The current conversation on people imprisoned for non-violent drug charges got me thinking:
Why are certain acts illegal and others not?
And who decides?
The small answers to these questions are simple. The larger answers are upsetting. A hundred years from now, Americans will look back through the lens of history and judge us harshly. They will see current laws as favoring the white, the rich, and powerful.
Let me build the case . . .
Laws seem intuitive, right? Of course it should be illegal to run through a red light. Doing so endangers other people. And anyone who breaks the law should be punished. To determine what is lawful and unlawful, all anyone needs do is apply conscience.
But if I apply that criteria---that some acts are clearly against conscience and ought to be illegal---I come up with a whole new set of laws.
For instance: with one click on your phone, you (or your teenage daughters) can unwittingly add a service that automatically places a fee on your monthly bill. To get rid of that service, you have to jump through a series of hoops. The intent is clearly for the business to make money under a false pretense. That doesn't pass the conscience test. It's wrong. It ought to be illegal.
Bigotry ought to be locked up. What is more unfair than discriminating against someone because of race? Conscience tells us it's wrong. It ought to be illegal.
I would not necessarily make denying climate change a crime. Ignorance should not be illegal. But if a political leader knows the science, believes the science, even makes personal decisions based on the science, and YET takes a public stance against policy intended to ease the problem, that's unconscionable. That should be a crime.
An elderly friend of mine recently ordered a wheelchair for his wife. Immediately, he began receiving phone calls. One caller asked for a credit card number over the phone. If that caller was from a legitimate company, the person responsible for a policy of asking for bank information over the phone is beyond ignorant. They are criminally stupid. If, which is much more likely the case, the caller was not from a legitimate company, then they're breaking the law.
But do we have a problem of phone scammers clogging our prison system?
No. Our prisons are clogged with Tims.
Tim is a meth user I know personally. He's got a permanent burn on his face. He is rail thin and walks with a limp. His teeth are brown stumps. He fishes aluminum cans out of the trash. He might be 40 years old.
Tim stays in a rental place for about six months, then disappears. My suspicion is that he never pays rent, only staying long enough for the legal process to evict him. But, for some reason, another renter will take a chance on Tim and he shows up in another nearby dying house.
Does Tim belong in jail? Probably. I know he has spent at least some time there. But I must admit that of all the misdeeds listed in this column, his crime upsets me the least. Where all of the other examples rely on taking advantage of others, Tim mainly hurts himself. I included the other examples because they make me angry. When I think of Tim, I feel exasperated and sorry.
So here comes the big question: why are Tims regularly rounded up in police sting operations, and the others let largely alone to continue their crimes?
It seems pretty obvious. All of the people in the first examples have some degree of political power. Tim does not. So, as we deal with the problem of overcrowded prisons from the war on drugs, businesses of prey seek to loosen regulations. Bigots wave the Confederate flag. Climate deniers mortgage our future.
One hundred years ago, lynchings and cross burnings went unpunished.
One hundred years from now, our current criminal justice system will seem just as unfair and illogical.
