« Juve crime, adult punishment and now ... adult trial rights in Kansas | Main | The sad state of executive clemency in Ohio »

June 22, 2008

Why does George Will like big government when it involves depriving some citizens of liberty?

Just last week, George F. Will wrote in this column that "No state power is more fearsome than the power to imprison."  And Wll has recently criticized modern Republicans for growing the size of government (such as in this 2006 speech to the Cato Institute in which Will stressed that "liberty has to be fought for and argued for and defined").  Indeed, in various contexts, Will has often espoused the virtues of "libertarian, limited-government conservatism."

But, as detailed from his column today in the Washington Post, titled "More Prisoners, Less Crime," his support for limited government and his purported commitment to liberty melts away when the topic is crime and punishment.  Disappointingly, rather than take a serious look at the important economic and human liberty questions surrounding modern mass incarceration (which Senator Webb just this week was exploring), Will in this column simply echos pro-imprisonment researchers, who assert that the US affinity for mass incarceration is producing more gains than harms, in order to attack liberals for questioning the extreme US incarceration rate.

It continues to amaze me that so few pundits and academics who claim to be champions of small government and the principles of liberty are so unwilling to carefully examine or even question the modern American affinity for incarceration.  Too bad I now need to add George Will to the list of folks more eager to attack opponents than to follow his principles wherever they might lead him.

June 22, 2008 at 12:58 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e200e55367b4d48833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why does George Will like big government when it involves depriving some citizens of liberty?:

» Crime and the Election from Crime and Consequences
More Prisoners, Less Crime: George Will has this column in Sunday's WashPost on the conspicuous absence of crime from the current political campaign. "Listening to political talk requires a third ear that hears what is not said. Today's near silence... [Read More]

Tracked on Jun 23, 2008 5:12:34 PM

» Crime and the Election from Crime and Consequences
More Prisoners, Less Crime: George Will has this column in Sunday's WashPost on the conspicuous absence of crime from the current political campaign. "Listening to political talk requires a third ear that hears what is not said. Today's near silence... [Read More]

Tracked on Jun 23, 2008 5:17:17 PM

Comments

There is also a serious distortion in the piece concerning the crack-powder disparity. Will purports to deny that the disproportionate incarceration rate of black men is "substantially explained by more severe federal sentences for crack as opposed to powder-cocaine defendants." In support of this proposition, Will cites Heather MacDonald's assertion that only "5,000 or so [federal] crack defendants a year" are convicted of such offenses. But this is an obvious red-herring. I am not aware of any credible analyst who has made the argument that the crack-powder disparity, by itself, accounts for the disproportionate incarceration of black men. Rather, the argument is (roughly speaking) that the disparity unfairly targets minorities, who everyone knowns are much more likely to be users and sellers of crack, despite the fact that crack is chemically indistinguishable from powder cocaine. Moreover, if that is true, then the fact that 5000 black men each year are unjustly sentenced to disproportionately lengthy sentences ought to be an urgent concern to anyone who cares about the legitimacy of the criminal justice system.

Posted by: Anon | Jun 22, 2008 1:48:57 PM

Typically, when people talk about limited government, they neglect the "but effective" part.

Posted by: federalist | Jun 22, 2008 1:57:43 PM

"Small government," as that phrase is used by conservatives, has never meant reluctance to imprison criminals.

I would also note that the statistics showing a decrease in the crime rate concomitantly with an increasing prison population are not disputed.

It's not a question of political or ideological spin. It's a question of whether there is more crime or less when the people who commit it are incarcerated. The answer to this question is obvious, and backed up by the numbers.

Wanna stay out of jail? Live a normal life, don't become a druggie, don't try to cheat or strongarm people. It's not a whole lot more complicated than that.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 22, 2008 2:44:16 PM

I haven't read anything current (2000-2007) on the crime rate trends, but the decline in crime rates is usually based on the crime rates of the early 90s. At that time we had the so called crack epidemic and it was near its peak. Which meant those people committed other offenses (more burglaries, violence,etc) to get their money for crack or while under the influence. From what I have gathered the crime rates for drugs is on the rise with the incarceration rates. Based on the question "is there more crime or less" we should take a look into this topic since the majority of prisoners are in there on drug related crimes.

Posted by: James | Jun 22, 2008 4:23:12 PM

"Small government" doesn't mean cutting the size of the government for the sake of cutting," nor does a "commitment to liberty" mean that someone wants to release all of the criminals.

Once one grasps that, George Will looks less like someone who is "more eager to attack opponents than to follow his principles wherever they might lead him."

"Small government" and "commitment to liberty" usually mean attacking government waste, supporting privatization when it's more efficient that government, and eliminating needless regulations. George Will argues that prisons are good because the numbers show that incarceration actually reduces crime. Unless you think that the criminal justice system should be turned over to corporations or abolished entirely, I don't see the basis for attacking George Will's fidelity to his principles.

Posted by: anonymous | Jun 22, 2008 7:51:38 PM

Lengthy prison sentences are in no way incompatible with libertarian principles if you think such sentences protect people from violent crime. Will's column cites data to prove a point that, if accepted, should cause reasonable people to think twice about cutting back on incarceration. I'm more inclined to agree with you than with Will, but I'd rather see you criticize his data and arguments than attack the man personally.

Posted by: Paul | Jun 22, 2008 8:12:01 PM

Of course incarceration reduces crime. It incapacitates; but it does not deter. The point is are there alternatives to incarceration that would have reduced crime at the same rate? Studies indicate that alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent drug offenses reduce crime at at least an equivalent rate to incarceration. And alternatives to incarceration are designed to address the root cause of crime whereas incarceration creates a revolving door. Prison is about survival; rarely is it about addressing the root cause of why you are in prison.

Incarceration is the path of least resistance and it affects a population with the least political pull so it is a convenient option for politicians to take. But it inflicts enormous costs on that population in terms of tearing apart families. Is there anything wrong with experimenting with alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenses? Why the hostility?

Posted by: John | Jun 22, 2008 9:51:08 PM

Many libertarians and small government conservatives do believe in reforming the criminal justice system for economic reasons and also to preserve our freedom. This is why ending the drug war is an important part of their politics. They are also looking for less regulation and less special interest. Cato is a rising voice for these people, and many other alternative libertarian organizations are more and more prominent.

George Will is not a conservative in the eyes of Republicans on the libertarian end of the party. He fits quite well with Republicans who have a social control and life style agenda (religious right).

This has become so prominent in the Republican Party that many Libertarian Republicans are willing to abandon their party and will listen to other voices.

Posted by: beth curtis | Jun 22, 2008 9:51:39 PM

John, I find very little to disagree with in your comment. I agree that prison doesn't rehabilitate, but as I read the Washington Post article, Mr. Will thinks that the numbers contradict your statement that incarceration does not deter.

The "hostilty" (I think) is not to the idea that there might be better options than incarceration for dealing with at least some crimes. Rather, it's to Prof. Berman's statement that George Will is somehow unprincipled because he thinks that incarceration works.

If you or anyone else has an explanation for why "small government" and "libertarian" principles lead ineluctably to the rejection of the idea that prisons work because they incapacitate and deter, thus reducing crime... well, please share it.

Posted by: anonymous | Jun 22, 2008 9:59:18 PM

Bill Otis wrote: "Wanna stay out of jail? Live a normal life, don't become a druggie, don't try to cheat or strongarm people. It's not a whole lot more complicated than that."

Well, it's slightly more complicated, since you're effectively asking people who you, though your policy choices, have intentionally destabilized to "live a normal life." Mentally ill people who you, through your policy choices, have systematically denied access to mental health treatment cannot "live a normal life." The children of people who you, through your policy choices, have denied stable housing cannot "live a normal life."

Bill Otis wrote: "It's not a question of political or ideological spin."

But it is that very thing. Crimes do not occur because a certain class of persons willy nilly do not "live normal lives," "become druggies," or "try to cheat or strong arm people." Indeed, your position, as you express it, is a racist one. You (say you) believe that crime is attributable to people's inherent moral failings, i.e., their failure to live normal lives or to abstain from drugs. If this is so, then given the grossly disproportionate rate at which blacks commit and are incarcerated for criminal acts, you must believe that blacks are inherently less moral or capable of "living normal lives" than are whites. It's implicit in your conclusion, Bill, and there is no avoiding it.

You will of course deny that you are a racist. But for that to be true, it must mean that you don't actually believe what you say. Which means it is a question of political or ideological spin. The fact of the matter, Bill, is that you are ideologically (and stupidly) opposed to any kind of social welfare programs and you are willing to tolerate the mass unjust incarceration of millions of people--including disproportionately black persons--to avoid expanding it. On top of that, you're apparently willing to make racist assertions to justify it. I'm not sure that incarcerating millions of people to prevent the expansion of social programs is any less immoral a position to take than that blacks are inherently inferior to whites, but here we are nonetheless.

Posted by: DK | Jun 22, 2008 11:07:47 PM

Ah, the siren song of the bleeding heart . . . . if we just had more social programs . . . .

And DK, this is complete nonsense:

"You (say you) believe that crime is attributable to people's inherent moral failings, i.e., their failure to live normal lives or to abstain from drugs. If this is so, then given the grossly disproportionate rate at which blacks commit and are incarcerated for criminal acts, you must believe that blacks are inherently less moral or capable of "living normal lives" than are whites. It's implicit in your conclusion, Bill, and there is no avoiding it."

I don't think Bill's making any sort of statement about blacks' inherent ability to comform their conduct to the law. There are differences in criminal behaviors, but no one is arguing that the disparity has anything to do with inherent characteristics.

Posted by: federalist | Jun 22, 2008 11:24:26 PM

Conservative values (and by conservative I mean libertarian or paleo-conservative and not neo-conservative) do not disregard the right of the state to incarcerate those that cannot live by the law. However co-commitant with such values is the concept of liberty prior to arrest. An additional concept is that which requires that the conservative not waste. If crack disparity were not such a waste of manpower and not so clearly pointed at the poor, it would not be inconsistant of Will to posit as he does. The fact is however that crack is a affordable drug for the poor and thus the disparity yields an inequal justice that should concern a Conservative and at the very least should cause him to question the policy behind it.

I agree with Will that incarceration has some deterent effect on some individuals. I am also of agreement that, though more costly, certain programs offered at certain times in the inmates "career" have a cost benefit long term. The problem is the explaination takes longer than it takes one to label another "soft on crime" or "pro-incarceration".

The truth is that our entire "War on Drugs" must be looked at from the bottom up and back down again. We need to decide as a nation what our drug policy is going to be and that needs to be debated without the name calling and knee-jerk reaction that usually accompanies discussions about crime and punishment. Sadly, with the way things are going right now, I doubt we will see anyone talking about this issue in Novermber. Hence we will face another four or eight years of spending for spending sake alone. We will continue to have ridiculous waste of human resource and we will be no closer to a solution.

We reap what we sow, and here we sow empty slogans and words, so we get nothing but blabber in the end.

Posted by: That Lawyer Dude | Jun 22, 2008 11:41:11 PM

federalist,

Neither you nor Bill can have it both ways. Crimes are either attributable solely to the moral failings of the individual people who commit them or they are not. If the former, then you must believe blacks are inherently less moral than whites, given what we know empirically about who commits and is incarcerated for criminal acts. If the latter, well, we better start figuring out what causes crime and trying to fix it. (Hint: we do actually know what causes crime and how to fix it. Only selfish (or stupid) ideologues like you stand in the way.)

Posted by: DK | Jun 22, 2008 11:46:57 PM

You can believe in individual responsibility for crime, yet not think people are inherently less moral. Since you obviously cannot understand that, you have no business calling anyone names in here.

Posted by: federalist | Jun 23, 2008 12:15:21 AM

federalist wrote: "You can believe in individual responsibility for crime, yet not think people are inherently less moral. Since you obviously cannot understand that, you have no business calling anyone names in here."

If this is your best effort, why'd you even bother? It doesn't really matter whether we root it in morality or not; the unspoken racist premise is still front and center. Anything else you care to add?

Posted by: DK | Jun 23, 2008 12:56:09 AM

I just have some questions. Why are drugs illegal? We have a large % of our population in jail because they have taken drugs and sought drugs. These substances have not always been illegal, we recently made them so and have been adding more and more substances to the list. We have also been extending the time of incarceration for drug violations.

John Kennedy took more opiates, steroids, and amphetamines than any Dr. would proscribe today without risking his own incarceration. It was common in the 60s although not to the extent that JFK used. It did not affect his functioning or thought process. Rush Limbaugh had purchased 30,000 oxycontin. He showed up for work and millions of listeners did not feel he was impaired.

During prohibition we made hundreds of thousands of citizens habits unlawful, yet we did not have the legal resources to investigate, indict and incarcerate them.

If drugs were legalized why wouldn't that decrease crime?
If we again make alcohol illegal wouldn't that increase crime?

Isn't criminal behavior whatever legislators say is criminal behavior?

Is our government making criminals?

Posted by: beth curtis | Jun 23, 2008 1:22:06 AM

DK, it's not racist to suggest that an individual is responsible for his or her actions.

Granted, of course, in some environments, it is easier for people to fall astray, but that doesn't mean that individuals aren't responsible for their own choices. Environment plays a role--there's little question about that--since the numbers bear that out--but so what--that it may be more difficult for one person to adhere to the law because of his environment does not remove from him the responsibility to conform his conduct to law. Welcome to the world, DK--it's not always fair.

You present a false choice--either you agree that crime is wholly the result of "social policies" or you're some racist because you think that people are actually responsible for their own actions.

Funny how you call me the "ideologue". I'll just call you an idiot.

Posted by: federalist | Jun 23, 2008 1:49:32 AM

DK:

There you go again with your shopworn accusation of racism against anyone who does not sign on to your beyond-liberal agenda of an even more bloated welfare state. Besides its facial absurdity, the accusation is also an unworthy form of argument: "If you don't buy more social spending, you've got one foot in the Klan."

A more obvious form of latter-day McCarthyism would be hard to find.

Oh, and you neglected to remind readers of your previously expressed view that that moral cretin, Abraham Lincoln, was ALSO a white supremacist. Do you deny having said that?

Your logic commits you, incidentally, to accusing your opponents of being anti-male as well as anti-black. The huge majority of prisoners is male -- far more than their 50% share of the population. So by supporting incarceration, I must have it in for men too!

PLEASE tell me I'm anti-male. I mean, why stop now?

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 23, 2008 9:48:28 AM

beth curtis:

There are those of us, apparently not including you, who think meth really isn't all that good for you, or anyone, and who aren't a bit upsent that people go to the slammer for peddling it. If, however, you want to set forth facts elaborating the virtues and healthfulness of meth, please feel free.

As to the illegality of drugs generally: the Conrolled Substances Act of 1974 was adpoted by one of the most liberal Congresses of the last half century, if not the most liberal.

So if you want drugs to be legal, take it up with Congress.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 23, 2008 9:58:22 AM

Bill Otis wrote: "Oh, and you neglected to remind readers of your previously expressed view that that moral cretin, Abraham Lincoln, was ALSO a white supremacist. Do you deny having said that?"

Of course not. Why would I deny stating a basic and well-established historical fact? Lincoln was a white supremacist (most white people of his era were), and that isn't debatable by intelligent people. Reliance on popular myths about American icons is hardly persuasive as counterargument.

Bill Otis wrote: "Your logic commits you, incidentally, to accusing your opponents of being anti-male as well as anti-black. The huge majority of prisoners is male -- far more than their 50% share of the population. So by supporting incarceration, I must have it in for men too!"

No. I'll freely concede that men are inherently more likely to commit certain criminal acts than women (particularly violent ones). The question is, by failing to address the real substance of my post, are you conceding that you believe blacks are inherently more likely to commit criminal acts than whites?

Posted by: DK | Jun 23, 2008 10:08:03 AM

DK:

"Why would I deny stating a basic and well-established historical fact? Lincoln was a white supremacist (most white people of his era were), and that isn't debatable by intelligent people."

The reason you'd deny stating it (and didn't mention it until after I asked you about it) is that to point the accusing finger of racism at, of all people, Abraham Lincoln, who did more for black people than you have or ever will, is to expose yourself as the outlier radical that you are.

"I'll freely concede that men are inherently more likely to commit certain criminal acts than women (particularly violent ones)."

OK, you're an anti-male sexist. Glad we got that straight.

"The question is, by failing to address the real substance of my post, are you conceding that you believe blacks are inherently more likely to commit criminal acts than whites?"

I'm sorry, Senator McCarthy, but since it seems that no one has told you that you're inquisatorial tactics have a certain aroma, I'll be happy to. But I won't indulge them.

I will say this, however. While statistics show that blacks commit proportionately more crime than whites (do you deny this?), they also show that the great majority of blacks are just as law-abiding as whites, and want the same things as whites, to wit, not a bigger welfare state, but crime-free communities that are peaceful and safe.

It is my view that people do not commit crime because they are "inherently" anything. By far the number one reason they commit it is they want a fast buck. So far as I am aware, greed knows no color, and exists in the board room at Enron just as much as on some drug pusher's street corner.

Posted by: Bill Otis | Jun 23, 2008 10:50:04 AM

"By far the number one reason they commit it is they want a fast buck. So far as I am aware, greed knows no color, and exists in the board room at Enron just as much as on some drug pusher's street corner."

Absolutely correct. The problem is that the criminal justice system does know color and does know economic class. It is not blind. So when someone points out that a crack cocaine (whose users are mostly poor) offender (who is usually black) is treated so much more harshly than a similarly situated powder cocaine (whose users tend to have higher income) offender (mostly white), why is that person labeled as part of the pro-drug lobby for advancing arguments that the crack cocaine offender should not be treated so harshly?


Posted by: John | Jun 23, 2008 10:59:56 AM

Meth may not be good for you. Many other substances are not good for you. Budweiser may not good for you. I wouldn't "set fourth facts elaborating the virtues and healthfulness of meth".

I know the controlled substance act was adopted by a liberal Congress, and also know that Congress is the body to remedy it.

I guess my questions were part of a thought process about why a "conservative" like George Will would not put drug laws on the table in order to eliminate government waste. Additionally why he wouldn't consider reform as necessary to preserve individual liberty.

Part of the question is the political alignments and redefinitions of liberal and conservative. I think it is taking place. Liberals in the 60s sense have had no problem compromising individual freedoms for a broader social good, yet they now find themselves in a bind.

Social conservatives give lip service to individual freedom yet are emotionally drawn to controlling very basic human choices that they feel are "immoral".

I just can't see any consistency in these ideological positions or conglomerations.

Posted by: beth curtis | Jun 23, 2008 11:14:09 AM

It seems to me that we are at impasse because there is no agreement about how to account for differences in incarceration rates. What I think are facts about incarceration rates are
1. All Asians and White and Hispanic females have low incarceration rates.
2. White males and Black females have medium incarceration rates.
3. Hispanic males have incarceration rates that are somewhat larger than those for White males.
4. Black males have very large incarceration rates.
5. In general Blacks and Hispanics are younger than Whites and as a consequence B/W and H/W incarceration rate ratios have large age dependences.
6. The incarceration rate depends on offense type and for females the largest incarceration rate is for drug trafficking. The dependence on offense type for males is more complicated and depends on age and race/ethnicity.

To account for these facts a racist criminal justice system would have to highly favor Asians and favor White and Hispanic females in particular older females. It would have to favor White males slightly more than Hispanic males and discriminate strongly against Black males. It would also tend to favor older males except for sex offenders. In my opinion this is not a credible explanation.

Another possibility is that criminal behavior depends on age, gender, race/ethnicity and social economic status. The problem is that race/ethnicity and social economic status are highly coupled so it is difficult to distinguish between them.

It seems to me that we need to get over the idea that social problems are linear with only one independent variable.

Posted by: John Neff | Jun 23, 2008 11:53:25 AM

I have been reading George Will for over 30 years. I liked his books on baseball. He is the kind of guy they can put on the Tv screen on Sunday and have him talk a good game. The conservative label is normative and "just" for him. Conservatives like small government when it suits them and big government when the big suits come a calling their way. The only thing that these conservatives lament about the big prison census is that those folks in prison are not on chain gangs doing something constructive out on the beltway. Conservatives hardly raise an eyebrow or a bowtie when a Scooter Libby has to lobby Bill Clinton on behalf of Marc Rich. (He was the go-to guy dont you know?) Those people in prison for possessing crack pose a threat to the likes of George Will-- he may have a grandson at the shopping mall who might run into one of those thugs. Scooter on the other hand (now that he has committed high crimes, misdemeanors and treason) needs to be back in circulation-- back on the Washington Mall taking care of business--should I say "Bidness"?

Posted by: MPB | Jun 23, 2008 10:09:25 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB