It happened in Florida recently. A strong and violent inmate jumped the 64-year-old security officer who was on duty alone at the jail and locked him in a strangle hold. In a few seconds, the guard could have been dead. Three other inmates came to his aid, saving his life. Some people will read that story and say "they just wanted to catch a break for themselves; they didn't give a good flying f---- about the guard's life." If that's what you assume automatically, you're part of the problem. Others will quickly say "it just shows that most people behind bars aren't bad at all, they're just victims of an unjust society." If that's your knee-jerk reaction, you're also part of the problem. When we stop looking for simplistic explanations and solutions, maybe we can start fixing some of America's serious problems.
Crime and how we deal with it is one of those serious problems. We have a violent crime rate that is shameful for an advanced, wealthy nation. We have more of our citizens behind bars than any other nation. About one in a hundred. Take everyone waiting for trial, and on probation or parole, and the portion jumps to one in thirty-seven. The average American household spends between $400 and $500 a year to keep people behind bars.
I believe the inmates-save-guard story demonstrates that not all offenders are cut out of the same cloth. Is that so difficult to understand? You'd think it's advanced rocket science considering that we let hard-core gang-bangers plea-bargain brutally violent crimes down to misdemeanors, that we are only beginning to apply everything behavioral science has taught us about rehabilitation programs, that we listen to pundits who say "rehabilitation doesn't work" but then elevate to hero status scumbags like Jack Abbott and Steve Stanko who happen to be slick and glib enough to charm gullible talking heads, that we lock out of jobs and educational programs people with long-past records of petty offenses . . .
A petty thief who steals to support a drug habit is not the same as a hard-core criminal who enjoys taking drugs, along with an occasional rape. A child molester is not the same as a shoplifter. A professional hot check artist who dislikes violence has little in common with the nine-to-five worker with a hot temper who periodically gets in brawls that put lives in danger, including his own. None of the preceding are necessarily similar to the flag-waving American who exercises his second amendment rights by keeping an arsenal in his bedroom, then blasts away the life of a neighbor he caught playing hoochy-koo with his wife.
We tend to paint all criminals with the same brush because it's easier and simpler, and cheaper in the short term, but it's much more expensive in the long term. We also tend to believe that anyone suspected of a crime is guilty, just like during the Inquisition. Too many police officers hold that belief and act on it, and we let them get by with it.
Acting as though all offenders and even accused offenders are stamped out of the same mold isn't just unfair. It helps keep our costs of incarceration so high, and our streets so dangerous.
Would we not all like to change that? What do you think?