now possible via information technology (e.g. the divestment campaign).

Moments to Reflect

Thus, there are signs that things are getting worse and also signs that things have a chance to improve.  However, it will only be when we begin to recognise Earth Moments that we might begin to see a real change taking place.  On Earth Day we can think of the earth for a day and undertake some action for the earth.  Even during Earth Hour we can switch off the lights and consider replacing the bulbs with energy-efficient bulbs or moving towards a renewable source of electricity generation.

An Earth Moment though obliges us to consider the earth now: right here and now, not in some ideal, possible, hopeful future, but right NOW.

Many of the world’s sages and spiritual leaders have been reminding us, also since 1970, that it is our unwillingness to be mindful of the present that compels us towards actions that are damaging for the earth.  In a consumer society that is focused on the next bigger, brighter or better thing, finding time to consider the impact upon the earth becomes less and less.  We don’t have the time; we have to catch the bus in order to get to work on time, so that we can get more money to pay for the luxuries and trivialities that we think will make our lives satisfying.

A moment is defined as “a brief, indefinite, period of time.”  When we slow down and pay attention to our moment, we begin to understand and recognise the connections between all things, we start to appreciate that I and you are not separate but rather, intimately connected.  We begin also to realise that we are not disconnected from the earth, that we are the earth and the earth is us.  Thich Nhat Hanh put it this way:

“You carry mother Earth within you.  She is not outside of you.  She is not just your environment.”

In becoming mindful of each Earth Moment we become mindful too, of the connections between the way in which we treat the planet and each other.  We understand that acting to save the planet is no different to that of acting to save a child from child abuse or from acting to put a stop to the use of violence to resolve conflict.  Nor, for that matter, is it any different to acting to take care of ourselves, and to heal ourselves.

Yes, let us celebrate Earth Day, let us switch off the lights for Earth Hour, but let us primarily be mindful of each and every Earth Moment.

Social Change Crossword

Something a little different this week.  A puzzle that focuses on social justice, community development and sustainability.  Not every clue will exactly fit these themes, but the majority do.  Enjoy.

ACROSS.
5. Western psychology posits this as one of the components of the mind. (2)
7 & 3 Down.  Measure of human pressure upon the Earth.  (10, 9)
9. Site of largest oil spill in US history.  ____ of Mexico. (4)
11. International environmental organisation. (10)
13. German Green Party politician.  Presently Vice president of the Bundestag.  Claudia ____ (4)
15.  A renewable energy source.  (5)
16.  International Association for Community Development (abbrev) (1,1,1,1)
20.  Verbal expression that is clear and fluent.  (10)
22.  Type of community (economically) that many community development workers work with and for.  (4)
24. “If you want others to be happy, practice ___________.  If you want to be happy, practice _________.” – Dalai Lama quote. (10)
25 & 4 Down.  __  ___ Campesina.  International Peasant’s Movement.  (2, 3)

DOWN
1. Max _____, a founder of sociology.  (5)
2.  The planet gets ______ because of global warming. (6)
3. See 6 Across
4. See 22 Across
6. Sign language is important to this community. (4)
8. According to the Buddha, this is one of the three poisons. (5)
10. Sortition is a way of selecting decision makers by this means. (3)
11.  Coefficient (or ratio) of inequality. (4)
12. Tolstoy, Thoreau, Orwell, Le Guin and Tolkien are all famous authors, each also identified as an _________. (9)
14. David ____, 18th century philosopher of logical positivism. (4)
17. A non-government business allied to Fair Trade movement (abbrev) (1,1,1)
18. ____ Fo, Italian actor-playwright known for his political plays and his use of improvisation, (4)
19. A facilitator hopes to ______ discussion from group members. (6)
21. Transition _____. International movement to build resilience at local level. (5)
22.  What a political analyst might use to gauge public opinion. (4)
23. International Paralympic Committee (abbrev). (1,1,1)

The answers to this crossword will be posted here in a months time.  If you would like to check your answers before then, please make a comment (including your email address) or send me an email. (brucemeder (at) gmail.com)

Don’t Study Economics

If you want to be compassionate and trusting, don’t study economics.  At least that is the conclusion ¹ of Robert Frank – an economist himself.

Frank has looked at the patterns of giving to charity, personal gain, and the acceptance of greed and concern for fairness amongst economics professors and students in the US, Germany and Switzerland.  What he found is disturbing:

• Economics professors in the US were more than twice as likely to give nothing to charity than were professors in other fields,
• Economics students in Germany were more likely than other students to recommend a corrupt tradesperson when they had been paid to do so.
• Economics majors and students were more likely than their peers to rate “greed” as “generally good,” “correct,” and “moral.”
• Economics students were significantly less likely than other students to understand the concept of fairness.

Why should this be?  Is it that the teaching of economics inculcates such ideas and values?  Or is it that there is a predisposition by students with such ideas and values towards the study of economics?  There is evidence for both of these questions to be answered in the affirmative.

No matter whether the students are inculcated or predisposed the phenomenon is troubling.

Adam Smith and Charles Darwin

Well over 200 years ago Adam Smith (the so-called “father of economics”) wrote that “it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but by their regard for their own interest.”  In other words, according to this foundational economic theory, we are all selfish at heart and look out for our own best interests ahead of others.  Smith’s theory was that by doing so the good of all would be provided for.

One hundred years later Smith was followed by the theories of Charles Darwin which seemed to be suggesting a similar theme: the “survival of the fittest.” 
 
Darwin, at least (I’m uncertain of Smith) was misquoted and mis-interpreted.  Darwin, for instance, was troubled by², and pondered, the role of altruism in evolution and came to the conclusion that altruistic humans would not be successful at passing on their genetic material.

George Price

However, another 100 years later, George Price showed, conclusively, that Darwin’s conclusion was in error.³  Price showed that evolution is, in fact, reliant upon altruistic people and that groups in which altruism is prevalent tend to prevail over groups in which selfishness is prevalent.

What does this mean for the study of economics?  Much of western economics is still premised on Smith’s self-interest model.  Could this be because the model acts in the same way as a self-fulfilling prophesy – a perpetual cycle of fallacy?

A Model to be Challenged

If students of economics are inclined towards greed, corruption, and unfairness, then they are more likely to find that their cohort will share those values and cannot but help but perpetuate Smith’s self-interest claim.  If, on the other hand, economics students are taught the self-interest model of Smith, then it is understandable that they will incorporate the values of greed, unfairness and non-compassion within their own moral framework.

This suggests that Smith’s basic theory has little chance of being challenged from within the economics profession.

But, challenge it we must.  Since the 1980s the notion of self-interest has not just been a feature of the prevailing economic theory – it has become the predominant idea and possibly even the goal of economic activity.

Self-interest has led to gross inequalities between and within nations, a disregard for the carrying capacity of the earth, financial crises, and a rapid increase in CO₂ emissions.

And, it is all based on a flawed theory.

1. Adam Grant, Does Studying Economics Breed Greed? Psychology Today, 2013.
2. Darwin founded a Friendly Society in Downe (England) that looked after the welfare of impoverished agricultural workers. Cited in Stefan Klein, Survival of the Nicest, Scribe, Melbourne, London, 2014, p 17.
3. Klein, p 138

We Learned to Talk…

Source: Onnolo,
Creative Commons

If you listen to the album The Division Bell¹ by Pink Floyd you will hear a sampling of Stephen Hawking speaking these words:

“For millions of years man (sic) lived just like the animals.  Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination,  We learned to talk and we learned to listen.”

The quote is from an advert that Hawking recorded for British Telecom in 1993.  In that same advert Hawking went on to say that

“Mankind's greatest achievements have come about by talking, and its greatest failures by not talking.  It doesn’t have to be like this… All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.”

Speech, as Hawking notes, has perhaps been the greatest invention (or discovery) that we ever made.  It has enabled us to organise ourselves collectively.  It has enabled us to make sense of our world.  It has enabled us to tap into our consciousness.  It also enables us to be abusive, discouraging and vindictive. 

So, what forms of speech do we use to continue “unleashing the power of our imagination” and allow us to “keep talking” without degenerating into abuse and intolerance.

Contained within the power of speech is the power of words.  Lets look at four words that articulate the ways in which we talk with one another. 

Debate

Many of the foundational institutions of our culture (certainly in the west, less so in indigenous cultures) are founded on debate.  Our parliaments, our legal systems, and sometimes our educational systems, utilise the adversarial processes of debate.  To debate means to take a viewpoint and then use your debating skills to defend that point of view and attack that of the opposition.

Its not surprising then that the word debate derives from the Old French word debatre – to fight.  De meaning “down” and batre meaning “to beat.”  Hence, literally, debate means to beat down.

Discussion

Less antagonistic than debate, nevertheless discussion does have an oppositional sense to it,  The word shares a common etymology with other English words such as percussion and concussion.  Its Latin roots are in the words dis meaning apart and quatere – to shake, smash, scatter, disperse.  Thus, discussion means to shake apart.  The implication here is that the outcome of a discussion is one in which the topic of discussion is unpicked and broken down, often without anything creative emerging.

Conversation

Conversation has a pleasantness about it, a sense of companionship, a feel-good element.  It suggests friends sitting around a camp-fire or perhaps on a balcony sharing stories and comparing experiences.
Indeed, when we research the roots of this word we find exactly those elements.  Again, it is Latin in origin combining the word com (= with) and the word vetere (to turn, to turn about) giving us the idea of “to turn about with.”  For the Latins it connoted the act of living together, having dealerships with others.

Nice as it may be, conversation is not generally the wellspring of creative new thoughts, ideas or possibilities (although it could be the catalyst for dialogue – see below).  It can open up our minds somewhat, but it falls short of “unleashing the power of our imagination.”

Dialogue

Dialogue however, does have the capacity to “unleash the power of our imagination.”  The power of dialogue has been brought to our attention by David Bohm (the quantum physicist) and Mikhail Bakhtin (the Russian philosopher). 

David Bohm described dialogue as a shared pool of meaning, that was constantly flowing and evolving giving us deeper levels of understanding.  These new understandings, he said, were often unseen before the dialogue was entered into.

Bakhtin described the dialogic process as one in which:

“Truth is not born, nor is it to be found inside the head, of an individual person, it is born between people collectively searching for truth, in the process of their dialogic interaction”

For both theorists then, dialogue involves a shared approach, that is based on trust and respect and is aimed at discovering new thoughts, new ideas and the ability to create a new future.

Again, the etymology of the word is instructive.  This time it comes from two Greek words: διά (dia), meaning through, across or inter, and λέγειν (légein) meaning to speak.  From this we get a sense of the speech coming through us and between us, rather than being a possession of any one of us.  Dialogue can sometimes be mistaken to mean speech between just two people.  This is because of the mistaken assumption that the prefix is from the word di rather than dia.

Paulo Freire (the Brazilian educator) also did much to deepen our understanding of dialogue.  For him, the educative and emancipatory process is intimately tied up with dialogue.  His dialogic approach to education was that the learner and the teacher were engaged together in a process of discovery, both learning from each other to such a point that there was no distinction between teacher and learner.  His approach presupposes an equality and a trust. 

For Freire the participants approach dialogue in a manner in which they question what they know, and accept that in dialogue their thoughts will change and new knowledge will be created.  He also claimed that

“if the structure does not permit dialogue (then) the structure must be changed.”

… and we Learned to Listen

Returning to Hawking’s quote that began this blog.  On the Pink Floyd album you don’t hear the final five words of that quote – “… and we learned to listen.”

Listening; true, creative, active listening may just be the hidden magic that we need to tap into in order for our communication to move from one end of the spectrum (debate) to the other (dialogue).  One of the challenges of our times is to “unleash the power of our imagination,” and to do so we must enter into dialogue. 

And, if our institutional structures (e.g. parliaments, law courts, schools etc) don’t allow for dialogue then we must change them.

1. The Division Bell, Pink Floyd, EMI Records, March 1994.  The track which samples Stephen Hawking is “Keep Talking.”

Earth Hour, Our Earth

Photo taken from Voyager 1 on
14 February 1990.

In a few days time (on 28 March 2015) it will be Earth Hour – the ninth such worldwide event.  Beginning in Sydney, Australia in 2007, with a little over 2 million people involved, the event has grown to involve hundreds of millions of people in more than 7000 cities, towns and villages in more than 160 countries of the world.

Earth Hour aims to mobilise millions of people to make a planetary difference.  The key event is a symbolic switching-off-of-the-lights for one hour every March.  It may be just one hour, but the symbolic gesture has the power to motivate people beyond that one hour.  It has the power to help us to see that this Earth is our Earth – our one and only planet.  Here, the word “our” is meant less in the possessive form, as in “this belongs to us,” rather more in the sense that “we are associated with.”

Our Only Planet – An Overview

The Earth, that third rock from the Sun that we live on, is the only planet we have.  We can’t ignore that.  We have to care for the Earth and with it, ourselves. 

Taken from Japan's Kaguya
spacecraft on 6 April, 2008

When astronauts travel outside of the Earth’s atmosphere and into space the sense they get when looking at the Earth is one of awe, inspiration and humility.  It has been called the Overview Effect – a cognitive shift in the awareness of the viewer when viewing the Earth firsthand from space. 

Some of the comments from these viewers allow us to glimpse what this Overview Effect may feel like:

“What beauty. I saw clouds and their light shadows on the distant dear earth.... The water looked like darkish, slightly gleaming spots.... When I watched the horizon, I saw the abrupt, contrasting transition from the earth's light-coloured surface to the absolutely black sky. I enjoyed the rich colour spectrum of the earth. It is surrounded by a light blue aureole that gradually darkens, becoming turquoise, dark blue, violet, and finally coal black.”  - Yuri Gagarin (the first person to travel into space)

“Oddly enough the overriding sensation I got looking at the earth was, my god that little thing is so fragile out there.” - Mike Collins, Apollo 11 astronaut

“For those who have seen the Earth from space, and for the hundreds and perhaps thousands more who will, the experience most certainly changes your perspective. The things that we share in our world are far more valuable than those which divide us.” – Donald Williams, Space Shuttle pilot

“You develop an instant global consciousness, a people orientation, an intense dissatisfaction with the state of the world, and a compulsion to do something about it. From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that, you son of a bitch." – Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut

“For the first time in my life I saw the horizon as a curved line. It was accentuated by a thin seam of dark blue light—our atmosphere. Obviously this was not the ocean of air I had been told it was so many times in my life. I was terrified by its fragile appearance.” – Ulf Merbold, German Spacelab crew member.

They all paint a very clear picture.  A picture of the Earth as a whole, undivided, complete and fragile.  Borders have no meaning, nationalities have no meaning, even cultures have no meaning.  It is a pale blue dot, and that dot is where we live. The phrase “pale blue dot” was coined in 1990 when Voyager 1 space probe took a photograph (see photo at the top of this blogpiece) from about 6 billion kilometres away, as it was leaving the Solar System.   In the photograph you can see the Earth – it appears as a tiny bluish-white dot just over half way down the brown band to the right.  The photograph, the last Voyager 1 took of the Earth, was requested by the astronomer, and science fiction author, Carl Sagan. The size of the Earth in this photograph is less than one pixel and yet, as Carl Sagan wrote:

“From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of any particular interest. But for us, it's different. Consider again that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.”¹

That’s it.  That’s where we live, work and play - together; on that pale blue, insignificant dot.  That is what Earth Hour is about.  It is about Our Earth. 

1. Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space, Carl Sagan, Random House, 1994. 

Lifestyle Choices

Source: polyp.org.uk

In recent weeks the Australian Prime Minister (Tony Abbot) has threatened to close more than 100 Aboriginal communities in Western Australia because of what he calls “lifestyle choices.”¹ 

It is not the intent of this blog to comment upon Australian politics in particular.  However, the comment does suggest a theme that is worthy of comment:  the lifestyle choices that we in the western, rich nations make time and time again.  Choices that; marginalise indigenous people, create enormous inequalities, contribute disproportionally to climate change, allow large transnationals to control food supplies, and continuously exploit others (including animals and the earth).

Beneath the choices that we make lies the assumption that “our” choice is the right one, perhaps even the only one.  Inherent in that assumption is the belief that indigenous people, people of colour, those with disabilities, those with differing sexualities, or people with different cultural or religious understandings are making poor or inappropriate decisions.

But, consider these lifestyle choices that western culture makes²:

• We choose to consume at a level that if everyone on earth were to do so, four and half Earth-like planets would be needed.
• We choose to grab land from peasant farmers in India, Africa, Asia and South America.
• We choose to use our private car to travel less than 5km, rather than using our feet, a bicycle or public transport.³
• We choose to condone an economic system where the assets of the world’s 200 richest people are greater than the GDP of the entire African continent.
• We choose to spend over $1 trillion on our militaries.  The cost of providing clean water and sanitation to the 2 billion people without this basic need is approximately 3 days worth of this expenditure!
• We choose to consume enormous amounts of calories – growing obese in the process, whilst 900 million people are undernourished.
• We choose to throw away each year almost as much food (222 million tonnes) as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa (230 million tonnes).⁴
• We choose to chop down the equivalent of 50 soccer fields of forest cover every minute – contributing between 12% and 25% of human-induced CO₂ emissions.⁵
• We choose to spend $523 billion subsidising the fossil fuel industry, yet only $135 billion on climate change initiatives.⁶
• We choose to produce 2.2 kg of waste per person per day – and we are producing 35% more than we did in 1980.⁷

All of these are lifestyle choices.  We make them every day (along with many others), either consciously or by way of collusion or by condoning the actions of others, including our governments and businesses.

Surely, these are the lifestyle choices that are not conducive to the kind of full participation in the world society that everyone should have.

1. Tony Abbot’s speech, delivered on Tuesday 10 March 2015, included the words: "What we can't do is endlessly subsidise lifestyle choices if those lifestyle choices are not conducive to the kind of full participation in Australian society that everyone should have."
2. These choices are generalisations.  It should not be taken that every person living in a western culture makes these choices.  There are significant numbers searching for, and practicing alternatives to these choices.
3. In most western nations, around 60% of all car trips are of less than 5km in length.
4. UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report Global Food Losses and Food Waste, 2011
5. Science, 15 November 2013, Vol 342, no. 6160 pp. 850-853. 
6. OECD report.
7. What a Waste: A global review of solid waste management, The World Bank, 2012